CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 46Human-Automation Interaction and SafetySocial Robot Interaction and HRIRisk and Safety Analysis

Effects of trust, self-confidence, and feedback on the use of decision automation

Open access
Wiczorek, Rebecca, Meyer, Joachim·2019·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00519PMC PMC6423180
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Operators often fail to rely sufficiently on alarm systems. This results in a joint human-machine (JHM) sensitivity below the one of the alarm system. The 'confidence vs. trust hypothesis' assumes the use of the system depends on the weighting of both values. In case of higher confidence, the task is performed manually, if trust is higher, the user relies on the system. Thus, insufficient reliance may be due to operators' overconfidence in their own abilities and/or insufficient trust in the decision automation, but could be mitigated by providing feedback. That was investigated within a signal detection task, supported by a system with either higher sensitivity (HSS) or lower sensitivity (LSS) than the human, while being provided with feedback or not. We expected disuse of the LSS and insufficiently reliance on the HSS, in the condition without feedback. The feedback was expected to increase reliance on the HSS through an increase in trust and/or decreases in confidence, and thus, improve performance. Hypotheses were partly supported. Confidence in manual performance was similar to trust in the HSS even though humans' sensitivity was significantly lower than systems' sensitivity. While confidence had not effect on reliance or JHM sensitivity, trust was found to be positively related with both. We found disuse of the HSS, that could be improved through feedback, increasing also trust and JHM sensitivity. However, contrary to 'confidence vs. trust' expectations, participants were also found to make use of the LSS. This misuse could not be reduced by feedback. Results indicate the use of feedback being beneficial for the overall performance (with HSS only). Findings do not support the idea that misuse or disuse of the system may result from comparison of confidence and trust. We suppose it may rather be the product of users' wrong strategy of function allocation, based on the underlying idea of team work in combination with missing assignment of responsibility. We discuss this alternative explanation.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00519

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Arkes H. R. Christensen C. Lai C. Blumer C. (1987). Two methods of reducing overconfidence. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 39 133– 144. 10.1016/0749-5978(87)90049-5 · DOI
  2. Bahner J. E. Hüper A. D. Manzey D. (2008). Misuse of automated decision aids: complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 66 688– 699. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.06.001 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bahrami B. Olsen K. Latham P. E. Roepstorff A. Rees G. Frith C. D. (2010). Optimally interacting minds. Science 329 1081– 1085. 10.1126/science.1185718 20798320 PMC3371582 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bailey J. M. (2015). The implications of probability matching for clinician response to vital sign alarms: a theoretical study of alarm fatigue. Ergonomics 58 1487– 1495. 10.1080/00140139.2015.1021861 25849772 · DOI
  5. Bartlett M. L. McCarley J. S. (2017). Benchmarking aided decision making in a signal detection task. Hum. Factors 59 881– 900. 10.1177/0018720817700258 28796974 · DOI
  6. Bliss J. P. (2003). Investigation of alarm-related accidents and incidents in aviation. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 13 249– 268. 10.1207/S15327108IJAP1303_04 · DOI
  7. Bliss J. P. Gilson R. D. Deaton J. E. (1995). Human probability matching behaviour in response to alarms of varying reliability. Ergonomics 38 2300– 2312. 10.1080/00140139508925269 7498189 · DOI
  8. Bregu K. (2017). Three Essays on the Effect of Overconfidence on Economic Decision Making. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.
  9. Bustamante E. A. Bliss J. P. Anderson B. L. (2007). Effects of varying the threshold of alarm systems and workload on human performance. Ergonomics 50 1127– 1147. 10.1080/00140130701237345 17510826 · DOI
  10. Chancey E. T. Bliss J. P. Yamani Y. Handley H. A. (2017). Trust and the compliance–reliance paradigm: the effects of risk, error bias, and reliability on trust and dependence. Hum. Factors 59 333– 345. 10.1177/0018720816682648 28430544 · DOI
  11. Chavaillaz A. Sauer J. (2017). Operator adaptation to changes in system reliability under adaptable automation. Ergonomics 60 1261– 1272. 10.1080/00140139.2016.1261187 27875937 · DOI
  12. Desai V. Madsen P. M. Roberts K. H. (2016). “High-reliability organizations in health care,” in Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care and Patient Safety, ed. Carayon P. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), 200– 211.
