This paper presents a theoretical model and two simulator studies on the psychological processes during early trust calibration in automated vehicles.
Background
The positive outcomes of automation can only reach their full potential if a calibrated level of trust is achieved. In this process, information on system capabilities and limitations plays a crucial role.
Method
In two simulator experiments, trust was repeatedly measured during an automated drive. In Study 1, all participants in a two-group experiment experienced a system-initiated take-over, and the occurrence of a system malfunction was manipulated. In Study 2 in a 2 × 2 between-subject design, system transparency was manipulated as an additional factor.
Results
Trust was found to increase during the first interactions progressively. In Study 1, take-overs led to a temporary decrease in trust, as did malfunctions in both studies. Interestingly, trust was reestablished in the course of interaction for take-overs and malfunctions. In Study 2, the high transparency condition did not show a temporary decline in trust after a malfunction.
Conclusion
Trust is calibrated along provided information prior to and during the initial drive with an automated vehicle. The experience of take-overs and malfunctions leads to a temporary decline in trust that was recovered in the course of error-free interaction. The temporary decrease can be prevented by providing transparent information prior to system interaction.
Application
Transparency, also about potential limitations of the system, plays an important role in this process and should be considered in the design of tutorials and human-machine interaction (HMI) concepts of automated vehicles.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
2.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
BeggiatoM.KremsJ. F. (2013). The evolution of mental model, trust and acceptance of adaptive cruise control in relation to initial information. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 18, 47–57. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2012.12.006
4.
BeggiatoM.PereiraM.PetzoldtT.KremsJ. (2015). Learning and development of trust, acceptance and the mental model of ACC. A longitudinal on-road study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 35, 75–84. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2015.10.005
5.
BühnerM.ZieglerM. (2009). Statistik für Psychologen und Sozialwissenschaftler [Statistics for psychologists and social scientists]. Hallbergmoos, Germany: Pearson Deutsch-land GmbH.
6.
ChavaillazA.WastellD.SauerJ. (2016). System reliability, performance and trust in adaptable automation. Applied Ergonomics, 52, 333–342. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.012
DesaiM.KaniarasuP.MedvedevM.SteinfeldA.YancoH.(2013, March3–6). Impact of robot failures and feedback on real-time trust. In 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 251–258). IEEE. doi:10.1109/HRI.2013.6483596
9.
De WinterJ.Van LeuweenP.HappeeP. (2012, August 28–31). Advantages and disadvantages of driving simulators: A discussion. In SpinkA. J.GriecoF.KripsO. E.LoijensL. W. S.NoldusL. P. J. J.ZimmermannP. H. (Eds.), Proceedings of measuring behavior 2012 (pp. 47–50). Utrecht, The Netherlands.
10.
DzindoletM. T.PetersonS. A.PomrankyR. A.PierceL. G.BeckH. P. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 697–718. doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7
11.
EkmanF.JohanssonM.SochorJ. L. (2016, October 23–27). To see or not to see: The effect of object recognition on users’ trust in “automated vehicles.”Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Article No. 42). doi:10.1145/2971485.2971551
EmzivatY.Ibanez-GuzmanJ.MartinetP.RouxO. H. (2017, June). Dynamic driving task fallback for an automated driving system whose ability to monitor the driving environment has been compromised. IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Redondo Beach, CA. Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01724931
14.
EndsleyM. R. (2017). From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human-automation research. Human Factors, 59, 5–27. doi:10.1177/0018720816681350
15.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
16.
ForsterY.KrausJ.FeinauerS.BaumannM. (2018, September23–25). Calibration of trust expectancies in conditionally automated driving by brand, reliability information and introductionary videos: An online study. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY.
17.
GeorgeD.MalleryM. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
18.
GoldC.DamböckD.LorenzL.BenglerK. (2013). “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 57, 1938–1942. doi:10.1177/1541931213571433
19.
GoldC.KörberM.LechnerD.BenglerK. (2016). Taking over control from highly automated vehicles in complex traffic situations. Human Factors, 58, 642–652. doi:10.1177/0018720816634226
20.
GongL. (2008). How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1494–1509.
21.
HancockP. A.BillingsD. R.SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. Y.de VisserE. J.ParasuramanR. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53, 517–527. doi:10.1177/0018720811417254
22.
HartwichF.WitzlackC.BeggiatoM.KremsJ. (2018). The first impression counts—A combined driving simulator and test track study on the development of trust and acceptance of highly automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2018.05.012
23.
HelldinT.FalkmanG.RiveiroM.DavidssonS. (2013). Presenting system uncertainty in automotive UIs for supporting trust calibration in autonomous driving. In TerkenJ. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (pp. 210–217). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/2516540.2516554
24.
HergethS.LorenzL.KremsJ. F. (2017). Prior familiarization with takeover requests affects drivers’ takeover performance and automation trust. Human Factors, 59, 457–470. doi:10.1177/0018720816678714
25.
HergethS.LorenzL.KremsJ. F.ToenertL. (2015, June22–25). Effects of take-over requests and cultural background on automation trust in highly automated driving. In Proceedings of the eighth international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training and vehicle design (pp. 331–337). Iowa City: Public Policy Center, University of Iowa. doi:10.17077/drivingassessment.1591
26.
HergethS.LorenzL.VilimekR.KremsJ. F. (2016). Keep your scanners peeled: Gaze behavior as a measure of automation trust during highly automated driving. Human Factors, 58, 509–519. doi:10.1177/0018720815625744
27.
