Strategic Conformance: Overcoming Acceptance Issues of Decision Aiding Automation?

Cognitive engineering researchers have long studied the complexity and reliability of human-automation interaction. Historically, though, the area of human-automation decision-making compatibility has received less attention. Paradoxically, this could in the future become one of the most critical issues of all, as mismatches between human and automation problem-solving styles could threaten the adoption of automation. This paper presents the concept of strategic conformance as a potential key factor influencing initial acceptance of automation, specifically decision aiding systems capable of guiding decision and action. Here, strategic conformance represents the match in problem-solving style between decision aiding automation and the individual operator. The theoretical foundation builds on the compatibility construct found in technology acceptance theories such as the innovation diffusion and technology acceptance models. The paper concludes with a critical discussion on the limitations and drawbacks of strategic conformance. It is proposed that the construct would be most applicable at the introductory phase of new decision aiding automation, in helping to foster operators' initial acceptance of such automation.

[1]  Richard P. Bagozzi,et al.  The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[2]  Linda G. Pierce,et al.  Adaptive Automation: Building Flexibility into Human-Machine Systems , 2006 .

[3]  Winfield S. Heagy,et al.  Problem Analysis, Resolution and Ranking (PARR) Initial Functional Performance Assessment , 2002 .

[4]  Christopher A. Miller,et al.  Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems , 2004, CACM.

[5]  B. Farber,et al.  ACC with enhanced situation awareness to reduce behavior adaptations in lane change situations , 2007, 2007 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium.

[6]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational choice and the structure of the environment. , 1956, Psychological review.

[7]  Lora Aroyo,et al.  The effects of transparency on trust in and acceptance of a content-based art recommender , 2008, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[8]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Anthropomorphic Interactions with a Robot and Robot–like Agent , 2008 .

[9]  Philippe Averty,et al.  Determinants of Conflict Detection: A Model of Risk Judgments in Air Traffic Control , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[10]  K. Roberts.  Some Characteristics of One Type of High Reliability Organization , 1990 .

[11]  Sandra H. Rouse,et al.  A Framework for Research on Adaptive Decision Aids , 1983 .

[12]  Maryam Alavi,et al.  Revisiting DSS Implementation Research: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature and Suggestions for Researchers , 1992, MIS Q..

[13]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Can computers be teammates? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[14]  Fred D. Davis.  A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems : theory and results , 1985 .

[15]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Who Sees Human? , 2010, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[16]  Janice Langan-Fox,et al.  Human Factors Measurement for Future Air Traffic Control Systems , 2009, Hum. Factors.

[17]  Michael S. Humphreys,et al.  Using A* graph traversal to model conflict resolution in air traffic control , 2010 .

[18]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Model-based human-centered task automation: a case study in ACC system design , 2003, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

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

[20]  Amy K. Yarbrough,et al.  Technology Acceptance among Physicians , 2007, Medical care research and review : MCRR.

[21]  Esa M. Rantanen,et al.  Hierarchical Conflict Detection in Air Traffic Control , 2005 .

[22]  Jan Marco Leimeister,et al.  Determinants of physicians' technology acceptance for e-health in ambulatory care , 2012, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[23]  杨文秀,et al.  此处“personality”译法探析 , 2000 .

[24]  Tatjana Bolic,et al.  Automation Adoption and Adaptation in Air Trac Control , 2006 .

[25]  Wynn C. Stirling,et al.  Satisficing Revisited , 2000, Minds and Machines.

[26]  Jonathan Histon,et al.  Airspace structure, future ATC systems, and controller complexity reduction , 2010, 29th Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[27]  Lawrence Goldmuntz,et al.  The AERA Concept. , 1981 .

[28]  D. Wiegmann,et al.  Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: an integrative review , 2007 .

[29]  Clark Borst,et al.  Will Controllers Accept a Machine That Thinks like They Think? The Role of Strategic Conformance in Decision Aiding Automation , 2014 .

