The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conceptual Issues in the Study of Dynamic Hazard Warnings
Abstract
This paper presents a conceptual analysis of dynamic hazard warning systems. The normative aspects of responses to warnings are analyzed, and a distinction is made between two forms of responses to a warning system, referred to as compliance and reliance. Determinants of the responses to warnings are identified, and they are broadly classified into normative, task, and operator factors. Existing research on warnings and automation is assessed in view of this conceptual framework, and directions for future research are discussed. Some implications of this analysis for practitioners, designers, and researchers are indicated. Actual or potential applications of this research include recommendations for the analysis, design, and study of dynamic warning 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
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
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×
“Date accepted: December 19, 2003”
Does automation bias decision-making?
SKITKA, L. J., MOSIER, K. L., & BURDICK, M. (1999) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1999.0252 · Cited by 694
Accountability 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 by
Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving
Körber, M., Baseler, E., & Bengler, K. (2018) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.07.006 · Cited by 418
Humans: Still Vital After All These Years of Automation
Parasuraman, R., & Wickens, C. D. (2008) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872008x312198 · Cited by 401
Theoretical Considerations and Development of a Questionnaire to Measure Trust in Automation
Körber, M. (2019) · Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-96074-6_2 · Cited by 317
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
Bahner, J. E., Hüper, A.-D., & Manzey, D. (2008) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.06.001 · Cited by 279
Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermine trust in automated aids
Madhavan, P., Wiegmann, D. A., & Lacson, F. C. (2006) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872006777724408 · Cited by 268
On the Independence of Compliance and Reliance: Are Automation False Alarms Worse Than Misses?
Dixon, S. R., Wickens, C. D., & McCarley, J. S. (2007) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872007x215656 · Cited by 265
de Visser, E., & Parasuraman, R. (2011) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343411410160 · Cited by 207
Complacency 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
Maximization, learning, and economic behavior
Erev, I., & Roth, A. E. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1402846111 · Cited by 155
Increasing anthropomorphism and trust in automated driving functions by adding speech output
Forster, Y., Naujoks, F., & Neukum, A. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) · doi:10.1109/ivs.2017.7995746 · Cited by 114
Predictive text encourages predictable writing
Arnold, K. C., Chauncey, K., & Gajos, K. Z. (2020) · Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3377325.3377523 · Cited by 87
Theoretical considerations and development of a questionnaire to measure trust in automation
Körber, M. (2018) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/nfc45 · Cited by 71
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 trust, self-confidence, and feedback on the use of decision automation
Wiczorek, R., & Meyer, J. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00519 · Cited by 46
Self-citationUnderstanding the Impact of Time Pressure and Automation Support in a Visual Search Task
Rieger, T., & Manzey, D. (2024) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208221111236 · Cited by 40
The relationship of trust and dependence
Patton, C. E., & Wickens, C. D. (2024) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2024.2342436 · Cited by 44
Autopilots in the Operating Room: Safe Use of Automated Medical Technology
Ruskin, K. J., Corvin, C., Rice, S. C., & Winter, S. R. (2020) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000003385 · Cited by 38
Why Are People’s Decisions Sometimes Worse with Computer Support?
Alberdi, E., Strigini, L., Povyakalo, A. A., & Ayton, P. (2009) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04468-7_3 · Cited by 29
Continuous Calibration of Trust in Automated Systems
Merritt, S. M., Huber, K., LaChapell-Unnerstall, J., & Lee, D. (2014) · doi:10.21236/ada606748 · Cited by 20
Kim, J. Y., Lester, C., & Yang, X. J. (2025) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/00187208251326795 · Cited by 21
Calibrating Trust, Reliance and Dependence in Variable-Reliability Automation
Holland, C., Perry, G., & Neyedli, H. F. (2024) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/10711813241277531 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Meyer, J.
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-06
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 196-204
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- OpenAlex
- W2051380595
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 9.47
- 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.
