The Impact of Automation on Human Behavior-A Review

Full text

448 | P a g e
The Impact of Automation on Human Behavior-A Review
Navshad Ahmad Wani1, Shakeel Ahmad Najar2, Zubair Sayed Masoodi3
1Department of Psychology, Govt. Degree College, Baramulla, J&K, (India)
2,3Department of Computer Applications, Govt. Degree College, Baramulla, J&K, (India)
ABSTRACT
The intelligence is the prime determinant on which humans are both distinguished and considerably unique
among all the creatures in this universe. With the advent of the field of Artificial Intelligence, the era of
automation has revolutionized the human life. The AI may well be a modeling of the human intelligence. For
humans are, to a first approximation, intelligent; they can perceive, act, learn, reason, and communicate
successfully despite the enormous complexity of the tasks. Since humans react differently to the functioning of
different automated systems, it is imperative to understand, what the impact of automation on human machine
interaction is. The interaction between humans and fully automated facilities or machines is a key issue for the
researchers in the field of Psychology, Robotics and Ergonomics. This paper focuses on few important aspects
the automated systems on human behaviour in different settings and examines the effects produced by them. This
study is an evaluation of the effects of automation on the human behavior and to elucidate on both positive and
negative impacts of automation on human behavior.
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Automation, human-robot interaction, human behavior, robots
I.INTRODUCTION
The technological revolution powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI) has metamorphosed the human life and
workforce in the current century. John McCarthy [1] initiated the research on AI and argued that Intelligence
and its domains can be simplified precisely so that they can be simulated by a machine. In this context the AI is
on one hand defined as the field which investigates the intelligent problem solving behaviours and creating
intelligent computer systems. On the other hand Automation means actually solutions to problems, higher
production volumes, increased profits, lower costs, economical benefits for companies and recognition on the
global markets. It‟s made concrete by going forward in all actions that organizations all around the world
perform to challenge themselves for a better future. Human everyday tasks are already simplified by the
technology which is fast growing thus prompts the behavior scientists to probe into the human factors arising
out of human-machine interaction. The present paper focuses on few important aspects regarding the interaction
between humans and fully automated systems in different settings and examines the effects produced by them.
This study is an evaluative study which intends to review the research on the effects of automation on the human
behavior and to elucidate on both positive and negative impacts of automation on human behavior. Computers,
algorithms and softwares simplify almost all the everyday tasks and we can hardly find our day to day activities
without the intervention of this computer assisted automation systems. AI has also fundamentally revolutionized
the global industrial and labour market with the exponential growth resulting into a huge scare of losing human

449 | P a g e
workforce and replacing them by machines. The future seems uncertain due to the impact of AI on changing the
work environment, working time, remuneration, possible threats to employment and subsequent pervasive social
impact viz, mass unemployment, mass poverty and other social distortions.
Developing new technologies through implication and interest, in the direction of sustainability, implicate
higher power of creativity, flexibility, resistance, even awareness of existing and ongoing risks [2]. Automation
has been playing a significantly crucial role in our lives since the beginning of 1940s, when companies started to
generate new ideas for their production lines, implement shortcuts in the production systems, applying low-cost
alternatives and trying to work as efficient as possible to fulfill customer needs on a larger scale. In fact the
craving for automation is not new; it is the outcome of human curiosity since the dawn of human civilization on
earth. People have been trying to find better ways of doing jobs, based on technology. When talking about
“automation”, robots, computers, production lines, airplanes, trains, futuristic infrastructures, cross our minds. It
intends to make human lives and daily work easier.
