Automation: Decision Aid or Decision Maker?

This study clarified that automation bias is something unique to automated decision making contexts, and is not the result of a general tendency toward complacency. By comparing performance on exactly the same events on the same tasks with and without an automated decision aid, we were able to determine that at least the omission error part of automation bias is due to the unique context created by having an automated decision aid, and is not a phenomena that would occur even if people were not in an automated context. However, this study also revealed that having an automated decision aid did lead to modestly improved performance across all non-error events. Participants in the non- automated condition responded with 83.68% accuracy, whereas participants in the automated condition responded with 88.67% accuracy, across all events. Automated decision aids clearly led to better overall performance when they were accurate. People performed almost exactly at the level of reliability as the automation (which across events was 88% reliable). However, also clear, is that the presence of less than 100% accurate automated decision aids creates a context in which new kinds of errors in decision making can occur. Participants in the non-automated condition responded with 97% accuracy on the six "error" events, whereas participants in the automated condition had only a 65% accuracy rate when confronted with those same six events. In short, the presence of an AMA can lead to vigilance decrements that can lead to errors in decision making.