Construction and validation of an updated perfect automation schema (uPAS) scale

被引:6
作者
Gibson, Anthony M. [1 ]
Capiola, August [2 ]
Alarcon, Gene M. [2 ]
Lee, Michael A. [3 ]
Jessup, Sarah A. [1 ]
Hamdan, Izz Aldin [3 ]
机构
[1] Consortium Univ, Washington, DC USA
[2] US Air Force, Res Lab, Wright Patterson AFB, OH USA
[3] Gen Dynam Informat Technol, Falls Church, VA USA
关键词
automation schema; reliability; validity; INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES; TRUST; MEMORY; BIASES;
D O I
10.1080/1463922X.2022.2081375
中图分类号
TB18 [人体工程学];
学科分类号
1201 ;
摘要
The perfect automation schema is described as a representation people hold regarding the performance of automated systems, comprising initial high expectations for automated systems' performance and low forgiveness after automated systems fail. Merritt, Unnersta II, Lee, and Huber have created a self-report measure of perfect automation schema comprising the two aforementioned factors, but this measure has demonstrated poor internal consistency estimates. In the present research, we created an updated perfect automation schema (uPAS) scale that showed acceptable reliability and validity estimates. In Study 1, we generated items that described both factors of perfect automation schema and conducted an exploratory factor analysis. In Study 2, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the uPAS scale composition and examined the scale's convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity. We found acceptable reliability estimates for the new scale across both studies. In Study 2, however, we found the uPAS scale factors and the factors from Merritt and colleagues' scale showed similar criterion validity across three trust-related criteria (trustworthiness perceptions, reliance intentions, and use endorsement). We conclude by offering a reliable uPAS scale to assess the perfect automation schema, which showed comparable criterion-related validity to Merritt and colleagues' scale.
引用
收藏
页码:241 / 266
页数:26
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1980, Theoretical issues in reading comprehension
[2]  
[Anonymous], Science and Technology Strategy: Strengthening USAF Science and Technology for 2030 and Beyond
[3]  
Bartlett F.C., 1932, Remembering: A Study in experimental and social psychology
[4]  
Beals D.E., 1998, Mind, Culture, and Activity, V5, P3, DOI [DOI 10.1207/S15327884MCA0501_2, DOI 10.1207/s15327884mca05012]
[5]   Development of a measure of workplace deviance [J].
Bennett, RJ ;
Robinson, SL .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 85 (03) :349-360
[6]  
Brewer W.F., 2000, BARTLETT CULTURE COG, P69
[7]   ROLE OF SCHEMATA IN MEMORY FOR PLACES [J].
BREWER, WF ;
TREYENS, JC .
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 1981, 13 (02) :207-230
[8]   From the Editors: Common method variance in international business research [J].
Chang, Sea-Jin ;
van Witteloostuijn, Arjen ;
Eden, Lorraine .
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, 2010, 41 (02) :178-184
[9]   Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data [J].
Curran, Paul G. .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2016, 66 :4-19