The rail transit sector is experiencing growing gender diversity and increasing system automation. Understanding how gender influences drivers’ trust in automation, operational performance, and perceived workload is crucial for ensuring safe and equitable development.
Objective
This study aimed to investigate gender differences in automation trust, task performance, and subjective workload in rail transit driving tasks and to explore the interrelationships among these factors.
Methods
Sixty novice drivers (30 males and 30 females) participated in a simulated driving experiment and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using independent-sample t-tests, Mann–Whitney U tests, and Spearman's correlation analysis. Interview data were coded using deductive and inductive approaches, and chi-square tests were used to examine gender-based differences in perspectives.
Results
Females reported lower trust in automation than males. No significant gender differences were found in safety braking performance, but females outperformed males in door control tasks and reported higher physical workload and effort. For both genders, higher trust was associated with lower physical workload. In males, door control performance correlated with effort, whereas in females, multiple performance indicators correlated with frustration. Males also expressed a more favorable attitude toward the driving tasks and the future role of female drivers.
Conclusions
Gender differences in rail transit driving are more prominent in trust and subjective workload than in operational performance. Both genders require automation training. Men should be encouraged to enhance rule compliance throughout the driving process, while women may benefit from interventions targeting psychological workload.
LabergeMLefrançoisMChadoinM, et al.Gender and work in ergonomics: recent trends. Ergonomics2022; 65: 1451–1455.
2.
LabergeMBeaupréAMessingK, et al.Overview of the “gender & work” track at the IEA 2021 congress. Work2022; 73: S127–S139.
3.
MorattiS. A woman’s place is in the ‘home’? Gender-specific hiring patterns in academia in gender-equal Norway. J Sociol2020; 57: 916–934.
4.
ShimJParkD-I. The influence of gender equity in nursing education programs on nurse job satisfaction. Healthcare2023; 11: 1318.
5.
Soundarya PriyaMGAnandhKS. Unequal ground: gender disparities at work life in the construction industry. Admin Sci2024; 14: 194.
6.
ParnellKJPopeKAHartS, et al.‘It’s a man’s world’: a gender-equitable scoping review of gender, transportation, and work. Ergonomics2022; 65: 1537–1553.
7.
LefrançoisMProbstI. “They say we have a choice, but we don't”: a gendered reflection on work-family strategies and planning systems of atypical schedules within male-dominated occupations in Canada and Switzerland. Appl Ergon2020; 83: 103000.
8.
Sjöberg ForssbergKVänjeAPardingK. Bringing in gender perspectives on systematic occupational safety and health management. Saf Sci2022; 152: 105776.
9.
HopkinsDDavidsonAC. Stories of the gendered mobile work of English lorry driving. Gender Place Cult2023; 30: 1372–1392.
MuhammadRD. Separate and unsanitary: African American women railroad car cleaners and the women's service section, 1918–1920. J Womens Hist2011; 23: 87–111.
12.
RustDMundyR. Women in north American railroad operational roles: opportunities and challenges. Res Transp Econ2020; 84: 100917.
DespotopoulouA. Women and the railway, 1850–1915. Edinburgh (UK):Edinburgh University Press, 2015.
16.
GottwaldDLejskováP. Job satisfaction and perceived workload in the context of personality typology among subway train drivers. Front Psychol2023; 14: 1283122.
17.
GuoMHuLYeL. Cognition and driving safety: how does the high-speed railway drivers’ cognitive ability affect safety performance?Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2019; 65: 10–22.
18.
DuYZhiJHeS. Impact of experience on visual behavior and driving performance of high-speed train drivers. Sci Rep2022; 12: 5956.
19.
IridiastadiH. Fatigue in the Indonesian rail industry: a study examining passenger train drivers. Appl Ergon. 2021;92:103332.
20.
OlssonNLidestamBThorslundB. The practical part of train driver education: experience, expectations, and possibilities. Eur Transp Res Rev2021; 13: 52.
21.
TabaiBHBagheriMSadeghi-FiroozabadiV, et al.Impact of train drivers’ cognitive responses on rail accidents. Transp Res Rec2018; 2672: 260–268.
22.
EvansDMalletLFlahaultA, et al.The importance of both workplace and private life factors in psychological distress: a large cross-sectional survey of French railway company employees. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol2013; 48: 1211–1224.
23.
SachdevaLBhartiKBadhotiyaGK. Modeling of career entry barriers for women in male dominated occupations: a case of Indian railways. Res Transp Bus Manag. 2022;45:100871.
24.