[30]  P. Averty.  6 th USA/Europe ATM2005 R&D Seminar Conflict Perception by ATCS Admits Doubt but not Inconsistency , 2005 .

[31]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Ecological interface design: theoretical foundations , 1992, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[32]  Douglas A. Wiegmann,et al.  Agreeing with Automated Diagnostic Aids: A Study of Users' Concurrence Strategies , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[33]  C. K. Pasmooij,et al.  Workload in Air Traffic Control , 1976 .

[34]  S. Kauppinen,et al.  European medium-term conflict detection field trials [ATC] , 2002, Proceedings. The 21st Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[35]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  JUDGMENTAL BOOTSTRAPPING: INFERRING EXPERTS' RULES FOR FORECASTING , 2001 .

[36]  Aydan Cavcar,et al.  A knowledge‐based conflict resolution tool for en‐route air traffic controllers , 2008 .

[37]  Jing Xing,et al.  Measures of Information Complexity and the Implications for Automation Design , 2004 .

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

[39]  David B. Kaber,et al.  The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task , 2004 .

[40]  C. Miller,et al.  Human-Computer Etiquette: Cultural Expectations and the Design Implications They Place on Computers and Technology , 2010 .

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

[42]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Not All Trust Is Created Equal: Dispositional and History-Based Trust in Human-Automation Interactions , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[43]  John M. Flach,et al.  Beyond Ecological Interface Design: Lessons From Concerns and Misconceptions , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems.

[44]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[45]  L. G. Tornatzky,et al.  Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[46]  Lynne Martin,et al.  Toward Automated Air Traffic Control—Investigating a Fundamental Paradigm Shift in Human/Systems Interaction , 2012, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[47]  L. Martignon,et al.  Use of simple heuristics to target macrolide prescription in children with community-acquired pneumonia. , 2002, Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

[48]  Hall P. Beck,et al.  A Framework of Automation Use , 2001 .

[49]  James K. Kuchar,et al.  A review of conflict detection and resolution modeling methods , 2000, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst..

[50]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[51]  Max Mulder,et al.  Analysis of Air Traffic Controller Workload Reduction Based on the Solution Space for the Merging Task , 2010 .

[52]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[53]  T. Inagaki,et al.  Smart collaboration between humans and machines based on mutual understanding , 2008, Annu. Rev. Control..

[54]  Pamela J. Wisniewski,et al.  CASA, WASA, and the dimensions of us , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[55]  Björn W. Schuller,et al.  Emotion on the Road - Necessity, Acceptance, and Feasibility of Affective Computing in the Car , 2010, Adv. Hum. Comput. Interact..

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

[57]  Toshiyuki Inagaki,et al.  Adaptive Automation: Sharing and Trading of Control , 2001 .

[58]  Janice Langan-Fox,et al.  Human–automation teams and adaptable control for future air traffic management , 2009 .

[59]  Linda Ng Boyle,et al.  Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to assess automation , 2011, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[60]  Rüdiger Ehrmanntraut.  Full Automation of Air Traffic Management in High Complexity Airspace , 2009 .

[61]  Jean-Michel Hoc,et al.  Cognitive styles as an explanation of experts' individual differences: A case study in computer-assisted troubleshooting diagnosis , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[62]  Katharine K. Lee,et al.  Development and Validation of the Controller Acceptance Rating Scale (CARS): Results of Empirical Research , 2001 .

[63]  R. Hertwig,et al.  Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior , 2015 .

[64]  R. flicker,et al.  IMPROVEMENT ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF A CONFLICT RESOLUTION SYSTEM BY AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS , 2005 .

[65]  Anton Koros,et al.  Advanced Concept of the National Airspace System of 2015: Human Factors Considerations for Air Traffic Control , 2007 .

[66]  C. Nass,et al.  Machines and Mindlessness , 2000 .

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

[68]  Paul Jen-Hwa Hu,et al.  Examining the effects of cognitive style in individuals' technology use decision making , 2008, Decis. Support Syst..

[69]  Mark W. Scerbo,et al.  Theoretical Perspectives on Adaptive Automation , 2019, Human Performance in Automated and Autonomous Systems.

