Is the Pull-Down Effect Overstated? An Examination of Trust Propagation Among Fighter Pilots in a High-Fidelity Simulation

IF 2.2 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-01-09 DOI:10.1177/15553434231225909
Joseph B. Lyons, Janine D. Mator, Tony Orr, Gene M. Alarcon, Kristen Barrera
{"title":"Is the Pull-Down Effect Overstated? An Examination of Trust Propagation Among Fighter Pilots in a High-Fidelity Simulation","authors":"Joseph B. Lyons, Janine D. Mator, Tony Orr, Gene M. Alarcon, Kristen Barrera","doi":"10.1177/15553434231225909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research on trust propagation has primarily been conducted with undergraduates using low-fidelity scenarios. It is unclear if the pull-down effect (e.g., system-wide trust) occurs in more applied domains with actual operators. A sample of experienced US Air Force fighter pilots ( n = 13) engaged in six trials using a high-fidelity simulation for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA). The pilots were given command of four CCAs to complete realistic targeting missions. They were asked to monitor the CCAs, report any errors, evaluate a number of potential targets, select a valid target, and select one of the CCAs to perform a strike. One of the CCAs evidenced an error in four of the six trials (17% of all observations), and if the pilots did not report the error, they were prompted to it by an experimenter playing the role of Air Battle Manager. After each trial, reliance intentions and subjective workload were assessed for each of the four CCAs. The presence of an error reduced trust and increased workload for that CCA referent only. There was no evidence of a pull-down effect, nor did the composition of the CCA group (homogenous vs. heterogenous) influence trust propagation. Implications for trust research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46342,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","volume":"59 51","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434231225909","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research on trust propagation has primarily been conducted with undergraduates using low-fidelity scenarios. It is unclear if the pull-down effect (e.g., system-wide trust) occurs in more applied domains with actual operators. A sample of experienced US Air Force fighter pilots ( n = 13) engaged in six trials using a high-fidelity simulation for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA). The pilots were given command of four CCAs to complete realistic targeting missions. They were asked to monitor the CCAs, report any errors, evaluate a number of potential targets, select a valid target, and select one of the CCAs to perform a strike. One of the CCAs evidenced an error in four of the six trials (17% of all observations), and if the pilots did not report the error, they were prompted to it by an experimenter playing the role of Air Battle Manager. After each trial, reliance intentions and subjective workload were assessed for each of the four CCAs. The presence of an error reduced trust and increased workload for that CCA referent only. There was no evidence of a pull-down effect, nor did the composition of the CCA group (homogenous vs. heterogenous) influence trust propagation. Implications for trust research are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
拉低效应被夸大了吗?在高仿真模拟中考察战斗机飞行员之间的信任传播
有关信任传播的研究主要是在本科生中使用低保真场景进行的。目前还不清楚在实际操作人员的更多应用领域中是否会产生下拉效应(如全系统信任)。经验丰富的美国空军战斗机飞行员(n = 13)使用高保真模拟协同作战飞机(CCA)进行了六次试验。飞行员指挥四架 CCA 完成真实的目标任务。他们被要求监控 CCA,报告任何错误,评估一些潜在目标,选择一个有效目标,并选择其中一架 CCA 执行攻击。在六次试验中,有四次(占所有观察结果的 17%)其中一个 CCA 出现错误,如果飞行员没有报告错误,则由扮演空战管理者的实验员提示他们。每次试验后,都会对四项 CCA 的依赖意图和主观工作量进行评估。错误的存在仅降低了对该 CCA 参考的信任度,增加了工作量。没有证据表明存在拉低效应,CCA 组的构成(同质组与异质组)也没有影响信任的传播。本文讨论了信任研究的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Is the Pull-Down Effect Overstated? An Examination of Trust Propagation Among Fighter Pilots in a High-Fidelity Simulation A Taxonomy for AI Hazard Analysis Understanding Automation Failure Integrating Function Allocation and Operational Event Sequence Diagrams to Support Human-Robot Coordination: Case Study of a Robotic Date Thinning System Adapting Cognitive Task Analysis Methods for Use in a Large Sample Simulation Study of High-Risk Healthcare Events.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1