Automation bias and errors: are crews better than individuals?

The availability of automated decision aids can sometimes feed into the general human tendency to travel the road of least cognitive effort. Is this tendency toward "automation bias" (the use of automation as a heuristic replacement for vigilant information seeking and processing) ameliorated when more than one decision maker is monitoring system events? This study examined automation bias in two-person crews versus solo performers under varying instruction conditions. Training that focused on automation bias and associated errors successfully reduced commission, but not omission, errors. Teams and solo performers were equally likely to fail to respond to system irregularities or events when automated devices failed to indicate them, and to incorrectly follow automated directives when the contradicted other system information.

Automation bias: decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits.

Automated aids and decision support tools are rapidly becoming indispensable tools in high-technology cockpits and are assuming increasing control of"cognitive" flight tasks, such as calculating fuel-efficient routes, navigating, or detecting and diagnosing system malfunctions and abnormalities. This study was designed to investigate automation bias, a recently documented factor in the use of automated aids and decision support systems. The term refers to omission and commission errors resulting from the use of automated cues as a heuristic replacement for vigilant information seeking and processing. Glass-cockpit pilots flew flight scenarios involving automation events or opportunities for automation-related omission and commission errors. Although experimentally manipulated accountability demands did not significantly impact performance, post hoc analyses revealed that those pilots who reported an internalized perception of "accountability" for their performance and strategies of interaction with the automation were significantly more likely to double-check automated functioning against other cues and less likely to commit errors than those who did not share this perception. Pilots were also lilkely to erroneously "remember" the presence of expected cues when describing their decision-making processes.

The relationship of psychological adjustment to perceived family functioning among African-American adolescents.

The Family-of-Origin Scale for adolescents (FOS) is a 40-item ten subscale instrument designed to assess perceived psychological health in the respondent's family. To date, the FOS has been used exclusively with white adolescents. The FOS was administered concurrently with the Langner Symptom Survey (LSS), a measure of adjustment, to 135 African-American adolescents. The LSS exhibited moderate, yet significant, correlations with the FOS: A total score, two superordinate dimensions, and six subscales. The results lend modest support for the construct validity of the FOS.

The reliability of the Family-of-Origin Scale for adolescents.

The Family-of-Origin Scale (FOS), a 40-item, ten-subscale measure of family processes, exhibits promise for assessing adolescents' perceptions of family health. While initial research has suggested that the instrument demonstrates factorial validity, the reliability of the FOS for adolescents has not been established. The present study involved administering the FOS to 88 adolescents on two occasions, with a two-week interval between testings. The global FOS index and ten subscale scores demonstrated high test-retest reliability. Internal consistency reliability for the instrument was also high. When taken together with previous research, the current study's results suggest that the FOS for adolescents is psychometrically sound.