The effect of automation on the human behavior needs to be treated in detail, in order to offer the expected
values for a better understanding of the new technologies. The area which deals with the human machine
interaction or using the technology in a simplistic and most productive manner is named as Ergonomics which is
not only a part of engineering psychology but an individual sub field. Human Factors and Ergonomics (HF&E)
as it is popularly called intends to understand the interaction and other systems and tries to use the accumulated
theories, principles and best possible methods to optimize human well being and system performance. It also
tries to answer the fundamental question, why the automation is important and how is it going to affect the
mentalities of humans, beings, both workers and consumers? With the introduction of the automation in last
three decades, the insecurity among the workers concerning their future has increased. It is argued that the AI,
Automation and Robotics do not pose a possible threat to human employment but enrich the human workforce
[3]. The result of automation has enriched the production methods, employees are either used for another tasks,
or encouraged to enrich their practical and theoretical backgrounds by taking over new tasks and following
training periods within the companies. This extends Bainbridge's [4] view that humans, due to automation,
increasingly take on new tasks such as those related to system improvement. Likewise, Autor [5] rhetorically
asks why we still have so many jobs after decades of automation, and suggests that productivity-improvements
in parts of a production process often serve to increase the value of the remaining parts, increasing the value of
human skill and knowledge. Most of the companies provide specialized trainings on a long term, for
incorporation both their human workers and the robots they invested in. Through that, the companies are able to
grow their own employees in the way that their abilities can be used to reach the expected amount of production
capacity and progress in their business. One of the biggest impediments to the automation is tech-aversion
among some employees who manifest their resistance to such changes as a result of their perception of
incapability to handling such tech-driven changes. But given the magnitude of the automation in the current
world order, there is no way out for such employees to resist change because automation is the all pervasive
inevitable world scenario for the future of the human living and workforce.
The solution to tech-aversion, and other human factors in tech based organizations of current times Ergonomics.
Ergonomic factors include such things as environment (noise, layout, temperature), hardware (furniture and

450 | P a g e
video display terminal equipment), and software (user system interfaces, training, and documentation). Two
areas of ergonomics have been discussed by most researchers. They are the design of office space and the design
of office furniture. Both have had an impact on how work is done. Researchers have long back argued that the
office and other work settings should be managed in a people friendly manner [6]. Maas further argues that
peoples‟ hostility towards computer based systems and automation will decrease with the passage of time as
more and more people will be able to attain the automation skills through training and experience. The factors in
physical settings include interactional distance -- how close or far people should be to each other, adjacencies --
who should be physically next to whom, lighting, and human-computer interaction (HCI) are the major issues
when we review the impact of automation on human behavior. Stone and Luchetti [7] also focused on the
physical design of the office environment and argued it highly important. Stress is inevitable in an automated
system which can be minimized by ergonomics at automated workplaces [8]. The reactions to the office stress
can be classified into four groups that are interrelated, these groups are: Physical symptoms like visual and
postural discomfort, headaches and nausea. Psychological symptoms such as low self-esteem, negative attitudes
towards computers, fear of the future, and depression. Motivational symptoms include low motivation,
boredom, fatigue, and feelings of loss of control and the Behavioral symptoms are incomplete work,
communications problems, and changes in work output. Stressors, come from an office environment which is
inhospitable or unrewarding. Some of the major office stressors are: poorly designed office equipment (video
display terminals, furniture and lighting), work ambiguity, demand for increased work productivity, and
uncertainty concerning career goals. Office ergonomics, Cirillo points out, is a way to help solve these problems
because the concept is to design computer systems to the human being. Koffler [9] also stresses the importance
of incorporating ergonomic design into the entire design process when dealing with computer technology and
the automated office. Ergonomic design contains issues that include not only hardware and software but also
issues such as training and documentation. Theil [10] also supported the ergonomics and its importance on work
performance and human psychological stability. On the other hand office and furniture ergonomics, Diebold
[11] says, is becoming obsolete as the interaction of humans and computers changes. He believes ergonomist
must be concerned with the future of automation and not dwell so much on the present. Ellis [12] reviews
research that had been conducted on organizations whose organizational structure has been affected by
information technology. These changes, the author says, have affected space planning requirements, and the
implications for planning and design. He provides some insight on future designs of office buildings where new
information systems will be implemented. The first is the organizational size, which will change with advanced
information technology organizations will become smaller or be sub-divided into smaller independent entities.
Offices and buildings will have to adapt to these changes in which more than one organization may occupy a
building. Adaptability is the key. Second, the workgroup size -- will become smaller, thus lessening the need for
open-plan areas. This will in turn lead to changes in the physical layout of offices. Third is the forms of
interaction -- will be different. There will be a need for communal areas with less emphasis on individual
offices. Office spaces will become smaller as more room is used for conferencing areas. The fourth and the final
according to Ellis [12] the need will increase for buildings suitable for multi-occupation and highly flexible
servicing for smaller organizations within the same building. Such changes in the physical and work settings

451 | P a g e
have already been witnessed but the people are getting adapted to such changes steadily. These adaptations are
quicker in the countries which had early exposure to the automation and the fourth industrial revolution which it
is popularly called.
