Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39982562›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2025

Transparent systems, opaque results: a study on automation compliance and task performance.

Rebecca L Pharmer, Christopher D Wickens, Benjamin A Clegg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rebecca L PharmerDepartment of Psychology, Colorado State University, 1876 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, 80523‑1876, USA. rebecca.pharmer@colostate.edu.ORCID 0009-0007-9221-1698
Christopher D WickensDepartment of Psychology, Colorado State University, 1876 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, 80523‑1876, USA.
Benjamin A CleggDepartment of Psychology, Montana State University, P.O. Box 173440, Bozeman, MT, 59717-3440, USA.

Funding

Office of Naval Research N00014-20-1-2518
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In two experiments, we examine how features of an imperfect automated decision aid influence compliance with the aid in a simplified, simulated nautical collision avoidance task. Experiment 1 examined the impact of providing transparency in the pre-task instructions regarding which attributes of the task that the aid uses to provide its recommendations. Results showed that transparency here positively influenced compliance with the aid, leading to better task performance. Experiment 2 manipulated transparency via confidence estimates presented alongside the aid's recommendations. There were no benefits from this form of transparency. In Experiment 2, lower compliance with the aid's recommendations was found on more difficult collision problems, via a mediating loss of aid reliability and therefore trust. This runs contrary to the hypothesis that harder problems to solve ought to make participants more, rather than less dependent on the aid. Both experiments produced relatively low correlations between trust and compliance. The findings have important implications for the effectiveness of different kinds of transparency implementations, as well as providing a model/framework for understanding how generic factors such as automation reliability and problem difficulty influence both compliance and trust.

Indexed as

AutomationDecision MakingPsychomotor PerformanceTask Performance and AnalysisAdultFemaleHumansMaleTrustYoung AdultAutomation transparencyDecision-makingDecision support toolsHuman–automation interaction

Identifiers

PMID39982562
PMCPMC11845646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.