Are Well-Calibrated Users Effective Users? Associations Between Calibration of Trust and Performance on an Automation-Aided Task
Abstract
Objective: We present alternative operationalizations of trust calibration and examine their associations with predictors and outcomes. Background: It is thought that trust calibration (correspondence between aid reliability and user trust in the aid) is a key to effective human–automation performance. We propose that calibration can be operationalized in three ways. Perceptual accuracy is the extent to which the user perceives the aid’s reliability accurately at one point in time. Perceptual sensitivity and trust sensitivity reflect user adjustment of perceived reliability and trust as the aid’s actual reliability changes over time. Method: One hundred fifty-five students completed an X-ray screening task with an automated screener. Awareness of the aid’s accuracy trajectory and error type was examined as predictors, and task performance and aid failure detection were examined as outcomes. Results: Awareness of accuracy trajectory was significantly associated with all three operationalizations of calibration, but awareness of error type was not when considered in conjunction with accuracy trajectory. Contrary to expectations, only perceptual accuracy was significantly associated with task performance and failure detection, and combined, the three operationalizations accounted for only 9% and 4% of the variance in these outcomes, respectively. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the potential importance of trust calibration warrants further examination. Moderators may exist. Application: Users who were better able to perform the task unaided were better able to identify and correct aid failure, suggesting that user task training and expertise may benefit human–automation performance.
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?
In decision support research, reliance is typically understood as the behavioural outcome of trust.
“In decision support research, reliance is typically understood as the behavioural outcome of trust, and is closely linked to the concept of calibrated trust, which refers to the alignment between a user's trust in an automated system and the system's actual performance capabilities (Merritt et al., 2015).”
From Investigating appropriate reliance on AI-Based decision support systems: the role of expertise, trust, and self-confidence (2025) · cites this paper as Merritt et al., 2015
The objective metrics used are commonly adapted in literature to capture the level of reliance within the human-AI interaction context.
“These parameters are commonly adapted in literature to capture the level of reliance within the human-AI interaction context.”
From Dealing with Uncertainty: Understanding the Impact of Prognostic Versus Diagnostic Tasks on Trust and Reliance in Human-AI Decision Making (2024) · cites this paper as [88]
Some studies referred to fictitious automated systems and others to Wizard-of-Oz manipulations.
“Some studies also referred to fctitious automated systems [94] and others to a Wizard-of-Oz manipulations [58].”
From Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [94]
Merritt et al. operationalized trust calibration through trust sensitivity, reflecting the extent to which a user's trust changes as the automation's actual reliability level changes.
“For example, Merritt et al. [94] operationalized the trust calibration through trust sensitivity, which”
From Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [94]
Some authors use correlations between perceived trustworthiness and system capabilities to measure calibration; larger correlation indicates better calibration.
“Some authors work with correlations to get a better sense of perceived trustworthiness and system capabilities [5,12,24,39,66,67,81,94,130,139,142].Here the larger the correlation between perceived trustworthiness and system capabilities, the better the calibration.”
From Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [94]
Merritt et al. discuss a possible limitation that individuals with great trust sensitivity might overreact or underreact to reliability changes, resulting in suboptimal automation reliance decisions.
“Merritt et al. [94] also discuss the possible limitation of this procedure:”
From Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [94]
Others found positive effects of feedback.
“Yet, others found positive efects of feedback [14,15,94].”
From Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [94]
Inappropriate levels of trust can lead to either over-reliance or underutilization of system capabilities.
“Trust calibration is important because inappropriate levels of trust can lead to either over-reliance or underutilization of system capabilities (Merritt et al., 2015).”
From Calibrating Trust, Reliance and Dependence in Variable-Reliability Automation (2024) · cites this paper as Merritt et al., 2015
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 83
- Authors
- Merritt, S. M., Lee, D., Unnerstall, J. L., & Huber, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Missouri–St. Louis (US)
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-12-04
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 34-47
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- OpenAlex
- W1989943453
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 2.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Air Force Research Laboratory
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- trust calibration, human-automation interaction, trust in automation, perceptual accuracy, perceptual sensitivity, error detection, task performance
- MeSH terms
- Automation, Awareness, Calibration, Humans, Ergonomics, Task Performance and Analysis, Trust
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
