Abstract
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 language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Proceedings of the HFES 60th Annual Meeting |
| Publisher | Human Factors and Ergonomics Society |
| Pages | 196-200 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| ISBN (Print) | 978-0-945289-50-2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 19 Sept 2016 |
| MoE publication type | A4 Article in a conference publication |
| Event | Annual Meeting of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Washington, United States Duration: 19 Sept 2016 → 23 Sept 2016 Conference number: 60 |
Publication series
| Name | Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting |
|---|---|
| Publisher | Sage Publications |
| Number | 1 |
| Volume | 60 |
| ISSN (Electronic) | 1541-9312 |
Conference
| Conference | Annual Meeting of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society |
|---|---|
| Abbreviated title | HFES |
| Country/Territory | United States |
| City | Washington |
| Period | 19/09/2016 → 23/09/2016 |