Biblio

Automation reliability is an important factor that may affect human trust in automation, which has been shown to strongly influence the way the human operator interacts with the automated system. If the trust level is too low, the human operator may not utilize the automated system as expected; if the trust level is too high, the over-trust may lead to automation biases. In these cases, the overall system performance will be undermined --- after all, the ultimate goal of human-automation collaboration is to improve performance beyond what would be achieved with either alone. Most of the past research has manipulated the automation reliability through “experience”. That is, participants perform a certain task with an automated system that has a certain level of reliability (e.g., an automated warning system providing valid warnings 75% of the times). During or after the task, participants’ trust and reliance on the automated system is measured, as well as the performance. However, research has shown that participants’ perceived reliability usually differs from the actual reliability. In a real-world situation, it is very likely that the exact reliability can be described to the human operator (i.e., through “description”). A description-experience gap has been found robustly in human decision-making studies, according to which there are systematic differences between decisions made from description and decisions from experience. The current study examines the possible description-experience gap in the effect of automation reliability on human trust, reliance, and performance in the context of phishing. Specifically, the research investigates how the reliability of phishing warnings influences people's decisions about whether to proceed upon receiving the warning. The effect of the reliability of an automated phishing warning system is manipulated through experience with the system or through description of it. These two types of manipulations are directly compared, and the measures of interest are human trust in the warning (a subjective rating of how trustable the warning system is), human reliance on the automated system (an objective measure of whether the participants comply with the system’s warnings), and performance (the overall quality of the decisions made).

Automation reliability is an important factor that may affect human trust in automation, which has been shown to strongly influence the way the human operator interacts with the automated system. If the trust level is too low, the human operator may not utilize the automated system as expected; if the trust level is too high, the over-trust may lead to automation biases. In these cases, the overall system performance will be undermined --- after all, the ultimate goal of human-automation collaboration is to improve performance beyond what would be achieved with either alone. Most of the past research has manipulated the automation reliability through “experience”. That is, participants perform a certain task with an automated system that has a certain level of reliability (e.g., an automated warning system providing valid warnings 75% of the times). During or after the task, participants’ trust and reliance on the automated system is measured, as well as the performance. However, research has shown that participants’ perceived reliability usually differs from the actual reliability. In a real-world situation, it is very likely that the exact reliability can be described to the human operator (i.e., through “description”). A description-experience gap has been found robustly in human decision-making studies, according to which there are systematic differences between decisions made from description and decisions from experience. The current study examines the possible description-experience gap in the effect of automation reliability on human trust, reliance, and performance in the context of phishing. Specifically, the research investigates how the reliability of phishing warnings influences people's decisions about whether to proceed upon receiving the warning. The effect of the reliability of an automated phishing warning system is manipulated through experience with the system or through description of it. These two types of manipulations are directly compared, and the measures of interest are human trust in the warning (a subjective rating of how trustable the warning system is), human reliance on the automated system (an objective measure of whether the participants comply with the system’s warnings), and performance (the overall quality of the decisions made).

Automation reliability is an important factor that may affect human trust in automation, which has been shown to strongly influence the way the human operator interacts with the automated system. If the trust level is too low, the human operator may not utilize the automated system as expected; if the trust level is too high, the over-trust may lead to automation biases. In these cases, the overall system performance will be undermined --- after all, the ultimate goal of human-automation collaboration is to improve performance beyond what would be achieved with either alone. Most of the past research has manipulated the automation reliability through “experience”. That is, participants perform a certain task with an automated system that has a certain level of reliability (e.g., an automated warning system providing valid warnings 75% of the times). During or after the task, participants’ trust and reliance on the automated system is measured, as well as the performance. However, research has shown that participants’ perceived reliability usually differs from the actual reliability. In a real-world situation, it is very likely that the exact reliability can be described to the human operator (i.e., through “description”). A description-experience gap has been found robustly in human decision-making studies, according to which there are systematic differences between decisions made from description and decisions from experience. The current study examines the possible description-experience gap in the effect of automation reliability on human trust, reliance, and performance in the context of phishing. Specifically, the research investigates how the reliability of phishing warnings influences people's decisions about whether to proceed upon receiving the warning. The effect of the reliability of an automated phishing warning system is manipulated through experience with the system or through description of it. These two types of manipulations are directly compared, and the measures of interest are human trust in the warning (a subjective rating of how trustable the warning system is), human reliance on the automated system (an objective measure of whether the participants comply with the system’s warnings), and performance (the overall quality of the decisions made).

Domain highlighting has been implemented by popular browsers with the aim of helping users identify which sites they are visiting. But, its effectiveness in helping users identify fraudulent webpages has not been stringently tested. Thus, we conducted an online study to test the effectiveness of domain highlighting. 320 participants were recruited to evaluate the legitimacy of 6 webpages (half authentic and half fraudulent) in two study phases. In the first phase participants were instructed to determine the legitimacy based on any information on the webpage, whereas in the second phase they were instructed to focus specifically on the address bar. Webpages with domain highlighting were presented in the first block for half of the participants and in the second block for the remaining participants. Results showed that the participants could differentiate the legitimate and fraudulent webpages to a significant extent. When participants were directed to focus on the address bar, correct decisions were increased for fraudulent webpages (unsafe) but did not change significantly for the authentic webpages (safe). The percentage of correct judgments for fraudulent webpages showed no significant difference between domain highlighting and non-highlighting conditions, even when participants were directed to the address bar. Although the results showed some benefit to detecting fraudulent webpages from directing the user's attention to the address bar, the domain highlighting method itself did not provide effective protection against phishing attacks, suggesting that other measures need to be taken for successful detection of deception.

