Citation

Dzindolet MT, Pierce LG, Beck HP. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2006; 50(17): 1936-1940.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/154193120605001747

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Providing human operators with automated decision aids does not always improve performance. In this study, 24 students viewed terrain slides, half of which included a camouflaged soldier. After viewing each slide, participants could view the decision reached by a human or automated aid, or continue without the help of an aid. Some of the participants were led to believe their aids were experts; others were not. Significantly more participants showed a preference to view human rather than automated aid decisions. However, participants were as likely to misuse an automated aid as they were a human aid. These biases existed regardless of the perceived expertise of the aids. In addition, results of a linguistic analysis of open-ended descriptions of automated and human aids suggest human operators view automated and human aids differently and have implications for training and system development.

Language: en