Decision support aids with anthropomorphic characteristics influence trust and performance in younger and older adults

Ergonomics

Volumn 55, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 1059-1072

  Pak, Richard ^a   Fink, Nicole ^a   Price, Margaux ^a   Bass, Brock ^a   Sturre, Lindsay ^a  

^a CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

ageing; automation; diabetes; health; personification; trust

Indexed keywords

AGE GROUPS; AGEING; ANTHROPOMORPHIC INTERFACE AGENT; CONSUMER DEVICES; DECISION SUPPORTS; MIXED EFFECTS; OLDER ADULTS; PERSONIFICATION; TRUST;

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; HEALTH; MEDICAL PROBLEMS; RESEARCH;

AUTOMATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE; AGED; AGING; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANTHROPOMETRY; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; AUTOMATION; COGNITION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DIABETES MELLITUS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MOBILE PHONE; PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE; TRUST;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AGING; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANTHROPOMETRY; AUTOMATION; CELLULAR PHONE; COGNITION; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DIABETES MELLITUS; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TRUST; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84865080173     PISSN: 00140139     EISSN: 13665847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2012.691554     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Bahner, J. E., Hüper, A. and Manzey, D. 2008. Misuse of automated decision aids: complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 66: 688-699.
2. Bengtsson, B., Burgoon, J. K., Cederberg, C., Bonito, J. and Lundeberg, M. The impact of anthropomorphic interfaces on influence, understanding, and credibility. Proceedings of the 32nd annual Hawaii international conference on systems sciences5-8 January. Maui, HI, HI. pp.1-15. New York: IEEE.
3. Berry, D., Butler, L. and deRosis, F. 2005. Evaluating a realistic agent in an advice-giving task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(3): 304-327.
4. Bickmore, T. W., Caruso, L., Clough-Gorr, K. and Heeren, T. 2005. 'It's just like you talk to a friend' relational agents for older adults. Interacting with Computers, 17(6): 711-735.
5. Cassell, J. and Bickmore, T. 2000. External manifestations of trustworthiness in the interface. Communications of the ACM, 43(12): 50-56.
6. Catrambone, R., Stasko, J. and Xiao, J. Anthropomorphic agents as a user interface paradigm: experimental findings and a framework for research. Proceedings of the 24th annual conference of the cognitive science society. 7-10 August, Fairfax, VA. pp.166-171. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
7. Drucquer, M. H. and McNally, P. G. 1998. Diabetes management: step by step, Osney Mead: Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.
8. Dzindolet, M., Pierce, L. G., Beck, H. P. and Dawe, L. A. 2002. The perceived utility of human and automated aids in a visual detection task. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 44(1): 79-94.
9. Ezer, N., Fisk, A. D. and Rogers, W. A. 2008. Age-related differences in reliance behavior attributable to costs within a human-decision aid system. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(6): 853-863.
10. Glasgow, R. E. and Strycker, L. A. 2000. Preventative care practices for diabetes in two primary care samples. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 19(1): 9-14.
11. Gong, L. 2008. How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4): 1494-1509.
12. Hart, S. and Staveland, L. 1988. "Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research". In Human mental workload, Edited by: Hancock, P. A. and Meshkati, N. 239-250. Amsterdam: North Holland Press.
13. Ho, G., Wheatley, D. and Scialfa, C. T. 2005. Age differences in trust and reliance of a medication management system. Interacting with Computers, 17(6): 690-710.
14. Lee, J. and Moray, N. 1994. Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(1): 153-184.
15. Lee, J. D. and Moray, N. 1992. Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35(10): 1243-1270.
16. Lee, J. D. and See, K. A. 2004. Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1): 50-80.
17. Lee, J. D. 2007. Affect, attention, and automation. Attention: from theory to practice, 73Vol. 4. USA: Oxford University Press.
18. Madhavan, P., Wiegmann, D. A. and Lacson, F. C. 2006. Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermines trust in automated aids. Human Factors, 48(2): 241-256.
19. Merritt, S. and Ilgen, D. R. 2008. Not all trust is created equal: dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Human Factors, 50: 194-210.
20. Meyer, J. 2001. Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43(4): 563-572.
21. Moray, N. and Inagaki, T. 2000. Attention and complacency. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1(4): 354-365.
22. Murano, P. Anthropomorphic vs non-anthropomorphic software interface feedback for online factual delivery. Information visualization 2003 proceedings of the seventh international conference. 16-18 July, London. London, UK: IEEE. pp.138-143.
23. Nass, C. and Lee, K. M. 2001. Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(3): 171-181.
24. Nass, C., Fogg, B. and Moon, Y. 1996. Can computers be teammates?. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40: 543-559.
25. Nass, C. INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 conference companion on human factors in computing systems-CHI'93. Computers as social actors. pp.111-112. New York: ACM Press.
26. Parasuraman, R. and Miller, C. A. 2004. Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems. Communications of the ACM, 47(4): 51-55.
27. Parasuraman, R. and Riley, V. 1997. Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39(2): 230-253.
28. Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B. and Wickens, C. D. 2000. A model of types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3): 286-297.
29. Qiu, L. and Benbasat, I. 2010. A study of demographic embodiments of product recommendation agents in electronic commerce. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(10): 669-688.
30. Rapoff, M. A. 2009. Adherence to pediatric medical regimens, New York: Springer Verlag.
31. Rosenbergkima, R., Baylor, A., Plant, E. and Doerr, C. 2008. Interface agents as social models for female students: the effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students' attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6): 2741-2756.
32. Salthouse, T. A. 1992. What do adult age differences in the Digit Symbol Substitution Test reflect?. Journal of Gerontology, 47(3): P121
33. Schulman, D. and Bickmore, T. Persuading users through counseling dialogue with a conversational agent. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive technology. 26-29 April, Claremont, CA. New York, NY: ACM Press, 1-8.
34. Smith, A. 2011. 35% of American adults own a smartphone [online]. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available from: http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Smartphones.pdf [Accessed 23 March 2011]
35. Sproull, L., Subramani, M., Kiesler, S., Walker, J. H. and Water, K. 1996. When the interface is a face. Human-Computer Interaction, 11(2): 97-124.
36. Steele, C. M. 1997. A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6): 613-629.
37. Wexelblat, A. 1998. Don't make that face: a report on anthropomorphizing an interface From AAAI Technical Report SS-98-02. American Association for Artificial Intelligence
38. Wiegmann, D. A., Rich, A. and Zhang, H. 2001. Automated diagnostic aids: the effects of aid reliability on users' trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 2(4): 352-367.
39. Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N. and Rickertsen, K. A meta-analysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI'07). New York: ACM Press, 1-10.