[70]  K. MacDorman,et al.  Facilitators and Barriers to Adopting Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Contextualizing the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology , 2011, PloS one.

[71]  Melissa M. Honour,et al.  Overcoming barriers to adopting and implementing computerized physician order entry systems in U.S. hospitals. , 2004, Health affairs.

[72]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance , 2004 .

[73]  R. H. Mogford,et al.  APPLICATION OF RESEARCH TECHNIQUES FOR DOCUMENTING COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SECTOR COMPLEXITY AND DECISION MAKING. , 1994 .

[74]  Shayne Loft,et al.  A theory and model of conflict detection in air traffic control: incorporating environmental constraints. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[75]  C. Nass,et al.  Are People Polite to Computers? Responses to Computer-Based Interviewing Systems1 , 1999 .

[76]  M R Endsley,et al.  Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. , 1999, Ergonomics.

[77]  J. Sperandio.  The regulation of working methods as a function of work-load among air traffic controllers. , 1978, Ergonomics.

[78]  Hsi-Peng Lu,et al.  The effects of cognitive style and model type on DSS acceptance: An empirical study , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[79]  Elena Karahanna,et al.  Reconceptualizing Compatibility Beliefs , 2006 .

[80]  Jean-Christophe Popieul,et al.  Driving styles and traffic density diagnosis in simulated driving conditions , 2002, Intelligent Vehicle Symposium, 2002. IEEE.

[81]  K. Mosier,et al.  Human Decision Makers and Automated Decision Aids: Made for Each Other? , 1996 .

[82]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[83]  Michael G. Morris,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Theories and Models , 1996 .

[84]  Ashley Nunes,et al.  Identifying Controller Strategies that Support the ‘Picture’ , 2003 .

[85]  Jeffrey M. Bradshaw,et al.  Ten Challenges for Making Automation a "Team Player" in Joint Human-Agent Activity , 2004, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[86]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. , 2008, Psychological bulletin.

[87]  Gediminas Adomavicius,et al.  Toward the next generation of recommender systems: a survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[88]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[89]  Andrew N. K. Chen,et al.  Evaluating the effects of task-individual-technology fit in multi-DSS models context: A two-phase view , 2011, Decis. Support Syst..

[90]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  User acceptance of information technology , 2001 .

[91]  Sidney W. A. Dekker,et al.  To Intervene or not to Intervene: The Dilemma of Management by Exception , 1999, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[92]  James K. Kuchar,et al.  Survey of conflict detection and resolution modeling methods , 1997 .

[93]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Why Heuristics Work , 2008, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[94]  Karlene H. Roberts,et al.  The Incident Command System : High Reliability Organizing for Complex and Volatile Task , 2007 .

[95]  Shayne Loft,et al.  Modeling and Predicting Mental Workload in En Route Air Traffic Control: Critical Review and Broader Implications , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[96]  Brian Hilburn,et al.  Air Traffic Controller and Management Attitudes Toward Automation: An Empirical Investigation , 2001 .

[97]  V. Groom,et al.  Can robots Be teammates?: Benchmarks and predictors of failure in human-robot teams , 2007 .

[98]  William R. King,et al.  A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model , 2006, Inf. Manag..

[99]  Banavar Sridhar,et al.  Airspace Complexity and its Application in Air Traffic Management , 1998 .

[100]  Klaus Eyferth,et al.  A model of air traffic controllers' conflict detection and conflict resolution , 2003 .

[101]  Brett R.C. Molesworth,et al.  Tipping point: The narrow path between automation acceptance and rejection in air traffic management , 2012 .

[102]  Selina Fothergill,et al.  Conflict-Resolution Heuristics for En Route Air Traffic Management , 2013 .

[103]  M. Kozhevnikov.  Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[104]  W P Niedringhaus.  A MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION FOR PLANNING AUTOMATED AIRCRAFT SEPARATIONS FOR AERA 3 , 1989 .

[105]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.