Type of Automation Failure: The Effects on Trust and Reliance in Automation
Open accessAbstract
Past automation research has focused primarily on machine-related factors (e.g., automation reliability) and human-related factors (e.g., accountability). Other machine-related factors such as type of automation errors, misses or false alarms, have been noticeably overlooked. These two automation errors correspond to potential operator errors, omission (misses) and commission (false alarms), which have proven to directly affect operators' trust in automation. This proposed research will examine how automation-error-type affects operator trust and begin to develop baseline trust measures as they relate to error type and participant age. It is expected that participants presented with more automation false alarms than misses will experience a larger degradation of subjective trust than those presented with equal numbers of false alarms and misses or more automation misses than false alarms.
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
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.
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?
Trusting behaviors such as adopting suggestions are driven not only by a more positive perception of the trustee but also by other factors such as one's disposition to trust and situation awareness.
“According to theories of trust [6, 12, 15], trusting behaviors such as adopting suggestions are not only driven by a more positive perception of the trustee but also other factors such as one's disposition to trust and situation awareness.”
From Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in AI-assisted decision making (2020) · cites this paper as [15]
The Introduction (page not supplied) describes trust in terms of perceived competence and operators’ preconceived views of an automated system’s reliability. The Discussion (page not supplied) says trust and reliance are affected by multiple factors, including self-confidence and prior knowledge. The paper does not specifically establish disposition to trust or situation awareness as drivers of adopting suggestions. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBoth age groups showed less reliance when a system made a false alarm than a miss; older adults showed the most overreliance on a system that tended to miss critical events.
“Both age groups showed less reliance when a system made a false alarm (i.e., indicated a problem that did not exist) than a miss (i.e., did not alert the user to a problem); however, older adults showed the most over reliance on a system that tended to miss critical events (Johnson, Sanchez, Fisk, & Rogers, 2004 ).”
From Toward a Psychological Science of Advanced Technology Design for Older Adults (2010) · cites this paper as Johnson, Sanchez, Fisk, & Rogers, 2004
The Expected Results section predicts a larger drop in subjective trust after false alarms than after misses, but reports no observed difference in reliance for either age group. The Proposed Design and Discussion sections describe a study to be conducted; they do not report that older adults overrelied most on a system that missed critical events. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
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 · see citing works
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736 · 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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“decisions, or controls processes” ( Lee & See, 2004 ).”
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III
Ryan, J. J., & Lopez, S. J. (2001) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-1185-4_2 · Cited by 3,680 · 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
In the Age of the Smart Machine
Zuboff, S. (1988) · Cited by 1,431 · see citing works
The role of trust in automation reliance
Dzindolet, M. T., Peterson, S. A., Pomranky, R. A., Pierce, L. G., & Beck, H. P. (2003) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00038-7 · Cited by 1,276 · see citing works
Cry Wolf: The Psychology of False Alarms
Breznitz, S. (1984) · Cited by 370 · 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
Accountability 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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Commission errors occur when an operator inappropriately complies with the automation’s directions concerning a system malfunction when no real malfunction exists (Skitka, Mosier, & Burdick, 2000).”
BackgroundHandbook of human factors and ergonomics
Kȩdzior, K. (2023) · International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/10803548.2022.2156154 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Behavioural implications of alarm mistrust as a function of task workload
Bliss, J. P., & Dunn, M. C. (2000) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/001401300421743 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
MONITORING OF AUTOMATED SYSTEM
Parasuraman, R. N. (1996) · doi:10.1201/9781315137957-5 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Alarm Reaction Patterns by Pilots as a Function of Reaction Modality
Bliss, J. P. (1997) · International Journal of Aviation Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0701_1 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Reliability and age-related effects on trust and reliance of a decision support aid
Sánchez, J., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2004) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e577272012-066 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citationHarris, H., & Provis, C. (2000) · Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Parasuraman, R., Mouloua, M., Molloy, R., & Hilburn, B. (1996). Monitoring of automated systems. In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: theory and applications (pp. 91- 115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhang, Y., Liao, Q. V., & Bellamy, R. K. E. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372852 · Cited by 895 · see citing works
Merritt, S. M., & Ilgen, D. R. (2008) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872008x288574 · Cited by 527 · see citing works
Is partially automated driving a bad idea? Observations from an on-road study
Banks, V. A., Eriksson, A., O'Donoghue, J., & Stanton, N. A. (2017) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.11.010 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Toward a Psychological Science of Advanced Technology Design for Older Adults
Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2010) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbq065 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Self-citationI can do better than your AI: expertise and explanations
Schaffer, J., O'Donovan, J., Michaelis, J., Raglin, A., & Höllerer, T. (2019) · Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3301275.3302308 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Computational Modeling of the Dynamics of Human Trust During Human–Machine Interactions
Hu, W.-L., Akash, K., Reid, T., & Jain, N. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2018.2874188 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Understanding reliance on automation: effects of error type, error distribution, age and experience
Sánchez, J., Rogers, W. A., Fisk, A. D., & Rovira, E. M. (2011) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/1463922x.2011.611269 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Self-citationUser Trust Dynamics: An Investigation Driven by Differences in System Performance