II.EMOTIONS AND HUMAN-MACHINE INTERACTION
The human machine interaction is a complex phenomenon which entails a vast body of research based
knowledge generated by the researchers in many contexts. One such context is the human-like emotions
incorporations in a machine so as to make interaction more efficient and meaningful. The human affect has an
important relationship with trust [13]. Since people sometimes treat machines as humans, there is an obvious
role of affect in trust related to automation, in particular when they treat autonomous machines as people [14]. A
conversational agent trained to elicit and express affect, although obviously not human, gains more trust through
this training, even though participants do not believe the machine itself is experiencing emotion [15]. It is
possible affect may cause us to overly trust the machine. In some situations, it appears it is better not to let a
machine pretend it is a person. Kiesler et al., [16] showed that, in a prisoner‟s dilemma, people generally played
fairly with a computer – but that a text interface worked better than a semi-human one. A text interface may
make it easier to overlook the human/computer difference. Such a result has interesting implications – in
situations in which a machine is being compared to a human, it may be that the medium through which the
message is delivered will be significant.
III.PERSONALITY AND HUMAN-MACHINE INTERACTION
The human-machine interaction involves the personality factors of humans and possible programmed traits in
machines working for automation tasks. The traits like Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness as
individual differences may play a role in the behavior of subjects interacting with a machine-human team.
Conscientiousness, for example, has been associated with the tendency to be cautious and avoid mistakes. It
may be that highly conscientious individuals will be more likely to follow instructions under conditions of
uncertainty and risk than individuals who are low on the same trait [17]. Openness has been studied in the
context of new product development teams and decision making teams [18]. In this study, the investigators
found that openness moderated the effectiveness of computer assisted decision making. More open individuals
made better decisions under conditions of computer mediated communication. Moreover there is evidence of
stress changes decision making and in particular the decision making of pilots [19, 20]. As a generalization,
decision making is worse under conditions of time pressure. Some studies show that the choice to use
automation is influenced by our own self-confidence in a situation – the less self-confidence; the more likely we
are to choose automation.

452 | P a g e
IV.EMPLOYEE MONITORING SYSTEMS AND HEALTH RELATED ISSUES DUE TO
AUTOMATION
One of the important outcomes of the automation is the computer based monitoring system. Earlier only clerical
staff was monitored but now all the work divisions of the organizations are monitored. The use of computers for
e-mail, calendars, and project tracking by managers and supervisors has made it easier for their work
performance to be monitored as well. It is expected that stress related illnesses will increase at these positions
also. The neck strain is a commonest form of computer related health issue in current times. According to
Bloom [21], “computer related illnesses are not only related to the computer equipment but also are due to the
surrounding environment and the stresses caused by that environment”. Reynolds [22] also emphasized the
health issues related to computer usage. The most widespread of these are video-display terminal illnesses,
which include eye strain, repetitive motion injuries and back strain.
V.AUTOMATION AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE
Considerable number of studies is available to highlight the automation and human performance outcomes.
Automation has both beneficial and negative effects on human performance [23]. The results of this study were
also supported by Sarter et al. [24]. The automation technology is having the severe operational challenges
unless it is not learned properly before handling or operating. The difficulty in handling and operation of the
gadgets used in automation technology increases the cognitive and physical workload of the operator which
results into an unwanted work stress [25]. The term used for such a system is „clumsy automation‟ which is
actually the opposite of what is expected of automation [26]. When the use of automation technology instead of
reducing workload, increases it, the resulting state is counterproductive for the worker or the operator. In fact
use of high level of automated technology may render an operator clueless in case of a technical snag. In such a
case of non-reliability of automation in decision choices, the operator may not be able to monitor or even detect
the automation malfunctions. This phenomenon is known as automation-induced complacency [27, 28]. On the
other hand when the reliability of the automated system was relatively high and unchanging, the operator
monitoring of the automated system was poor compared to manual control condition [28]. In an interesting
study by Tiwari et al. [29], it was argued that “complacency might reflect an “attitude towards automation”.
Moreover, the complacency effect was eliminated when the reliability of the automation was variable,
alternating between high and low, or when the automated task was the only task. Parasuraman et al. [28]
attributed the poor monitoring to an attentional strategy related to operator overtrust of the automation [30].
