{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004464285714285714, 'mean_word_length': 5.262569832402234, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Expertise Levels of Human versus Automated Decision Aids Influence Response Biases in a Visual Search Task

Studies have demonstrated that humans appear to apply norms of human-human interaction to interaction with automated decision aids. We examined the differences in perceptions of automation vs. humans when the expertise and reliability of these advisers varied. Participants (n = 180) performed a luggage-screening task with the assistance of human or automated advisers that differed in pedigree (expert vs. novice) and reliability (high vs. low), but had a similar neutral beta setting of 1.0. Shifts in sensitivity, criterion settings and accuracy were assessed. Participants who were presented with a low-reliable “expert” adviser shifted their bias away from the neutral bias of the adviser and more toward optimal beta compared to participants receiving unreliable advice from a ‘novice’. This effect increased across trials for participants using low-reliability automated advisers but not human advisers. The results have implications for the development of models of optimal utilization of decision aids.