Suchergebnisse

Research on sensor-based signaling systems suggests that false alarms and misses affect operator dependence via two independent psychological processes, hypothesized as two types of trust. These two types of trust manifest in two categorically different behaviors: compliance and reliance. The current study links the theoretical perspective outlined by Lee and See (2004) to the compliance-reliance paradigm, and argues that trust mediates the false alarm-compliance relationship but not the miss-reliance relationship. Specifically, the key conditions to allow the mediation of trust are: The operator is presented with a salient choice to depend on the signaling system and the risk associated with non-dependence is recognized. Eighty-eight participants interacted with a primary flight simulation task and a secondary signaling system task. Participants were asked to evaluate their trust in the signaling system according to the informational bases of trust: Performance, process, and purpose. Half of the participants were in a high risk group and half were in a low risk group. The signaling systems varied by reliability (90%, 60%) within subjects and error bias (false alarm prone, miss prone) between subjects. Generally, analyses supported the hypotheses. Reliability affected compliance, but only in the false alarm prone group. Alternatively, reliability affected reliance, but only in the miss prone group. Higher reliability led to higher subjective trust. Conditional indirect effects indicated that individual factors of trust mediated the relationship between false alarm rate and compliance (i.e., purpose) and reliance (i.e., process), but only in the high risk groups. Serial mediation analyses indicated that the false alarm rate affected compliance and reliance through the sequential ordering of the factors of trust, all stemming from performance. Miss rate did not affect reliance through any of the factors of trust. The theoretical implications of this study suggest the compliance-reliance paradigm is not the reflection of two independent types of trust. The practical applications of this research could be to update training and design recommendations that are based upon the assumption of trust causing operator responses regardless of error bias.

Objective: This study provides a theoretical link between trust and the compliance–reliance paradigm. We propose that for trust mediation to occur, the operator must be presented with a salient choice, and there must be an element of risk for dependence. Background: Research suggests that false alarms and misses affect dependence via two independent processes, hypothesized as trust in signals and trust in nonsignals. These two trust types manifest in categorically different behaviors: compliance and reliance. Method: Eighty-eight participants completed a primary flight task and a secondary signaling system task. Participants evaluated their trust according to the informational bases of trust: performance, process, and purpose. Participants were in a high- or low-risk group. Signaling systems varied by reliability (90%, 60%) within subjects and error bias (false alarm prone, miss prone) between subjects. Results: False-alarm rate affected compliance but not reliance. Miss rate affected reliance but not compliance. Mediation analyses indicated that trust mediated the relationship between false-alarm rate and compliance. Bayesian mediation analyses favored evidence indicating trust did not mediate miss rate and reliance. Conditional indirect effects indicated that factors of trust mediated the relationship between false-alarm rate and compliance (i.e., purpose) and reliance (i.e., process) but only in the high-risk group. Conclusion: The compliance–reliance paradigm is not the reflection of two types of trust. Application: This research could be used to update training and design recommendations that are based upon the assumption that trust causes operator responses regardless of error bias.

Objective: The purpose of the current work was to clarify how subjective trust determines response behavior when interacting with a signaling system. Background: In multiple theoretical frameworks, trust is acknowledged as a prime mediator between system error characteristics and automation dependence. Some researchers have operationally defined trust as the behavior exhibited. Other researchers have suggested that although trust may guide operator responses, trust does not completely determine the behavior. Method: Forty-four participants interacted with a primary flight simulation task and a secondary signaling system task. The signaling system varied in reliability (90%, 60%) and error bias (false alarm, miss prone). Trust was measured halfway through the experimental session to address the criterion of temporal precedence in determining the effect of trust on behavior. Results: Analyses indicated that trust partially mediated the relationship between reliability and agreement rate. Trust did not mediate the relationship between reliability and reaction time. Trust also did not mediate the relationships between error bias and reaction time or agreement rate. Analyses of variance generally supported specific behavioral and trust hypotheses, indicating that the paradigm employed produced similar effects on response behaviors and subjective estimates of trust observed in other studies. Conclusion: These results indicate that strong assumptions of trust acting as the prime mediator between system error characteristics and response behaviors should be viewed with caution. Application: Practitioners should consider assessing factors other than trust to determine potential operator response behaviors, which may be more predictive.

Objective This work examined the relationship of the constructs measured by the trust scales developed by Chancey et al. (2017) and Jian et al. (2000) using a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Background Modern theories of automation trust have been proposed based on data collected using trust scales. Chancey et al. (2017) adapted Madsen and Gregor's (2000) trust scale to align with Lee and See's (2004) human–automation trust framework. In contrast, Jian et al. (2000) developed a scale empirically with trust and distrust as factors. However, it remains unclear whether these two scales measure the same construct. Method We analyzed data collected from previous experiments to investigate the relationship between the two trust scales using a multilevel CFA. Results Data provided evidence that Jian et al. (2000) and Chancey et al. (2017) automation trust scales are only weakly related. Trust and distrust are found to be distinct factors in Jian et al.'s (2000) scale, whereas performance, process, and purpose are distinct factors in Chancey et al.'s (2017) trust scale. Conclusion The analysis suggested that the two scales purporting to measure human–automation trust are only weakly related. Application Trust researchers and automation designers may consider using Chancey et al. (2017) and Jian et al. (2000) scales to capture different characteristics of human–automation trust.