Supporting decision making by a critical thinking tool

Dongen, Kees van; Schraagen, Jan Maarten; Eikelboom, A.R.; Brake, Guido te

doi:10.1037/e577392012-063

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to the system recommending and/or initiating LOA changes in adaptive automation, with adaptable automation , the human retains the authority to invoke or change LOAs (Oppermann, 1994). By keeping the human in the loop, this approach “takes advantage of the human’s ability to anticipate and prepare for changes and provides the flexibility that is needed in novel situations” (van Dongen & van Maanen, 2005, pp. 2–3).…”

Section: Design Approaches For Human–automation Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptable (Not Adaptive) Automation: Forefront of Human–Automation Teaming

Calhoun

2021

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Identify a critical research gap for the human factors community that has implications for successful human–automation teaming. Background There are a variety of approaches for applying automation in systems. Flexible application of automation such that its level and/or type changes during system operations has been shown to enhance human–automation system performance. Method This mini-review describes flexible automation in which the level of automated support varies across tasks during system operation, rather than remaining fixed. Two types distinguish the locus of authority to change automation level: adaptable automation (the human operator assigns how automation is applied) has been found to aid human’s situation awareness and provide more perceived control versus adaptive automation (the system assigns automation level) that may impose less workload and attentional demands by automatically adjusting levels in response to changes in one or more states of the human, task, environment, and so on. Results In contrast to vast investments in adaptive automation approaches, limited research has been devoted to adaptable automation. Experiments directly comparing adaptable and adaptive automation are particularly scant. These few studies show that adaptable automation was not only preferred over adaptive automation, but it also resulted in improved task performance and, notably, less perceived workload. Conclusion Systematic research examining adaptable automation is overdue, including hybrid approaches with adaptive automation. Specific recommendations for further research are provided. Application Adaptable automation together with effective human-factored interface designs to establish working agreements are key to enabling human–automation teaming in future complex systems.

show abstract

Section: Design Approaches For Human–automation Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptable (Not Adaptive) Automation: Forefront of Human–Automation Teaming

Calhoun

2021

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Böylece, H3 hipotezinde test edildiği gibi nedenlere bağlı düşünen bireylerin büyük oranda mantığa dayalı olarak karar verdikleri söylenebilir. Deneysel araştırmalar eleştirel düşünce dayalı öğretimin karar verme süreçlerine etkilediğini göstermektedir (Van den Bosch ve Helsdingen, 2002;Van Dongen, Schraagen, Eikelboom ve te Brake, 2005;Schraagen ve Van de Ven, 2008).…”

Section: Sonuç Tartışma Ve öNerilerunclassified

A Model of Decision-Making Based on Critical Thinking

Uluçınar

Aypay

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Under-Reliance on the Decision Aid: A Difference in Calibration and Attribution between Self and Aid

Dongen¹,

Maanen

2006

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is often assumed that two heads are better than one, but reliance on decision aids is often inappropriate. Decisions to rely on an aid are thought to be based on a comparison between the perceived reliability of own performance and that of the decision aid. Unfortunately, perceived reliabilities are unlikely to be perfectly calibrated. This may result in inappropriate decisions to rely on advice. In a laboratory experiment with 40 participants, we studied whether calibration improves after practice, whether calibration of own reliability differs from calibration of the aid's reliability and whether unreliability of the aid is attributed differently. Under-trust in own reliability disappears after practice but under-trust in the aid's reliability persists. Unreliability of the decision aid is less likely to be attributed to temporary, external and uncontrollable factors. This asymmetry in attribution and calibration may explain under-reliance on decision aids.

show abstract

Supporting decision making by a critical thinking tool

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Adaptable (Not Adaptive) Automation: Forefront of Human–Automation Teaming

Adaptable (Not Adaptive) Automation: Forefront of Human–Automation Teaming

A Model of Decision-Making Based on Critical Thinking

Under-Reliance on the Decision Aid: A Difference in Calibration and Attribution between Self and Aid

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About