A Reexamination of the Mediating Effect of Trust among Alarm Systems' Characteristics and Human Compliance and Reliance

Abstract

The most widely accepted view regarding the relationship among the characteristics of alarm systems and human compliance with and reliance on such systems is that trust plays a critical mediating effect. Researchers have promoted this contention based on theoretical and empirical evidence. However, there are some limitations associated with the prior empirical work that researchers have used to support this contention. The purpose of this research was to present an approach that more adequately assesses the potential mediating effect of trust among systems' characteristics and human compliance and reliance by establishing temporal precedence in the measurement of trust, compliance, and reliance. Contrary to previous theory and empirical findings, the preliminary results from this approach suggest that trust does not serve as a mediating factor. These findings seem to suggest that although trust is related to human compliance and reliance, it is simply a result of systems' characteristics that may or may not have differential effects on human-automation interaction.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bliss

J. P.

(1994). The cry-wolf phenomenon and its effect on alarm responses. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 54(9-B), 4948.

Breznitz

(1983). Cry-wolf: The psychology of false alarms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bustamante

E. A.

(2008). Implementing likelihood alarm technology in integrated aviation displays for enhancing decision making: A two-stage signal detection modeling approach. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 8(2), 241–262.

Comstock

J. R.

Arnegard

R. J.

(1992). The multi-attribute task battery for human pilot workload and strategic behavior research (NASA Technical Memorandum No. 104174). Hampton, VA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center.

Dixon

S. R.

(2007). Imperfect diagnostic automation: How adjusting bias and saliency affects operator trust. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 67(11–B), 6759.

Fallon

C. K.

Bustamante

E. A.

Ely

K. M.

Bliss

J. P.

(2005). Improving user trust with a likelihood alarm display. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Las Vegas, NV.

Lee

J. D.

Moray

(1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.

Madhavan

Wiegmann

D. A.

(2007a). Effects of information source, pedigree, and reliability on operator interaction with decision support systems. Human Factors, 49(5), 773–785.

10.

Madhavan

Wiegmann

D. A.

(2007b). Similarities and differences between human-human and human-automation trust: An integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(4), 277–301.

11.

Masalonis

A. J.

(2001). Effects of situation-specific reliability on trust and usage of automated decision aids (decision support). Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61(9-B), 5034.

12.

Meyer

(2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43(4), 563–572.

13.

Parasuraman

Miller

C. A.

(2004). Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 51–55.

14.

Rice

(in press). Examining single and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. Journal of General Psychology.

15.

Wickens

C. D.

Dixon

S. R.

(2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(3), 201–212.