Automation- Induced "Complacency": Development of the Complacency-Potential Rating Scale

By I. Singh, R. Molloy, Raja Parasuraman. 1993

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Explanation in Human-AI Systems: A Literature Meta-Review, Synopsis of Key Ideas and Publications, and Bibliography for Explainable AI (2019, background): “…2013; Montague, 2010; Moray and Inigaki, 1999; Muir, 1994; Muir and Moray, 1996; Parasuraman, Molloy, and Singh, 1993; Parasuraman and Riley, 1997; Pomranky, Dzindolet, and Peterson, 2001; Schaefer, 2013; Singh, Molloy, and Parasuraman, 1993a; Wang, Jamieson, and Hollands, 2009; Wickens, 1994).”
Foundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems (2000, background): “In contrast, work by Singh et al. (1993) addressed a general potential for complacency by using questionnaire items about a variety of automated systems.”
Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse (1997, background): “Subsequent, more formal questionnaire studies have also revealed substantial individual differences in pilot attitudes toward cockpit automation (McClumpha & James, 1994; Singh et al., 1993a).”
Understanding human management of automation errors (2013, methodology): “Singh, Molloy, and Parasuraman (1993a) identiﬁed complacency potential as an attitude towards automation that individuals bring to a situation that, when combined with environmental and automation variables, may result in complacent behaviour.”
Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators (2012, background): “Underlying personality and cognitive characteristics may predispose some users to committing automation based errors in terms of both AB(30) 46 61 63 65 and complacency.(9) 59 Producing DSS which provide good cognitive fit could decrease AB error rates.”
Not All Trust Is Created Equal: Dispositional and History-Based Trust in Human-Automation Interactions (2008, methodology): “Although this scale had previously demonstrated high reliability (Singh et al., 1993), we achieved a maximum alpha of .65.”
Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration (2010, methodology): “Consistent with this view, Singh et al. (1993b) found no relationship between the automation com-placency effect and the personality trait of extraversion-introversion.”
Misuse of automated decision aids: Complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience (2008, background): “For example, it might also be influenced by other variables such as risk behavior, personality characteristics, or general attitudes towards technology (Singh et al., 1993; Prinzel et al., 2001; Prinzel, 2002).”
The Perceived Utility of Human and Automated Aids in a Visual Detection Task (2002, methodology): “Others have found evidence for individual differences in propensity to rely on automation (Lee & Moray, 1992, 1994; Singh et al., 1993), but it is hard to believe that the majority of participants randomly assigned to work with an automated aid shared a propensity against relying on automation.”
Real-Time Analysis of EEG Indexes of Alertness, Cognition, and Memory Acquired With a Wireless EEG Headset (2004, background): “…feedback or “closed-loop” systems can facilitate active intervention by the operator or through a third party, increasing safety, efficiency, and productivity (Parasuraman, Bahri, Deaton, Morrison, & Barnes, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1993; Parasuraman, Mouloua, & Molloy, 1996; Singh et al., 1993).”
Measurement of Trust in Automation: A Narrative Review and Reference Guide (2021, background): “There is a wide range of disposition components that may be captured using self-report TiA measures, including the following: operators’ tendency to be complacent toward automation (Automation-Induced Complacency Potential Rating Scale, Singh et al., 1993); operators’ high expectations for the autom”
Individual Differences in the Calibration of Trust in Automation (2015, methodology): “Singh, Molloy, and Parasuraman (1993a) developed an Automation-Induced Complacency Potential (AICP) Rating Scale to assess attitudes towards everyday automation such as automated teller machines and automotive cruise control.”