Human-Autonomy Teaming for Unmanned Vehicle Control: Examination of the Role of Operator Individual Differences

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1210)


Autonomous capabilities are reaching a point where they can fulfill the role of a teammate for the command and control of unmanned vehicles. Individual characteristics of a human operator may influence how an autonomous teammate is utilized and the team’s performance. Twenty-four participants completed a questionnaire that included the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), Desirability of Control Scale, and items regarding video game experience and propensity to trust. They then worked with either a human or autonomous teammate to complete a series of missions using multiple simulated unmanned vehicles and rated how much they trusted their teammate. Results found several correlations between TIPI scores and performance measures. Propensity to trust scores were correlated with their trust ratings when the teammate was human, but not correlated when the teammate was autonomous. There were no significant correlations associated with video game experience or Desirability of Control. Implications of the results are discussed.


Human-autonomy team Unmanned vehicles Individual differences 



This work was funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory.


  1. 1.
    Madhavan, P., Wiegmann, D.A.: Similarities and differences between human-human and human-automation trust: an integrative review. Theor. Issues Erg. Sci. 8(4), 277–301 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoffman, R.R., Johnson, M., Bradshaw, J.M., Underbrink, A.: Trust in automation. IEEE Intell. Syst. 28(1), 84–88 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferguson, A.J., Peterson, R.S.: Sinking slowly: diversity in propensity to trust predicts downward trust spirals in small groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 100(4), 1012 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spence, I., Feng, J.: Video games and spatial cognition. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 14, 92–104 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cain, M.S., Landau, A.N., Shimamura, A.P.: Action video game experience reduces the cost of switching tasks. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 74(4), 641–647 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Norman, W.T.: Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 66, 574 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K.: The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Person. Psychol. 44(1), 1–26 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Urban, J.M., Bowers, C.A., Monday, S.D., Morgan Jr., B.B.: Workload, team structure, and communication in team performance. Mil. Psychol. 7(2), 123–139 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Legrain, P., Paquet, Y., D’Arripe-Longueville, F., Antonini Philippe, R.: Influence of desirability for control on instructional interactions and intrinsic motivation in a sport peer tutoring setting. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 42(1), 69–83 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frost, E.: Human-Autonomy Teaming: The Effects of Team Structure (Doctoral Dissertation), Wright State University (2019)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Draper, M., Rowe, A., Douglass, S., Calhoun, G., Spriggs, S., Kingston, D., Frost, E.: Realizing Autonomy via Intelligent Hybrid Control: Adaptable Autonomy for Achieving UxV RSTA Team Decision Superiority (No. AFRL-RH-WP-TR-2018-0005). 711 Human Performance Wing, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, United States. Technical report (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., Swann, W.B.: A very brief measure of the big five personality domains. J. Res. Pers. 37, 504–528 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burger, J.M., Cooper, H.M.: The desirability of control. Motiv. Emot. 3(4), 381–393 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tukey, J.W.: Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1977)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Calhoun, G., Ruff, H., Murray, C.: Multi-Unmanned Vehicle Supervisory Control: An Initial Evaluation of Personality Drivers. Infotech@ Aerospace, AIAA-2012-2527, pp. 1–22 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Judge, T.A., Erez, A.: Interaction and intersection: the constellation of emotional stability and extraversion in predicting performance. Person. Psychol. 60(3), 573–596 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rothmann, S., Coetzer, E.P.: The big five personality dimensions and job performance. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 29(1), 68–74 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Burger, J.M., McWard, J., LaTorre, D.: Relinquishing control over aversive stimuli. In: Annual Meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Seattle, WA (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Air Force Research Laboratory711 HPW/RHWCDaytonUSA
  2. 2.InfoscitexDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations