The Influence of Task Load and Automation Trust on Deception Detection

Biros, David P.; Daly, Mark; Gunsch, Gregg H.

doi:10.1023/b:grup.0000021840.85686.57

Cited by 97 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite previous intergroup bias research suggesting that participants are more likely to trust ingroup members (Foddy, Platow, & Yamagishi, 2009;Platow, Foddy, Yamagishi, Lim, & Chow, 2012;Platow, McClintock, & Liebrand, 1990;Tanis & Postmes, 2005), no evidence was found using the shell game task that group membership would impact the likelihood of participants trusting a robot. Previous research has identified that tasks with high cognitive or attentional demand can lead participants to an over-reliance on automated information systems (Biros, Daly, & Gunsch, 2004), and the main effect of task difficulty supports this finding. Thus, it is possible that the high attentional demand of the shell game (especially on Hard difficult trials) led participants to trust the robot regardless of group membership, and therefore, task difficulty may have superseded any effects related to group membership.…”

Section: Experiments 1: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…Environmental factors relate to the situation or task at hand and include task load. For example, Biros, Daly, and Gunsch (2004) demonstrated that participants who incurred a higher task load exhibited an over-reliance on their automated information systems to assist them in their decision-making activities, making them more susceptible to deception. Other factors include task type (Li, Rau, & Li, 2010), proximity to a robot (Kidd, 2003), and setting (Scopelliti, Giuliani, & Fornara, 2005).…”

Section: Trust In Hrimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was hypothesised that participants would change their answers more often on Hard trials than Medium trials, as they would be under greater attentional load (Biros, Daly, & Gunsch, 2004) and their increased doubt prompts a reliance on the Nao. The second hypothesis was that members of the "robot group" would change their answers more than members of the "computer group" due to ingroup bias.…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Impact of Intergroup Bias on Trust and Approach Behaviour Towards a Humanoid Robot

Deligianis¹,

Stanton²,

McGarty³

et al. 2017

Journal of Human-Robot Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As robots become commonplace, and for successful human-robot interaction to occur, people will need to trust them. Two experiments were conducted using the "minimal group paradigm" to explore whether social identity theory influences trust formation and impressions of a robot. In Experiment 1, participants were allocated to either a "robot" or "computer" group, and then they played a cooperative visual tracking game with an Aldebaran Nao humanoid robot as a partner. We hypothesised participants in the "robot group" would demonstrate intergroup bias by sitting closer to the robot (proxemics) and trusting the robot's suggested answers more frequently than their "computer group" counterparts. Experiment 2 used an almost identical procedure with a different set of participants; however, all participants were assigned to the "robot group" and thee different levels of anthropomorphic robot movement were manipulated. Our results suggest that intergroup bias and humanlike movement can significantly affect human-robot approach behaviour. Significant effects were found for trusting the robot's suggested answers with respect to task difficulty, but not for group membership or robot movement.

show abstract

Section: Experiments 1: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Trust In Hrimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Impact of Intergroup Bias on Trust and Approach Behaviour Towards a Humanoid Robot

Deligianis¹,

Stanton²,

McGarty³

et al. 2017

Journal of Human-Robot Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Early work by Muir (1994) discussed trust in automation in terms of competence, responsibility, predictability, and dependability-all of which represent how the system is functioning. Other research has identified a number of factors that influence trust in automation: system transparency (Dzindolet, Peterson, Pomranky, Pierce, & Beck, 2003), automation reliability (Rovira, McGarry, & Parasuraman, 2007), self-confidence (Lee & Moray, 1994), workload (Biros, Daly, & Gunsch, 2004), personality (Merritt & Ilgen, 2008), and error feedback (Bisantz & Seong, 2001). These studies have demonstrated that trust in automation can be predicted from a number of variables; however, most of these studies within trust in automation or within human-human trust have focused on either trust in automation or human-human trust rather than a combination of the two.…”

Section: Human-machine Reliancementioning

confidence: 99%

Human–Human Reliance in the Context of Automation

Lyons

Stokes²

2011

Hum Factors

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…For instance, a robot's motion fluency, hesitation and gaze behavior influence its users' level of trustworthiness (van den Brule et al, 2014). Additionally, team-related and taskrelated factors seem to have an effect on trustworthiness (Biros, Daly, & Gunsch, 2004;Evers et al, 2008;Li, Rau, Li, 2010;Wang et al, 2010).…”

Section: Trustwortiness For Human-robot Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Living with robots : investigating the user acceptance of social robots in domestic environments

Graaf¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Influence of Task Load and Automation Trust on Deception Detection

Cited by 97 publications

References 21 publications

The Impact of Intergroup Bias on Trust and Approach Behaviour Towards a Humanoid Robot

The Impact of Intergroup Bias on Trust and Approach Behaviour Towards a Humanoid Robot

Human–Human Reliance in the Context of Automation

Living with robots : investigating the user acceptance of social robots in domestic environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About