How users adjust trust in automation: Contrast effect and hindsight bias

Jessie Yang, Christopher D. Wickens, Katja Hölttä-Otto

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionScientificpeer-review

17 Citations (Scopus)


The present study examined how users adjusted their trust towards an automated decision aid. Results revealed that a valid recommendation of the decision aid increases whereas an invalid one reduces trust in automation. The magnitude of trust decrement is greater than that of trust increment. More importantly, this study showed that trust adjustment is not benchmarked strictly against predetermined objective criteria, that is, the decision aid's recommendation quality. Rather, users' ability of performing a task themselves and final task outcomes moderate the effects of recommendation quality. A valid recommendation is less appreciated if users are more capable of completing a task by themselves. An invalid recommendation is less penalized if the final task performance is not harmed, as if the invalid recommendation is "forgiven" to a certain degree.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of the HFES 60th Annual Meeting
PublisherHuman Factors and Ergonomics Society
Number of pages5
ISBN (Print)978-0-945289-50-2
Publication statusPublished - 19 Sept 2016
MoE publication typeA4 Article in a conference publication
EventAnnual Meeting of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Washington, United States
Duration: 19 Sept 201623 Sept 2016
Conference number: 60

Publication series

NameProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
PublisherSage Publications
ISSN (Electronic)1541-9312


ConferenceAnnual Meeting of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Abbreviated titleHFES
Country/TerritoryUnited States


Dive into the research topics of 'How users adjust trust in automation: Contrast effect and hindsight bias'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this