Individual Differences in the Calibration of Trust in Automation

Objective: The objective was to determine whether operators with an expectancy that automation is trustworthy are better at calibrating their trust to changes in the capabilities of automation, and if so, why. Background: Studies suggest that individual differences in automation expectancy may be able to account for why changes in the capabilities of automation lead to a substantial change in trust for some, yet only a small change for others. Method: In a baggage screening task, 225 participants searched for weapons in 200 X-ray images of luggage. Participants were assisted by an automated decision aid exhibiting different levels of reliability. Measures of expectancy that automation is trustworthy were used in conjunction with subjective measures of trust and perceived reliability to identify individual differences in trust calibration. Results: Operators with high expectancy that automation is trustworthy were more sensitive to changes (both increases and decreases) in automation reliability. This difference was eliminated by manipulating the causal attribution of automation errors. Conclusion: Attributing the cause of automation errors to factors external to the automation fosters an understanding of tasks and situations in which automation differs in reliability and may lead to more appropriate trust. Application: The development of interventions can lead to calibrated trust in automation.

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

[2]  Stephen Rice,et al.  System-Wide versus Component-Specific Trust Using Multiple Aids , 2009, The Journal of general psychology.

[3]  B. Weiner,et al.  A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. , 1979, Journal of educational psychology.

[4]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .

[5]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: a synthesis of the literature , 2007 .

[6]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Trust in Decision Aids: a Model and Its Training Implications , 1998 .

[7]  J. Rotter.  A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. , 1967, Journal of personality.

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

[9]  Douglas A. Wiegmann,et al.  Automation Failures on Tasks Easily Performed by Operators Undermines Trust in Automated Aids , 2003 .

[10]  Saul M. Kassin,et al.  Consensus information, prediction, and causal attribution: A review of the literature and issues. , 1979 .

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

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

[13]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[14]  D. Russell.  The Causal Dimension Scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes. , 1982 .

[15]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[16]  James C. McElroy,et al.  Causal Attributions and Expectancy Estimates: A Framework for Understanding the Dynamics of Salesforce Motivation , 1986 .

[17]  Linda G. Pierce,et al.  Predicting Misuse and Disuse of Combat Identification Systems , 2001 .

[18]  Regina A. Pomranky,et al.  The role of trust in automation reliance , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[19]  A. M. Rich,et al.  Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users' trust and reliance , 2001 .

[20]  H. Kelley.  Attribution theory in social psychology , 1967 .

[21]  Mark R. Lehto,et al.  Foundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems , 2000 .

[22]  J. Rotter.  Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. , 1980 .

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

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

[25]  Motoko Kosugi,et al.  Trust, Gullibility, and Social Intelligence , 1999 .

[26]  Edward C. Tomlinson,et al.  The Role Of Causal Attribution Dimensions In Trust Repair , 2009 .

[27]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[28]  J. Rotter.  Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. , 1971 .

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