The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Situation Awareness, Mental Workload, and Trust in Automation: Viable, Empirically Supported Cognitive Engineering Constructs
Abstract
Cognitive engineering needs viable constructs and principles to promote better understanding and prediction of human performance in complex systems. Three human cognition and performance constructs that have been the subjects of much attention in research and practice over the past three decades are situation awareness (SA), mental workload, and trust in automation. Recently, Dekker and Woods (2002) and Dekker and Hollnagel (2004; henceforth DWH) argued that these constructs represent “folk models” without strong empirical foundations and lacking scientific status. We counter this view by presenting a brief description of the large science base of empirical studies on these constructs. We show that the constructs can be operationalized using behavioral, physiological, and subjective measures, supplemented by computational modeling, but that the constructs are also distinct from human performance. DWH also caricatured as “abracadabra” a framework suggested by us to address the problem of the design of automated systems (Parasuraman, Sheridan, & Wickens, 2000). We point to several factual and conceptual errors in their description of our approach. Finally, we rebut DWH's view that SA, mental workload, and trust represent folk concepts that are not falsifiable. We conclude that SA, mental workload, and trust are viable constructs that are valuable in understanding and predicting human-system performance in complex systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605
Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872097778543886 · Cited by 4,554
Self-citationBroadbent, D. E. (1958) · doi:10.1037/10037-000 · Cited by 4,337
A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans · doi:10.1109/3468.844354 · Cited by 4,195 · cited 4×
“Throughout their article, Dekker & Woods (2002) stated that Parasuraman et al. (2000) are advocates of “substitution,” whereas no such advocacy is put forth other than to point out the fact that designers do in effect substitute because that is what they do when they adopt automation.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationMultiple resources and performance prediction
Wickens, C. D. (2002) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/14639220210123806 · Cited by 2,621 · cited 1×
“Finally, each construct has been successfully modeled computationally (for SA, see Banbury & Tremblay, 2004, and Wickens et al., 2008; for workload, see Wickens, 2002; for trust, see Cohen et al., 1988, and Gao & Lee, 2006).”
MethodSelf-citationMeasurement of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems
Endsley, M. R. (1995) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872095779049499 · Cited by 2,039
The role of trust in automation reliance
Dzindolet, M. T., Peterson, S. A., Pomranky, R. A., Pierce, L. G., & Beck, H. P. (2003) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00038-7 · Cited by 1,276
Performance Consequences of Automation-Induced 'Complacency'
Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993) · The International Journal of Aviation Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0301_1 · Cited by 875 · cited 1×
“Parasuraman et al. (1993) first showed that monitoring of the information sources feeding automation was deficient only when operators had other tasks to perform and automation reliability was unchanging.”
BackgroundSelf-citationFlight-deck automation: promises and problems
WIENER, E. L., & CURRY, R. E. (1980) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140138008924809 · Cited by 599 · cited 1×
“Automated systems have not always been used by human operators in the ways that designers intended ( Wiener & Curry, 1980; Woods, 1996).”
BackgroundMiller, C. A., & Parasuraman, R. (2007) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872007779598037 · Cited by 434
Self-citation
Cited by
A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction
Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., de Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720811417254 · Cited by 2,051
Self-citationComplacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration
Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720810376055 · Cited by 1,710
Self-citationAlmost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents.
