Automated driving is becoming a reality, and such technology raises new concerns about human–machine interaction on road. This paper aims to investigate factors influencing trust calibration and evolution over time.
Background
Numerous studies showed trust was a determinant in automation use and misuse, particularly in the automated driving context.
Method
Sixty-one drivers participated in an experiment aiming to better understand the influence of initial level of trust (Trustful vs. Distrustful) on drivers’ behaviors and trust calibration during two sessions of simulated automated driving. The automated driving style was manipulated as positive (smooth) or negative (abrupt) to investigate human–machine early interactions. Trust was assessed over time through questionnaires. Drivers’ visual behaviors and take-over performances during an unplanned take-over request were also investigated.
Results
Results showed an increase of trust over time, for both Trustful and Distrustful drivers regardless the automated driving style. Trust was also found to fluctuate over time depending on the specific events handled by the automated vehicle. Take-over performances were not influenced by the initial level of trust nor automated driving style.
Conclusion
Trust in automated driving increases rapidly when drivers’ experience such a system. Initial level of trust seems to be crucial in further trust calibration and modulate the effect of automation performance. Long-term trust evolutions suggest that experience modify drivers’ mental model about automated driving systems.
Application
In the automated driving context, trust calibration is a decisive question to guide such systems’ proper utilization, and road safety.
AbeG.SatoK.ItohM. (2018). Driver trust in automated driving systems: The case of overtaking and passing. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 48(1), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2017.2781619.
2.
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(1), 47-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2012.12.006.
3.
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(1), 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.10.005.
4.
BellerJ.HeesenM.VollrathM. (2013). Improving the driver-automation interaction. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 55(6), 1130–1141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813482327.
5.
BlömacherK.NöckerG.HuffM. (2018). The role of system description for conditionally automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 54(1), 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.01.010.
6.
BlömacherK.NöckerG.HuffM. (2020). The evolution of mental models in relation to initial information while driving automated. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 68(1), 198-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.11.003.
7.
BuenoM.DoganE.SelemF. H.MonacelliE.BoverieS.GuillaumeA. (2016). How different mental workload levels affect the take-over control after automated driving. 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference On Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1–4 November, 2016. 2040–2045.
8.
EgeaJ.GonzálezM. (2011). Explaining physicians’ acceptance of EHCR systems: An extension of TAM with trust and risk factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 319-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.010.
9.
FeldhütterA.GoldC.HügerA.BenglerK. (2016). Trust in automation as a matter of media influence and experi-ence of automated vehicles. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1), 2024–2028. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601460.
GoldC.KörberM.HohenbergerC.LechnerD.BenglerK. (2015). Trust in automation - Before and after the experience of take-over scenarios in a highly automated vehicle. Procedia Manufacturing, 3(1), 3025-3032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.847.
12.
HancockP. A.BillingsD. R.SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. Y. C.de VisserE. J.ParasuramanR. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(5), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254.
13.
HartwichF.BeggiatoM.KremsJ. F. (2018a). Driving comfort, enjoyment and acceptance of automated driving - effects of drivers' age and driving style familiarity. Ergonomics, 61(8), 1017–1032. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1441448.
14.
HartwichF.WitzlackC.BeggiatoM.KremsJ. F. (2018b). 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.05.012.
15.
HartwichF.SchmidtC.GräfingD.KremsJ. F. (2020). In the passenger seat: Differences in the perception of human vs. Automated vehicle control and resulting HMI demands of users. In KrömkerH. (Ed.), HCI in mobility, transport, and automotive systems. Automated driving and in-vehicle experience design (Vol. 12212, pp. 31–45). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50523-3_3.
16.
HäuslschmidR.von BülowM.PflegingB.ButzA. (2017). Supporting trust in autonomous driving. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces - IUI, 17(1), 319-329. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025171.3025198.
17.
HelldinT.FalkmanG.RiveiroM.DavidssonS. (2013). Presenting system uncertainty in automotive UIs for supporting trust calibration in autonomous driving. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications - AutomotiveUI, 13(1), 210-217. https://doi.org/10.1145/2516540.2516554.
18.
HergethS.LorenzL.KremsJ. F. (2017). Prior familiarization with takeover requests affects drivers' takeover performance and automation trust. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59(3), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816678714.
19.
HergethS.LorenzL.KremsJ.ToenertL. (2015). Effects of take-over requests and cultural background on automation trust in highly automated driving. 8th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design. https://doi.org/10.17077/drivingassessment.1591.
20.
HergethSLorenzLVilimekRKremsJF (2016). Keep your scanners peeled: Gaze behavior as a measure of automation trust during highly automated driving. Human Factors, 58(58), 509–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815625744.
21.
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 57(3), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570.
22.
KhastgirS.BirrellS.DhadyallaG.JenningsP. (2018). Calibrating trust through knowledge: Introducing the concept of informed safety for automation in vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 96(1), 290-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.07.001.
23.
KooJ.KwacJ.JuW.SteinertM.LeiferL.NassC. (2015). Why did my car just do that? Explaining semi-autonomous driving actions to improve driver understanding, trust, and performance. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 9(4), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-014-0227-2.
24.
KörberM.BaselerE.BenglerK. (2018). Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving. Applied Ergonomics, 66(1), 18-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.07.006.
25.
