Extending the decision field theory to model operators’ reliance on automation in supervisory control situations
Abstract
Appropriate trust in and reliance on automation are critical for safe and efficient system operation. This paper fills an important research gap by describing a quantitative model of trust in automation. We extend decision field theory (DFT) to describe the multiple sequential decisions that characterize reliance on automation in supervisory control situations. Extended DFT (EDFT) represents an iterated decision process and the evolution of operator preference for automatic and manual control. The EDFT model predicts trust and reliance, and describes the dynamic interaction between operator and automation in a closed-loop fashion: the products of earlier decisions can transform the nature of later events and decisions. The simulation results show that the EDFT model captures several consistent empirical findings, such as the inertia of trust and the nonlinear characteristics of trust and reliance. The model also demonstrates the effects of different types of automation on ttrust and reliance. It is possible to expand the EDFT model for multioperator multiautomation situations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Reliance behavior can be explained by the relationship between a user's trust in the agents and the user's self-confidence.
“Several studies [13, 23, 26] have demonstrated that reliance behavior can be explained by the relationship between a user’s trust in the agents and the user’s self-confidence.”
From Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration (2020) · cites this paper as [26]
Cites
Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency
Bandura, A. (1982) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122 · Cited by 15,975 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Self-citationLoewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267 · Cited by 5,955 · see citing works
Humans 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 · see citing works
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 3× · see citing works
“obtaining and integrating multiple sources of information whereas action implementation automation involves the execution of a course of action [4].”
BackgroundSelf-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1992.4279530 · Cited by 3,570 · see citing works
Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.275.5304.1293 · Cited by 3,547 · see citing works
Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment.
Busemeyer, J., & Townsend, J. (1993) · Psychology Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.432 · Cited by 2,000 · see citing works
Emotion, cognition, and behavior
Dolan, R. J. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1076358 · Cited by 1,979 · see citing works
How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds
Hutchins, E. (1995) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1 · Cited by 1,880 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These effects are of particular importance from the perspective of distributed cognition and team decision making [40].”
BackgroundSelf-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.1017 · Cited by 1,511 · see citing works
Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems
LEE, J., & MORAY, N. (1992) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139208967392 · Cited by 1,459 · see citing works
Self-citationMUIR, B. M., & MORAY, N. (1996) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139608964474 · Cited by 993 · see citing works
Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation
Lee, J. D., & Moray, N. (1994) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1994.1007 · Cited by 932 · see citing works
Self-citationHow persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing.
Roberts, S., & Pashler, H. (2000) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.107.2.358 · Cited by 879 · see citing works
Performance Consequences of Automation-Induced 'Complacency'
Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993) · The International Journal of Aviation Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0301_1 · Cited by 875 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In contrast, other studies found that participants did not delay using automation after it recovered from failures [34], [35] [Fig.”
ResultMUIR, B. M. (1994) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139408964957 · Cited by 873 · see citing works
Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionst model of decision making.
Roe, R. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.370 · Cited by 765 · see citing works
Instance‐based learning in dynamic decision making
González, C., Lerch, J. F., & Lebiere, C. J. (2003) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2704_2 · Cited by 538 · see citing works
Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks.
Moray, N. P., Inagaki, T., & Itoh, M. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037//1076-898x.6.1.44 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
Subjective probabilities inferred from decisions.
Edwards, W. (1962) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0038674 · Cited by 341 · see citing works
Automation and Human Performance
Bowers, C. A., Oser, R. L., Eduardo Salas, A., & Cannon‐Bowers, J. A. (2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781315137957 · Cited by 307 · see citing works
Survey of decision field theory
Busemeyer, J. R., & Diederich, A. (2002) · Mathematical Social Sciences · doi:10.1016/s0165-4896(02)00016-1 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks.
Moray, N., Inagaki, T., & Itoh, M. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/1076-898x.6.1.44 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
Busemeyer, J. R., & Myung, I. J. (1992) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.121.2.177 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Busemeyer, J. R., & Myung, I. J. (1992) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.121.2.177 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Dynamic Representation of Decision-Making
(1998) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4622.003.0005 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Learning in Dynamic Decision Tasks: Computational Model and Empirical Evidence
Gibson, F. P., Fichman, M., & Plaut, D. C. (1997) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2712 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Kirlik, A., Miller, R. A., & Jagacinski, R. J. (1993) · IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/21.247880 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Laboratory studies of trust between humans and machines in automated systems
Moray, N. P., & Inagaki, T. (1999) · Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control · doi:10.1177/014233129902100408 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Ecological Interface Design for Pasteurizer II: A Process Description of Semantic Mapping
Vernon, D., Reising, D. V. C., & Sanderson, P. M. (2002) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/0018720024497952 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
A connectionist model of complacency and adaptive recovery under automation.
Farrell, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.395 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Human Versus Automation in Responding to Failures: An Expected-Value Analysis
Sheridan, T. B., & Parasuraman, R. (2000) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872000779698123 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
A connectionist model of complacency and adaptive recovery under automation.
Farrell, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037//0278-7393.26.2.395 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Learning in Dynamic Decision Making: The Recognition Process
González, C., & Quesada, J. F. (2003) · Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory · doi:10.1023/b:cmot.0000029052.81329.d4 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Automation and human performance theory and applications
Parasuraman, R. (1996) · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration
Okamura, K., & Yamada, S. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229132 · Cited by 239 · see citing works
Agent-based simulation of affordance-based human behaviors in emergency evacuation
Joo, J., Kim, N., Wysk, R. A., Rothrock, L., Son, Y.-J., Oh, Y.-G., & Lee, S. (2013) · Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory · doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2012.12.007 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Human Reliance on Machine Learning Models When Performance Feedback is Limited: Heuristics and Risks
Lu, Z., & Yin, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445562 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Chen, Y., Zahedi, F. M., Abbasi, A., & Dobolyi, D. (2021) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2020.103394 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
A Computational Model of Coupled Human Trust and Self-confidence Dynamics
Williams, K. J., Yuh, M. S., & Jain, N. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3594715 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gao, J., & Lee, J. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Iowa (US)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans
- Published
- 2006-09
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 943-959
- ISSN
- 1083-4427 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2110017995
- Cited by
- 124
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics - Part A Systems and Humans (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Risk and Safety Analysis
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Keywords
- decision field theory, trust in automation, reliance on automation, supervisory control, sequential decision making
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
