Trustworthiness of Policymakers,Technology Developers,and Media Organizations Involved in Introducing AI for Autonomous Vehicles: A Public Perspective

Abstract

Qualities of organizations constitute dimensions of trustworthiness. Guided by the integrative model of organizational trust, we developed dimensions of trustworthiness of policymakers, technology developers, and media organizations that are involved in introducing artificial intelligence for autonomous vehicles. We collected data through six focus group discussions with the public in Singapore. In addition to the core dimensions of trustworthiness, the public would consider acclaim, collaboration, public communication, and affiliation. Further, we identified all the dimensions of trustworthiness as either ability-, recognition-, relation-, or principle-based. These findings carry important implications for the development of the model and stakeholders’ communication about science and technology.

Keywords

dimensions of trustworthiness stakeholders public communication acclaim autonomous vehicles

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akter

D’Ambra

Ray

(2011). Trustworthiness in mHealth information services: An assessment of a hierarchical model with mediating and moderating effects using partial least squares (PLS). Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21442

Appelman

Sundar

S. S.

(2016). Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990156060

Arai

Mizuno

Arai

(2010). Differences in perceptions regarding driving between young and old and non-drivers in Japan. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 25, 1239–1245.

Armstrong

R. W.

Yee

S. M.

(2001). Do Chinese trust Chinese? A study of Chinese buyers and sellers in Malaysia. Journal of International Marketing, 9(3), 63–86. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.9.3.63.19925

Balta-Ozkan

Davidson

Bicket

Withmarsh

(2013). Social barriers to the adoption of smart homes. Energy Policy, 63, 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.043

Berdahl

Bourassa

Bell

Fried

(2016). Exploring perceptions of credible science among policy stakeholder groups: Results of focus group discussions about nuclear energy. Science Communication, 38(3), 382–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016647175

Besley

J. C.

Newman

T. P.

Dudo

Tiffany

L. A.

(2021). American scientists’ willingness to use different communication tactics. Science Communication, 43(4), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211011159

Besley

J. C.

Tiffany

L. A.

(2023). What are you assessing when you measure “trust” in scientists with a direct measure? Public Understanding of Science, 32(6), 709–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231161302

Bilal

Várallyai

(2021). Artificial intelligence in talent acquisition, do we trust it? Journal of Agricultural Informatics, 12(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.17700/jai.2021.12.1.594

10.

Bloch

P. H.

(1986). Product enthusiasm: Many questions, a few questions. In Lutz

R. J.

(Ed.), NA—Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 13, pp. 539–543). Association for Consumer Research.

11.

Bornstein

B. H.

Hamm

J. A.

Dellapaolera

K. S.

Kleynhans

Miller

M. K.

(2020). JUST: A measure of jury system trustworthiness. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(8), 797–822. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1740222

12.

Brewer

M. B.

(1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307

13.

Brewer

M. B.

Silver

(1978). In-group bias as a function of task characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8(3), 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420080312

14.

Brown

(2016, November 2). Leaders can turn creativity into a competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/11/leaders-can-turn-creativity-into-a-competitive-advantage

15.

Bucchi

(2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In Bucchi

Trench

(Eds.), Handbook of Public communication of science and technology (pp. 57–76). Routledge.

16.

Büttner

O. B.

Gòritz

A. S.

(2008). Perceived trustworthiness of online shops. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 7, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.235

17.

Chafkin

(2022, October 6). Even after $100 Billion, Self-driving Cars Are Going Nowhere. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-10-06/even-after-100-billion-self-driving-cars-are-going-nowhere#xj4y7vzkg

18.

Chia

(2023, July 26). $20m grant set up to develop AI in self-driving vehicles, materials research for military, commercial uses. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/tech/20m-grant-set-up-to-develop-ai-in-self-driving-vehicles-materials-research-for-military-use

19.

Chng

(2020). What do Singaporeans want from driverless mobility? Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities. https://lkycic.sutd.edu.sg/blog/what-do-singaporeans-want-from-driverless-mobility/

20.

