title: On the independence of compliance and reliance: are automation false alarms worse than misses?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Participants performed a tracking task and system monitoring task while aided by diagnostic automation. The goal of the study was to examine operator compliance and reliance as affected by automation failures and to clarify claims regarding independence of these two constructs.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Background data revealed a trend toward nonindependence of the compliance-reliance constructs.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty-two undergraduate students performed the simulation that presented the visual display while dependent measures were collected.
  
  
  RESULTS
  False alarm-prone automation hurt overall performance more than miss-prone automation. False alarm-prone automation also clearly affected both operator compliance and reliance, whereas miss-prone automation appeared to affect only operator reliance.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Compliance and reliance do not appear to be entirely independent of each other.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  False alarms appear to be more damaging to overall performance than misses, and designers must take the compliance-reliance constructs into consideration.
authors: University of Illinois, Savoy, Illinois, USA. sdixon@nmsu.edu
authors: Stephen R
authors: SR
authors: Dixon
authors: Christopher D
authors: CD
authors: Wickens
authors: Jason S
authors: JS
authors: McCarley
mesh_terms: D000060:Accidents, Aviation / Q000517:prevention & control; D001331:Automation; D003198:Computer Simulation; D004868:Equipment Failure; D006804:Ergonomics; D006801:Humans; D007087:Illinois; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis; D014584:User-Computer Interface; D016526:Workload