Examination of Automation-Induced Complacency and Individual Difference Variates

Automation-induced complacency has been documented as a cause or contributing factor in many airplane accidents throughout the last two decades. It is surmised that the condition results when a crew is working in highly reliable automated environments in which they serve as supervisory controllers monitoring system states for occasional automation failures. Although many reports have discussed the dangers of complacency, little empirical research has been produced to substantiate its harmful effects on performance as well as what factors produce complacency. There have been some suggestions, however, that individual characteristics could serve as possible predictors of performance in automated systems. The present study examined relationship between the individual differences of complacency potential, boredom proneness, and cognitive failure, automation-induced complacency. Workload and boredom scores were also collected and analyzed in relation to the three individual differences. The results of the study demonstrated that there are personality individual differences that are related to whether an individual will succumb to automation-induced complacency. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

[1]  Mark W. Scerbo,et al.  Effects of Instruction Type and Boredom Proneness in Vigilance: Implications for Boredom and Workload , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[2]  Alan T. Pope,et al.  Identification of Hazardous Awareness States in Monitoring Environments , 1992 .

[3]  David A. Sawin,et al.  Vigilance: How to Do it and Who Should Do it , 1994 .

[4]  R I Thackray,et al.  Detection efficiency on an air traffic control monitoring task with and without computer aiding. , 1989, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[5]  Susan G. Hill,et al.  Traditional and raw task load index (TLX) correlations: Are paired comparisons necessary? In A , 1989 .

[6]  D. Damos,et al.  Response Strategies and Individual Differences in Multiple-Task Performance. , 1981 .

[7]  I. Singh,et al.  Individual differences in monitoring failures of automation , 1993 .

[8]  F. T. Eggemeier.  Properties of Workload Assessment Techniques , 1988 .

[9]  Earl L. Wiener,et al.  Human factors of advanced technology (glass cockpit) transport aircraft , 1989 .

[10]  D. Broadbent,et al.  The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. , 1982, The British journal of clinical psychology.

[11]  E. G. Lyman,et al.  NASA aviation safety reporting system , 1976 .

[12]  L. Prinzel,et al.  The Double-Edged Sword of Self-Efficacy: Implications for Automation-Induced Complacency , 2000 .

[13]  Charles E. Billings,et al.  Aviation Automation: The Search for A Human-centered Approach , 1996 .

[14]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Automation- Induced "Complacency": Development of the Complacency-Potential Rating Scale , 1993 .

[15]  V. David Hopkin,et al.  Human factors in certification , 2000 .

[16]  N Moray,et al.  Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. , 1992, Ergonomics.

[17]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Performance Consequences of Automation-Induced 'Complacency' , 1993 .

[18]  W. N. Dember,et al.  Sex differences in vigilance performance and perceived workload. , 1993, The Journal of general psychology.

[19]  D. H. Mills.  The Logic and Limits of Trust , 1983 .

[20]  F. Yuan,et al.  SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) , 1999 .

[21]  Victor A. Riley,et al.  Operator reliance on automation: Theory and data. , 1996 .

[22]  H. McIlvaine Parsons,et al.  Automation and the Individual: Comprehensive and Comparative Views , 1985 .

[23]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[24]  N. Moray,et al.  Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. , 1996, Ergonomics.

[25]  D. Damos,et al.  Individual Differences in Multiple-Task Performance as a Function of Response Strategy , 1983, Human factors.

[26]  L. Prinzel,et al.  Task-Specific Sex Differences in Vigilance Performance: Subjective Workload and Boredom , 1997, Perceptual and motor skills.

[27]  Bonnie M. Muir,et al.  Trust Between Humans and Machines, and the Design of Decision Aids , 1987, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[28]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Automation-induced monitoring inefficiency: role of display location , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[29]  R. Farmer,et al.  Boredom proneness--the development and correlates of a new scale. , 1986, Journal of personality assessment.

[30]  R. Parasuraman,et al.  Psychophysiology and adaptive automation , 1996, Biological Psychology.

[31]  J. R. Comstock.  MAT - MULTI-ATTRIBUTE TASK BATTERY FOR HUMAN OPERATOR WORKLOAD AND STRATEGIC BEHAVIOR RESEARCH , 1994 .

[32]  P. Hancock,et al.  Human Mental Workload , 1988 .

[33]  David A. Sawin,et al.  The Effects of Subject-Controlled Pacing and Task Type on Sustained Attention and Subjective Workload , 1993 .

[34]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[35]  R. Parasuraman,et al.  Sensory and Cognitive Vigilance: Effects of Age on Performance and Subjective Workload , 1993 .

[36]  Victor A. Riley,et al.  A General Model of Mixed-Initiative Human-Machine Systems , 1989 .

[37]  Bonnie M. Muir,et al.  Trust in automation. I: Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems , 1994 .

[38]  Renwick E. Curry,et al.  Flight-deck automation: promises and problems , 1980 .

[39]  Richard P. Will,et al.  True and false dependence on technology: Evaluation with an expert system , 1991 .

[40]  Mark W. Scerbo,et al.  The Effects of Complacency Potential and Boredom Proneness on Perceived Workload and Task Performance in an Automated Environment , 1998 .