Human performance problems in automated systems also is a result of key underlying factor in complex,
automated systems control, that is human out-of-the-loop (OOTL) performance. Out of the loop performance
(OOTL) problems are characterized by a decreased ability of the human operator to intervene in system control
loops and assume manual control when needed in overseeing automated systems. First, human operators acting
as monitors have problems in detecting system errors and performing tasks manually in the event of automation
failures [31, 32, 33]. In a review of automation problems, Billings [32]noted six major aircraft accidents that

453 | P a g e
could be traced directly to failures in monitoring automated systems or the flight parameters controlled by the
automated systems.
To overcome some of the ills created by technology-centered approaches to automation a philosophy of human-
centered automation has been proposed [34]. He defined human-centered automation as facilitating a
cooperative relationship in the control and management of a complex system with potential benefits for
performance. Human-centered automation has many alternative meanings ranging from „allocate to the human
the tasks best suited to the human, to the tasks fully performed through an automated system [35]. The
hierarchical models of Levels Of Automation (LOA) proposed by Endsley [36] which ranged from manual
control to full automation or the models of Ntuen and Park [37], Sheridan and Verplank‟s [38] or that of
Endsley and Kaber [39, 40] 10-level taxonomy of LOA had four common functions, i-e monitoring, generating,
selecting and implementing the tasks. These models emphasized the selective allocation of tasks to human and
automated systems.
In comparison to LOA approach, the Adaptive Automation (AA) emphasizes on the varying degrees of
computer assistance in complex system controlled based on the nature of the situation including task
characteristics [41]. Rouse [42] also identified several advantages of AA including support of human
performance, dynamic definition of a coherent task role for operators and the capability to maintain acceptable
human workload levels in system control. Some authors opined that under AA, different types of automation
may be initiated and terminated dynamically based on situational demands placed on the system, inclusive of the
operator [43, 44]. The key difference between the AA and LOA approaches is that AA involves dynamic control
allocations (automated or manual, varying over time) and LOA involves static function assignments defining the
degree to which a task is automated [45, 46].
VI.AUTOMATION AND STRESS
Stress is one of the most widely researched areas of the 20th century. Stress is a reaction and appraisal to the
incoming stressors from the environment. It is regarded as a transaction between people and the environment
and described in terms of „person–environment fit‟ [47]. Stress is central to the automation or computer-aided
technology and the human behavior. Many researchers have studied this context: For example, Matthews and
Desmond, [48] posited that within the context of automated systems, stress tends to have three effects: it
overloads attentional capacity, disrupts executive control over selective attention, and disrupts adaptive
mobilization of effort. These findings are also supported by the researches on driving behavior under increased
attentional workload and on effects of stress on pilot decision making [49, 50].
Stress has been studied by some cognitive psychologists differently in last few decades of previous century with
emphasis on emotional and motivational factors like intense noise, feedback, electric shock, sleep deprivation,
mental workload, and personality factors [51-59]. Moreover it is also argued that the automation has rendered
humans sitting down and overcome the monotony of semi-automated or manual handling of works which has a
direct bearing on stress [60]. Automation result into stress due to monotony of machine handling or changes in
the routine work due to automation or individual‟s inability to adapt to the changes [61]. Interestingly a

454 | P a g e
reduction in the numbers of operatives and line workers per unit area could impact on emotional well-being as a
result of isolation and solitude experienced by many workers in the industrial workplace. „work activities give
man a part of his very identity‟, warning that „a threat to his own individual contribution can prove extremely
disturbing‟ [61]. Automation reduces employee stress by less supervision and micromanagement and reduction
in risk of human errors takes pressure off the workers. In this way automation may contribute to occupational
stress and may also overcome workplace stress depending on other psychological and situational factors.
VIII.AUTOMATION AND CREATIVITY
The widespread automation prevents human participation in a process of a task or a product which compromises
human creativity. Automation has already tightened the realization of human potential in complex systems. Frey
and Osborne [62] found that creativity is a key bottleneck to computerization: the skills required to innovate are
not readily replaceable by a machine. It is true that many creative occupations have undoubtedly been affected
by computers, for instance in Kashmir the worst hit area is handicrafts. The computer–controlled equipment is
unlikely to substitute for labour in creative domains. Instead, computers serve as a complement to most creative
professions, making creative skills more productive. Additionally the key finding that creative occupations are
much more resistant to automation should not be surprising when one considers that computers will most
successfully be able to emulate human labour when a problem is well specified – that is, when performance can
be straightforwardly quantified and therefore evaluated [63].
