Abstract/Summary

Three experiments examine the effect of different forms of computer-generated advice on concurrent and subsequent performance of individuals controlling a simulated intensive-care task. Experiment 1 investigates the effect of optional and compulsory advice and shows that both result in an improvement in subjects' performance while receiving the advice, and also in an improvement in subsequent unaided performance. However, although the advice compliance displayed by the optional advice group shows a strong correlation with subsequent unaided performance, compulsory advice has no extra benefit over the optional use of advice. Experiment 2 examines the effect of providing users with on-line explanations of the advice, as well as providing less specific advice. The results show that both groups perform at the same level on the task as the advice groups from Experiment 1, although subjects receiving explanations scored significantly higher on a written post-task questionnaire. Experiment 3 investigates in more detail the relationship between advice compliance and performance. The results reveal a complex relationship between natural ability on the task and the following of advice, in that people who use the advice more tend to perform either better or worse than the more moderate users. The theoretical and practical implications of these experiments are discussed.