No abstract

Although increases in the use of automation have occurred across society, research has found that human operators often underutilize (disuse) and overly rely on (misuse) automated aids (R. Parasuraman & V. Riley, 1997). Nearly 275 Cameron University students participated in 1 of 3 experiments performed to examine the effects of perceived utility (M. T. Dzindolet, H. P. Beck, L. G. Pierce, & L. A. Dawe, 2001) on automation use in a visual detection task and to compare reliance on automated aids with reliance on humans. Results revealed a bias for human operators to rely on themselves. Although self-report data indicate a bias toward automated aids over human aids, performance data revealed that participants were more likely to disuse automated aids than to disuse human aids. This discrepancy was accounted for by assuming human operators have a "perfect automation" schema. Actual or potential applications of this research include the design of future automateddecision aids and training procedures for operators relying on such aids.

A series of studies examined the role of social influence processes in group brainstorming. Two studies with pairs and 1 with groups of 4 revealed that the performance of participants in interactive groups is more similar than the performance of those in nominal groups. A 4th study demonstrated that performance levels in an initial group session predicted performance on a different problem 2 sessions later. In a 5th study it was found that the productivity gap between an interactive and nominal group could be eliminated by giving interactive group members a performance standard comparable with the typical performance of nominal groups. These studies indicate that performance levels in brainstorming groups are strongly affected by exposure to information about the performance of others. It is proposed that social matching of low performance levels by interactive group members may be an important factor in the productivity loss observed in group brainstorming.

Research has shown that individuals produce fewer ideas in interactive brainstorming groups than when brainstorming alone. However, group brainstorming remains a popular technique in organizations and industry. One basis for this popularity may be the perceived productivity of group brainstorming. A survey of expected performance in group brainstorming revealed that most individuals believed they would generate more ideas in groups than alone. Individuals who, in a second experiment, actually performed in brainstorming groups also perceived their performance more favorably than individuals who brainstormed alone. The results of a third experiment indicate that the illusion of group productivity may derive in part from the opportunity for social comparison that is available in group brainstorming. It also appears that individuals tend to take credit for a disproportionate amount of the brainstorming activity in groups.

No abstract