Should I Trust You? Autistic Traits Predict Reduced Appearance-Based Trust Decisions

Facial impressions of trustworthiness guide social decisions in the general population, as shown by financial lending in economic Trust Games. As an exception, autistic boys fail to use facial impressions to guide trust decisions, despite forming typical facial trustworthiness impressions (Ewing et al., 2015). Here, we tested whether this dissociation between forming and using facial impressions of trustworthiness extends to neurotypical men with high levels of autistic traits. Forty-six Caucasian men completed a multi-turn Trust Game, a facial trustworthiness impressions task, the Autism-Spectrum Quotient, and two Theory of Mind tasks. As hypothesized, participants’ levels of autistic traits had no observed effect on the impressions formed, but negatively predicted the use of those impressions in trust decisions. Thus, the dissociation between forming and using facial impressions of trustworthiness extends to the broader autism phenotype. More broadly, our results identify autistic traits as an important source of individual variation in the use of facial impressions to guide behaviour. Interestingly, failure to use these impressions could potentially represent rational behaviour, given their limited validity

Individual differences in multi-tasking ability moderate the benefits of using low-degree automation

Previous research has explored the effects of automation on task performance, situation awareness (SA), and workload outcomes, frequently finding that providing more automation is most beneficial. However, studies rarely consider individual differences in cognition and how this may impact the effects of automation. This study investigated the impact of low-degree automation, and whether multi-tasking ability modifies its impact on the above outcomes. Two experiments were conducted with 216 undergraduate students. In Experiment 1, participants completed multi-tasking-based cognitive tasks to derive a multi-tasking index and engaged in a multi-tasking intensive air traffic control simulation under two conditions, manual and automated, applied to accepting and handing-off aircraft at the controlled airspace boundary where performance was assessed. SA was measured by Situation Present Awareness Method. Workload was measured objectively by latency to SA queries. Experiment 2 extended the findings by utilizing a similar methodology on a different automated-assisted subtask - aircraft conflict detection. Experiment 2 retained SA and workload measures with the addition of the NASA-TLX for subjective workload. In both experiments, poorer multi-taskers exhibited greater benefits from automation applied to acceptance and hand-off, improved conflict detection and reduced workload. SA was greater in better multi-taskers. This work underscores the importance of considering individual cognitive differences when designing automated systems

Individual differences in higher-level cognitive abilities do not predict overconfidence in complex task performance

Even when people perform tasks poorly, they often report unrealistically positive estimates of their own abilities in these situations. To better understand the origins of such overconfidence, we investigated whether it could be predicted by individual differences in working memory, attentional control, and self-reported trait impulsivity. Overconfidence was estimated by contrasting objective and subjective measures of situation awareness (the ability to perceive and understand task-relevant information in the environment), acquired during a challenging air traffic control simulation. We found no significant relationships between overconfidence and either working memory or attentional control. However, increased impulsivity significantly predicted greater overconfidence. In addition, overall levels of overconfidence were lower in our complex task than in previous studies that used less-complex lab-based tasks. Our results suggest that overconfidence may not be linked to high-level cognitive abilities, but that dynamic tasks with frequent opportunities for performance feedback may reduce misconceptions about personal performance.</p