Since creativity involves interaction with the environment, it is only possible in flexible settings with Adaptive
Automation (AA). Creativity and innovation coupled with technology helps in better design, equipment,
methods or different systems that conserve resources, minimizing the environmental impact, increase the human
safety and protect the natural environment. The basic purpose of automation is efficiency, reliability precision
with higher accuracy than the human worker itself. Creativity and innovation in new technology reflects
developing new alternative systems of production with different and new parameters, with close collaboration of
humans and machines within the production system. This objective is impossible by fully automating the
process and systems. The replacement of machines does not threaten the job of humans instead provide new
scope for innovation and change [3].
IX.AUTOMATION AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR: SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
A robotic device is programmed by humans and is made to work in collaboration with humans. The principle is
to re-create a co-worker with greater efficiency and enormous potential. One that will help the human worker to
execute tasks which otherwise was impossible for humans to execute or were considered to be way too hard on
his body, such as lifting heavy weights or doing repetitive tasks. A virtual infinity of applications can be done by
robotic co-workers. Having a robot to work safely alongside humans can improve the production flow; allow the
automation of new processes by using the best of robots and the best of humans. Collaborative robots are now
designed to work alongside humans without any fencing [64].

455 | P a g e
In this enormous change in the surroundings due to automation, observing the human reaction to change can
provide answers to a multitude of questions. Do customers react to a better quality of products? In most of the
cases, the consumers make their decision based on new ways of producing goods, because through this,
consumers can define a product such as “the best one” taking into consideration the principle: “better quality at
a better price, or excellent quality at reasonable price”. In such changing demands, the automated product
services become inevitable which reduces the cost and increases the efficiency. Yet the focus is still on the
human workforce. Humans are the basic resources that can build an entire production system from zero, capable
to add and switch components, replace damaged equipment, who are always aware of errors within an
organization. Robots can detect errors, but in the moment, they just can‟t repair or sustain themselves. Artificial
intelligence will not be developed without the “real thinking machines”. The researchers on one hand are scared
of the fact that the automation systems may render people jobless as it has been argued that the since robots
efficiently make precise and fast procedures which is utterly impossible for human workers or can also perform
under highly dangerous situations like, duct cleaning, fix oil spills, analysis of hazardous environments or
extremely dangerous polluted environments, space exploration or risky drilling operations that can be done
exclusively by the robots or other intelligent equipments. Robots and intelligent machines can have not only
supporting, but even lifesaving functions. Examples are robots used in medical diagnostics, which have high
accuracy, or for the assessment of dangerous objects using remote control and integrated camera systems. These
make it possible, for example, to defuse a bomb without a human having to come close to it or to guard the tense
borders. On the other hand researchers do believe that automation do not cut jobs but render employees more
efficient with greater technological support [65]. The companies still need employees to maintain and supervise
the robotic production lines. If employees manifest fear of losing their jobs, it could cause damage to a
company, through inside tensions and even intentional damage to existing technology from the work place. This
might be one of the concerns at this level, and companies can come up with solutions for the human workers
such as job enrichment or job rotation, in order to keep them motivated. An important thing that employees
should realize is the fact that automation could generate other vacant positions within their companies [66].
The impact of automation on human behavior could be in a significant number more positive that the negative.
In the present times, these digital assistants (robots) are just assistants – helpful when asked to help, and
certainly, not freethinking. Is artificial intelligence therefore replacing the human element? Not at all – it is
simply taking a laborious task away from an employee who can add more value tackling a more challenging
problem [65]. It is highly unlikely that artificial intelligence will ever be able to display the creative and intuitive
capabilities needed to match humans at the tasks. The activities are not always clearer and specific as robots
need to know in order to work on human behalf. Things are not always black and white, right or wrong.
Fundamentally, the service industry is about people solving problems for people. Human issues need human
solutions. Robots will only ever be able to support the problem-solving structure. It cannot replace it. Modern
technology is considered to be just a tool that needs to be used efficiently in order to gather the maximum
amount of value. Therefore technology will dramatically change the nature of our jobs, but it won‟t take them
away. Rather, it will free up individuals to focus on higher value challenges that can only be tackled by a human
mind. As Rossi [67] argues that, “The workforce of the future should need to focus on new ways to apply and

456 | P a g e
leverage skills so workers can add greater value. This workforce of the next generation could be defined by jobs
that embrace and make sense of data and smart machines. It’s all about changing perceptions of not only what
is needed but what is most valuable for us to dedicate our lives to”. The most important impact the automation
may have on humans is on that of worker mentality, and could generate a decrease of self-esteem, felling of not
being useful anymore and of course resistance towards new technologies and changes. Still the key words for
solving such issue are long term social-economic-environmental sustainability and re-training of workers to
provide auxiliary tasks required by these new technologies. But companies still need employees to maintain and
supervise the robotic production lines and it‟s going to be this way until real artificial intelligence is discovered
and implemented. If employees manifest fear of losing their jobs, it could cause damage to a company, through
inside tensions and even intentional damage to existing technology from the work place. This might be one of
the concerns at this level, and companies can come up with solutions for the human workers such as job
enrichment or job rotation, in order to keep them motivated. An important thing that employees should realize is
the fact that automation could generate other vacant positions within their companies.
