Humans and Automation¶
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230-253.
Cited by¶
8 citations across 8 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
Mechanisms¶
- Automated Classification and Routing
- It misleads through automation bias — once routing is automatic, people tend to trust the destination even when the classification is plainly wrong, so a miscategorized offer sails to the wrong place unchallenged.
This sourceIdentifies misuse of automation as overreliance that can produce failures of monitoring and biased decisions.
- It misleads through automation bias — once routing is automatic, people tend to trust the destination even when the classification is plainly wrong, so a miscategorized offer sails to the wrong place unchallenged.
- Automatic Diagnostic Capture
- Its named hazard is automation complacency
This sourceAutomation misuse through overreliance can produce failures of monitoring, allowing automation errors or omissions to escape notice.
- Its named hazard is automation complacency
- Claim Release Gate
- That guard matters most where automation bias makes people and systems over-trust a clean output and drop its caveats on the way to a decision.
This sourceDescribes automation bias as overreliance on apparently authoritative automated output.
- That guard matters most where automation bias makes people and systems over-trust a clean output and drop its caveats on the way to a decision.
- Decision Support Tool
- Its sharpest failure is automation bias: users come to over-trust the recommendation, under-weight contradictory evidence, and defer to a flag (or its absence) even when it is wrong — the tool's silence gets read as a green light.
This sourceDefines automation misuse as overreliance that can produce monitoring failures and decision biases, including inadequate response to evidence that automation is unreliable.
- Its sharpest failure is automation bias: users come to over-trust the recommendation, under-weight contradictory evidence, and defer to a flag (or its absence) even when it is wrong — the tool's silence gets read as a green light.
- Hallucination Check
- It is most needed precisely when the output reads well, because polish suppresses the reader's own skepticism — a form of automation bias, the documented tendency to over-trust an automated system's output and under-check it.
This sourceDefines automation misuse as overreliance on automation that can produce monitoring and decision failures.
- It is most needed precisely when the output reads well, because polish suppresses the reader's own skepticism — a form of automation bias, the documented tendency to over-trust an automated system's output and under-check it.
- Manual Supervision Mode
- When the same odd sizing recurs three times in an hour, the standing rule escalates it: the supervising trader hands the case up to the risk desk, which pulls the model entirely rather than keep rubber-stamping a pattern that shouldn't exist.
This sourceExplains how automation misuse and overreliance can bias decisions and weaken human monitoring.
- When the same odd sizing recurs three times in an hour, the standing rule escalates it: the supervising trader hands the case up to the risk desk, which pulls the model entirely rather than keep rubber-stamping a pattern that shouldn't exist.
- Tiered Decision Support
- A clean, authoritative recommendation invites automation bias — users stop checking
This sourceDescribes automation misuse as overreliance that can weaken human monitoring and allow automated errors to pass unchallenged.
- A clean, authoritative recommendation invites automation bias — users stop checking
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 8 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:b0054b1ef591 · see in the full table