Chng

Abraham

White

M. P.

Skippon

(2019). To drive or not to drive? A qualitative comparison of car ownership and transport experiences in London and Singapore. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 2, Article 100030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2019.100030

21.

Chng

Anowar

Cheah

(2021). To embrace or not to embrace? Understanding public’s dilemma about autonomous mobility services: A case of Singapore. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 9(4), 1542–1552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2021.08.004

22.

Cladwell

Hansen

M. H.

(2010). Trustworthiness, governance, and wealth creation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0503-4

23.

Colquitt

J. A.

Lepine

J. A.

Zapata

C. P.

Wild

R. E.

(2011). Trust in typical and high-reliability contexts: Building and reacting to trust among firefighters. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 999–1015. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.0241

24.

Continental. (2018, November 15). Continental and Easymile Inaugurate New Autonomous Driving R&D Team in Singapore [Press Release]. https://www.continental.com/en/press/press-releases/cube-singapore/

25.

Deutsch

(1960). The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Human Relations, 13(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676001300202

26.

Dimock

(2019). Defining generations: Where millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Centre. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

27.

The Economist. (2020, June 11). Driverless cars show the limits of today’s AI. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/autonomous-drivings-future-convenient-and-connected

28.

Enterprise Singapore. (2022). Singapore standards. https://www.singaporestandardseshop.sg/

29.

Firth

J. W.

Cromwell

R. L.

(2001). Evaluating Internet resources: Identity, affiliation, and cognitive authority in a networked world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(6), 499–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1081

30.

Glaser

B. G.

(1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.

31.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

(1967). The discovery of ground theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

32.

Hansen

Newbold

K. B.

Scott

D. M.

Vrkljan

Grenier

(2020). To drive or not to drive: Driving cessation amongst older adults in rural and small towns in Canada. Journal of Transport Geography, 86, Article 102773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102773

33.

Haynes

A. S.

Derrick

G. E.

Redman

Hall

W. D.

Gillespie

J. A.

Chapman

Sturk

(2012). Identifying trustworthy experts: How do policymakers find and assess public health researchers worth consulting or collaborating with? PLOS ONE, 7(3), Article e32665. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032665

34.

Hisrich

R. D.

Peters

M. P.

(1982). Focus group: An innovative marketing research technique. Hospital & Health Services Administration, 27(4), 8–21.

35.

S. S.

Leow

V. J. X.

Leung

Y. W.

(2020). Driving without the brain? Effects of value predispositions, media attention, and science knowledge on public willingness to use driverless cars in Singapore. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 71, 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.03.019

36.

Hudson

Orviska

Hunady

(2019). People’s attitudes to autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part A, 121, 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.08.018

37.

Infocomm Media Development Authority. (2023). Artificial intelligence in Singapore. https://www.imda.gov.sg/about-imda/emerging-technologies-and-research/artificial-intelligence

38.

Jelinski

Etzrodt

Engesser

(2021). Undifferentiated optimism and scandalized accidents: The media coverage autonomous driving in Germany. Journal of Science Communication, 20(04), Article A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20040202

39.

Johnston

(2018, June 6). Singapore to set up “ethics council” on use of AI and data. Channel Asia. https://www.channelasia.tech/article/642024/singapore-set-up-ethics-council-ethical-use-ai-data/

40.

Jones

A. P.

James

L. R.

Bruni

J. R.

(1975). Perceived leadership behavior and employee confidence in the leader as moderated by job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(1), 1306–1317. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076359

41.

Joshi

(2022, August 5). 5 moral dilemmas that self-driving cars face today. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/naveenjoshi/2022/08/05/5-moral-dilemmas-that-self-driving-cars-face-today/?sh=7ca6700e630d

42.

Knowles

Richards

J. T.

(2021, March 3–10). The sanction of authority: Promoting public trust in AI [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2021 Association for Computing Machinery Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Virtual Event, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445890

43.