X.CONCLUSION
To conclude it is evident from a huge body of research studies that automation produces not only positive
effects but some negative effects as well on human work and lives yet the negative effects of automation are far
less in comparison to its positive effects. The reluctance to automation comes from the people who are scare of
the fact that employees could be partially left aside and the ones who even don‟t want to learn new things and
perform new set of tasks, trainings and requalification. To sustain is to learn and relearn the operation of
automated systems. Automation has its limits and should be carefully considered. The results of all the intensive
researches and investigations on automation and its impact on human behavior to a larger extent conclude that
the driving force that stands for automating the processes is providing possibilities for increased efficiency and
productivity in the work places and more comfort in personal lives in this highly advanced age of technological
automation. Automation is reducing the stress caused by the workload, burnouts, occupational demands, time
and complexities and provides us a lot of time to improve upon the automation processes and induce more
creativity in these systems for better and efficient management of work and man force. Therefore automation is
changing the landscape not only of organizations but almost all walks of human life. Our efforts are directed to
describing approaches for investigating the effects of machine autonomy on human behavior. Our interest is in
people‟s reactions to autonomous machines, rather than the nature of the machines themselves. One significant
outcome of this review is also that switching from manual handling of work to automation may generate
enormous stress and mismanagement in the processes and systems and thus create psychological concerns. A
judicious use of decision making in such situations may prevent these situations, as individuals may be reluctant
to delegate or over-delegate, cede decisions to the machine when we should intervene, and intervene unsafely
when the machine should be left alone. These concerns should be met and the related should focus on a domain,
collision avoidance. Moreover the research and advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics (HF&E) is
efficiently used for better management of human behavior in highly automated system.

457 | P a g e
REFERENCES
[1.] J. McCarthy, M. L. Minsky, N. Rochster, and C. E. Shannon, A Proposal for Dartmouth Summer Research
project on Artificial intelligence, AI Magazine, 27(4), 2006, 12-14.
[2.] M. R. Endsley, Automation and situation awareness, In R. Parasuraman, & M. Mouloua, (eds.): N. J.
Mahwah, Automation and human performance, Theory and applications, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996, 163-
181.
[3.] A. Smith, and J. Anderson, AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs, Technical report, Pew Research Center,
2014.
[4.] L. Bainbridge, Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19(6), 1983, 775-779.
[5.] D. H. Autor, Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. The
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 2015, 3-30.
[6.] M. M. Maas, "In Offices of the Future... The Productivity Value of Environment", Management Review,
1983, 16-20.
[7.] P. J. Stone, and R. Luchetti, "Your Office is Where You Are", Harvard Business Review, 63(2), 1984, 102-
117.
[8.] D. J. Cirillo, "Office Ergonomics: Coping with Causes of Stress in the Automated Workplace",
Management Review,1983, 25-39.
[9.] R. P. Koffler, "The Ergonomic Art", Datamation, 29(6), 1983, 235-239.
[10.] C.T. Theil, "Productivity by Design", Infosystems, 30, 1983, 30-38.
[11.] J. Diebold, How New Technologies are Making the Automated Office More Human, Management
Review, 1984, 9-17.
[12.] P. Ellis, Office Planning and Design: The impact of organizational change due to advanced information
technology, Behaviour and Information Technology, 3(4), 1984, 221-233.
[13.] M. Williams, In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust development,
Academy of Management Review, 26, 2001, 377-396.
[14.] C. Nass, and J. Steuer, Voices, Boxes and sources of Messages: Computers as Social Actors, Human
Communication Research, 19, 1993.
[15.] T. Bickmore, Relational Agents: Effecting Change through Human –Computer Relationships, Media Arts
and Science: MIT, 2003.
