Trust in automation and the accuracy of human–algorithm teams performing one-to-one face matching tasks

• Published in: Cognitive research: principles and implications Vol. 9; no. 1; pp. 41 - 17
• Main Authors: Carragher, Daniel J., Sturman, Daniel, Hancock, Peter J. B.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 21.06.2024; Springer Nature B.V; SpringerOpen
• Subjects: Accuracy; Adult; Algorithms; Automated Facial Recognition; Automation; Automation and Human Cognition; Behavioral Science and Psychology; Cognitive Psychology; Collaborative decision-making; Experimental Psychology; Face; Face recognition; Facial Recognition - physiology; Facial recognition technology; Female; Human factors; Humans; Human–computer interaction; Identity verification; Male; Neurosciences; Original; Original Article; Pattern recognition; Psychology; Trust; Young Adult; Face recognition; Collaborative decision-making; Identity verification; Human factors; Human–computer interaction
• ISSN: 2365-7464; 2365-7464
• DOI: 10.1186/s41235-024-00564-8

The human face is commonly used for identity verification. While this task was once exclusively performed by humans, technological advancements have seen automated facial recognition systems (AFRS) integrated into many identification scenarios. Although many state-of-the-art AFRS are exceptionally accurate, they often require human oversight or involvement, such that a human operator actions the final decision. Previously, we have shown that on average, humans assisted by a simulated AFRS (sAFRS) failed to reach the level of accuracy achieved by the same sAFRS alone, due to overturning the system’s correct decisions and/or failing to correct sAFRS errors. The aim of the current study was to investigate whether participants’ trust in automation was related to their performance on a one-to-one face matching task when assisted by a sAFRS. Participants ( n  = 160) completed a standard face matching task in two phases: an unassisted baseline phase, and an assisted phase where they were shown the identification decision (95% accurate) made by a sAFRS prior to submitting their own decision. While most participants improved with sAFRS assistance, those with greater relative trust in automation achieved larger gains in performance. However, the average aided performance of participants still failed to reach that of the sAFRS alone, regardless of trust status. Nonetheless, further analysis revealed a small sample of participants who achieved 100% accuracy when aided by the sAFRS. Our results speak to the importance of considering individual differences when selecting employees for roles requiring human–algorithm interaction, including identity verification tasks that incorporate facial recognition technologies.