Kow

(2023, February 24). LTA, EDB to push on with autonomous vehicles despite ST Engineering’s withdrawing bus trials. The Business Times. https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/singapore/lta-edb-push-autonomous-vehicle-development-despite-st-engineerings-withdrawal-bus-trials

44.

KPMG International. (2020). 2020 Autonomous vehicles readiness index. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/07/2020-autonomous-vehicles-readiness-index.pdf

45.

Küng

(2017). Strategic management in the media: Theory to practice. Sage.

46.

Lanzendorf

(2003, August 10). Mobility biographies: A new perspective for understanding travel behavior [Conference session]. 10th International Conference on Travel Behavior Research, Lucerne.

47.

Lee

Ward

Raue

D’Ambrosio

Coughlin

J. F.

(2017). Age differences in acceptance of self-driving cars: A survey of perceptions and attitudes. In Zhou

Salvendy

(Eds.), Human aspects of IT for the aged population: Ageing, design and user experience (pp. 3–13). Springer.

48.

Lee

J.-N.

Tan

B. C. Y.

(2015). Antecedents of cognitive trust and affective distrust and their mediating roles in building customer loyalty. Information Systems Frontiers, 17, 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-012-9392-7

49.

Levin

(2023, March 31). Bill Gates says self-driving cars will be as revolutionary as the PC after riding in one. Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-ai-self-driving-cars-as-revolutionary-as-pc-2023-3

50.

Lewis

J. D.

Weigert

(1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985. https://doi.org/10.2307/2578601

51.

Lim

Hong

Choi

Byun

(2017). Real-time traffic sign recognition based on a general purpose GPU and deep-learning. PLOS ONE, 12(3), Article 0173317. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173317

52.

MacCoun

R. J.

(2015). The epistemic contract: Fostering an appropriate level of public trust in experts. In Bornstein

B. H.

Tomkins

A. J.

(Eds.), Motivating cooperation and compliance with authority: The role of institutional trust (pp. 191–214). Springer.

53.

Marr

(2020, July 17). 5 ways self-driving cars could make our world (and our lives) better. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2020/07/17/5-ways-self-driving-cars-could-make-our-world-and-our-lives-better/?sh=76f2108742a3

54.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792

55.

McAllister

D. J.

(1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/256727

56.

McFall

(1987). Integrity. Ethics, 98(1), 5–20.

57.

McKernan

Weber

(2016). Vietnamese Australians’ perceptions of the trustworthiness of police. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865814554308

58.

McKinsey & Company. (2023). Autonomous driving’s future: Convenient and connected. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/autonomous-drivings-future-convenient-and-connected

59.

Metcalfe

(2019). Comparing science communication theory with practice: An assessment and critique using Australian data. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 382–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518821022

60.

Metzger

M. J.

Flanagin

A. J.

(2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(Pt. B), 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012

61.

Mihelj

Kondor

Štětka

(2022). Establishing trust in experts during a crisis: Expert trustworthiness and media use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Science Communication, 44(3), 292–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221100558

62.

Mulder

Vellinga

N. E.

(2021). Exploring data protection challenges of automated driving. Computer Law & Security Review, 40, Article 105530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105530

63.

J. S.

(2021, June 5). Adulting 101: I’m a car geek, but I don’t own one after weighing the pros and cons. Today. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/adulting-101-im-car-geek-after-weighing-pros-and-cons-dont-own-one

64.

Öztürk

İ.

Warner

H. W.

Özkan

. (2023). Automation preferences by traffic climate and driver skills in two samples from countries with different levels of traffic safety. Transportation Research Records, 2677(2), 1701–1712. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221109593

65.

Parent

Gallupe

R. B.

Salisbury

W. D.

Handelman

J. M.

(2000). Knowledge creation in focus groups: Can group technologies help? Information & Management, 38(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00053-7

66.