de Visser, E. J., Monfort, S. S., McKendrick, R., Smith, M. A. B., McKnight, P. E., Krueger, F., & Parasuraman, R. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000092 · Cited by 614
Self-citationHuman Performance Consequences of Stages and Levels of Automation: An Integrated Meta-Analysis
Onnasch, L., Wickens, C. D., Li, H., & Manzey, D. (2014) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720813501549 · Cited by 524
Self-citationSituation Awareness Misconceptions and Misunderstandings
Endsley, M. R. (2015) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343415572631 · Cited by 501
Salem, M., Lakatos, G., Amirabdollahian, F., & Dautenhahn, K. (2015) · Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/2696454.2696497 · Cited by 494
Human – robot interaction review and challenges on task planning and programming
Tsarouchi, P., Makris, S., & Chryssolouris, G. (2016) · International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing · doi:10.1080/0951192x.2015.1130251 · Cited by 376
Measurement of trust in automation: A narrative review and reference guide
Kohn, S. C., de Visser, E. J., Wiese, E., Lee, Y.-C., & Shaw, T. H. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.604977 · Cited by 315
Trusting Automation: Designing for Responsivity and Resilience
Chiou, E. K., & Lee, J. D. (2023) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208211009995 · Cited by 301
Artificial muses: Generative artificial intelligence chatbots have risen to human-level creativity
Haase, J., & Hanel, P. H. P. (2023) · Journal of Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100066 · Cited by 233
Human Mental Workload: A Survey and a Novel Inclusive Definition
Longo, L., Wickens, C. D., Hancock, G., & Hancock, P. A. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883321 · Cited by 222
Self-citationde Visser, E., & Parasuraman, R. (2011) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343411410160 · Cited by 207
Self-citationComplacency and Automation Bias in the Use of Imperfect Automation
Wickens, C. D., Clegg, B. A., Vieane, A. Z., & Sebok, A. L. (2015) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720815581940 · Cited by 176
Self-citationDi Flumeri, G., Borghini, G., Aricò, P., Sciaraffa, N., Lanzi, P., Pozzi, S., Vignali, V., Lantieri, C., Bichicchi, A., Simone, A., et al. (2018) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00509 · Cited by 168
Christoforakos, L., Gallucci, A., Surmava-Große, T., Ullrich, D., & Diefenbach, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.640444 · Cited by 154
User Trust Dynamics: An Investigation Driven by Differences in System Performance
Yu, K., Berkovsky, S., Taib, R., Conway, D., Zhou, J., & Chen, F. (2017) · Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3025171.3025219 · Cited by 90
Sebok, A., & Wickens, C. D. (2017) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720816665201 · Cited by 75
Self-citationBetter Together? An Evaluation of AI-Supported Code Translation
Weisz, J. D., Muller, M., Ross, S. I., Martinez, F., Houde, S., Agarwal, M., Talamadupula, K., & Richards, J. T. (2022) · 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3490099.3511157 · Cited by 69
Toward Measurement of Situation Awareness in Autonomous Vehicles
Sirkin, D., Martelaro, N., Johns, M., & Ju, W. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025822 · Cited by 61
The Effect of Culture on Trust in Automation: Reliability and Workload
Chien, S.-Y., Lewis, M., Sycara, K., Liu, J.-S., & Kumru, A. (2018) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3230736 · Cited by 58
Effects of Uncertainty and Cognitive Load on User Trust in Predictive Decision Making
Zhou, J., Arshad, S. Z., Luo, S., & Chen, F. (2017) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-68059-0_2 · Cited by 59
Gutzwiller, R. S., Chiou, E. K., Craig, S. D., Lewis, C. M., Lematta, G. J., & Hsiung, C.-P. (2019) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181319631201 · Cited by 54
Personality and acceptance as predictors of ChatGPT use
de Winter, J., Dodou, D., & Eisma, Y. B. (2024) · Discover Psychology · doi:10.1007/s44202-024-00161-2 · Cited by 43
Determinants of Laypersons’ Trust in Medical Decision Aids: Randomized Controlled Trial
Kopka, M., Schmieding, M. L., Rieger, T., Roesler, E., Balzer, F., & Feufel, M. A. (2022) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/35219 · Cited by 37
Bobko, P., Hirshfield, L., Eloy, L., Spencer, C., Doherty, E., Driscoll, J., & Obolsky, H. (2023) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/1463922x.2022.2086644 · Cited by 33
EEG-Based Mental Workload Assessment During Real Driving
Di Flumeri, G., Borghini, G., Aricò, P., Sciaraffa, N., Lanzi, P., Pozzi, S., Vignali, V., Lantieri, C., Bichicchi, A., Simone, A., et al. (2019) · Neuroergonomics · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-811926-6.00020-8 · Cited by 23
Measuring cognitive workload in the nuclear control room: a review
Braarud, P. Ø. (2024) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2024.2302381 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 140-160
- ISSN
- 1555-3434 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2002894033
- Cited by
- 695
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 22.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
