Asymmetries in Human Tolerance of Uncertainty in Interaction with Alarm Systems: Effects of Risk Perception or Evidence for a General Commission Bias?

Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.Providing access towards raw data is often considered to be a good solution for improving human decision making in interaction with imperfect automated decision support such as alarm systems. However, there is some evidence that such cross-checking measures are used in an asymmetric manner with respect to the amount of uncertainty involved in the decision. Namely, people seem to accept low amounts of uncertainty when complying with an alarm cue, but not when contradicting it. The current study investigates the question whether this phenomenon is limited to alarm systems and a high risk environment. Within a multi-task PC simulation participants performed a low risk monitoring task which was supported by a system neutrally framed as “assistant system”. In one group the cues emitted by the system were 90% correct, in the other 10% were correct, thus causing a 10% uncertainty about the real state in both conditions. Results show a strong asymmetry as participants in the latter condition spent a high amount of effort in reducing their uncertainty, while participants in the former condition did not. Furthermore participants’ behavior almost exactly replicates the asymmetric cross-checking pattern found in a former study which employed a comparatively high risk monitoring task supported by an “alarm system”. This supports the hypothesis that the observed commission bias represents a general phenomenon in the context of automated decision support, irrespective of the risk attributed to the environment and irrespective of whether the system represents an alarm system or not

Measures of Reliance and Compliance in Aided Visual Scanning

Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.Objective: We study the dependence or independence of reliance and compliance as two responses to alarms to understand the mechanisms behind these responses. Background: Alarms, alerts, and other binary cues affect user behavior in complex ways. The suggestion has been made that there are two different responses to alerts—compliance (the tendency to perform an action cued by the alert) and reliance (the tendency to refrain from actions as long as no alert is issued). The study tests the degree to which these two responses are indeed independent. Method: An experiment tested the effects of the positive and negative predictive values of the alerts (PPV and NPV) on measures of compliance and reliance based on cutoff settings, response times, and subjective confidence. Results: For cutoff settings and response times, compliance was unaffected by the irrelevant NPV, whereas reliance depended on the irrelevant PPV. For subjective estimates, there were no significant effects of the irrelevant variables. Conclusion: Results suggest that compliance is relatively stable and unaffected by irrelevant information (the NPV), whereas reliance is also affected by the PPV. The results support the notion that reliance and compliance are separate, but related, forms of trust. Application: False alarm rates, which affect PPV, determine both the response to alerts (compliance) and the tendency to limit precautions when no alert is issued (reliance)

On the Relation Between Reliance and Compliance in an Aided Visual Scanning Task

Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.Alarms, alerts, and other binary cues affect user behavior in complex ways. One relevant distinction is the suggestion that there are two different responses to alerts – compliance (the tendency to perform an action cued by the alert) and reliance (the tendency to refrain from actions as long as no alert is issued). An experiment tested the dependence of the two behaviors on the Positive and Negative Predictive Values of the alerts (PPV and NPV) to determine whether these are indeed two different behaviors. Results suggest that the compliance is relatively stable and unaffected by irrelevant information (the NPV), while reliance is also affected by the PPV. The results are discussed in terms of multiple-process theories of trust in information sources