An expansion of system wide trust theory using in-vehicle automation

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 1679-1683

  Blair, Kasha ^a   Sandry, Joshua ^a   Rice, Stephen ^a  

^a NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMOUNT OF INFORMATION; AUTOMATED DEVICE; IN-VEHICLE; IN-VEHICLE AUTOMATION; RELIABILITY LEVEL; TRUST THEORIES;

AUTOMATION; EXPERIMENTS; VEHICLES;

RELIABILITY THEORY;

EID: 84873460666     PISSN: 10711813     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1177/1071181312561336     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Dixon, S. R., & Wickens, C. D. (2006). Automation Reliabil-ity in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Control: A Reliance-Compliance Model of Automation Dependence in High Workload. Human Factors. 48(3), 474-486.
2. Dixon, S. R., Wickens, C. D., & McCarley, J. S. (2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are au-tomation false alarms worse than misses? Human Factors. 49(4), 564-572.
3. Geels, K., Rice, S., Schwark, J., Hunt, G. & Sandry, J. (2011). Applying the Reliance-Compliance Model to System-Wide Trust Theory in an Aviation Task. Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Symposium on Avia-tion Psychology, Dayton, Ohio.
4. Keller, D. & Rice, S. (2010). System-wide versus component-specific trust using multiple aids. Journal of General Psychology, 137(1), 114-128.
5. Lee, J. D., & Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 153-184.
6. Lees, M. & Lee, J. (2007). The influence of distraction and driving context on driver response to imperfect colli-sion warning systems. Ergonomics, 50(8), 1264-1286.
7. Maltz, M., & Shinar, D. (2003). New alternative methods in analyzing human behavior in cued target acquisition. Human Factors, 45(2), 281-295.
8. Meyer, J. (2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings, Human Factors, 43(4), 563-572.
9. Meyer, J. (2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors, 46(2), 196-204.
10. Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993). Perfor-mance consequences of automation-induced &com-placency&. International Journal of Aviation Psy-chology, 3(1), 1-23.
11. Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T., & Wickens, D. (2000). A mod-el for types and levels of human interaction with au-tomation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286-297.
12. Rice, S. (2009). Examining single and multiple-process theo-ries of trust in automation. Journal of General Psy-chology, 136(3), 303-319.
13. Rice, S. & Geels, K. (2010). Using system-wide trust theory to make predictions about dependence on four diagnostic aids. Journal of General Psychology, 137(4), 362-375.
14. Sandry, J., Schwark, J., Hunt, G., Geels, K., & Rice, S. (2011). Operator Aid-Switching in a Case of Redundant Au-tomation with Single-Aid Failure. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, 55, 1427-1431.
15. Sheridan, T.B. (1997). Supervisory control. In G. Salvendy, Ed. Handbook of Human Factors/Ergonomics. New York: Wiley.
16. Sullivan, J.M., Tsimhoni, O., & Bogard, S. (2008). Warning reliability and driver performance in naturalistic driv-ing. Human Factors, 50(5), 845-852.
17. Wickens, C.D. & Dixon, S.R. (2007). The benefits of imper-fect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the litera-ture. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(3), 201-212.