The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Complacency and Automation Bias in the Use of Imperfect Automation
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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 the citing paper
“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”
From Automation Bias in Large Language Model Assisted Diagnostic Reasoning Among AI-Trained Physicians (2025) · cites this paper as [20]
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
Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems
Endsley, M. R. (1995) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872095779049543 · Cited by 8,875
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
Self-citationComplacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration
Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720810376055 · Cited by 1,710 · cited 3×
“These two problems have been integrated by Parasuraman and Manzey (2010) into a common attentionbased framework.”
BackgroundPerformance 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
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T., & Wickens, C. (2008) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1518/155534308x284417 · Cited by 729
Self-citationHuman Performance Consequences of Stages and Levels of Automation: An Integrated Meta-Analysis
Onnasch, L., Wickens, C. D., Li, H., & Manzey, D. (2014) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720813501549 · Cited by 524
Self-citationAutomation Bias: Decision Making and Performance in High-Tech Cockpits
Mosier, K. L., Skitka, L. J., Heers, S., & Burdick, M. (1998) · The International Journal of Aviation Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0801_3 · Cited by 353
Dixon, S. R., & Wickens, C. (2006) · Hum. Factors · doi:10.1518/001872006778606822 · Cited by 329
Self-citationAccountability and automation bias
SKITKA, L. J., MOSIER, K., & BURDICK, M. D. (2000) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1999.0349 · Cited by 324
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Mosier K., 1996, Automation and human performance: Theory and applications, 201
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Metrics for explainable AI: challenges and prospects
Hoffman, R. R., Mueller, S. T., Klein, G., & Litman, J. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.04608 · Cited by 518
The shaky foundations of large language models and foundation models for electronic health records
Wornow, M., Xu, Y., Thapa, R., Patel, B., Steinberg, E., Fleming, S., Pfeffer, M. A., Fries, J., & Shah, N. H. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00879-8 · Cited by 324
Hoffman, R. R., Mueller, S. T., Klein, G., & Litman, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2023.1096257 · Cited by 272
Co-Writing with Opinionated Language Models Affects Users’ Views
Jakesch, M., Bhat, A., Buschek, D., Zalmanson, L., & Naaman, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581196 · Cited by 265
Experimental evidence of effective human–AI collaboration in medical decision-making
Reverberi, C., Rigon, T., Solari, A., Hassan, C., Cherubini, P., GI Genius CADx Study Group, Antonelli, G., Awadie, H., Bernhofer, S., Carballal, S., et al. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-18751-2 · Cited by 281
Metadata
- 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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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 › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › 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
