The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Decision support aids with anthropomorphic characteristics influence trust and performance in younger and older adults
Abstract
This study examined the use of deliberately anthropomorphic automation on younger and older adults' trust, dependence and performance on a diabetes decision-making task. Research with anthropomorphic interface agents has shown mixed effects in judgments of preferences but has rarely examined effects on performance. Meanwhile, research in automation has shown some forms of anthropomorphism (e.g. etiquette) have effects on trust and dependence on automation. Participants answered diabetes questions with no-aid, a non-anthropomorphic aid or an anthropomorphised aid. Trust and dependence in the aid was measured. A minimally anthropomorphic aide primarily affected younger adults' trust in the aid. Dependence, however, for both age groups was influenced by the anthropomorphic aid. Automation that deliberately embodies person-like characteristics can influence trust and dependence on reasonably reliable automation. However, further research is necessary to better understand the specific aspects of the aid that affect different age groups. Automation that embodies human-like characteristics may be useful in situations where there is under-utilisation of reasonably reliable aids by enhancing trust and dependence in that aid. Practitioner Summary: The design of decision-support aids on consumer devices (e.g. smartphones) may influence the level of trust that users place in that system and their amount of use. This study is the first step in articulating how the design of aids may influence user's trust and use of such systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003
A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance
Steele, C. M. (1997) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.6.613 · Cited by 6,770
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605 · cited 1×
“Lee (2007) and Lee and See (2004) discussed the importance of understanding the boundary conditions under which social emotions influence users’ response to technology, particularly automation.”
BackgroundHumans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872097778543886 · Cited by 4,554
A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans · doi:10.1109/3468.844354 · Cited by 4,195 · cited 1×
“Using the levels of automation concept proposed by Parasuraman et al. (2000) the aid used in the current study would be classified as a stage 3 aid – one that proposes a course of action but allows the patient to veto.”
MethodMerritt, S. M., & Ilgen, D. R. (2008) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872008x288574 · Cited by 527 · cited 1×
“It is implied that the previously mentioned studies are primarily history-based measures of trust; that is trust that is developed after some period of interaction (Merritt and Ilgen 2008).”
ResultNass, C., & Lee, K. M. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/1076-898x.7.3.171 · Cited by 522
Sproull, L., Subramani, M., Kiesler, S., Walker, J., & Waters, K. (1996) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1102_1 · Cited by 399
The Perceived Utility of Human and Automated Aids in a Visual Detection Task
Dzindolet, M. T., Pierce, L. G., Beck, H. P., & Dawe, L. A. (2002) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/0018720024494856 · Cited by 386 · cited 1×
“Studies with both younger (e.g. Dzindolet et al. 2002) and older adults (Ezer et al. 2008) show that users tend to under-use automated aids although they are as accurate as they are in the task.”
'It's just like you talk to a friend': relational agents for older adults
Bickmore, T. W., Caruso, L., Clough-Gorr, K., & Heeren, T. (2005) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2005.09.002 · Cited by 341 · cited 1×
“Bickmore et al. (2005) compared whether older adults would increase their physical activity (walking) when they interacted with (1) an anthropomorphic agent that engaged in dialogue, (2) an agent that did not engage in dialogue or (3) no agent, instead received pamphlets about the benefits of…”
BackgroundGong, L. (2008) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.007 · Cited by 338 · cited 5×
“Gong (2008) concluded that social responses did increase with increasing level of anthropomorphism and effects were strongest for situations that were amenable to social influence.”
BackgroundInfluentialAutomation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermine trust in automated aids
Madhavan, P., Wiegmann, D. A., & Lacson, F. C. (2006) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872006777724408 · Cited by 268
Adherence to Pediatric Medical Regimens
Rapoff, M. A. (2010) · Issues in Clinical Child Psychology · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0570-3 · Cited by 219
Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users' trust and reliance
Wiegmann, D. A., Rich, A., & Zhang, H. (2001) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/14639220110110306 · Cited by 176
Cited by
Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research
Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0057 · Cited by 2,921
Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust
Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720814547570 · Cited by 2,817
The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle
Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005 · Cited by 1,439
Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., Szalma, J. L., & Hancock, P. A. (2016) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720816634228 · Cited by 768
Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents.
de Visser, E. J., Monfort, S. S., McKendrick, R., Smith, M. A. B., McKnight, P. E., Krueger, F., & Parasuraman, R. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000092 · Cited by 614
Metadata
- Authors
- Pak, R., Fink, N., Price, M., Bass, B., & Sturre, L.
- Venue
- Ergonomics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-07-17
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1059-1072
- ISSN
- 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-5847
- OpenAlex
- W2029591514
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 7.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
