Isabella Gegoff, Monica Tatasciore, Vanessa K Bowden, Shayne Loft
{"title":"Deciphering Automation Transparency: Do the Benefits of Transparency Differ Based on Whether Decision Recommendations Are Provided?","authors":"Isabella Gegoff, Monica Tatasciore, Vanessa K Bowden, Shayne Loft","doi":"10.1177/00187208251318465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To better understand automation transparency, we experimentally isolated the effects of additional information and decision recommendations on decision accuracy, decision time, perceived workload, trust, and system usability.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>The benefits of automation transparency are well documented. Previously, however, transparency (in the form of additional information) has been coupled with the provision of decision recommendations, potentially decreasing decision-maker agency and promoting automation bias. It may instead be more beneficial to provide additional information without decision recommendations to inform operators' unaided decision making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants selected the optimal uninhabited vehicle (UV) to complete missions. Additional display information and decision recommendations were provided but were not always accurate. The level of additional information (no, medium, high) was manipulated between-subjects, and the provision of recommendations (absent, present) within-subjects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When decision recommendations were provided, participants made more accurate and faster decisions, and rated the UV system as more usable. However, recommendation provision reduced participants' ability to discriminate UV system information accuracy. Increased additional information led to faster decisions, lower perceived workload, and higher trust and usability ratings but only significantly improved decision (UV selection) accuracy when recommendations were provided.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Individuals scrutinized additional information more when not provided decision recommendations, potentially indicating a higher expected value of processing that information. However, additional information only improved performance when accompanied by recommendations to support decisions.</p><p><strong>Application: </strong>It is critical to understand the potential differential impact of, and interaction between, additional display information and decision recommendations to design effective transparent automated systems in the modern workplace.</p>","PeriodicalId":56333,"journal":{"name":"Human Factors","volume":" ","pages":"187208251318465"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Factors","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208251318465","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To better understand automation transparency, we experimentally isolated the effects of additional information and decision recommendations on decision accuracy, decision time, perceived workload, trust, and system usability.
Background: The benefits of automation transparency are well documented. Previously, however, transparency (in the form of additional information) has been coupled with the provision of decision recommendations, potentially decreasing decision-maker agency and promoting automation bias. It may instead be more beneficial to provide additional information without decision recommendations to inform operators' unaided decision making.
Methods: Participants selected the optimal uninhabited vehicle (UV) to complete missions. Additional display information and decision recommendations were provided but were not always accurate. The level of additional information (no, medium, high) was manipulated between-subjects, and the provision of recommendations (absent, present) within-subjects.
Results: When decision recommendations were provided, participants made more accurate and faster decisions, and rated the UV system as more usable. However, recommendation provision reduced participants' ability to discriminate UV system information accuracy. Increased additional information led to faster decisions, lower perceived workload, and higher trust and usability ratings but only significantly improved decision (UV selection) accuracy when recommendations were provided.
Conclusion: Individuals scrutinized additional information more when not provided decision recommendations, potentially indicating a higher expected value of processing that information. However, additional information only improved performance when accompanied by recommendations to support decisions.
Application: It is critical to understand the potential differential impact of, and interaction between, additional display information and decision recommendations to design effective transparent automated systems in the modern workplace.
期刊介绍：
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society publishes peer-reviewed scientific studies in human factors/ergonomics that present theoretical and practical advances concerning the relationship between people and technologies, tools, environments, and systems. Papers published in Human Factors leverage fundamental knowledge of human capabilities and limitations – and the basic understanding of cognitive, physical, behavioral, physiological, social, developmental, affective, and motivational aspects of human performance – to yield design principles; enhance training, selection, and communication; and ultimately improve human-system interfaces and sociotechnical systems that lead to safer and more effective outcomes.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
