CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 71Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyMilitary Strategy and TechnologyDecision Support System Applications

Status or Recommendation: Selecting the Type of Information for Decision Aiding

Crocoll, William M., Coury, Bruce G.·1990·Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting
DOI 10.1177/154193129003401922
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Decision aiding systems are becoming an important part of command and control. Selecting the best type of decision aiding information remains an important design decision. The research reported in this paper assesses the is to determine if a decision aid in an aircraft identification task should provide a recommendation for action or status information about the identity of the aircraft. Thirty-two subjects were equally divided into four groups: a control group where no decision aiding information was provided; a group who received only status information; a third group who received only recommendation information; and a fourth group who received both status and recommendation information. Results indicated that, in general, providing decision aiding information reduced the time required to identify the aircraft. Differences among the three types of decision aiding information occurred under those conditions when the decision aid was incorrect. When the decision aid provided inaccurate information, the group receiving only status information was least affected by the decision aid and was best able to correctly identify the aircraft. Recommendations for selecting the type of decision aiding information are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/154193129003401922

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Although complacency can occur with both information automation and decision automation, its effects on performance are greater with decision automation.

    “There is some evidence to indicate that although complacency can occur with both information automation and decision automation, its effects on performance are greater with the latter.”

    From A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation (2000) · cites this paper as [62]

  • Only one study has directly compared information and decision automation.

    “only one study has directly compared information and decision automation [62].”

    From A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation (2000) · cites this paper as [62]

  • In a study of decision aiding, both forms of automation benefited performance equally when automation was perfectly reliable; when automation was unreliable, performance suffered much more when unreliable recommendations were given by decision automation than when only incorrect status information was provided by information automation.

    “In a study of decision aiding, both forms of automation benefited performance equally when the automation was perfectly reliable [62]. When the automation was unreliable, however, performance suffered much more when unreliable recommendations were given by decision automation than when only incorrect status information was provided by information automation.”

    From A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation (2000) · cites this paper as [62]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Crocoll, W. M., & Coury, B. G.
Affiliations
University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1990-10
Volume
34
Issue
19
Pages
1524-1528
ISSN
0163-5182 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/154193129003401922
OpenAlex
W2048017488
Cited by
68
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Military Strategy and Technology
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Decision Support System Applications
Keywords
decision aiding, status information, aircraft identification, command and control, human decision-making, information selection

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