The Perceived Utility of Human and Automated Aids in a Visual Detection Task

Abstract

Although increases in the use of automation have occurred across society, research has found that human operators often underutilize (disuse) and overly rely on (misuse) automated aids (R. Parasuraman & V. Riley, 1997). Nearly 275 Cameron University students participated in 1 of 3 experiments performed to examine the effects of perceived utility (M. T. Dzindolet, H. P. Beck, L. G. Pierce, & L. A. Dawe, 2001) on automation use in a visual detection task and to compare reliance on automated aids with reliance on humans. Results revealed a bias for human operators to rely on themselves. Although self-report data indicate a bias toward automated aids over human aids, performance data revealed that participants were more likely to disuse automated aids than to disuse human aids. This discrepancy was accounted for by assuming human operators have a "perfect automation" schema. Actual or potential applications of this research include the design of future automated decision aids and training procedures for operators relying on such aids.