Objective: We examined the effects of aid reliability and reliability disclosure on human trust in and reliance on a combat identification (CID) aid. We tested whether trust acts as a mediating factor between belief in and reliance on a CID aid. Background: Individual CID systems have been developed to reduce friendly fire incidents. However, these systems cannot positively identify a target that does not have a working transponder. Therefore, when the feedback is “unknown”, the target could be hostile, neutral, or friendly. Soldiers have difficulty relying on this type of imperfect automation appropriately. Method: In manual and aided conditions, 24 participants completed a simulated CID task. The reliability of the aid varied within participants, half of whom were told the aid reliability level. We used the difference in response bias values across conditions to measure automation reliance. Results: Response bias varied more appropriately with the aid reliability level when it was disclosed than when not. Trust in aid feedback correlated with belief in aid reliability and reliance on aid feedback; however, belief was not correlated with reliance. Conclusion: To engender appropriate reliance on CID systems, users should be made aware of system reliability. Application: The findings can be applied to the design of information displays for individual CID systems and soldier training.
Beck, H.P., Dzindolet, M.T., Pierce, L.G. ( 2007). Automation usage decisions: Controlling intent and appraisal errors in a target detection task. Human Factors, 49, 429-437.
2.
Biros, D.P., Daly, M., & Gunsch, G. ( 2004). The influence of task load and automation trust on deception detection. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 173-189.
3.
Bisantz, A.M., & Pritchett, A.R. (2003). Measuring judgment interaction with displays and automation: A lens model analysis of collision detection . Human Factors, 45, 266-280.
4.
Boyd, C.S., Collyer, R.S., Skinner, D.J., Smeaton, A.E., Wilson, S.A., Krause, D.W., et al. (2005). Characterization of combat identification technologies. In IEEE International Region 10 Conference (pp. 568-573). Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
5.
Brunswik, E. ( 1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments (2nd ed.). Berkeley : University of California Press.
6.
Chi, C., & Drury, C.G. ( 1998). Do people choose an optimal response criterion in an inspection task? Institute of Industrial Engineers Transactions , 30, 257-266.
7.
Cohen, M.S., Parasuraman, R., & Freeman, J.T. ( 1998). Trust in decision aids: A model and its training implications . In Proceedings 1998 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (pp. 1-37). Washington, DC: Department of Defense C4ISR Cooperative Research Program.
8.
Dixon, S.R., & Wickens, C.D. ( 2006). Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: A reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Factors, 48, 474-486.
9.
Dixon, S.R., Wickens, C.D., & McCarley, J.S. (2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses? Human Factors, 49, 564-572.
10.
Dzindolet, M.T., Pierce, L.G., Beck, H.P., Dawe, L.A., & Anderson, B.W. (2000). Misuse of an automated decision making system. In Conference on Human Interaction With Complex Systems 2000 (pp. 81-85). Urbana- Champaign, IL: Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology.
11.
Dzindolet, M.T., Pierce, L.G., Beck, H.P., Dawe, L.A., & Anderson, B.W. (2001). Predicting misuse and disuse of combat identification systems. Military Psychology, 13, 147-164.
12.
Dzindolet, M.T., Pierce, L., Pomranky, R., Peterson, S., & Beck, H. ( 2001). Automation reliance on a combat identification system . In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 532-536). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
13.
Friend or Foe identification system. (2007). FEMSWISS AG. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://www.army-technology.com/downloads/whitepapers/training/file218/
14.
Gimble, T.F., Ugone, M., Meling, J.E., Snider, J.D., & Lippolis, S.J. (2001). Acquisition of the battlefield combat identification system (Report No. D-2001-093). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General.
15.
Green, D.M., & Swets, J.A. ( 1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
Jian, J., Bisantz, A.M., & Drury, C.G. ( 2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics , 4, 53-71.
18.
Jones, C. ( 1998, January/February). The battlefield combat identification system: A Task Force XXI response to the problem of direct fire fratricide . ARMOR, pp. 43-46.
