Effect of descriptive information and experience on automation reliance

Numerical versus graphical aids for decision-making in a multi-cue signal identification task

Decision aids are commonly used in tactical decision-making environments to help humans integrate base-rate and multi-cue information. However, it is important that users appropriately trust and rely on aids. Decision aids can be presented in many ways, but the literature lacks clarity over the conditions surrounding their effectiveness. This research aims to determine whether a numerical or graphical aid more effectively supports human performance, and explores the relationships between aid presentation, trust, and workload. Participants (N = 30) completed a signal-identification task that required integration of readings from a set of three dynamic gauges. Participants experienced three conditions: unaided, using a numerical aid, and using a graphical aid. The aids combined gauge and base-rate information in a statistically-optimal fashion. Participants also indicated how much they trusted the system and how hard they worked during the task. Analyses explored the impact of aid condition on sensitivity, response bias, response time, trust, and workload. Both the numerical and graphical aids produced significant increases in sensitivity and trust, and significant decreases in workload in comparison to the unaided condition. The difference in response time between the graphical and unaided conditions approached significance, with participants responding faster using the graphical aid without decrements in sensitivity. Significant interactions between aid and signal type indicated that both aided conditions promoted faster responding to non-hostile signals, with larger mean differences in the graphical aid condition. Practically, graphical aids in which suggestions are more salient to users may promote faster responding in tactical environments, with negligible cost of accuracy.

A Conceptual Model of Trust, Perceived Risk, and Reliance on AI Decision Aids

There is increasing interest in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to improve organizational decision-making. However, research indicates that people’s trust in and choice to rely on “AI decision aids” can be tenuous. In the present paper, we connect research on trust in AI with Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman’s (1995) model of organizational trust to elaborate a conceptual model of trust, perceived risk, and reliance on AI decision aids at work. Drawing from the trust in technology, trust in automation, and decision support systems literatures, we redefine central concepts in Mayer et al.’s (1995) model, expand the model to include new, relevant constructs (like perceived control over an AI decision aid), and refine propositions about the relationships expected in this context. The conceptual model put forward presents a framework that can help researchers studying trust in and reliance on AI decision aids develop their research models, build systematically on each other’s research, and contribute to a more cohesive understanding of the phenomenon. Our paper concludes with five next steps to take research on the topic forward.

Task complexity moderates the influence of descriptions in decisions from experience

Decisions-makers often have access to a combination of descriptive and experiential information, but limited research so far has explored decisions made using both. Three experiments explore the relationship between task complexity and the influence of descriptions. We show that in simple experience-based decision-making tasks, providing congruent descriptions has little influence on task performance in comparison to experience alone without descriptions, since learning via experience is relatively easy. In more complex tasks, which are slower and more demanding to learn experientially, descriptions have stronger influence and help participants identify their preferred choices. However, when the task gets too complex to be concisely described, the influence of descriptions is reduced hence showing a non-monotonic pattern of influence of descriptions according to task complexity. We also propose a cognitive model that incorporates descriptive information into the traditional reinforcement learning framework, with the impact of descriptions moderated by task complexity. This model fits the observed behavior better than previous models and replicates the observed non-monotonic relationship between impact of descriptions and task complexity. This research has implications for the development of effective warning labels that rely on simple descriptive information to trigger safer behavior in complex environments.

Assessing Technology in the Absence of Proof: Trust Based on the Interplay of Others' Opinions and the Interaction Process

OBJECTIVE

The present research addresses the question of how trust in systems is formed when unequivocal information about system accuracy and reliability is absent, and focuses on the interaction of indirect information (others' evaluations) and direct (experiential) information stemming from the interaction process.

BACKGROUND

Trust in decision-supporting technology, such as route planners, is important for satisfactory user interactions. Little is known, however, about trust formation in the absence of outcome feedback, that is, when users have not yet had opportunity to verify actual outcomes.

METHOD

Three experiments manipulated others' evaluations ("endorsement cues") and various forms of experience-based information ("process feedback") in interactions with a route planner and measured resulting trust using rating scales and credits staked on the outcome. Subsequently, an overall analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Study 1 showed that effectiveness of endorsement cues on trust is moderated by mere process feedback. In Study 2, consistent (i.e., nonrandom) process feedback overruled the effect of endorsement cues on trust, whereas inconsistent process feedback did not. Study 3 showed that although the effects of consistent and inconsistent process feedback largely remained regardless of face validity, high face validity in process feedback caused higher trust than those with low face validity. An overall analysis confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSION

Experiential information impacts trust even if outcome feedback is not available, and, moreover, overrules indirect trust cues-depending on the nature of the former.

APPLICATION

Designing systems so that they allow novice users to make inferences about their inner workings may foster initial trust.

Trust in automation: integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust

OBJECTIVE

We systematically review recent empirical research on factors that influence trust in automation to present a three-layered trust model that synthesizes existing knowledge.

BACKGROUND

Much of the existing research on factors that guide human-automation interaction is centered around trust, a variable that often determines the willingness of human operators to rely on automation. Studies have utilized a variety of different automated systems in diverse experimental paradigms to identify factors that impact operators' trust.

METHOD

We performed a systematic review of empirical research on trust in automation from January 2002 to June 2013. Papers were deemed eligible only if they reported the results of a human-subjects experiment in which humans interacted with an automated system in order to achieve a goal. Additionally, a relationship between trust (or a trust-related behavior) and another variable had to be measured. All together, 101 total papers, containing 127 eligible studies, were included in the review.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed three layers of variability in human-automation trust (dispositional trust, situational trust, and learned trust), which we organize into a model. We propose design recommendations for creating trustworthy automation and identify environmental conditions that can affect the strength of the relationship between trust and reliance. Future research directions are also discussed for each layer of trust.

CONCLUSION

Our three-layered trust model provides a new lens for conceptualizing the variability of trust in automation. Its structure can be applied to help guide future research and develop training interventions and design procedures that encourage appropriate trust.

How different types of users develop trust in technology: a qualitative analysis of the antecedents of active and passive user trust in a shared technology

The aim of this study was to investigate the antecedents of trust in technology for active users and passive users working with a shared technology. According to the prominence-interpretation theory, to assess the trustworthiness of a technology, a person must first perceive and evaluate elements of the system that includes the technology. An experimental study was conducted with 54 participants who worked in two-person teams in a multi-task environment with a shared technology. Trust in technology was measured using a trust in technology questionnaire and antecedents of trust were elicited using an open-ended question. A list of antecedents of trust in technology was derived using qualitative analysis techniques. The following categories emerged from the antecedent: technology factors, user factors, and task factors. Similarities and differences between active users and passive user responses, in terms of trust in technology were discussed.