Cited by 176Human-Automation Interaction and SafetySocial Robot Interaction and HRIRisk and Safety Analysis

Complacency and Automation Bias in the Use of Imperfect Automation

Wickens, Christopher D., Clegg, Benjamin A., Vieane, Alex Z., Sebok, Angelia L.·2015·Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We examine the effects of two different kinds of decision-aiding automation errors on human-automation interaction (HAI), occurring at the first failure following repeated exposure to correctly functioning automation. The two errors are incorrect advice, triggering the automation bias, and missing advice, reflecting complacency. BACKGROUND: Contrasts between analogous automation errors in alerting systems, rather than decision aiding, have revealed that alerting false alarms are more problematic to HAI than alerting misses are. Prior research in decision aiding, although contrasting the two aiding errors (incorrect vs. missing), has confounded error expectancy. METHOD: Participants performed an environmental process control simulation with and without decision aiding. For those with the aid, automation dependence was created through several trials of perfect aiding performance, and an unexpected automation error was then imposed in which automation was either gone (one group) or wrong (a second group). A control group received no automation support. RESULTS: The correct aid supported faster and more accurate diagnosis and lower workload. The aid failure degraded all three variables, but "automation wrong" had a much greater effect on accuracy, reflecting the automation bias, than did "automation gone," reflecting the impact of complacency. Some complacency was manifested for automation gone, by a longer latency and more modest reduction in accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Automation wrong, creating the automation bias, appears to be a more problematic form of automation error than automation gone, reflecting complacency. IMPLICATIONS: Decision-aiding automation should indicate its lower degree of confidence in uncertain environments to avoid the automation bias.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0018720815581940

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Automation bias is the tendency to over-rely on algorithmic output, leading clinicians to accept erroneous recommendations without adequate scrutiny, and this risk is amplified by automation bias.

    “This risk is amplified by automation bias, the tendency to over-rely on algorithmic output, by leading clinicians to accept erroneous recommendations without adequate scrutiny.17-21”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wickens, C. D., Clegg, B. A., Vieane, A. Z., & Sebok, A. L.
Affiliations
  • Alion Science and Technology (United States) (US)
  • Colorado State University (US)
Venue
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Published
2015-04-17
Volume
57
Issue
5
Pages
728-739
ISSN
  • 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-8181
OpenAlex
W2010273961
Cited by
176
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 4
FWCI
13.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Risk and Safety Analysis
Keywords
automation bias, complacency, human-automation interaction, diagnostic accuracy, workload, alert system, false alarms
MeSH terms
Automation, Decision Making, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Man-Machine Systems, Mental Processes, Workload

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