Individual differences in monitoring failures of automation

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).”
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance (2004, background): “For example, Singh, Molloy, and Parasuraman (1993) found that high-complacency individuals actually detected more automation failures in a constant reliability condition (53.4% compared with 18.7% for low-complacency individuals).”
Towards a transactional ergonomics for driver stress and fatigue (2002, background): “Singh et al. (1993) found that the problem of automation complacency was accentuated in subjects low in energetic arousal (in a simulated ¯ight study).”
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.”
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.”
From ‘automation’ to ‘autonomy’: the importance of trust repair in human–machine interaction (2018, background): “Some research has documented the eff ects of individual diff erences in trust as well as the individual diff erences that aff ect trust (Merritt and Ilgen 2008; Rovira, Pak, and McLaughlin 2016; Singh, Molloy, and Parasuraman 1993; Szalma and Taylor 2011).”
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.”
Sustained performance under overload: personality and individual differences in stress and coping (2009, background): “The applied relevance of these results is demonstrated by generalisation of the energy effect to skilled performance in paradigms including multi-tasking (Singh et al. 1993) and simulated vehicle driving (Funke et al.”
Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: an integrative review (2007, background): “Although individual differences exist in the expectations people have of automated aid reliability (Lee and Moray 1992, 1994, Singh et al. 1993), people on average show a ‘positivity bias’ (Bruner and Tagiuri 1954, Cacioppo and Bernston 1994) or a tendency to assign positive evaluations to…”