Cited by 69Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyRisk and Safety AnalysisSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

Automation use and automation bias

Mosier, Kathleen L., Skitka, Linda J.·1999·Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting

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

Crossref · 10.1177/154193129904300346

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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mosier, K. L., & Skitka, L. J.
Affiliations
  • San Francisco State University (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
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