Trust and Reliance on an Automated Combat Identification System

By Greg A. Jamieson, Justin G. Hollands. 2009

165 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Human-Computer Interaction

How researchers see this paper

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

In Social Psychology

In Human-Computer Interaction

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, neutral): “…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).”
Designing and implementing transparency for real time inspection of autonomous robots (2017, background): “Wang, Jamieson, and Hollands (2009) recommend that robots working autonomously to detect and neutralise targets have transparent behaviours, in the sense that their users, who oversee the system, are alerted to contextual factors that affect the sys-tem’sreliability.”
Presenting system uncertainty in automotive UIs for supporting trust calibration in autonomous driving (2013, background): “[17] examined the effects of presenting the aid reliability on trust and reliance on a combat identification (CID) scenario.”
The Role of Trust as a Mediator Between System Characteristics and Response Behaviors (2015, background): “Although several researchers have used subjective ratings to assess human–automation trust (e.g., Moray, Inagaki, & Itoh, 2000; Wang et al., 2009), Meyer (2001) proposed that recording response behaviors could substitute for subjective assessments.”
Intelligent Agent Transparency in Human–Agent Teaming for Multi-UxV Management (2016, background): “…counterintuitive way to improve trust calibration, understanding the limitations of a system has been reported to improve trust calibration and subjective trust in the decision-making process (Dzindolet, Peterson, Pom-ranky, Pierce, & Beck, 2003; Lee & See, 2004; Wang, Jamieson, & Hollands, 2009).”
A Meta-Analysis of Factors Influencing the Development of Trust in Automation (2016, background): “For example, a more reliable aid led to more trust (e.g., target detection; Chen & Terrence, 2009; Wang et al., 2009; medication management sys-tem; Ho et al., 2005); a more transparent aid also led to greater trust (e.g., route planning; Mer-cado et al., in press).”
Affective Processes in Human–Automation Interactions (2011, background): “Scholars suggest perceptions of machine reliability are crucial and that trust must be correctly “calibrated” with actual machine reliability (e.g., McGuirl & Sarter, 2006; Merritt & Ilgen, 2008; Rovira, McGarry, & Parasuraman, 2007; Wang et al., 2009; Wiegmann, 2002).”
Being Transparent about Transparency: A Model for Human-Robot Interaction (2013, background): “Indicators of reliability can be a useful piece of information to display to users as this may help the humans calibrate their trust of the robots (Wang et al., 2009).”
Trust in Automation (2015, background): “In a similar study, Wang et al. (2009) found that providing operators with system reliability information can improve the appropriateness of trust.”