Continuous Calibration of Trust in Automated Systems
Abstract
Abstract : This report details three studies that have been conducted in order to explore user calibration of trust in automation. In the first, we discover that all-or-none thinking about automation reliability was associated with severe decreases in trust following an aid error, but high expectations for automation performance were not. In the second study, we examine predictors and outcomes of calibration of trust. We measured calibration in three different ways. We found that awareness of the aid's accuracy trajectory (whether it was getting more or less reliable over time) was a significant predictor of calibration. However, we found that none of the three measurements of calibration had strong associations with task performance or the ability to identify aid errors. We also describe the conceptual premise and design of our third and final study. This study examines the development, loss, and recovery of trust in a route planning aid in a military simulation context. The results of this study will be presented in our final report.
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?
This result is not in line with previous studies [6, 7, 15] that emphasized the effectiveness of continuous trust calibration with system transparency.
“This result is not in line with the previous studies [6, 7, 15] that emphasized the effectiveness of the continuous trust calibration with system transparency.”
From Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration (2020) · cites this paper as [6]
Cites
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442810031002 · Cited by 7,997 · see citing works
Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4 · Cited by 6,682 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Engineering Psychology and Human Performance
Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S. P., & Parasuraman, R. (2015) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315665177 · Cited by 4,998 · see citing works
Social Cognition: Thinking Categorically about Others
Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.93 · Cited by 1,347 · see citing works
The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs.
Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, J. G. (1991) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.509 · Cited by 1,308 · see citing works
Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method Variables and Construct Validity
Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2004) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167204271418 · Cited by 1,158 · see citing works
Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1989) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.96.1.58 · Cited by 943 · see citing works
Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound.
Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.808 · Cited by 834 · see citing works
Person memory: Personality traits as organizing principles in memory for behaviors.
Hastie, R., & Kumar, P. A. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.25 · Cited by 758 · see citing works
Stangor, C., & McMillan, D. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.42 · Cited by 748 · see citing works
Merritt, S. M., & Ilgen, D. R. (2008) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872008x288574 · Cited by 527 · see citing works
Self-citationHumans: 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 · see citing works
The Perceived Utility of Human and Automated Aids in a Visual Detection Task
Dzindolet, M. T., Pierce, L. G., Beck, H. P., & Dawe, L. A. (2002) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/0018720024494856 · Cited by 386 · see citing works
I Trust It, but I Don’t Know Why
Merritt, S. M., Heimbaugh, H., LaChapell, J., & Lee, D. (2013) · Hum. Factors · doi:10.1177/0018720812465081 · Cited by 354 · see citing works
Self-citationAdaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks.
Moray, N. P., Inagaki, T., & Itoh, M. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037//1076-898x.6.1.44 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems
Parasuraman, R., & Miller, C. A. (2004) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/975817.975844 · Cited by 311 · see citing works
Effects of Imperfect Automation on Decision Making in a Simulated Command and Control Task
Rovira, E. M., McGarry, K. A., & Parasuraman, R. (2007) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872007779598082 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
de Vries, P., Midden, C., & Bouwhuis, D. (2003) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00039-9 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Affective Processes in Human–Automation Interactions
Merritt, S. M. (2011) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720811411912 · Cited by 260 · see citing works
Self-citationEffects of Warning Validity and Proximity on Responses to Warnings
Meyer, J. (2001) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872001775870395 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Conceptual Issues in the Study of Dynamic Hazard Warnings
Meyer, J. (2004) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.2.196.37335 · Cited by 216 · see citing works
The role of memory biases in stereotype maintenance
Fyock, J., & Stangor, C. (1994) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01029.x · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users' trust and reliance
Wiegmann, D. A., Rich, A., & Zhang, H. (2001) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/14639220110110306 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Madhavan, P., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2007) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872007x230154 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Trust and Reliance on an Automated Combat Identification System
Wang, L., Jamieson, G. A., & Hollands, J. G. (2009) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720809338842 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Examining Single- and Multiple-Process Theories of Trust in Automation
Rice, S. C. (2009) · The Journal of general psychology · doi:10.3200/genp.136.3.303-322 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Heuristic Automation for Decluttering Tactical Displays
John, M. S., Smallman, H. S., Manes, D. I., Feher, B. A., & Morrison, J. G. (2005) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872005774860014 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Automation Usage Decisions: Controlling Intent and Appraisal Errors in a Target Detection Task
Beck, H. P., Dzindolet, M. T., & Pierce, L. G. (2007) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872007x200076 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Flight Control: False Alarms versus Misses
Dixon, S. R., Wickens, C. D., & Chang, D. (2004) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193120404800133 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration
Okamura, K., & Yamada, S. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229132 · Cited by 239 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Guznov, S., Nelson, A., Lyons, J., & Dycus, D. (2015) · Communications in Computer and Information Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21383-5_103 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Merritt, S. M., Huber, K., LaChapell-Unnerstall, J., & Lee, D.
- Publisher
- Defense Technical Information Center
- Published
- 2014-01-01
- OpenAlex
- W245314882
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- trust in automation, human-automation interaction, automation reliability, military simulation, trust repair, task performance
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