KörberMPraschLBenglerK (2018). Why do I have to drive now? Post hoc explanations of takeover requests. Human Factors, 60(60), 305-323.
26.
KrausJScholzDMessnerEMMessnerMBaumannM (2020). Scared to trust? - predicting trust in highly automated driving by depressiveness, negative self-evaluations and state anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1), 2917. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02917.
27.
KrausJ.ScholzD.StiegemeierD.BaumannM. (2020). The more you know: Trust dynamics and calibration in highly automated driving and the effects of take-overs, system malfunction, and system transparency. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 62(5), 718–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819853686.
28.
KundingerT.WintersbergerP.RienerA. (2019). (Over)Trust in automated driving: The sleeping pill of tomorrow?Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 19(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312869.
29.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(1), 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1994.1007.
30.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392.
31.
LuZ.ZhangB.FeldhütterA.HappeeR.MartensM.De WinterJ. C. F. (2019). Beyond mere take-over requests: The effects of monitoring requests on driver attention, take-over performance, and acceptance. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 63(1), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.03.018.
32.
ManchonJ. B.BuenoM.NavarroJ. (2020). From manual to automated driving: How does trust evolve?Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 22(5), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2020.1830450.
33.
ManchonJ. B.BuenoM.NavarroJ. (2022) (Submitted for publication). How the Initial Level of Trust in Automated Driving Impacts Drivers’ Behaviour and Early Trust Construction. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9kmqh.
34.
MerrittS. M.LeeD.UnnerstallJ. L.HuberK. (2015). Are well-calibrated users effective users? Associations between calibration of trust and performance on an automation-aided task. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 57(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814561675.
35.
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(1), 1849–1853. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601422.
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(1), 1759–1762. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601921.
37.
MuirB. M. (1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37(11), 1905–1922. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139408964957.
38.
MuirB. M.MorayN. (1996). Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39(3), 429–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139608964474.
NavarroJ.OsiurakF.OvigueM.CharrierL.ReynaudE. (2019). Highly automated driving impact on drivers’ gaze behaviors during a car-following task. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(11), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1561788.
42.
NoahB. E.WalkerB. N. (2017). Trust calibration through reliability displays in automated vehicles. Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI, 17(1), 361-362. https://doi.org/10.1145/3029798.3034802.
43.
O’CassA.CarlsonJ. (2012). An e-retailing assessment of perceived website-service innovativeness: Implications for website quality evaluations, trust, loyalty and word of mouth. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 20(1), 28-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2011.10.012.
44.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39(2), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886.
45.
PayreW. (2015). Conduite complétement automatisée: acceptabilité, confiance et apprentissage de la reprise de contrôle manuel. In Unpublished psychology thesis (pp. 1-354). Laboratoire de Psychologie des Comportements et des mobilités, IFSTTAR: Université Paris 8. https://www.theses.fr/2015PA080115.
46.
PayreW.CestacJ.DangN.-T.VienneF.DelhommeP. (2017). Impact of training and in-vehicle task performance on manual control recovery in an automated car. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 46(A), 216-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.02.001.
47.
PayreW.CestacJ.DelhommeP. (2016). Fully automated driving. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58(2), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815612319.
48.
PopV. L.ShrewsburyA.DursoF. T. (2015). Individual differences in the calibration of trust in automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 57(4), 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814564422.
49.
R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
50.
RevelleW.ZinbargR. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z.
51.
SAE International (2016). Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. SAE International. https://doi.org/10.4271/J3016_201609.
52.
SchaeferK. E.ChenJ. Y. C.SzalmaJ. L.HancockP. A. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of Factors Influencing the Development of Trust in Automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58(3), 377–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816634228.
53.
SchmidtC.HartwichF.KremsJ. F. (2021). Looking at Driving Automation from a Passenger's Perspective: Driving Experience and Gaze Behavior During Fully Automated vs. Human Vehicle Control. In AhramT.TaiarR.LangloisK.ChoplinA. (Eds.), Human Interaction, Emerging Technologies and Future Applications III (1253, pp. 3–9). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55307-4_1.
54.
SchwarzC.GasparJ.BrownT. (2019). The effect of reliability on drivers' trust and behavior in conditional automation. Cognition, Technology & Work, 21(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0522-y.
55.
WalkerF.BoelhouwerA.AlkimT.VerweyW. B.MartensM. H. (2018). Changes in trust after driving level 2 automated cars. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1045186.
56.
WalkerF.WangJ.MartensM. H.VerweyW. B. (2019). Gaze behaviour and electrodermal activity: Objective measures of drivers’ trust in automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 64(1), 401-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.05.021.
57.
WickhamH. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag. http://ggplot2.org.
58.
WintersbergerP.von SawitzkyT.FrisonA.-K.RienerA. (2017). Traffic augmentation as a means to increase trust in automated driving systems. Proceedings of the 12th Biannual Conference on Italian SIGCHI Chapter - CHItaly, 17(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3125571.3125600.
59.
ZhangB.de WinterJ.VarottoS.HappeeR.MartensM. (2019). Determinants of take-over time from automated driving: A meta-analysis of 129 studies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 64(1), 285-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.04.020.
60.
ZhangT.TaoD.QuX.ZhangX.LinR.ZhangW. (2019). The roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public’s acceptance of automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 98(1), 207-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.11.018.
