Misuse of automated aids in process control: complacency, automation bias and possible training interventions
Abstract
One important aspect of automation misuse is reflected in an inappropriate monitoring or checking of automated functions, a phenomenon that commonly has been referred to as complacency. The present study investigates complacency effects in interaction with an automated aid in a process control simulation task, as well as its possible performance consequences, i.e. automation bias in terms of commission errors, and impairments of return-to-manual-performance in case of automation breakdown. Furthermore, the effect of a specific training intervention to reduce complacency by exposing participants intentionally to automation failures is investigated. The results provide clear evidence for complacency effects, reflected in an insufficient verification of recommendations provided by the automated aid. Yet, only very high levels of complacency were associated with commission errors, i.e. following an automated advice although it actually is wrong. Exposing operators intentionally to automation failures during training significantly reduced the complacency effect but did not prevent it completely.
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?
Increasing users' awareness of system errors and weaknesses can decrease automation bias.
“In line with that, prior research showed that increasing the users’ awareness of system errors and weaknesses can decrease automation bias”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Manzey et al., 2006
Previous studies demonstrated that decision makers who encountered system errors subsequently showed more verification behavior.
“Previous studies demonstrated that decision makers who encountered system errors subsequently showed more verification behavior (Manzey et al., 2006; Bahner et al., 2008).”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Manzey et al., 2006
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 14 · Cited by 33
- Authors
- Manzey, D., Bahner, J. E., & Hueper, A.-D.
- Affiliations
- Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
- ORCID
- Manzey, Dietrich
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 220-224
- ISSN
- 0163-5182 (ISSN-L)
- 1071-1813
- 2169-5067
- OpenAlex
- W2082717111
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (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
- complacency, automation bias, process control, automated decision aids, commission errors, automation failure, training program, human-automation interaction
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