Carl Westin

2-4 Strategic conformance 29 technology interaction at a macro-level. The micro-/macro-level distinction separate acceptance drivers depending on the time duration considered. 14 Macro-level obser- vations consider long-term drivers for acceptance, whereas micro-level observations consider short-time periods (even down to milliseconds). While both the information systems and IDT communities consider long-term decisions of technology use, CE research typically focuses on the decision to use automation for a specific task at a specific time. This momentary use is different from the question of using the automation at all, and is particularly suitable for de- cision aiding applications of which the output can be rejected. Consider for example a decision aid for separation assurance in ATC, which provides advice on how to solve potential conflicts between aircraft. The controller can accept or reject the ad- visories suggested by automation; the controller can also decide to turn off or ignore the automation. While both cases address acceptance, the prior considers automa- tion and its output at a specific time and context. The latter is a general decision to accept or reject the entire system. Although it may seem reasonable to expect system output to correlate with system acceptance, such a connection has not (yet) been established. 111 Our literature review indicates that IDT and TAM concepts have been predomi- nantly applied to technologies that support the first two steps of information acqui- sition and analysis in Parasuraman and Wickens’ 43 LOA framework. The follow- ing two stages of decision selection and action implementation, which are charac- teristic of more autonomous technology, have received much less attention, how- ever. Given that automation is increasingly more capable of assuming control over decision-making, and the fact that compatibility is considered one of the most influ- ential technology characteristics determining both initial acceptance and long term adoption, 109, 112, 113 we hypothesize that we need a new framework that specifically addresses acceptance by focusing on compatibility. 2-4 Strategic conformance 2-4-1 Complementing existing constructs Our review indicates that compatibility is a key construct in human-machine inter- action research. It can be envisioned at different levels, as illustrated in Figure 2-2. At the lowest level, there is response compatibility that can reinforce correct use of a device (e.g., use up-down lever to drop landing gear, not rotary switch). An- other level comprises perceptual compatibility that adheres to the management and interpretation of sensory information (e.g., use of red light to preserve night vision). A higher level reflects communication style compatibility that considers how infor- mation is exchanged. For example, Parasuraman and Miller 114 demonstrated that