Disputa por el marco: retorno al marco de derechos

Automation awareness was a self-assessment rating gathered from participants following completion of each trial. The question asked participants to provide their level of understanding of how the Diversion Aid arrived at its recommendations. Automation

F(2,22) = 5.08, p < 0.015) factor in this measure, Information Quality was marginally significant (F(1,11) = 4.11, p < 0.067), and the interaction of these two independent variables was also marginally significant (F(2,22) = 2.66, p < 0.093).

shows the results of automation awareness as a function of Automation Visibility level. The difference between medium and high Automation Visibility was significant (

and the difference between the low and high Automation Visibility levels was

= 1.69, p < 0.10).

assessment rating gathered from participants following

(1,11) = 4.125, p <

0.067) impact on confidence, with the low Information Quality condition resulting in lower results as a function of As Information Quality degrades, the confidence participants have in

onfidence ratings as a function of Information Quality.

assessment rating gathered from participants ticipants to provide their level of understanding of how the Diversion Aid arrived at its recommendations. Automation

< 0.015) factor in this measure, Information

< 0.067), and the interaction of these two

< 0.093). Figure 21 as a function of Automation Visibility level. The difference between medium and high Automation Visibility was significant (t(22) = 2.69, p <

and the difference between the low and high Automation Visibility levels was

Figure 21. Automation awareness ratings

Although the low Automa

option, participants rated their understanding of its logic closer to that of the high

Automation Visibility level than the medium level. Having only one option presented meant that participants only had to understand one plan, rather than having to understand three plans. With the costs included in the high Automation Visibility level, the details of the logic are much more readily available.

There was marginal significance ( Information Quality results (see

Figure 22. Automation awareness ratings as a function of Infor

Automation awareness ratings as a function of Automation Visibility

Although the low Automation Visibility level only provided one diversion plan option, participants rated their understanding of its logic closer to that of the high

Automation Visibility level than the medium level. Having only one option presented meant ad to understand one plan, rather than having to understand three plans. With the costs included in the high Automation Visibility level, the details of the logic are much more readily available.

s marginal significance (F_(1,11) = 4.11, p < 0.067) between the low and high (see Figure 22).

Automation awareness ratings as a function of Information Quality as a function of Automation Visibility.

tion Visibility level only provided one diversion plan option, participants rated their understanding of its logic closer to that of the high

Automation Visibility level than the medium level. Having only one option presented meant ad to understand one plan, rather than having to understand three plans. With the costs included in the high Automation Visibility level, the details of the logic

0.067) between the low and high

mation Quality.

Trust was a self-assessment rating gathered from participants following completion of each trial. Automation Visibility, Information Quality, and their interactions all had

significant (F(2,20) = 4.18, p < 0.030;

respectively) impact on the trust measure. For Automation Visibility, the difference in trust between the low and high levels was significant (

trust ratings are shown in Figure

Figure 23. Trust ratings

Trust in the high Informa

Automation Visibility conditions. In the low Information Quality condition, trust was lower than in the high Information Quality condition for both the low and medium Automation Visibility conditions. In the high Automation Visibility condition, trust in the system was the same for all three Automation Visibility conditions. Thus only when the system provides maximum information on its reasoning did the participants’ level of trust in low Information Quality situations approach the (constant) level of trust in the high Information Quality situation.

6.6 Trust

assessment rating gathered from participants following completion of Automation Visibility, Information Quality, and their interactions all had

< 0.030; F(1,10) = 6.26, p < 0.031; F(2,20) = 4.15, p < 0.031, respectively) impact on the trust measure. For Automation Visibility, the difference in trust between the low and high levels was significant (t(20) = 2.40, p < 0.026). The results

Figure 23 as a function of Automation Visibility.

. Trust ratings as a function of Automation Visibility

Trust in the high Information Quality condition was the same across all three

Automation Visibility conditions. In the low Information Quality condition, trust was lower than in the high Information Quality condition for both the low and medium Automation

the high Automation Visibility condition, trust in the system was the same for all three Automation Visibility conditions. Thus only when the system provides maximum information on its reasoning did the participants’ level of trust in low Information

ity situations approach the (constant) level of trust in the high Information Quality assessment rating gathered from participants following completion of Automation Visibility, Information Quality, and their interactions all had

< 0.031, respectively) impact on the trust measure. For Automation Visibility, the difference in trust

. The results of the

as a function of Automation Visibility.

tion Quality condition was the same across all three

Automation Visibility conditions. In the low Information Quality condition, trust was lower than in the high Information Quality condition for both the low and medium Automation

the high Automation Visibility condition, trust in the system was the same for all three Automation Visibility conditions. Thus only when the system provides maximum information on its reasoning did the participants’ level of trust in low Information

ity situations approach the (constant) level of trust in the high Information Quality