Automation Bias and Errors: Are Crews Better Than Individuals?

The availability of automated decision aids can sometimes feed into the general human tendency to travel the road of least cognitive effort. Is this tendency toward "automation bias" (the use of automation as a heuristic replacement for vigilant information seeking and processing) ameliorated when more than one decision maker is monitoring system events? This study examined automation bias in two-person crews versus solo performers under varying instruction conditions. Training that focused on automation bias and associated errors successfully reduced commission, but not omission, errors. Teams and solo performers were equally likely to fail to respond to system irregularities or events when automated devices failed to indicate them, and to incorrectly follow automated directives when they contradicted other system information.

[1]  S. Harkins,et al.  Social loafing and group evaluation. , 1989 .

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

[3]  R. Zajonc.  SOCIAL FACILITATION. , 1965, Science.

[4]  K. Williams,et al.  Identifiability as a deterrant to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. , 1981 .

[5]  Nadine B. Sarter,et al.  Learning from Automation Surprises and "Going Sour" Accidents: Progress on Human-Centered Automation , 1998 .

[6]  R. Geen,et al.  Alternative conceptions of social facilitation. , 1989 .

[7]  Mustapha Mouloua,et al.  Automation and Human Performance : Theory and Applications , 1996 .

[8]  Franklin G. Miller,et al.  The Drive Theory of Social Facilitation. , 1971 .

[9]  N. Triplett,et al.  The Dynamogenic Factors in Pacemaking and Competition , 1898 .

[10]  A. Ingham,et al.  The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance , 1974 .

[11]  Joseph Pessin,et al.  The Comparative Effects of Social and Mechanical Stimulation on Memorizing , 1933 .

[12]  Kipling D. Williams,et al.  Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes Social Loafing: a Meta-analytic Review and Theoretical Integration , 2022 .

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

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

[15]  F. Allport.  The influence of the group upon association and thought. , 1920 .

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

[17]  Nadine B. Sarter,et al.  Team Play with a Powerful and Independent Agent: Operational Experiences and Automation Surprises on the Airbus A-320 , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[18]  L J Skitka,et al.  Automation bias: decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits. , 1997, The International journal of aviation psychology.

[19]  S. Ross,et al.  Social facilitation of feeding behavior in dogs; group and solitary feeding. , 1949, The Journal of genetic psychology.

[20]  R. Geen,et al.  Drive Theory of Social Facilitation: Twelve Years of Theory and Research , 1977 .

[21]  Jefferson M. Koonce,et al.  Human–automation interaction: Research and practice. , 1997 .

[22]  W. C. Allee,et al.  Conditioned behavior of isolated and grouped cockroaches on a simple maze. , 1933 .

[23]  Steven J. Karau,et al.  Social Loafing: Research Findings, Implications, and Future Directions , 1995 .

[24]  Ass,et al.  Can computers be teammates? , 1996 .

[25]  S. Ross,et al.  Social facilitation of feeding behavior in dogs; feeding after satiation. , 1949, The Journal of genetic psychology.

[26]  Shisan C. Chen.  Social Modification of the Activity of Ants in Nest-Building , 1937, Physiological Zoology.

[27]  G. S. Sanders,et al.  Is social comparison irrelevant for producing choice shifts , 1977 .

[28]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Social cognition, 2nd ed. , 1991 .