Human–Human Reliance in the Context of Automation

Abstract

Objective:The current study examined humanhuman reliance during a computer-based scenario where participants interacted with a human aid and an automated tool simultaneously.Background: Reliance on others is complex, and few studies have examined human-human reliance in the context of automation. Past research found that humans are biased in their perceived utility of automated tools such that they view them as more accurate than humans. Prior reviews have postulated differences in human-human versus humanmachine reliance, yet few studies have examined such reliance when individuals are presented with divergent information from different sources.Method: Participants (N = 40) engaged in the Convoy Leader experiment. They selected a convoy route based on explicit guidance from a human aid and information from an automated map. Subjective and behavioral human-human reliance indices were assessed. Perceptions of risk were manipulated by creating three scenarios (low, moderate, and high) that varied in the amount of vulnerability (i.e., potential for attack) associated with the convoy routes.Results: Results indicated that participants reduced their behavioral reliance on the human aid when faced with higher risk decisions (suggesting increased reliance on the automation); however, there were no reported differences in intentions to rely on the human aid relative to the automation. Conclusion:The current study demonstrated that when individuals are provided information from both a human aid and automation, their reliance on the human aid decreased during high-risk decisions.Application: This study adds to a growing understanding of the biases and preferences that exist during complex human-human and human-machine interactions.

Attitudinal predictors of relative reliance on human vs. automated advisors

“…However, these contexts also have great implications for safety and performance. Lyons and Stokes (2012) describe a case in which a passenger plane and cargo plane collided mid-air, killing 71. The accident occurred when one of the pilots disregarded an automated warning system in favour of conflicting advice from an air traffic controller.…”

Level of automation and failure frequency effects on simulated lunar lander performance

“…Failure frequency could be included as a factor while training in complex, human-automation systems. Training on system failure detection allows operators to better learn and understand the system's strengths and weaknesses [32,33]. These results can be evaluated in the context of simulated spacecraft training, suggesting that while pilots can effectively learn to detect and diagnose spacecraft failures when exposed to high failure frequencies, that assessment of failure detection and diagnosis should be completed both at high and low failure frequencies.…”

Toward valuable weather and sea-ice services for the marine Arctic: exploring user–producer interfaces of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute

“…(8) Our interviewees underline the challenging situation where automation of WWIC services requires increased levels of human input in order to become usable information. This situation reflects aspects of the automation paradox (Lyons & Stokes, 2012;van Diggelen, Post, Rakhorst, Plasmeijer, & van Staal, 2014): strong reliance on automated systems decreases flexibility and increases a risk of information overload, which only can be mitigated by human intervention. This implies that in non-standard situations (e.g.…”