ABSTRACT
Automation is used in both the home and the office with the goal of reducing human workload and allowing people to focus their cognitive resources on other tasks. Data appear to disconfirm this strong form of the compliance/reliance distinction, thereby indicating that automation FAs reduce operator reliance as well as compliance. The effects indicate that participants in the FA-prone conditions were less likely than those in the miss-prone conditions to agree with the automation when it judged that a target. The bias and the reliability of the aid were both manipulated, such that the aid either could be FA-prone or miss-prone, with reliability levels. The pattern of non-selective effects in the behavioral data indicate that FA-prone automation disrupted operator compliance more than reliance, while miss-prone automation disrupted operator reliance more than compliance. Regardless of the results, it is important to mention that non-selective effects of automation FAs and misses do not necessarily disconfirm the compliance/ reliance distinction.
