The effect of Gestalt psychology on the system-wide trust strategy in automation

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 1417-1421

  Bean, Nathaniel H ^a   Rice, Stephen C ^b   Keller, M David ^a  

^a NSWCDD ^*  (United States)

^b NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FALSE ALARM RATE; HIT RATE; OPERATOR PERFORMANCE; POSITIVE EFFECTS; RELIABILITY INFORMATION;

AUTOMATION; GAGES; RELIABILITY;

ERGONOMICS;

EID: 81855185936     PISSN: 10711813     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1177/1071181311551295     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Department of Homeland Security (2004). Department of Homeland Security unmanned aerial vehicles operating in Arizona to support border security.
2. Dixon, S. R., & Wickens, C. D. (2006). Automation Reliability in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Control: A Reliance-Compliance Model of Automation Dependence in High Workload. Human Factors, 48(3), 474-486. (Pubitemid 44639231)
3. Dixon, S. R., Wickens, C. D., & McCarley, J. S. (2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses? Human Factors, 49(4), 564-572. (Pubitemid 47122687)
4. Fulmer, W., & Christensen, C. M. (2000). U.S. Department of Defense: The case of the unmanned aerial vehicles. Technical Report 300-109.
5. Keller, D. & Rice, S. (2009). How is the reliability of automated aids determined using system-wide trust? Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
6. Keller, D. & Rice, S. (2010). System-wide versus component-specific trust using multiple aids. Journal of General Psychology, 137(1), 114-128.
7. Keller, D., Rice, S. & Bean, N. (2009). A comparison of system-wide versus component-specific trust using multiple automation aids. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Technology, Knowledge and Society.
8. Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, Vol. 46(1), 50-80. (Pubitemid 44490367)
9. Lefton, L. A., Brannon, L. (2006). Psychology: Ninth Edition. Allyn and Bacon, Boston MA.
10. Muir, B. M., & Moray, N. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, Vol. 39(3), 429-460. (Pubitemid 26119952)
11. Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 30(3), 286-297.
12. Rice, S. (2009). Examining single and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. Journal of General Psychology, 136(3), 303-319.
13. Rock, I., & Palmer, S. (1990). The legacy of Gestalt psychology. Scientific American, 48-61.
14. Sharps, M. J., & Wertheimer, M. (2000). Gestalt perspectives on cognitive science and on experimental psychology. Review of General Psychology, 4(4), 315-336.
15. Wickens, C. D., & Carswell, C. M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors, 37(3), 473-494. (Pubitemid 26012113)
16. Wickens, C. D., & Dixon, S. R. (2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(3), 201-212.
17. Zimbardo, P. G., Johnson, R. L., Weber, A. L. (2006). Psychology: Core Concepts: Fifth Edition. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.