Cooperative warning systems: The impact of false and unnecessary alarms on drivers' compliance.

Cooperative warning systems have a great potential to prevent traffic accidents. However, because of their predictive nature, they might also go along with an increased frequency of incorrect alarms that could limit their effectiveness. To better understand the consequences associated with incorrect alarms, a driving simulator study with N=80 drivers was conducted to investigate how situational context and warning urgency jointly influence drivers' compliance with an unreliable advisory warning system (AWS). The participants encountered several critical urban driving situations and were either assisted by a 100% reliable AWS, a 60% reliable AWS that generated false alarms (without obvious reason) or a 60% reliable AWS that generated unnecessary alarms (with plausible reason). A baseline drive without any assistance was also introduced to the study. The warnings were presented either only visually or visual-auditory. In line with previous research, drivers' compliance and effectiveness of the AWS was reduced by false alarms but not by unnecessary alarms. However, this so-called cry wolf effect (Breznitz, 1984) was only found in the visual-auditory condition, whereas there was no effect of warning reliability in the condition with visual AWS. Furthermore, false but not unnecessary alarms caused the participants to rate the AWS less favourably during a follow-up interview. In spite of these negative effects of false alarms, a reduction in the frequency of safety-critical events (SCEs) and an earlier braking onset were evident in all assisted drives compared with that of non-assisted driving, even when the AWS was unreliable. The results may thus lower concerns about the negative consequences of warning drivers unnecessarily about upcoming traffic conflicts if the reasons of these alarms are comprehensible. From a perspective of designing AWS, we recommend to use less urgent warnings to prevent the cry wolf effect.

Decision-making and response strategies in interaction with alarms: the impact of alarm reliability, availability of alarm validity information and workload.

Responding to alarm systems which usually commit a number of false alarms and/or misses involves decision-making under uncertainty. Four laboratory experiments including a total of 256 participants were conducted to gain comprehensive insight into humans' dealing with this uncertainty. Specifically, it was investigated how responses to alarms/non-alarms are affected by the predictive validities of these events, and to what extent response strategies depend on whether or not the validity of alarms/non-alarms can be cross-checked against other data. Among others, the results suggest that, without cross-check possibility (experiment 1), low levels of predictive validity of alarms ( ≤ 0.5) led most participants to use one of two different strategies which both involved non-responding to a significant number of alarms (cry-wolf effect). Yet, providing access to alarm validity information reduced this effect dramatically (experiment 2). This latter result emerged independent of the effort needed for cross-checkings of alarms (experiment 3), but was affected by the workload imposed by concurrent tasks (experiment 4). Theoretical and practical consequences of these results for decision-making and response selection in interaction with alarm systems, as well as the design of effective alarm systems, are discussed.