Next Article in Journal
Analysis of Passenger Incident Data from Five Rail Transit Systems
Next Article in Special Issue
How Did Crew Resource Management Take-Off Outside of the Cockpit? A Systematic Review of How Crew Resource Management Training Is Conceptualised and Evaluated for Non-Pilots
Previous Article in Journal
Pilot Testing a Naturalistic Driving Study to Investigate Winter Maintenance Operator Fatigue during Winter Emergencies
Article Menu
Issue 3 (September) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Safety 2017, 3(3), 20; https://doi.org/10.3390/safety3030020

Models of Automation Surprise: Results of a Field Survey in Aviation

1
Aviation Academy, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, 1097 DZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands
2
School of Humanities, Griffith University, Nathan, 4111 Queensland, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 6 March 2017 / Revised: 6 September 2017 / Accepted: 9 September 2017 / Published: 11 September 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Aviation Safety)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [1764 KB, uploaded 12 September 2017]   |  

Abstract

Automation surprises in aviation continue to be a significant safety concern and the community’s search for effective strategies to mitigate them are ongoing. The literature has offered two fundamentally divergent directions, based on different ideas about the nature of cognition and collaboration with automation. In this paper, we report the results of a field study that empirically compared and contrasted two models of automation surprises: a normative individual-cognition model and a sensemaking model based on distributed cognition. Our data prove a good fit for the sense-making model. This finding is relevant for aviation safety, since our understanding of the cognitive processes that govern human interaction with automation drive what we need to do to reduce the frequency of automation-induced events. View Full-Text
Keywords: aviation automation; automation surprise; cognition; complacency; bias aviation automation; automation surprise; cognition; complacency; bias
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

De Boer, R.; Dekker, S. Models of Automation Surprise: Results of a Field Survey in Aviation. Safety 2017, 3, 20.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Safety EISSN 2313-576X Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top