Yu, K., Berkovsky, S., Taib, R., Conway, D., Zhou, J., & Chen, F. (2017) · Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3025171.3025219 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Berkovsky, S., Taib, R., & Conway, D. (2017) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3025171.3025209 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Do I trust my machine teammate?: an investigation from perception to decision
Yu, K., Berkovsky, S., Taib, R., Zhou, J., & Chen, F. (2019) · Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3301275.3302277 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
“Sorry, it was my fault”: Repairing trust in human-robot interactions
Zhang, X., Lee, S. K., Kim, W., & Hahn, S. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103031 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Towards an Empirically Developed Scale for System Trust: Take Two
Spain, R. D., Bustamante, E. A., & Bliss, J. P. (2008) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193120805201907 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Embodiment Effects in Interactions with Failing Robots
Kontogiorgos, D., van Waveren, S., Wallberg, O., Pereira, A., Leite, I., & Gustafson, J. (2020) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376372 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Intelligent autonomous agents and trust in virtual reality
Sun, N., & Botev, J. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100146 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Tenhundfeld, N. L., Demir, M., & de Visser, E. J. (2022) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/15553434221096261 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
FACTORS THAT AFFECT TRUST AND RELIANCE ON AN AUTOMATED AID
Sánchez, J. (2006) · UPT. Syiah Kuala University Library (Syiah Kuala University) · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Li, J., Liu, J., Wang, X., & Liu, L. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14083203 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Kim, J. Y., Lester, C., & Yang, X. J. (2025) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208251326795 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Effects of Failure Types on Trust Repairs in Human–Robot Interactions
Zhang, X., Lee, S. K., Maeng, H., & Hahn, S. (2023) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-023-01059-0 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Comparing the Effects of False Alarms and Misses on Humans' Trust in (Semi)Autonomous Vehicles
Azevedo-Sa, H., Jayaraman, S. K., Esterwood, C. T., Yang, X. J., Robert, L., & Tilbury, D. M. (2020) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) · doi:10.1145/3371382.3378371 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Nees, M. A., & Liu, C. (2022) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2022.10.012 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Li, J., Liu, J., Xiaoshan, W., & Liu, L. (2024) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2024.06.013 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Continuous Error Timing in Automation: The Peak-End Effect on Human-Automation Trust
Wang, K., Lü, J., Ruan, S., & Qi, Y. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2223954 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Building Decision Support Systems for Acceptance
Riedel, R., Fransoo, J. C., Wiers, V. C. S., Fischer, K., Cegarra, J., & Jentsch, D. (2010) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13382-4_11 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Laila is in a Meeting: Design and Evaluation of a Contextual Auto-Response Messaging Agent
Jain, P., Farzan, R., & Lee, A. J. (2022) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3532106.3533493 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Relationship between Device Performance, Trust and User Behaviour in a Care-taking Scenario
Partovi, A., Ingrid Zukerman, A., Zhan, K., Hamacher, N., & Hohwy, J. (2019) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3320435.3320440 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Automated Systems and Trust: Mineworkers' Trust in Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines
Swanson, L. R., Bellanca, J. L., & Helton, J. (2019) · Safety and Health at Work · doi:10.1016/j.shaw.2019.09.003 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Effect of Reliability, Its Framing and Error Bias on Trust in Human‐Vehicle Collaboration
Li, J., Ye, Y., Liu, L., & Butz, A. M. (2025) · Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries · doi:10.1002/hfm.70008 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Mayer, A. K. (2008) · SMARTech Repository (Georgia Institute of Technology) · Cited by 4 · see citing works
How do automation false alarms and misses affect human trust in automated driving?
Li, J., Liu, J., & Liu, L. (2026) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2026.103939 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Evaluating Strategies to Restore Trust in Decision Support Systems in Cross-Company Cooperation
Philipsen, R., Brauner, P., Valdez, A. S. C., & Ziefle, M. (2018) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94196-7_11 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Ingrid Zukerman, A., Partovi, A., & Hohwy, J. (2023) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1007/s11257-023-09357-y · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Cognitive Processes of Haptic Perception of Virtual Objects: Effect of Human and Machine Disruptions
Dizaji, L. G., Zenia, N. Z., Vite, Y. J., & Hu, Y. (2024) · Conference proceedings/Conference proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/smc54092.2024.10831389 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Zijlstra, M., & Payne, S. J. (2025) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2025.2478277 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Li, J., Huang, J., & Liu, L. (2025) · Visual Cognition · doi:10.1080/13506285.2026.2674868 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
The Effects of Age and Working Memory Demands on Automation-Induced Complacency
Leidheiser, W., & Pak, R. (2014) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931214581401 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Analysis of drivers’ reaction to automation failures in a curve scenario
Wörns, L. (2018) · Chalmers Publication Library (Chalmers University of Technology) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Li, J., Liu, J., Wang, X., & Liu, L. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4689456
Obstáculos para a uma mobilidade urbana autônoma
Pereira, S. B., Castro, I. S., & Botelho, R. D. (2024) · Revista da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais · doi:10.35699/2965-6931.2023.46814
Zijlstra, M., & Payne, S. (2026) · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2026.103881
- Authors
- Johnson, J. D., Sanchez, J., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-09
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 2163-2167
- ISSN
- 0163-5182 (ISSN-L)
- 1071-1813
- 2169-5067
- OpenAlex
- W2142135351
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 0.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (publishedVersion)
- SMARTech Repository (Georgia Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- UPT. Syiah Kuala University Library (Syiah Kuala University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Georgia Institute of Technology
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute on Aging
- 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
- false alarms, Miss, reliance on automation, trust measurement, participant age, human-automation interaction, operator error
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
