This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0018720809341746v1 51/4/477    most recent 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 Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Beck, H. P. Articles by Pierce, L. G. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Beck, H. P. Articles by Pierce, L. G. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Effects of Human—Machine Competition on Intent Errors in a Target Detection Task

Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, beckhp{at}appstate.edu

J. Bates McKinney

University of South Carolina Upstate, Spartanburg, South Carolina

Mary T. Dzindolet

Cameron University, Lawton, Oklahoma

Linda G. Pierce

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Aberdeen, Maryland

Objective: This investigation examined the impact of human—machine competition (John Henry effects) on intent errors. John Henry effects, expressed as an unwillingness to use automation, were hypothesized to increase as a function of operators’ personal investment in unaided performance. Background: Misuse and disuse often occur because operators (a) cannot determine if automation or a nonautomated alternative maximizes the likelihood of task success (appraisal errors) or (b) know the utilities of the options but disregard this information when deciding to use or not to use automation (intent errors). Although appraisal errors have been extensively studied, there is a paucity of information regarding the causes and prevention of intent errors. Methods: Operators were told how many errors they and an automated device made on a target detection task. Self-reliant operators (high personal investment) could depend on their performance or automation to identify a target. Other-reliant operators (low personal investment) could rely on another person or automation. Results: As predicted, self-reliance increased disuse and decreased misuse. Conclusion: When the disuse and misuse data are viewed together, they strongly support the supposition that personal investment in unaided performance affects the likelihood of John Henry effects and intent errors. Application: These results demonstrate the need for a model of operator decision making that takes into account intent as well as appraisal errors. Potential applications include developing interventions to counter the deleterious effects of human—machine competition and intent errors on automation usage decisions.

This version was published on August 1, 2009

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 51, No. 4, 477-486 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0018720809341746


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