  13. Dixon S. R. Wickens C. D. (2006). Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: a reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Hum. Factors 48 474– 486. 10.1518/001872006778606822 17063963 · DOI
  14. Dixon S. R. Wickens C. D. McCarley J. S. (2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: are automation false alarms worse than misses? Hum. Factors 49 564– 572. 10.1518/001872007X215656 17702209 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Egan J. P. (1975). Signal Detection Theory and ROC Analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
  16. Getty D. Swets J. A. Pickett R. M. Gonthier D. (1995). System operator response to warnings of danger: a laboratory investigation of the effects of the predictive value of a warning on human response time. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 1 19– 33. 10.1037/1076-898X.1.1.19 · DOI
  17. Green D. M. Swets J. A. (1966). Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley.
  18. Harvey N. (1997). Confidence in judgment. Trends Cogn. Sci. 1 78– 82. 10.1016/S1364-6613(97)01014-0 21223868 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Harvey N. Fischer I. (1997). Taking advice: accepting help, improving judgment, and sharing responsibility. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 70 117– 133. 10.1006/obhd.1997.2697 · DOI
  20. Klayman J. Soll J. B. González-Vallejo C. Barlas S. (1999). Overconfidence: it depends on how, what, and whom you ask. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 79 216– 247. 10.1006/obhd.1999.2847 10471362 · DOI
  21. Larrick R. P. Burson K. A. Soll J. B. (2007). Social comparison and confidence: when thinking you’re better than average predicts overconfidence (and when it does not). Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 102 76– 94. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.10.002 · DOI
  22. Lee J. D. Moray N. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35 1243– 1270. 10.1080/00140139208967392 1516577 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Lees M. N. Lee J. D. (2007). The influence of distraction and driving context on driver response to imperfect collision warning systems. Ergonomics 50 1264– 1286. 10.1080/00140130701318749 17558669 · DOI
  24. Madhavan P. Wiegmann D. A. (2007). Effects of information source, pedigree, and reliability on operator interaction with decision support systems. Hum. Factors 49 773– 785. 10.1518/001872007X230154 17915596 · DOI
  25. Madhavan P. Wiegmann D. A. Lacson F. C. (2006). Automation failures on tasks easily performed by operators undermine trust in automated aids. Hum. Factors 48 241– 256. 10.1518/001872006777724408 16884046 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Manzey D. Gérard N. Wiczorek R. (2014). Decision-making and response strategies in interaction with alarms: the impact of alarm reliability, availability of alarm validity information, and workload. Ergonomics 57 1833– 1855. 10.1080/00140139.2014.957732 25224606 · DOI
  27. Martínez-Córcoles M. Gracia F. J. Peiró J. M. (2018). Human safety performance in high reliability organizations: the case of the nuclear industry. Papeles del Psicologo 39 183– 190. 10.23923/pap.psicol2018.2869 · DOI
  28. McBride S. E. Rogers W. A. Fisk A. D. (2011). Understanding the effect of workload on automation use for younger and older adults. Hum. Factors 53 672– 686. 10.1177/0018720811421909 22235529 PMC5816343 · DOI
  29. Merkle C. Weber M. (2011). True overconfidence: the inability of rational information processing to account for apparent overconfidence. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 116 262– 271. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.004 · DOI
  30. Meyer J. (2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Hum. Factors 46 196– 204. 10.1518/hfes.46.2.196.37335 15359670 · DOI
  31. Meyer J. Bitan Y. (2002). Why better operators receive worse warnings. Hum. Factors 44 343– 353. 10.1518/0018720024497754 12502153 · DOI
  32. Meyer J. Wiczorek R. Guenzler T. (2014). Measures of reliance and compliance in aided visual scanning. Hum. Factors 56 840– 849. 10.1177/0018720813512865 25141592 · DOI
  33. Möller S. Ben-Asher N. Engelbrecht K. P. Englert R. Meyer J. (2011). Modeling the behavior of users who are confronted with security mechanisms. Comput. Secur. 30 242– 256. 10.1016/j.cose.2011.01.001 · DOI
  34. Moore D. A. Healy P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychol. Rev. 115 502– 517. 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502 18426301 · DOI · Paper page
  35. O’Connor M. (1989). Models of human behaviour and confidence in judgement: a review. Int. J. Forecast. 5 159– 169. 10.1016/0169-2070(89)90083-6 · DOI
  36. Onnasch L. Ruff S. Manzey D. (2014a). Operators’ adaptation to imperfect automation–impact of miss-prone alarm systems on attention allocation and performance. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 72 772– 782. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.05.001 · DOI
  37. Onnasch L. Wickens C. D. Li H. Manzey D. (2014b). Human performance consequences of stages and levels of automation: an integrated meta-analysis. Hum. Factors 56 476– 488. 24930170