Phishing refers to attacks over the Internet that often proceed in the following manner. An unsolicited email is sent by the deceiver posing as a legitimate party, with the intent of getting the user to click on a link that leads to a fraudulent webpage. This webpage mimics the authentic one of a reputable organization and requests personal information such as passwords and credit card numbers from the user. If the phishing attack is successful, that personal information can then be used for various illegal activities by the perpetrator. The most reliable sign of a phishing website may be that its domain name is incorrect in the address bar. In recognition of this, all major web browsers now use domain highlighting, that is, the domain name is shown in bold font. Domain highlighting is based on the assumption that users will attend to the address bar and that they will be able to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate domain names. We previously found little evidence for the effectiveness of domain highlighting, even when participants were directed to look at the address bar, in a study with many participants conducted online through Mechanical Turk. The present study was conducted in a laboratory setting that allowed us to have better control over the viewing conditions and measure the parts of the display at which the users looked. We conducted a laboratory experiment to assess whether directing users to attend to the address bar and the use of domain highlighting assist them at detecting fraudulent webpages. An Eyelink 1000plus eye tracker was used to monitor participants’ gaze patterns throughout the experiment. 48 participants were recruited from an undergraduate subject pool; half had been phished previously and half had not. They were required to evaluate the trustworthiness of webpages (half authentic and half fraudulent) in two trial blocks. In the first block, participants were instructed to judge the webpage’s legitimacy by any information on the page. In the second block, they were directed specifically to look at the address bar. Whether or not the domain name was highlighted in the address bar was manipulated between subjects. Results confirmed that the participants could differentiate the legitimate and fraudulent webpages to a significant extent. Participants rarely looked at the address bar during the trial block in which they were not directed to the address bar. The percentage of time spent looking at the address bar increased significantly when the participants were directed to look at it. The number of fixations on the address bar also increased, with both measures indicating that more attention was allocated to the address bar when it was emphasized. When participants were directed to look at the address bar, correct decisions were improved slightly for fraudulent webpages (“unsafe”) but not for the authentic ones (“safe”). Domain highlighting had little influence even when participants were directed to look at the address bar, suggesting that participants do not rely on the domain name for their decisions about webpage legitimacy. Without the general knowledge of domain names and specific knowledge about particular domain names, domain highlighting will not be effective.

Phishing refers to attacks over the Internet that often proceed in the following manner. An unsolicited email is sent by the deceiver posing as a legitimate party, with the intent of getting the user to click on a link that leads to a fraudulent webpage. This webpage mimics the authentic one of a reputable organization and requests personal information such as passwords and credit card numbers from the user. If the phishing attack is successful, that personal information can then be used for various illegal activities by the perpetrator. The most reliable sign of a phishing website may be that its domain name is incorrect in the address bar. In recognition of this, all major web browsers now use domain highlighting, that is, the domain name is shown in bold font. Domain highlighting is based on the assumption that users will attend to the address bar and that they will be able to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate domain names. We previously found little evidence for the effectiveness of domain highlighting, even when participants were directed to look at the address bar, in a study with many participants conducted online through Mechanical Turk. The present study was conducted in a laboratory setting that allowed us to have better control over the viewing conditions and measure the parts of the display at which the users looked. We conducted a laboratory experiment to assess whether directing users to attend to the address bar and the use of domain highlighting assist them at detecting fraudulent webpages. An Eyelink 1000plus eye tracker was used to monitor participants’ gaze patterns throughout the experiment. 48 participants were recruited from an undergraduate subject pool; half had been phished previously and half had not. They were required to evaluate the trustworthiness of webpages (half authentic and half fraudulent) in two trial blocks. In the first block, participants were instructed to judge the webpage’s legitimacy by any information on the page. In the second block, they were directed specifically to look at the address bar. Whether or not the domain name was highlighted in the address bar was manipulated between subjects. Results confirmed that the participants could differentiate the legitimate and fraudulent webpages to a significant extent. Participants rarely looked at the address bar during the trial block in which they were not directed to the address bar. The percentage of time spent looking at the address bar increased significantly when the participants were directed to look at it. The number of fixations on the address bar also increased, with both measures indicating that more attention was allocated to the address bar when it was emphasized. When participants were directed to look at the address bar, correct decisions were improved slightly for fraudulent webpages (“unsafe”) but not for the authentic ones (“safe”). Domain highlighting had little influence even when participants were directed to look at the address bar, suggesting that participants do not rely on the domain name for their decisions about webpage legitimacy. Without the general knowledge of domain names and specific knowledge about particular domain names, domain highlighting will not be effective.