A large public tier-1 university hosted an autonomous vehicle on campus for a 12-week demonstration. Throughout the deployment, the vehicle was operated autonomously and used 5 safety operators from the student population to take over shuttle operations, as necessary. Daily and weekly surveys as well as pre-and post-study interviews were used to investigate how operators’ trust developed and changed over time as well as the relationship between trust and operational issues that varied in severity. Results revealed that there was not a significant relationship between trust and severity of operational issues. Trust levels appeared to remain relatively consistent before, during and after the deployment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BisantzA. M.SeongY. (2001). Assessment of operator trust in and utilization of automated decision-aids under different framing conditions. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28(2), 85-97.
2.
DzindoletM. T.PierceL. G.BeckH. P.DaweL. A.AndersonB. W. (2001). Predicting misuse and disuse of combat identification systems. Military Psychology, 13, 147–164.
3.
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(6), 697-718.
4.
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407-434.
5.
JianJ.BisantzA. M.DruryC. G. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(1), 53-71.
6.
LeeJ.MorayN. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1243-1270.
7.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators’ adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(1), 153-184.
8.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in technology: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50-80.
9.
MadsenM.GregorS. (2000). Measuring human-computer trust. Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS) Proceedings, 53, 6-8.
10.
MayerA. (2008). The manipulation of user expectancies: Effects on reliance, compliance, and trust using an automated system (Unpublished master’s thesis). Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
11.
MayerA. K.SanchezJ.FiskA. D.RogersW. A. (2006). Don’t let me down: The role of operator expectations in human-automation interaction. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50, 2345-2349.
12.
National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2019). Distracted driving in fatal crashes, 2017. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230-253.
17.
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(3), 286-297.
18.
ParasuramanR.WickensC. D. (2008). Humans: Still vital after all these years of automation. Human Factors, 50(3), 511-520.
19.
TaylorR.M. (1989, October). Situational awareness rating technique (SART): The development of a tool for aircrew systems design. In North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Proceedings of the NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD) Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations Symposium (AGARD-CP-478) (p. 17). Loughton, Essex, UK: AGARD. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a223939.pdf
20.
WiegmannD. A.RichA.ZhangH. (2001). Automated diagnostic aids: The effect of aid reliability on users’ trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2(4), 352.
21.
VERBI Software. (2018). MAXQDA 12 [computer software]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software.
