Automation use and automation bias
Abstract
The availability of automation and automated decision aids feeds into a general human tendency to travel the road of least cognitive effort. A series of studies on “automation bias,” the tendency to use automation as a heuristic replacement for vigilant information seeking and processing, has identified several factors associated with this bias. We have examined expert vs. novice (student) performance, and found that automation error rates are comparable across populations, and are not significantly different between 1- and 2-person crews. Professional pilots were sensitive to the importance of correctness for critical flight tasks, and made fewer errors on events involving altitude and heading errors than frequency discrepancies. Training for automation bias reduced commission errors for students, suggesting the importance of early intervention and training on this issue. In other studies, participants in a non-automated condition out-performed those using an automated aid during equivalent failure events; and participants tended to exhibit an “action bias” when any source of information recommended action, whether or not it was appropriate. The intent of this presentation is to provide an overview and summary of the findings of this research program, and to place it within the context of work that has been done in areas such as human-centered design, and training for automation use.
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?
Automation bias can lead to system errors being overlooked and result in poor decision quality.
“Automation bias can lead to system errors being overlooked and thus result in poor decision quality”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Mosier and Skitka, 1999
Automation bias can lead users to follow a recommendation even if it is not the best choice, resulting in poor decision quality.
“Therefore, automation bias, including not seeking out confirmatory or contradictory information, can lead the user to follow a recommendation, even if it is not the best choice (Mosier and Skitka, 1999; Bahner et al., 2008), resulting in poor decision quality.”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Mosier and Skitka, 1999
Automation bias has been found to be a serious problem in contexts of AI-based decision support systems.
“Automation bias has been found to be a serious problem in contexts of AI-based decision support systems (Mosier and Skitka, 1999; Goddard et al., 2012; Lyell et al., 2018; Davis et al., 2020)”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Mosier and Skitka, 1999
Cites
Automation 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 · see citing works
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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Similarly, students who were made accountable for their overall performance or for their response accuracy showed lower rates of both commission and omission errors than participants in other conditions (accountable for quick response, tracking or non-accountable; Skitka et al., 1999).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Effects of Anthropomorphism and Accountability on Trust in Human Robot Interaction
Natarajan, M., & Gombolay, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3319502.3374839 · Cited by 248 · see citing works
Nourani, M., King, J., & Ragan, E. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v8i1.7469 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Procurement As Policy: Administrative Process for Machine Learning
Mulligan, D. K., & Bamberger, K. A. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3464203 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection
Kupfer, C., Prassl, R., Fleiß, J., Malin, C., Thalmann, S., & Kubicek, B. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1118723 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
“The users thereby use the automation’s recommendation as a heuristic replacement for thoughtful information seeking and processing (Mosier and Skitka, 1999).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialExploring the Use of Personalized AI for Identifying Misinformation on Social Media
Jahanbakhsh, F., Katsis, Y., Wang, D., Popa, L., & Muller, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581219 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Effect of Explanation Conceptualisations on Trust in AI-assisted Credibility Assessment
Pareek, S., van Berkel, N., Velloso, E., & Goncalves, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3686922 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mosier, K. L., & Skitka, L. J.
- Affiliations
- San Francisco State University (US)
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- ORCID
- Skitka, Linda J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-09
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 344-348
- ISSN
- 0163-5182 (ISSN-L)
- 1071-1813
- 2169-5067
- OpenAlex
- W2074977157
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 2.41
- 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
- automation bias, automated decision aids, expert vs novice performance, pilot error, commission errors, action bias, human-centered design, cognitive effort, information seeking
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