This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dixon, S. R. Articles by McCarley, J. S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Dixon, S. R. Articles by McCarley, J. S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

On the Independence of Compliance and Reliance: Are Automation False Alarms Worse Than Misses?

University of Illinois, Savoy, Illinois, sdixon{at}nmsu.edu

Christopher D. Wickens

University of Illinois, Savoy, Illinois

Jason S. McCarley

University of Illinois, Savoy, Illinois

Objective: Participants performed a tracking task and system monitoring task while aided by diagnostic automation. The goal of the study was to examine operator compliance and reliance as affected by automation failures and to clarify claims regarding independence of these two constructs. Background: Background data revealed a trend toward nonindependence of the compliance-reliance constructs. Method: Thirty-two undergraduate students performed the simulation that presented the visual display while dependent measures were collected. Results: False alarm—prone automation hurt overall performance more than miss-prone automation. False alarm—prone automation also clearly affected both operator compliance and reliance, whereas miss-prone automation appeared to affect only operator reliance. Conclusion: Compliance and reliance do not appear to be entirely independent of each other. Application: False alarms appear to be more damaging to overall performance than misses, and designers must take the compliance-reliance constructs into consideration.

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 49, No. 4, 564-572 (2007)
DOI: 10.1518/001872007X215656


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. D. Wickens, S. Rice, D. Keller, S. Hutchins, J. Hughes, and K. Clayton False Alerts in Air Traffic Control Conflict Alerting System: Is There a "Cry Wolf" Effect? Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, August 1, 2009; 51(4): 446 - 462. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Wang, G. A. Jamieson, and J. G. Hollands Trust and Reliance on an Automated Combat Identification System Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, June 1, 2009; 51(3): 281 - 291. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Trafimow and S. Rice Potential performance theory (PPT): Describing a methodology for analyzing task performance Behav Res Methods, May 1, 2009; 41(2): 359 - 371. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Dosani, J. Lim, P. Yang, C. Brouse, J. Daniels, G. Dumont, and J. M. Ansermino Clinical evaluation of algorithms for context-sensitive physiological monitoring in children Br. J. Anaesth., May 1, 2009; 102(5): 686 - 691. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Parasuraman and C. D. Wickens Humans: Still Vital After All These Years of Automation Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, June 1, 2008; 50(3): 511 - 520. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Wickens and A. Colcombe Dual-Task Performance Consequences of Imperfect Alerting Associated With a Cockpit Display of Traffic Information Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, October 1, 2007; 49(5): 839 - 850. [Abstract] [PDF]