We investigated passenger’s trust and preferences using subjective, qualitative, and psychophysiological measures while being driven either by human or automation in a field study and a driving simulator experiment.
Background
The passenger’s perspective has largely been neglected in autonomous driving research, although the change of roles from an active driver to a passive passenger is incontrovertible. Investigations of passenger’s appraisals on self-driving vehicles often seem convoluted with active manual driving experiences instead of comparisons with being driven by humans.
Method
We conducted an exploratory field study using an autonomous research vehicle (N = 11) and a follow-up experimental driving simulation (N = 24). Participants were driven on the same course by a human and an autonomous agent sitting on a passenger seat. Skin conductance, trust, and qualitative characteristics of the perceived driving situation were assessed. In addition, the effect of driving style (defensive vs. sporty) was evaluated in the simulator.
Results
Both investigations revealed a close relation between subjective trust ratings and skin conductance, with increased trust and by trend reduced arousal for human compared with automation in control. Even though driving behavior was equivalent in the simulator when being driven by human and automation, passengers most preferred and trusted the human-defensive driver.
Conclusion
Individual preferences for driving style and human or autonomous vehicle control influence trust and subjective driving characterizations.
Application
The findings are applicable in human-automation research, reminding to not neglect subjective attributions and psychophysiological reactions as a result of ascribed control duties in relation to specific execution characteristics.
BasuC.YangQ.HungermanD.SinghalM.DraganA. D. (2017). Do you want your autonomous car to drive like you? In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction—HRI ‘17 (pp. 417–425). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2909824.3020250
2.
BeggiatoM.HartwichF.KremsJ. (2018). Using smartbands, pupillometry and body motion to detect discomfort in automated driving. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 338. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00338
3.
BellemH.SchönenbergT.KremsJ. F.SchraufM. (2016). Objective metrics of comfort: Developing a driving style for highly automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 41, 45–54. doi:10.1016/J.TRF.2016.05.005
4.
BenedekM.KaernbachC. (2010). A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 190(1), 80–91. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.04.028
5.
BoucseinW. (2012). Electrodermal activity. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
6.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319. doi:10.2307/249008
7.
EdenG.NanchenB.RamseyerR.EvéquozF. (2017). Expectation and experience: Passenger acceptance of autonomous public transportation vehicles. In BernhauptR.DalviG.JoshiA.BalkrishanD. K.O’NeillJ.WincklerM. (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 10516. Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2017 (pp. 360–363). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-68059-0_30
8.
FagnantD. J.KockelmanK. (2015). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 167–181. doi:10.1016/J.TRA.2015.04.003
9.
GhazizadehM.LeeJ. D.BoyleL. N. (2012). Extending the technology acceptance model to assess automation. Cognition, Technology & Work, 14, 39–49. doi:10.1007/s10111-011-0194-3
10.
HabouchaC. J.IshaqR.ShiftanY. (2017). User preferences regarding autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 78, 37–49. doi:10.1016/J.TRC.2017.01.010
11.
HartwichF.WitzlackC.BeggiatoM.KremsJ. F. (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 Behaviour. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/J.TRF.2018.05.012
12.
HealeyJ.PicardR. W. (2005). Detecting stress during real-world driving tasks using physiological sensors. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 6, 156–166.
13.
HergethS.LorenzL.VilimekR.KremsJ. F. (2016). Keep your scanners peeled. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58, 509–519. doi:10.1177/0018720815625744
14.
HockP.KrausJ.BabelF.WalchM.RukzioE.BaumannM. (2018). How to design valid simulator studies for investigating user experience in automated driving. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications—AutomotiveUI ‘18 (pp. 105–117). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/3239060.3239066.
15.
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 57, 407–434. doi:10.1177/0018720814547570
16.
HughesJ. S.RiceS.TrafimowD.ClaytonK. (2009). The automated cockpit: A comparison of attitudes towards human and automated pilots. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12, 428–439. doi:10.1016/J.TRF.2009.08.004
17.
HulseL. M.XieH.GaleaE. R. (2018). Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: Relationships with road users, risk, gender and age. Safety Science, 102, 1–13. doi:10.1016/J.SSCI.2017.10.001
18.
IveH. P.SirkinD.MillerD.LiJ.JuW. (2015). ‘Don’t make me turn this seat around!’: Driver and passenger activities and positions in autonomous cars. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications—AutomotiveUI ‘15 (pp. 50–55). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2809730.2809752
19.
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
20.
KohnS. C.QuinnD.PakR.de VisserE. J.ShawT. H. (2018). Trust repair strategies with self-driving vehicles: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 62, pp. 1108–1112). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. doi:10.1177/1541931218621254
21.
KönigM.NeumayrL. (2017). Users’ resistance towards radical innovations: The case of the self-driving car. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 44, 42–52. doi:10.1016/J.TRF.2016.10.013
22.
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
23.
KruegerR.RashidiT. H.RoseJ. M. (2016). Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 69, 343–355. doi:10.1016/J.TRC.2016.06.015
24.
KyriakidisM.HappeeR.de WinterJ. C. F. (2015). Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 32, 127–140. doi:10.1016/J.TRF.2015.04.014
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310
27.
LeeJ.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270. doi:10.1080/00140139208967392
28.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46, 50–80. doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392
29.
LohaniM.PayneB. R.StrayerD. L. (2019). A review of psychophysiological measures to assess cognitive states in real-world driving. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, Article 57. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00057
30.
LyonsJ. B.GuznovS. Y. (2019). Individual differences in human–machine trust: A multi-study look at the perfect automation schema. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 20, 440–458. doi:10.1080/1463922X.2018.1491071
31.
LyonsJ. B.StokesC. K. (2012). Human–human reliance in the context of automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54, 112–121. doi:10.1177/0018720811427034
32.