LeoneJLaceySBarnes-FarrellJ. All aboard: gender diversity and safety culture on the track. Transp Res Rec2023; 2678: 828–838.
25.
BrandenburgerNHörmannH-JStellingD,et al.Tasks, skills, and competencies of future high-speed train drivers. Proc Inst Mech Eng F J Rail Rapid Transit2016; 231: 1115–1122.
26.
WangAGuoBDuH,et al.Impact of automation at different cognitive stages on high-speed train driving performance. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst2022; 23: 24599–24608.
27.
NaweedAChapmanJVandelanotteC, et al.‘Just right’ job design: a conceptual framework for sustainable work in rail driving using the goldilocks work paradigm. Appl Ergon2022; 105: 103806.
LeeJDSeeKA. Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors2004; 46: 50–80.
30.
SatoTIslamSStillJD, et al.Task priority reduces an adverse effect of task load on automation trust in a dynamic multitasking environment. Cogn Technol Work2023; 25: 1–13.
31.
ManchonJBBuenoMNavarroJ. Calibration of trust in automated driving: a matter of initial level of trust and automated driving style?Hum Factors2023;65:1613–1629.
32.
ManchonJBBeaufortRBuenoM,et al.What are the determinants of initial trust in automated driving?Int J Hum–Comput Inter2023; 40: 4441–4453.
33.
WeiglKSchartmüllerCRienerA. Development of the questionnaire on non-driving related tasks (QNDRT) in automated driving: revealing age and gender differences. Behav Inf Technol2023; 42: 1374–1388.
34.
LiSBlythePZhangY, et al.Analysing the effect of gender on the human–machine interaction in level 3 automated vehicles. Sci Rep2022; 12: 11645.
35.
MarintsevaKMahanecsAPandeyM,et al.Factors influencing low female representation in pilot training recruitment. Transp Policy2022; 115: 141–151.
36.
HiramatsuA. Female taxi drivers in Mexico city: facing patriarchal structures as a force of oppression. Gender Work Organ2022; 29: 1638–1657.
37.
LiuBXinXXuQ, et al.Relationships of social support, coping styles, perceived stress, and quality of life: the difference between metro drivers and station attendants in Xi’an, China. Curr Psychol2023; 42: 18197–18211.
38.
YangLBianYZhaoX, et al.Experimental research on the effectiveness of navigation prompt messages based on a driving simulator: a case study. Cogn Technol Work2021; 23: 439–458.
39.
OlssonN. A validation study comparing performance in a low-fidelity train-driving simulator with actual train driving performance. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2023; 90: 34–43.
40.
ManchonJBBuenoMNavarroJ. How the initial level of trust in automated driving impacts drivers’ behaviour and early trust construction. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2022; 86: 281–295.
41.
PowellJPFraszczykACheongCN,et al.Potential benefits and obstacles of implementing driverless train operation on the Tyne and wear metro: a simulation exercise. Urban Rail Transit2016; 2: 114–127.
42.
ForsbergR. Conditions affecting safety on the Swedish railway – train drivers’ experiences and perceptions. Saf Sci2016; 85: 53–59.
43.
RyanBWilsonJRSharplesS, et al.Developing a rail ergonomics questionnaire (REQUEST). Appl Ergon2009; 40: 216–229.
44.
SpainRDBlissJP. The effect of sonification display pulse rate and reliability on operator trust and perceived workload during a simulated patient monitoring task. Ergonomics2008; 51: 1320–1337.
45.
HartSGStavelandLE. Development of NASA-TLX (task load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol1988; 52: 139–183.
46.
JapBTLalSFischerP. Comparing combinations of EEG activity in train drivers during monotonous driving. Expert Syst Appl2011; 38: 996–1003.
47.
ZoellickJCKuhlmeyASchenkL, et al.Amused, accepted, and used? Attitudes and emotions towards automated vehicles, their relationships, and predictive value for usage intention. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2019; 65: 68–78.
48.
HohenbergerCSpörrleMWelpeIM. How and why do men and women differ in their willingness to use automated cars? The influence of emotions across different age groups. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract2016; 94: 374–385.
49.
FeldhütterAGoldCHügerA,et al.Trust in automation as a matter of Media influence and experi-ence of automated vehicles. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet2016; 60: 2024–2028.
50.
Kındap-TepeYAktaşV. The mediating role of needs satisfaction for prosocial behavior and autonomy support. Curr Psychol2021; 40: 5212–5224.
51.
BissellD. Passenger mobilities: affective atmospheres and the sociality of public transport. Environ Plan D Soc Space2010; 28: 270–289.
52.
