Automation-Induced Complacency Potential: Development and Validation of a New Scale

Complacency, or sub-optimal monitoring of automation performance, has been cited as a contributing factor in numerous major transportation and medical incidents. Researchers are working to identify individual differences that correlate with complacency as one strategy for preventing complacency-related accidents. Automation-induced complacency potential is an individual difference reflecting a general tendency to be complacent across a wide variety of situations which is similar to, but distinct from trust. Accurately assessing complacency potential may improve our ability to predict and prevent complacency in safety-critical occupations. Much past research has employed an existing measure of complacency potential. However, in the 25 years since that scale was published, our conceptual understanding of complacency itself has evolved, and we propose that an updated scale of complacency potential is needed. The goal of the present study was to develop, and provide initial validation evidence for, a new measure of automation-induced complacency potential that parallels the current conceptualization of complacency. In a sample of 475 online respondents, we tested 10 new items and found that they clustered into two separate scales: Alleviating Workload (which focuses on attitudes about the use of automation to ease workloads) and Monitoring (which focuses on attitudes toward monitoring of automation). Alleviating workload correlated moderately with the existing complacency potential rating scale, while monitoring did not. Further, both the alleviating workload and monitoring scales showed discriminant validity from the previous complacency potential scale and from similar constructs, such as propensity to trust. In an initial examination of criterion-related validity, only the monitoring-focused scale had a significant relationship with hypothetical complacency (r = -0.42, p < 0.01), and it had significant incremental validity over and above all other individual difference measures in the study. These results suggest that our new monitoring-related items have potential for use as a measure of automation-induced complacency potential and, compared with similar scales, this new measure may have unique value.

[1]  L. Tucker,et al.  A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis , 1973 .

[2]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Human and Computer Control of Undersea Teleoperators , 1978 .

[3]  J. H. Steiger.  Structural Model Evaluation and Modification: An Interval Estimation Approach. , 1990, Multivariate behavioral research.

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

[5]  Rapid Thermal Multiprocessor,et al.  Supervisory Control of a , 1993 .

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

[7]  D. Watson,et al.  Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development , 1995 .

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

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

[10]  S. M. Casey,et al.  Set Phasers on Stun: And Other True Tales of Design, Technology, and Human Error , 1998 .

[11]  Marika Hoedemaeker,et al.  Driver behavior in an emergency situation in the Automated Highway System , 1999 .

[12]  Jennifer Wilson,et al.  Flight Deck Automation issues , 1999 .

[13]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

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

[15]  R. Vandenberg,et al.  A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research , 2000 .

[16]  Toshiyuki Inagaki,et al.  Attention and complacency , 2000 .

[17]  Lawrence J. Prinzel,et al.  Examination of Automation-Induced Complacency and Individual Difference Variates , 2001 .

[18]  Linda G. Pierce,et al.  The Perceived Utility of Human and Automated Aids in a Visual Detection Task , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[19]  Neville Moray.  Monitoring, complacency, scepticism and eutactic behaviour , 2003 .

[20]  G. Jamieson,et al.  CONSIDERING SUBJECTIVE TRUST AND MONITORING BEHAVIOR IN ASSESSING AUTOMATION-INDUCED “COMPLACENCY” , 2004 .

[21]  Greg A. Jamieson,et al.  The impact of context-related reliability on automation failure detection and scanning behaviour , 2004, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37583).

[22]  Frank J. Lee,et al.  Toward an ACT-R General Executive for Human Multitasking , 2004, ICCM.

[23]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Automation in Future Air Traffic Management: Effects of Decision Aid Reliability on Controller Performance and Mental Workload , 2005, Hum. Factors.

[24]  Jason W. Osborne,et al.  Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. , 2005 .

[25]  Mark W. Scerbo,et al.  Automation-induced complacency for monitoring highly reliable systems: the role of task complexity, system experience, and operator trust , 2007 .

[26]  John D. Lee,et al.  Review of a Pivotal Human Factors Article: “Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse” , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[27]  Dietrich Manzey,et al.  Misuse of automated decision aids: Complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[29]  Mark S. Young,et al.  Cooperation between drivers and automation: implications for safety , 2009 .

[30]  劉 健勤,et al.  複雑系に見たDefault Mode Network , 2009, ICS 2009.

[31]  Elizabeth M. Poposki,et al.  The Multitasking Preference Inventory: Toward an Improved Measure of Individual Differences in Polychronicity , 2010 .

[32]  J. Klomp,et al.  A review and synthesis , 2010 .

[33]  R. Dalal,et al.  A Review and Synthesis of Situational Strength in the Organizational Sciences , 2010 .

[34]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration , 2010, Hum. Factors.

[35]  Stephanie M. Merritt.  Affective Processes in Human–Automation Interactions , 2011, Hum. Factors.

[36]  Torsten Rohlfing,et al.  Cerebral blood flow in posterior cortical nodes of the default mode network decreases with task engagement but remains higher than in most brain regions. , 2011, Cerebral cortex.

[37]  Dietrich Grasshoff,et al.  The effect of complacency potential on human operators´monitoring behaviour in aviation , 2011 .

[38]  Juan R. Vidal,et al.  Transient Suppression of Broadband Gamma Power in the Default-Mode Network Is Correlated with Task Complexity and Subject Performance , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[39]  Timothy E. Ham,et al.  Default Mode Network Connectivity Predicts Sustained Attention Deficits after Traumatic Brain Injury , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[40]  Huabin Tang,et al.  Phase-2 evaluation of a Tactical conflict detection tool in the Terminal area , 2012, 2012 IEEE/AIAA 31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC).

[41]  Yves Rosseel,et al.  lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling , 2012 .

[42]  Elizabeth M. Poposki,et al.  Detecting and Deterring Insufficient Effort Responding to Surveys , 2012 .

[43]  Deborah Lee,et al.  I Trust It, but I Don’t Know Why , 2013, Hum. Factors.

[44]  Savita Verma,et al.  Human Factors Evaluation of Conflict Detection Tool for Terminal Area , 2013 .

[45]  Sonja Giesemann,et al.  Automation Effects in Train Driving with Train Protection Systems: Assessing Person- and Task-related Factors. , 2013 .

[46]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[47]  R. Pak,et al.  The Effects of Age and Working Memory Demands on Automation-Induced Complacency , 2014 .

[48]  Kim-Phuong L. Vu,et al.  Air Traffic Controller Trust in Automation in NextGen , 2015 .

[49]  Francis T. Durso,et al.  Individual Differences in the Calibration of Trust in Automation , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[50]  D. Besner,et al.  A Resource-Control Account of Sustained Attention , 2015, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[51]  Deborah Lee,et al.  Measuring Individual Differences in the Perfect Automation Schema , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[52]  J. Schooler,et al.  Vigilance impossible: Diligence, distraction, and daydreaming all lead to failures in a practical monitoring task , 2015, Consciousness and Cognition.

[53]  James P. Bliss,et al.  Does Accountability and an Automation Decision Aid’s Reliability Affect Human Performance in a Visual Search Task? , 2017 .

[54]  Ruth A. Baer,et al.  Mindfulness , 2017, SAGE Research Methods Foundations.

[55]  Francesca C. Fortenbaugh,et al.  Recent theoretical, neural, and clinical advances in sustained attention research , 2017, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.