1 / 18

Collective Mistrust of Alarms

Collective Mistrust of Alarms. James P. Bliss, Ph.D. Susan Sidone Holly Mason Old Dominion University. Collective Mistrust of Alarms - A Few Thoughts Before We Begin. Novelty of this project Not Automation per se: Alarms inform, do not control Alarms convey system state to operator

faunus
Download Presentation

Collective Mistrust of Alarms

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Collective Mistrust of Alarms James P. Bliss, Ph.D. Susan Sidone Holly Mason Old Dominion University

  2. Collective Mistrust of Alarms - A Few Thoughts Before We Begin... • Novelty of this project • Not Automation per se: Alarms inform, do not control • Alarms convey system state to operator • May help to “push the envelope” of etiquette research • “Mistrust/distrust” may be different with alarms • Simplistic paradigm deceptive - multiple trust components involved • Information accessibility, technology improvements means operators expect more from alarm systems • Operator mental models very important Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  3. Collective Mistrust of Alarms - Introduction • Investigations of Individual Alarm Mistrust • Aviation (Bliss, 1997) • Mining (Mallett et al., 1992) • Ship Handling (Kerstholt et al., 1996) • Driving (Nohre et al., 1998). • General Findings: People Reacted Slower, Less Frequently, Less Appropriately to Unreliable Alarms. • No Studies of the Impact of Marginally Reliable Alarm Signals on Teams of Operators Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  4. Collective Mistrust of Alarms - Introduction • Teamed Alarm Reactions • Aviation • Critical Care Units • Nuclear Power Plants • Air Traffic Control Centers • To Effectively React to Alarms, Team Members Must • Share Information • Troubleshoot Systems • Determine Relative Signal Priority • Allocate and Coordinate Reaction Responsibility Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  5. Collective Mistrust of Alarms - Introduction • Team Member Interdependence Often Varies with the Task and the Environment (Thompson, 1967). • Dependent Teams React to Alarms More Appropriately, More Slowly (Bliss et al., 2002) • Implications of Teamed Alarm Reactions for Human-Automation Etiquette • Human-Alarm Trust • Human-Human Trust • Human-Human(Alarm) Trust Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  6. Collective Mistrust of Alarms - Introduction • Goals of the Current Research: • Investigate Reactions of Dependent and Independent Teams to Alarm Signals of Various Reliability Levels. • Determine How Collateral Alarm Systems Mediate Alarm Mistrust. • Approach: • Dual-Task Approach (Damos, 1991). • Independent Variables Manipulated Using a 2 X 3 Mixed Design. • Dyads Reacted to Two Separate Alarm Systems. • Temperature Alarm Reliability = 80% true alarms). • Pressure Alarm Reliability Fluctuated (40%, 60% or 80%). Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  7. Collective Mistrust of Alarms - Experimental Design • Interdependence Manipulated Between Two Groups • Dependent Team Members Required Interaction to React Appropriately; Independent Team Members Did Not. • Pressure Alarm Reliability Manipulated Within Groups • Pressure Alarms Were 40%, 60%, and 80% Reliable During Sequential Task Sessions. Temperature Alarms Were 80% Reliable. • Dependent Measures • Ongoing Task: Gauge Monitoring Accuracy, Tracking Error. • Alarm Task: Reaction Speed, Appropriateness; Response Frequency. Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  8. Collective Mistrust of Alarms - Method • Participants: 40 student dyads from Old Dominion University (18-43 yrs) worked for course credit and the chance for a monetary performance bonus. • Primary Task: Multi-Attribute Task (MAT) battery (Comstock & Arnegard, 1992) presented to each member. • Dual-Axis Compensatory Tracking • Gauge Monitoring • Resource Management • Participants Performed the MAT Back-to-Back Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  9. Collective Mistrust of Alarms – MAT Battery Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  10. Collective Mistrust of Alarms - Method • Auditory and Visual Alarms: Digitized Fire Bell From a Boeing 757/767 simulator. • Alarms Occurred 90° to the Side of the Primary Task. • Alarm Procedure: Determine Whether Corresponding MAT Gauges Are Out of Tolerance. If so, Reset Gauges and respond to the alarm. If Not, Cancel the alarm and resume the primary task. • Interdependent team members had to communicate because they shared the out-of-tolerance gauges. Independent team members monitored all gauges. Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  11. Collective Mistrust of Alarms - Procedure • Informed Consent Form • Experimental Instructions - Dependent team members told to communicate. • MAT Task Practice • Individual 120-second sessions (Each Subtask) • Combined 200-second session (MAT and Alarms) • Three experimental sessions • Ten alarms presented during each session. • Pressure alarm reliability randomly counterbalanced • Participants Knew Alarm System Reliability Before They Began • Debriefing, dismissal. Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  12. Collective Mistrust of Alarms – Results (Response Frequency) • Response Frequency to Temp Alarms • No Interaction (p>.05) • Linear main effect, F(1,38)=129.600, p<.001. Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  13. Collective Mistrust of Alarms – Results (Reaction Appropriateness) • Significant Interaction, F(2,76)=10.193, p<.001. • Main Effect for Interdependence, F(1, 38)= 4.000, p=.05. • Quadratic Main Effect for Reliability, F(1,38)=19,563, p<.001. Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  14. Collective Mistrust of Alarms – Results (Reaction Time) • No significant interaction • No Interdependence main effect • Linear Reliability Main Effect, F(1,38)=8.181, p=.007. • NOTE: No Primary Task Differences Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  15. Collective Mistrust of Alarms - Discussion • Results Similar to Past Efforts, Except for Lack of Primary Task Differences. • Multiple alarm systems may have led participants to rethink their trust levels, a reflection of workload (Bliss & Dunn, 2000). • Alarm designers should consider the effects of multiple alarm systems on operator behavior. • Recognize that complex reaction responsibilities may cause cognitive load as team members adjust trust levels. Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  16. Collective Mistrust of Alarms - Discussion • Dimensions of Trust in This Experiment • Basic Trust of the Experimenter (Human-Human) • Trust of the Primary (MAT) Task (Human-Computer) • Trust of the Alarm Task (Human-Computer) • Manipulated by the Experimenter • Trust of Teammates (Human-Human) • Questionable in this Experiment, Due to documented Unfamiliarity Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  17. Collective Mistrust of Alarms - Discussion • Past reactions to unreliable alarm systems • Fluctuations in physiological responses (Breznitz, 1983) • Degraded performance (Getty et al., 1995) • Complete Lack of Trust (Bliss, 1993) • Complete Trust • Probability Matching – Participants’ Response Rates Mirror the Perceived Reliability of the Alarm System. • These Patterns Take Time to Appear (Bliss et al., 1996). • Question: What if Researchers Apply human trust facilitators to human-alarm relationships? WHAT ARE THOSE VARIABLES? Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

  18. Collective Mistrust of Alarms - Discussion • Documented Ways to Improve Alarm Responsiveness • Maximize alarm reliability (Bliss, 1993) • Advertise high alarm reliability rates (Bliss et al., 1995) • Add Redundant Sources of Alarm Information (Bliss et al., 1996) • Augment alarm stimuli and response options (Bliss, 1997). • Etiquette Related Possibilities • Give alarm systems “human” qualities (include verbiage, etc.) • Make alarm stimuli emotional (Sorkin et al.’s “likelihood alarm displays”; altering Edworthy’s parameters) • Vary teammate trustworthiness Bliss, Sidone, & Mason, 2002

More Related