MayringP. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Mannheim, Germany: GESIS–Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences.
33.
MerrittS. M. (2011). Affective processes in human–automation interactions. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53, 356–370. doi:10.1177/0018720811411912
34.
MerrittS. M.UnnerstallJ. L.LeeD.HuberK. (2015). Measuring individual differences in the perfect automation schema. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 57, 740–753. doi:10.1177/0018720815581247
35.
MolnarL. J.RyanL. H.PradhanA. K.EbyD. W.St LouisR. M.ZakrajsekJ. S. (2018). Understanding trust and acceptance of automated vehicles: An exploratory simulator study of transfer of control between automated and manual driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58, 319–328. doi:10.1016/J.TRF.2018.06.004
36.
MorrisD. M.ErnoJ. M.PilcherJ. J. (2017). Electrodermal response and automation trust during simulated self-driving car use. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 61, 1759–1762. doi:10.1177/1541931213601921
37.
NicolaidesD.CebonD.MilesJ. (2017). An autonomous taxi service for sustainable urban transportation. In 2017 Smart City Symposium Prague (SCSP) (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/SCSP.2017.7973353
38.
ParkJ.JeongH.ParkJ.LeeB. C. (2016). Relationships between cognitive workload and physiological response under reliable and unreliable automation. In NunesI. (Ed.), Advances in Human Factors and Systems Interaction. AHFE 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 781, pp. 3–8). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94334-3_1
39.
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, 252–263. doi:10.1016/J.TRF.2014.04.009
PöhlerG.HeineT.DemlB. (2016). Itemanalyse und Faktorstruktur eines Fragebogens zur Messung von Vertrauen im Umgang mit automatischen Systemen [Item analysis and factor structure of a questionnaire for trust in automated systems]. Zeitschrift Für Arbeitswissenschaft, 70(3), 151–160. doi:10.1007/s41449-016-0024-9
42.
ReimerB.MehlerB.CoughlinJ. F.GodfreyK. M.TanC. (2009). An on-road assessment of the impact of cognitive workload on physiological arousal in young adult drivers. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 115–118). New York, NY: ACM Press.
43.
SAE International. (2016). Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles (J3016_201609). Retrieved from https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201806/
44.
SalonenA. O. (2018). Passenger’s subjective traffic safety, in-vehicle security and emergency management in the driverless shuttle bus in Finland. Transport Policy, 61, 106–110.
45.
SandersT.KaplanA.KochR.SchwartzM.HancockP. A. (2019). The relationship between trust and use choice in human-robot interaction. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 61, 614–626. doi:10.1177/0018720818816838
46.
SchaeferK. E.StraubE. R. (2016). Will passengers trust driverless vehicles? Removing the steering wheel and pedals. In 2016 IEEE International Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA) (pp. 159–165). New York, NY: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/COGSIMA.2016.7497804
47.
SoloveyE. T.ZecM.Garcia PerezE. A.ReimerB.MehlerB. (2014). Classifying driver workload using physiological and driving performance data: Two field studies. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4057–4066). New York, NY: ACM Press.
48.
StrauchC.MühlK.PatroK.GrabmaierC.ReithingerS.BaumannM.HuckaufA. (2019). Real autonomous driving from a passenger’s perspective: Two experimental investigations using gaze behaviour and trust ratings in field and simulator. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/J.TRF.2019.08.013
49.
StrickfadenM.LangdonP. M. (2018). Improving design understanding of inclusivity in autonomous vehicles: A driver and passenger taskscape approach. In LangdonP.LazarJ.HeylighenA.DongH. (Eds.), Breaking down barriers: Usability, accessibility and inclusive design (pp. 181–193). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75028-6_16
50.
TakedaY.SatoT.KimuraK.KomineH.AkamatsuM.SatoJ. (2016). Electrophysiological evaluation of attention in drivers and passengers: Toward an understanding of drivers’ attentional state in autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 42, 140–150. doi:10.1016/J.TRF.2016.07.008
51.
Van Der LaanJ. D.HeinoA.De WaardD. (1997). A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 5(1), 1–10. doi:10.1016/S0968-090X(96)00025-3
52.
WalchM.MühlK.KrausJ.StollT.BaumannM.WeberM. (2017). From car-driver-handovers to cooperative interfaces: Visions for driver–vehicle interaction in automated driving. In MeixnerG.MüllerC. (Eds.), Automotive user interfaces: Creating interactive experiences in the car (pp. 273–294). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49448-7_10
53.
WardC.RaueM.LeeC.D’AmbrosioL.CoughlinJ. F. (2017). Acceptance of automated driving across generations: The role of risk and benefit perception, knowledge, and trust. In KurosuM. (Ed.), Human-Computer Interaction. User Interface Design, Development and Multimodality: 19th International Conference, HCI International 2017, Part I (pp. 254–266). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58071-5_20
54.
WilsonG. F. (2002). An analysis of mental workload in pilots during flight using multiple psychophysiological measures. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 12(1), 3–18.
55.
WintersbergerP.FrisonA.-K.RienerA. (2018). Man vs. machine: Comparing a fully automated bus shuttle with a manually driven group taxi in a field study. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications—AutomotiveUI‘18 (pp. 215–220). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/3239092.3265969
56.
WintersbergerP.RienerA.FrisonA.-K. (2016). Automated driving system, male, or female driver. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications—Automotive’UI 16 (pp. 51–58). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/3003715.3005410
57.
YusofN. M.KarjantoJ.TerkenJ.DelbressineF.HassanM. Z.RauterbergM. (2016). The exploration of autonomous vehicle driving styles: Preferred longitudinal, lateral, and vertical accelerations. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications—Automotive’UI 16 (pp. 245–252). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/3003715.3005455