  38. Ortoleva P. Snowberg E. (2015). Overconfidence in political behavior. Am. Econ. Rev. 105 504– 535. 10.1257/aer.20130921 · DOI
  39. Pulford B. D. Colman A. M. (1997). Overconfidence: feedback and item difficulty effects. Pers. Individ. Differ. 23 125– 133. 10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00028-7 · DOI
  40. Rice S. McCarley J. S. (2011). Effects of response bias and judgment framing on operator use of an automated aid in a target detection task. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 17 320– 331. 10.1037/a0024243 21707202 · DOI
  41. Rice S. Trafimow D. Hunt G. (2010). Using PPT to analyze suboptimal human–automation performance. J. Gen. Psychol. 137 310– 329. 10.1080/00221301003645236 20718229 · DOI
  42. Rice S. D. (2009). Examining single- and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. J. Gen. Psychol. 136 303– 319. 10.3200/GENP.136.3.303-322 19650524 · DOI
  43. Ringuest J. L. Graves S. B. (2017). Overconfidence and disappointment in decision-making under risk: the triumph of hope over experience. Manag. Decis. Econ. 38 409– 422. 10.1002/mde.2784 · DOI
  44. Roberts K. H. Rousseau D. M. (1989). Research in nearly failure-free, high-reliability organizations: having the bubble. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 36 132– 139. 10.1109/17.18830 · DOI
  45. Schulmann P. R. (2016). “On the future of high reliability organizations in an age of turbulence,” in Governance in Turbulent Times, eds Ansell C. K. Trondal J. Øgård M. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 241– 260.
  46. Sheridan T. Verplank W. (1978). Human and Computer control of Undersea Teleoperators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Man-Machine Systems Laboratory 10.21236/ADA057655 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Sorkin R. D. Kantowitz B. H. Kantowitz S. C. (1988). Likelihood alarm displays. Hum. Factors 30 445– 459. 10.1177/001872088803000406 · DOI
  48. Sorkin R. D. Woods D. D. (1985). Systems with human monitors: a signal detection analysis. Hum. Comput. Interact. 1 49– 75. 10.1207/s15327051hci0101_2 · DOI
  49. Subbotin V. (1996). Outcome feedback effects on under-and overconfident judgments (general knowledge tasks). Organ. Behav. a Hum. Decis. Process. 66 268– 276. 10.1006/obhd.1996.0055 · DOI
  50. Swets J. A. (1992). The science of choosing the right decision threshold in high-stakes diagnostics. Am. Psychol. 47 522– 532. 10.1037/0003-066X.47.4.522 1595983 · DOI
  51. Tsai C. I. Klayman J. Hastie R. (2008). Effects of amount of information on judgment accuracy and confidence. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 107 97– 105. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.01.005 · DOI
  52. Tsai F. S. Lin C. H. Lin J. L. Lu I. P. Nugroho A. (2018). Generational diversity, overconfidence and decision-making in family business: a knowledge heterogeneity perspective. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 23 53– 59. 10.1016/j.apmrv.2017.02.001 · DOI
  53. van Loon M. H. Roebers C. M. (2017). Effects of feedback on self-evaluations and self-regulation in elementary school. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 31 508– 519. 10.1002/acp.3347 · DOI
  54. Wickens C. D. Colcombe A. (2007). Dual-task performance consequences of imperfect alerting associated with a cockpit display of traffic information. Hum. Factors 49 839– 850. 10.1518/001872007X230217 17915602 · DOI
  55. Wiczorek R. Manzey D. (2014). Supporting attention allocation in multi-task environments: effects of likelihood alarm systems on trust, behavior and performance. Hum. Factors 56 1209– 1221. 10.1177/0018720814528534 25490802 · DOI
  56. Wiczorek R. Meyer J. (2016). “Asymmetric effects of false positive and false negative indications on the verification of alerts in different risk conditions,” in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 60 (Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications), 289– 292. 10.1177/1541931213601066 · DOI
  57. Yates J. F. (1990). Judgment and Decision Making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  58. Zamary A. Rawson K. A. Dunlosky J. (2016). How accurately can students evaluate the quality of self-generated examples of declarative concepts? Not well, and feedback does not help. Learn. Instr. 46 12– 20. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.08.002 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wiczorek, R., & Meyer, J.
Affiliations
  • Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
Corresponding author
Wiczorek, Rebecca
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2019-03-12
Volume
10
Pages
519-519
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00519
PMC
PMC6423180
OpenAlex
W2921390920
Cited by
46
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DepositOnce (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Technische Universität Berlin – Universitätsbibliothek (cc-by)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Risk and Safety Analysis
Keywords
automated decision-making, trust in automation, self-confidence, feedback, alarm system, reliance on automation, signal detection task, function allocation, responsibility assignment, human-machine teaming

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