解密自动化透明度:是否提供决策建议,透明度的好处会有所不同吗?

IF 2.9 3区 心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Isabella Gegoff, Monica Tatasciore, Vanessa K Bowden, Shayne Loft
{"title":"解密自动化透明度:是否提供决策建议,透明度的好处会有所不同吗?","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目的:为了更好地理解自动化透明度,我们通过实验分离了附加信息和决策建议对决策准确性、决策时间、感知工作量、信任和系统可用性的影响。背景:自动化透明度的好处是有据可查的。然而,以前,透明度(以附加信息的形式)与提供决策建议相结合,可能会减少决策者的代理并促进自动化偏见。相反,它可能更有利于提供额外的信息,而不是决策建议,为作业者的独立决策提供信息。方法:参与者选择最佳无人车(UV)完成任务。提供了额外的显示信息和决策建议,但并不总是准确的。额外信息的水平(无,中等,高)在受试者之间被操纵,在受试者内提供推荐(无,有)。结果:当提供决策建议时,参与者做出更准确和更快的决策,并认为UV系统更可用。然而,推荐的提供降低了参与者区分紫外线系统信息准确性的能力。增加的附加信息导致更快的决策,更低的感知工作量,更高的信任度和可用性评级,但只有在提供建议时才显著提高决策(UV选择)的准确性。结论:当没有提供决策建议时,个体更仔细地审查额外的信息,潜在地表明处理这些信息的预期价值更高。然而,只有在提供支持决策的建议时,附加信息才能提高性能。应用:了解附加显示信息和决策建议之间的潜在差异影响和相互作用对于在现代工作场所设计有效透明的自动化系统至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Deciphering Automation Transparency: Do the Benefits of Transparency Differ Based on Whether Decision Recommendations Are Provided?

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Human Factors
Human Factors 管理科学-行为科学
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信