HocJ.-M.YoungM. S.BlossevilleJ.-M. (2009). Cooperation between drivers and automation: Implications for safety. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 10, 135–160. doi:10.1080/14639220802368856
28.
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57, 407–434. doi:10.1177/0018720814547570
29.
IBM Corp. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics (Computer software). Ehningen, Germany: Author.
30.
JianJ.-Y.BisantzA. M.DruryC. G. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4, 53–71. doi:10.1207/S15327566IJCE0401_04
31.
KaziT. A.StantonN. A.WalkerG. H.YoungM. S. (2007). Designer driving: Drivers’ conceptual models and level of trust in adaptive cruise control. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 45, 339–360. doi:10.1504/IJVD.2007.014909
32.
KörberM.BaselerE.BenglerK. (2018). Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving. Applied Ergonomics, 66, 18–31. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.07.006
33.
LacsonF. C.WiegmannD. A.MadhavanP. (2005). Effects of attribute and goal framing on automation reliance and compliance. In Human factors and ergonomics society 49th annual meeting proceedings (pp. 482–486). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:10.1177/154193120504900357
34.
LeeJ.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270. doi:10.1080/00140139208967392
35.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80. doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392
36.
MadhavanP.WiegmannD. A. (2007). Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: An integrative review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8, 277–301. doi:10.1080/14639220500337708
37.
MadsenM.GregorS. (2000). Measuring human-computer trust. In GableG.VitaleM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 53–64). Melbourne, Australia: AIS.
38.
MerrittS. M.IlgenD. R. (2008). Not all trust is created equal: Dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Human Factors, 50, 194–210. doi:10.1518/001872008X288574
39.
MerrittS. M.UnnerstallJ. L.LeeD.HuberK. (2015). Measuring individual differences in the perfect automation schema. Human Factors, 57, 740–753. doi:10.1177/0018720815581247
40.
MillerD.JohnsM.MokB.GowdaN.SirkinD.LeeK.JuW. (2016). Behavioral measurement of trust in automation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60, 1849–1853. doi:10.1177/1541931213601422
41.
MolinaC. B. S. T.AlmeidaJ. R.de VismariL. F.GonzálezR. I. R.NaufalJ. K.CamargoJ. B. (2017, June26–29). Assuring fully autonomous vehicles safety by design: The autonomous vehicle control (AVC) module strategy. 47th annual IEEE/IFIP international conference on Dependable Systems and Networks Workshops (DSN-W). doi:10.1109/DSN-W.2017.14
42.
MorayN.InagakiT. (1999). Laboratory studies of trust between humans and machines in automated systems. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 21, 203–211.
43.
MuirB. M. (1987). Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27, 527–539. doi:10.1016/S0020-7373(87)80013-5
44.
MuirB. M. (1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37, 1905–1922. doi:10.1080/00140139408964957
45.
MuirB. M.MorayN. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39, 429–460. doi:10.1080/00140139608964474
46.
ParasuramanR.MillerC. A. (2004). Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 51–55. doi:10.1145/975817.975844
47.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
48.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics–Part A: Systems and Humans, 30, 286–297. doi:10.1109/3468.844354
49.
PayreW.CestacJ.DelhommeP. (2014). Intention to use a fully automated car: Attitudes and a priori acceptability. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27(B), 252–263. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.009
50.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Rovio Entertainment Corporation. (2010). Angry birds (Version 7.9.3) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from https://play.google.com/store?hl=de
SchmiderE.ZieglerM.DanayE.BeyerL.BühnerM. (2010). Is it really robust?Methodology, 6, 147–151. doi:10.1027/1614-2241/a000016
54.
SeongY.BisantzA. M. (2008). The impact of cognitive feedback on judgment performance and trust with decision aids. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38, 608–625. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2008.01.007
55.
Van den BeukelA. P.van der VoortM. C.EgerA. O. (2016). Supporting the changing driver’s task: Exploration of interface designs for supervision and intervention in automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 43, 279–301. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2016.09.009
56.
WalchM.MühlK.KrausJ.StollT.BaumannM.WeberM. (2017). From car-driver-handovers to cooperative interfaces: Visions for driver–vehicle interaction in automated driving. In: Meixner G., Müller C. (Eds.), Automotive user interfaces. Human–Computer Interaction Series (pp. 273–294). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
57.
WalkerG. H.StantonN. A.SalmonP. (2016). Trust in vehicle technology. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 70, 157–182. doi:10.1504/IJVD.2016.074419
58.
WangL.JamiesonG. A.HollandsJ. G. (2009). Trust and reliance on an automated combat identification system. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 51, 281–291. doi:10.1177/0018720809338842
59.
WiegmannD. A.RichA.ZhangH. (2001). Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users’ trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2, 352–367. doi:10.1080/14639220110110306
60.
WintersbergerP.von SawitzkyT.FrisonA.-K.RienerA. (2017). Traffic augmentation as a means to increase trust in automated driving systems. In Proceedings of the 12th biannual conference on Italian SIGCHI chapter (pp. 1–17). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/3125571.3125600
Würzburger Institute for Traffic Science GmbH. (2014). Driving simulation and SILAB 5.1 (Computer software). Veitshöchheim: Author. Retrieved from https://wivw.de/de/silab/
63.
YangX. J.UnhelkarV. V.LiK.ShahJ. A. (2017). Evaluating effects of user experience and system transparency on trust in automation. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 408–416). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/2909824.3020230