RiceSKraemerKWinterSR, et al.Passengers from India and the United States have differential opinions about autonomous auto-pilots for commercial flights. Int J Aviat Aeronaut Aerosp2014; 1: 3.
53.
AnaniaECRiceSWinterSR, et al.Why people are not willing to let their children ride in driverless school buses: a gender and nationality comparison. Soc Sci2018; 7: 34.
54.
DuNRobertLYangXJ. Cross-Cultural investigation of the effects of explanations on Drivers’ trust, preference, and anxiety in highly automated vehicles. Transp Res Rec2022; 2677: 554–561.
55.
StapelJMullakkal-BabuFAHappeeR. Automated driving reduces perceived workload, but monitoring causes higher cognitive load than manual driving. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2019; 60: 590–605.
56.
KarpinskyNDChanceyETPalmerDB,et al.Automation trust and attention allocation in multitasking workspace. Appl Ergon2018; 70: 194–201.
57.
HoffKABashirM. Trust in automation: integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum Factors2014; 57: 407–434.
58.
StoetGO’ConnorDBConnerM,et al.Are women better than men at multi-tasking?BMC Psychol2013; 1: 18.
59.
HirnsteinMLarøiFLaloyauxJ. No sex difference in an everyday multitasking paradigm. Psychol Res2019; 83: 286–296.
60.
KarvonenHAaltonenIWahlströmM, et al.Hidden roles of the train driver: a challenge for metro automation. Interact Comput2011; 23: 289–298.
61.
TomAGraniéM-A. Gender differences in pedestrian rule compliance and visual search at signalized and unsignalized crossroads. Accid Anal Prev2011; 43: 1794–1801.
62.
CianiLGuidiGPatriziG. Human reliability in railway engineering: literature review and bibliometric analysis of the last two decades. Saf Sci2022; 151: 105755.
63.
YouXZhuLLiuZ,et al.Experimental study on the relationship between fatigue and unsafe behavior of urban rail transit drivers. Transp Res Rec2021; 2675: 1151–1160.
DuYZhiJ. Impacts of attention level on manual take-over performance in automatic driving on high-speed railways. Int J Hum Comput Interact2022; 40: 603–612.
66.
RileyEOkabeHGermineL, et al.Gender differences in sustained attentional control relate to gender inequality across countries. PLoS One2016; 11: e0165100.
67.
BurtonLPfaffDBoltN, et al.Effects of gender and personality on the conners continuous performance test. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol2010; 32: 66–70.
68.
ZhouHMolesworthBRCBurgessM,et al.The effect of broadband noise on learning and dynamic decision-making and how cognitive workload and sex moderate its effect. Appl Ergon2022; 98: 103604.
69.
CuiAEmeryKBeaudoinA-S, et al.Sex-specific effects of sitting vs standing on upper body muscle activity during text typing. Appl Ergon2020; 82: 102957.
70.
van den BrinkMBenschopYJansenW. Transparency in academic recruitment: a problematic tool for gender equality?Organ Stud2010; 31: 1459–1483.
71.
PrinzelLJFreemanFG. Task-Specific sex differences in vigilance performance: subjective workload and boredom. Percept Mot Skills1997; 85: 1195–1202.
72.
DesmondPAHancockPA. Active and passive fatigue states. Stress, workload, and fatigue. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, 2000, pp.455–465.
73.
GilboaSShiromAFriedY,et al.A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: examining main and moderating effects. Pers Psychol2008; 61: 227–271.
74.
ChawlaSSharmaRR. Enhancing women’s well-being: the role of psychological capital and perceived gender equity, with social support as a moderator and commitment as a mediator. Front Psychol2019; 10: 1377.
75.
YanıkoğluÖKılıçSKüçükönalH. Gender in the cockpit: challenges faced by female airline pilots. J Air Transp Manag2020; 86: 101823.
76.
FilippiEBannòMTrentoS. Automation technologies and the risk of substitution of women: can gender equality in the institutional context reduce the risk?Technol Forecast Soc Change2023; 191: 122528.
77.
JanuarioLBMathiassenSEBergströmG,et al.Did the COVID-19 pandemic influence inequality in self-reported work environment conditions based on gender and place of birth? A study of a Swedish commercial laundromat. Appl Ergon2024; 114: 104113.
78.
SantosMHMoraisPCorreiaRB. Gender dynamics in a masculine professional context: the case of the Portuguese air force. Soc Sci2022; 11: 82.
79.
LoJLimA. Sexism without sexists: gender-blind frames in police work. Gend Work Organ2023; 30: 1885–1902.
