ArticleHuman factors2025
Judgments of Difficulty (JODs) While Observing an Automated System Support the Media Equation and Unique Agent Hypotheses.
Article in Human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe investigated how people used cues to make Judgments of Difficulty (JODs) while observing automation perform a task and when performing this task themselves.
backgroundTask difficulty is a factor affecting trust in automation; however, no research has explored how individuals make JODs when watching automation or whether these judgments are similar to or different from those made while watching humans. Lastly, it is unclear how cue use when observing automation differs as a function of experience.
methodThe study involved a visual search task. Some participants performed the task first, then watched automation complete it. Others watched and then performed, and a third group alternated between performing and watching. After each trial, participants made a JOD by indicating if the task was easier or harder than before. Task difficulty randomly changed every five trials.
resultsA Bayesian regression suggested that cue use is similar to and different from cue use while observing humans. For central cues, support for the UAH was bounded by experience: those who performed the task first underweighted central cues when making JODs, relative to their counterparts in a previous study involving humans. For peripheral cues, support for the MEH was unequivocal and participants weighted cues similarly across observation sources.
conclusionPeople weighted cues similar to and different from when they watched automation perform a task relative to when they watched humans, supporting the Media Equation and Unique Agent Hypotheses. APPLICATION: This study adds to a growing understanding of judgments in human-human and human-automation interactions.
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.