19.
Karsh, R., Walrath, J.D., Swoboda, J.C., & Pillalamarri, K. (1995). Effect of battlefield combat identification system information on target identification time and errors in a simulated tank engagement task (Technical Report ARL-TR-854). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory .
20.
Kogler, T.M. ( 2003). The effects of degraded vision and automatic combat identification reliability on infantry friendly fire engagements. Unpublished master’s thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University , Blacksburg, VA.
21.
Lee, J.D., & Moray, N. ( 1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243-1270.
22.
Lee, J.D., & See, K.A. ( 2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance . Human Factors, 46, 50-80.
23.
Lerch, F.J., Prietula, M.J., & Kulik, C.T. ( 1997). The Turing effect: The nature of trust in expert systems advice. In P. J. Feltovich, K. M. Ford, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Expertise in context: Human and machine (pp. 417-448). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
Lowe, C. ( 2007). Cutting through the fog of war. Retrieved April 15, 2009, from http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003496.html
25.
Macmillan, N.A., & Creelman, C.D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Madhavan, P., & Wiegmann, D.A. (2004). A new look at the dynamics of human-automation trust: Is trust in humans comparable to trust in machines? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting (pp. 581-585). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
27.
Maltz, M., & Meyer, J. ( 2001). Use of warnings in an attentionally demanding detection task. Human Factors, 43, 217-226.
28.
Maltz, M., & Shinar, D. ( 2003). New alternative methods of analyzing human behavior in cued target acquisition. Human Factors, 45, 281-296.
29.
Masalonis, A., & Parasuraman, R. (2003). Effects of situation-specific reliability on trust and on usage of automated air traffic control decision aids. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting (pp. 533-537). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
30.
Meyer, J. ( 2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43, 563-572.
31.
Meyer, J. ( 2004). Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings . Human Factors, 46, 196-204.
32.
Muir, B.M., & Moray, N. ( 1996). Trust in automation: 2. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics , 39, 429-460.
33.
Murrell, G.A. ( 1977). Combination of evidence in a probabilistic visual search and detection task. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 18, 3-18.
34.
Parasuraman, R., & Mouloua, M. ( 1996). Monitoring of automated systems. In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 91-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. ( 1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230-253.
36.
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., & Wickens, C.D. ( 2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 30, 286-297.
37.
Sheridan, T.B., & Parasuraman, R. (2000). Human versus automation in responding to failures: An expected-value analysis. Human Factors, 42, 403-407.
38.
Sheridan, T.B., & Parasuraman, R. (2006). Human-automation interaction . In R. S. Nickerson, (Ed.), Reviews of human factors and ergonomics (Vol. 1, pp. 89-129). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
39.
Sherman, K. ( 2000). Combat identification system for the dismounted soldier . In Proceedings of SPIE 2000: Digitization of the Battlespace V and Battlefield Biomedical Technologies II (pp.135-146). Bellingham, WA: the International Society for Optical Engineering.
40.
Sherman, K.B. ( 2002). Combat ID coming for individual soldiers. Journal of Electronic Defense, 25, 34-35.
41.
Snook, S.A. ( 2002). Friendly fire: The accidental shootdown of U. S. Black Hawks over northern Iraq. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
Sorkin, R.D., & Woods, D.D. ( 1985). Systems with human monitors: A signal detection analysis . Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 49-75.
43.
St. John, M., Smallman, H.S., Manes, D.I., Feher, B.A., & Morrison, J.G. (2005). Heuristic automation for decluttering tactical displays. Human Factors, 47, 509-525.
44.
Wang, L., Jamieson, G.A., & Hollands, J.G. (2008). Selecting methods for the analysis of reliance in automation. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 287-291). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
45.
Wickens, C.D., & Dixon, S. ( 2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science , 8, 201-212.
46.
Wickens, C.D., & Hollands, J.G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
47.
Winer, B.J., Brown, D.R., Michels, K.M. ( 1991). Statistical principles in experimental design (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
