Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which increased automation transparency can mitigate the potential negative effects of low and high automation reliability on disuse and misuse of automated advice, and perceived trust in automation. BACKGROUND: Automated decision aids that vary in the reliability of their advice are increasingly used in workplaces. Low-reliability automation can increase disuse of automated advice, while high-reliability automation can increase misuse. These effects could be reduced if the rationale underlying automated advice is made more transparent. METHODS: Participants selected the optimal UV to complete missions. The Recommender (automated decision aid) assisted participants by providing advice; however, it was not always reliable. Participants determined whether the Recommender provided accurate information and whether to accept or reject advice. The level of automation transparency (medium, high) and reliability (low: 65%, high: 90%) were manipulated between-subjects. RESULTS: With high- compared to low-reliability automation, participants made more accurate (correctly accepted advice and identified whether information was accurate/inaccurate) and faster decisions, and reported increased trust in automation. Increased transparency led to more accurate and faster decisions, lower subjective workload, and higher usability ratings. It also eliminated the increased automation disuse associated with low-reliability automation. However, transparency did not mitigate the misuse associated with high-reliability automation. CONCLUSION: Transparency protected against low-reliability automation disuse, but not against the increased misuse potentially associated with the reduced monitoring and verification of high-reliability automation. APPLICATION: These outcomes can inform the design of transparent automation to improve human-automation teaming under conditions of varied automation reliability.