Differences in trust between human and automated decision aids

C. J. Pearson, Allaire K. Welk, William A. Boettcher, R. Mayer, Sean Streck, Joseph M. Simons-Rudolph, C. Mayhorn
{"title":"Differences in trust between human and automated decision aids","authors":"C. J. Pearson, Allaire K. Welk, William A. Boettcher, R. Mayer, Sean Streck, Joseph M. Simons-Rudolph, C. Mayhorn","doi":"10.1145/2898375.2898385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Humans can easily find themselves in high cost situations where they must choose between suggestions made by an automated decision aid and a conflicting human decision aid. Previous research indicates that humans often rely on automation or other humans, but not both simultaneously. Expanding on previous work conducted by Lyons and Stokes (2012), the current experiment measures how trust in automated or human decision aids differs along with perceived risk and workload. The simulated task required 126 participants to choose the safest route for a military convoy; they were presented with conflicting information from an automated tool and a human. Results demonstrated that as workload increased, trust in automation decreased. As the perceived risk increased, trust in the human decision aid increased. Individual differences in dispositional trust correlated with an increased trust in both decision aids. These findings can be used to inform training programs for operators who may receive information from human and automated sources. Examples of this context include: air traffic control, aviation, and signals intelligence.","PeriodicalId":163427,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Symposium and Bootcamp on the Science of Security","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Symposium and Bootcamp on the Science of Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2898375.2898385","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Humans can easily find themselves in high cost situations where they must choose between suggestions made by an automated decision aid and a conflicting human decision aid. Previous research indicates that humans often rely on automation or other humans, but not both simultaneously. Expanding on previous work conducted by Lyons and Stokes (2012), the current experiment measures how trust in automated or human decision aids differs along with perceived risk and workload. The simulated task required 126 participants to choose the safest route for a military convoy; they were presented with conflicting information from an automated tool and a human. Results demonstrated that as workload increased, trust in automation decreased. As the perceived risk increased, trust in the human decision aid increased. Individual differences in dispositional trust correlated with an increased trust in both decision aids. These findings can be used to inform training programs for operators who may receive information from human and automated sources. Examples of this context include: air traffic control, aviation, and signals intelligence.
人类和自动决策辅助工具之间的信任差异
人类很容易发现自己处于高成本的情况下,他们必须在自动决策辅助提出的建议和相互冲突的人类决策辅助之间做出选择。先前的研究表明,人类经常依赖自动化或其他人类,但不是同时依赖两者。在Lyons和Stokes(2012)之前开展的工作的基础上,当前的实验测量了对自动化或人工决策辅助工具的信任如何随着感知风险和工作量而变化。模拟任务要求126名参与者为军事车队选择最安全的路线;他们收到了来自自动化工具和人工的相互矛盾的信息。结果表明,随着工作量的增加,对自动化的信任度下降。随着感知风险的增加,对人工决策辅助的信任也随之增加。性格信任的个体差异与对两种决策辅助工具的信任增加相关。这些发现可用于通知操作员的培训计划,操作员可能从人工和自动来源接收信息。这方面的例子包括:空中交通管制、航空和信号情报。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信