ArticleHuman factors2016
The Effect of Incorrect Reliability Information on Expectations, Perceptions, and Use of Automation.
Article in Human factors, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decision-making efficiency with aided information: the impact of automation reliability and task difficulty.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- Transparent Automated Advice to Mitigate the Impact of Variation in Automation Reliability.Human factors · 2024Article
- How do humans learn about the reliability of automation?Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Effects of Probabilistic Risk Situation Awareness Tool (RSAT) on Aeronautical Weather-Hazard Decision Making.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe examined how providing artificially high or low statements about automation reliability affected expectations, perceptions, and use of automation over time.
backgroundOne common method of introducing automation is providing explicit statements about the automation's capabilities. Research is needed to understand how expectations from such introductions affect perceptions and use of automation.
methodExplicit-statement introductions were manipulated to set higher-than (90%), same-as (75%), or lower-than (60%) levels of expectations in a dual-task scenario with 75% reliable automation. Two experiments were conducted to assess expectations, perceptions, compliance, reliance, and task performance over (a) 2 days and (b) 4 days.
resultsThe baseline assessments showed initial expectations of automation reliability matched introduced levels of expectation. For the duration of each experiment, the lower-than groups' perceptions were lower than the actual automation reliability. However, the higher-than groups' perceptions were no different from actual automation reliability after Day 1 in either study. There were few differences between groups for automation use, which generally stayed the same or increased with experience using the system.
conclusionIntroductory statements describing artificially low automation reliability have a long-lasting impact on perceptions about automation performance. Statements including incorrect automation reliability do not appear to affect use of automation. APPLICATION: Introductions should be designed according to desired outcomes for expectations, perceptions, and use of the automation. Low expectations have long-lasting effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.