[16.] S. Kiesler, L. Sproull, and K. Waters, A prisoner‟s dilemma experiment on cooperation with people and
human-like computers, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 1996, 47-65.
[17.] P. T. Costa, and R. R. McCrae, Revised NEO Personality Inventory manual, Psychological Assessment
Resources, Odessa, FL, 1992.
[18.] R. Reilly, G. Lynn, and Z. Aronson, The role of personality in new product development team
performance, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 19, 2002, 39-58.
[19.] R. J. Adams, How expert pilots think: Cognitive processes in expert decision making, DOT/FAA/RD-93/9.
Washington, DC. (NTIS No. AD-A265 356/61NZ), 1993.

458 | P a g e
[20.] E. L. H. Franklin, An emergency situation simulator for examining time pressured decision making,
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 25, 1993, 143-147.
[21.] R. Bloom, Computers and Your Health, Infosystems, 31, 1984, 82-86.
[22.] L. Reynolds, New Illnesses in the Age of Computers, Management Review, 1989, 56-57.
[23.] R. Parasuraman, and V. Riley, Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse and abuse, Human Factors,
39, 1997, 230–253.
[24.] N. B. Sarter, D. D. Woods, and C. E. Billings, Automation surprises, Handbook of human factors and
ergonomics 2nd ed., New York: Wiley, 1997, 1926-1943.
[25.] A. Kirlik, Modeling strategic behavior in human-automation interaction: Why an „aid‟ can (and should) go
unused, Human Factors, 35, 1993, 221-242.
[26.] E. L. Wiener, Cockpit automation, Human factors in aviation, San Diego: Academic, 1988, 433-461.
[27.] C. E. Billings, J. K. Lauber, H. Funkhouser, G. Lyman, and E. M. Huff, NASA aviation safety reporting
system, Tech. Rep. TM-X-3445, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffet Field, CA, 1976.
[28.] R. Parasuraman, R. Molloy, and I. L. Singh, Performance consequences of automation induced
complacency, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 1993, 1-23.
[29.] T. Tiwari, A. L. Singh, and I. L. Singh, Information Technology-Induced Stress and Human Performance:
A Critical Review, Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 34(2), 2008, 241-249.
[30.] J. D. Lee, and N. Moray, "Trust, self-confidence, and operators‟ adaptation to automation," International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 1992, 153-184.
[31.] E. L. Wiener, and R. E. Curry, Flight-deck automation: Promises and problems. Ergonomics, 23(10),
1980, 995-1011.
[32.] C. E. Billings, Toward human centered automation, in S. D. Norman and H. W. Orlady (eds), Flight deck
automation: Promises and realities, Moffet Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center, 1988, 167–190.
[33.] C. D. Wickens, Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, 2nd edn New York: HarperCollins,
1992.
[34.] C. E. Billings, Human-centered aircraft automation: A concept and guidelines (No. NASA Technical
Memorandum 103885). Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, 1991.
[35.] T. B. Sheridan, Supervisory control, in G. Salvendy (ed.), Handbook of human factors, New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1997, 1295–1327.
[36.] M. R. Endsley, The application of human factors to the development of expert systems for advanced
cockpits, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting (Santa Monica, CA: Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society), 1987, 1388–1392.
[37.] E. H. Ntuen, and E. H. Park, Human factors issues in teleoperated systems, Ergonomics of hybrid
automated systems I (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 1988, 230–210.
[38.] T. B. Sheridan, and W. L. Verplank, Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators, Cambridge,
MA: MIT Man–Machine Laboratory, 1978.
[39.] M. R. Endsley, and D. B. Kaber, The use of level of automation as a means of alleviating out-of-the-loop
performance problems: a taxonomy and empirical analysis, in P. Seppala, T. Luopajarvi, C. H. Nygard

459 | P a g e
and M. Mattila (eds), 13th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, (Helsinki:
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health), 1, 1997, 168–170.
[40.] M. R. Endsley, and D. B. Kaber, Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and
workload in a dynamic control task, Ergonomics, 42, 1999, 462–492.
[41.] W. B. Rouse, Adaptive aiding for human/computer control, Human Factors, 30, 1988, 431–438.
[42.] W. B. Rouse, Human–computer interaction in multi-task situations, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man
and Cybernetics, 7, 1977, 384–392.
[43.] R. Parasuraman, R. Molloy, and I. L. Singh, Performance consequences of automation induced
complacency, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 1992, 1-23.
