Deciphering Automation Transparency: Do the Benefits of Transparency Differ Based on Whether Decision Recommendations Are Provided?

IF 2.9 3区 心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Human Factors Pub Date : 2025-02-03 DOI:10.1177/00187208251318465
Isabella Gegoff, Monica Tatasciore, Vanessa K Bowden, Shayne Loft
{"title":"Deciphering Automation Transparency: Do the Benefits of Transparency Differ Based on Whether Decision Recommendations Are Provided?","authors":"Isabella Gegoff, Monica Tatasciore, Vanessa K Bowden, Shayne Loft","doi":"10.1177/00187208251318465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To better understand automation transparency, we experimentally isolated the effects of additional information and decision recommendations on decision accuracy, decision time, perceived workload, trust, and system usability.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>The benefits of automation transparency are well documented. Previously, however, transparency (in the form of additional information) has been coupled with the provision of decision recommendations, potentially decreasing decision-maker agency and promoting automation bias. It may instead be more beneficial to provide additional information without decision recommendations to inform operators' unaided decision making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants selected the optimal uninhabited vehicle (UV) to complete missions. Additional display information and decision recommendations were provided but were not always accurate. The level of additional information (no, medium, high) was manipulated between-subjects, and the provision of recommendations (absent, present) within-subjects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When decision recommendations were provided, participants made more accurate and faster decisions, and rated the UV system as more usable. However, recommendation provision reduced participants' ability to discriminate UV system information accuracy. Increased additional information led to faster decisions, lower perceived workload, and higher trust and usability ratings but only significantly improved decision (UV selection) accuracy when recommendations were provided.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Individuals scrutinized additional information more when not provided decision recommendations, potentially indicating a higher expected value of processing that information. However, additional information only improved performance when accompanied by recommendations to support decisions.</p><p><strong>Application: </strong>It is critical to understand the potential differential impact of, and interaction between, additional display information and decision recommendations to design effective transparent automated systems in the modern workplace.</p>","PeriodicalId":56333,"journal":{"name":"Human Factors","volume":" ","pages":"187208251318465"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Factors","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208251318465","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To better understand automation transparency, we experimentally isolated the effects of additional information and decision recommendations on decision accuracy, decision time, perceived workload, trust, and system usability.

Background: The benefits of automation transparency are well documented. Previously, however, transparency (in the form of additional information) has been coupled with the provision of decision recommendations, potentially decreasing decision-maker agency and promoting automation bias. It may instead be more beneficial to provide additional information without decision recommendations to inform operators' unaided decision making.

Methods: Participants selected the optimal uninhabited vehicle (UV) to complete missions. Additional display information and decision recommendations were provided but were not always accurate. The level of additional information (no, medium, high) was manipulated between-subjects, and the provision of recommendations (absent, present) within-subjects.

Results: When decision recommendations were provided, participants made more accurate and faster decisions, and rated the UV system as more usable. However, recommendation provision reduced participants' ability to discriminate UV system information accuracy. Increased additional information led to faster decisions, lower perceived workload, and higher trust and usability ratings but only significantly improved decision (UV selection) accuracy when recommendations were provided.

Conclusion: Individuals scrutinized additional information more when not provided decision recommendations, potentially indicating a higher expected value of processing that information. However, additional information only improved performance when accompanied by recommendations to support decisions.

Application: It is critical to understand the potential differential impact of, and interaction between, additional display information and decision recommendations to design effective transparent automated systems in the modern workplace.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Human Factors
Human Factors 管理科学-行为科学
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society publishes peer-reviewed scientific studies in human factors/ergonomics that present theoretical and practical advances concerning the relationship between people and technologies, tools, environments, and systems. Papers published in Human Factors leverage fundamental knowledge of human capabilities and limitations – and the basic understanding of cognitive, physical, behavioral, physiological, social, developmental, affective, and motivational aspects of human performance – to yield design principles; enhance training, selection, and communication; and ultimately improve human-system interfaces and sociotechnical systems that lead to safer and more effective outcomes.
期刊最新文献
Human-Robot Collaboration With a Corrective Shared Controlled Robot in a Sanding Task. Gaze Sharing, a Double-Edged Sword: Examining the Effect of Real-Time Gaze Sharing Visualizations on Team Performance and Situation Awareness. Hello, is it me you're Stopping for? The Effect of external Human Machine Interface Familiarity on Pedestrians' Crossing Behaviour in an Ambiguous Situation. Multitasking Induced Contextual Blindness. Deciphering Automation Transparency: Do the Benefits of Transparency Differ Based on Whether Decision Recommendations Are Provided?
×
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