Abstract
Studies have demonstrated that humans appear to apply norms of human-human interaction to interaction with automated decision aids. We examined the differences in perceptions of automation vs. humans when the expertise and reliability of these advisers varied. Participants (n = 180) performed a luggage-screening task with the assistance of human or automated advisers that differed in pedigree (expert vs. novice) and reliability (high vs. low), but had a similar neutral beta setting of 1.0. Shifts in sensitivity, criterion settings and accuracy were assessed. Participants who were presented with a low-reliable “expert” adviser shifted their bias away from the neutral bias of the adviser and more toward optimal beta compared to participants receiving unreliable advice from a ‘novice’. This effect increased across trials for participants using low-reliability automated advisers but not human advisers. The results have implications for the development of models of optimal utilization of decision aids.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