[44.] M. W. Scerbo, Theoretical perspectives on adaptive automation, in R. Parasuraman and M. Mouloua
(eds), Human performance in automated systems: Theory and applications, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1996, 37–64.
[45.] D. B. Kaber, The Effect of Level of Automation and Adaptive Automation on Performance in Dynamic
Control Environments, Tech. Work. Doc. No. ANRCP-NGITWD-97-01 (Amarillo, TX: Amarillo National
Resource Center for Plutonium), 1997.
[46.] R. Parasuraman, T. B. Sheridan, and C. D. Wickens, A model of types and levels of human interaction
with automation, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 30, 2000, 286–297.
[47.] R. S. Lazarus, and R. Launier, Stress-related transactions between person and environment. In L. A.
Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds.), Perspectives in interactional psychology, New York: Plenum Press 1978, 87-
327.
[48.] G. Matthews, and P. A. Desmond, Stress as a factor in the design of in-car driving enhancement systems,
Le Travail Humain, 58, 1955, 109-129.
[49.] U. Metzger, and R. Parasuraman, The role of the air traffic controller in future air traffic management: An
empirical study of active control versus passive monitoring. Human Factors, 43, 2001, 519-528.
[50.] C. D. Wickens, Engineering psychology and human performance, New York: Harper Collins, 2nd edition,
1992.
[51.] B. V. Singh, Effects of induced expectancies, different intensities of white noise and individual
differences on detection of auditory and visual vigilance tasks, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Dept. of
Psychology, BHU, Varanasi, 1978.
[52.] I. L. Singh,C. B. Diwedi, and M. M. Sinha, Effects of anxiety on vigilance, Perseptual and motor skills,
50, 1980, 798.
[53.] I. L. Singh, C. B. Diwedi, and M. M. Sinha, Effects of anxiety on phasic arousal andvigilance, Perseptual
and motor skills, 49, 1979, 142.
[54.] I. L. Singh, An experimental study of induced perceptual vigilance in males and females using two
durations of presentation and intensities of electric shock, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Dept. of
Psychology, BHU, Varanasi, 1975.
[55.] C. B. Diwedi, and I. L. Singh, Induced perceptual vigilance behavior and the reduction of uncertainity,
Psychologia, 20, 1977, 163-171.

460 | P a g e
[56.] C. B. Diwedi, and I. L. Singh, Effects of shock inputs on perceptual vigilance, Perceptual and motor
skills, 47, 1977, 1207-1212.
[57.] I. L. Singh, T. Tiwari, and A. L. Singh, Information technology induced stress and human performance-A
critical review, Journal of Indian academy of applied psychology, 34(2), 2008, 241-249.
[58.] H. O. Sharma, and I. L. Singh, Effect of personality on automated task performance, Proceedings od 3rd
international symposium on cognition, education, and mental health, BHU, Varanasi, 1999.
[59.] H. O. Sharma, and I. L. Singh, Effect of extraversion on correct detection of automated task failures,
Journal of Indian academy of applied psychology, 23, 2002, 151-156.
[60.] R. C. Browne, Automation and Stress, Journal of Psychosomatic Resaerch, 10(1), 1966, 73-75.
[61.] S. Hayes, Industrial Automation and Stress, c.1945–79. In: M. Jackson Ed. Stress in Post-War Britain,
1945–85. New York (NY): Routledge, Available from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK436950/. 5, 2015.
[62.] C. B. Frey, and M. Osborne, „The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to
Computerisation?‟, University of Oxford mimeo,
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf, 2013.
[63.] D. Acemoglu, and D. Autor, „Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for Employment and
Earnings‟, in O. Ashenfelter, and D. Card, Eds Handbook of Labour Economics, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 4,
2011.
[64.] M. Bélanger-Barrette, Collaborative robot eBook – Sixth Edition, 2015.
[65.] D. M. Florian, The effect of automation on the human behavior. Proceedings of the 9th International
Management Conference: "Management and Innovation for Competitive Advantage", Bucharest,
Romania, 2015.
[66.] S. Kiesler, and P. Hinds, Human-Robot Interaction, Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1), 2004, 1-8.
[67.] B. Rossi, Man vs machine: productivity, creativity and job creation, 2015, Retrieved from
http://www.information-age.com/it-management/skills-training-and leadership/123459242/man-vs-
machine-productivity-creativity-and-job-creation