Cited by 33Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyRisk and Safety AnalysisSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

Misuse of automated aids in process control: complacency, automation bias and possible training interventions

Manzey, Dietrich, Bahner, J. Elin, Hueper, Anke-Dorothea·2006·Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting

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

Crossref · 10.1177/154193120605000303

Cites

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?

  • 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)
Venue
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
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