Paul

(2023, July 26). We tested the first ever level 3 self-driving in a BMW. BMWBLOG. https://www.bmwblog.com/2023/07/26/bmw-level-3-self-driving/#:~:text=A%20Level%203%20autonomous%20driving,the%20vehicle%20requests%20your%20intervention

67.

Perry

T. S.

(2022, July 11). What’s the tech background of an autonomous-vehicle engineer? IEEE Spectrum. https://spectrum.ieee.org/av-engineer-jobs

68.

Pirson

Malhotra

(2011). Foundations of organizational trust: What matters to different stakeholders? Organizational Science, 22(4), 1087–1104. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0581

69.

Post

J. M. M.

Veldstra

J. L.

Ünal

A. B.

(2021). Acceptability and acceptance of connected automated vehicles: A literature review and focus groups [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications, Valletta, Malta. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010719200003060

70.

Qin

Yan

(2020). Understanding user trust in artificial intelligence-based educational systems: Evidence from China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1693–1710. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12994

71.

Sun

Zhang

(2019). Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess public receptivity toward autonomous vehicles and its relations with the traffic safety climate in China. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 128, 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.04.006

72.

Ragland

D. R.

Satariano

W. A.

MacLeod

K. E.

(2004). Reasons given by older people for limitation or avoidance of driving. The Gerontologist, 44(2), 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/44.2.237

73.

Ritchie

Lewis

Nicholls

C. M.

Ormston

(2014). Qualitative research practice. Sage.

74.

Robinson

S. C.

(2020). Trust, transparency, and openness: How inclusion of cultural values shapes Nordic national public policy strategies for artificial intelligence (AI). Technology in Society, 63, Article 101421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101421

75.

Roy

S. K.

Shekhar

(2009). Dimension hierarchy of trustworthiness of financial service providers. International Journey of Bank Marketing, 28(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652321011013580

76.

Schmidt

(2020). The effect of car sharing on car sales. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 71, Article 102622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2020.102622

77.

Schoettle

Sivak

(2014). The reasons for the recent decline in young driver licensing in the United States. Traffic Injury Prevention, 15(1), 6–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2013.839993

78.

Schouten

Wachs

Blumenberg

E. A.

King

H. R.

(2022). Cohort analysis of driving cessation and limitation among older adults. Transportation, 49, 841–865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-021-10196-2

79.

Sharp

E. A.

Thwaites

Curtis

Millar

(2013). Factors affecting community-agency trust before, during and after a wildfire: An Australian case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 130, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.037

80.

Shashkevich

(2017). Stanford scholars, researchers discuss key ethical questions self-driving cars present. Stanford University. https://news.stanford.edu/2017/05/22/stanford-scholars-researchers-discuss-key-ethical-questions-self-driving-cars-present/

81.

Singapore Police Force. (2023). Singapore driving license. https://www.police.gov.sg/Advisories/Traffic/Traffic-Matters/Singapore-Driving-Licence

82.

Smart

Pickering

Boniface

Hall

D. W.

(2021). Risk models of national identity systems: A conceptual model of trust and trustworthiness. The Alan Turing Institute. https://www.turing.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2021-11/technical_briefing_a_conceptual_model_of_trust_and_trustworthiness.pdf

83.

Smart Nation Singapore. (2023). Driving into the future. https://www.smartnation.gov.sg/initiatives/transport/autonomous-vehicles/

84.

Society of Automotive Engineers. (2021). SAE levels of driving automation refined for clarity and international audience. https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update

85.

Stewart

D. W.

Shamdasani

P. N.

(2015). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Sage.

86.

Sundar

S. S.

(1999). Exploring receivers’ criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909907600213

87.

Taeihagh

Lim

H. S. M.

(2021). Towards autonomous vehicles in smart cities: Risks and risk governance. In Hamid

U. Z. A.

Al-Turjman

(Eds.), Towards connected and autonomous vehicle highways: Technical, security, and social challenges (pp. 169–192). Springer.

88.

Tan

(2022, November 23). Here’s how the tech sector can win public trust in Southeast Asia. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/11/tech-southeast-asia-trust-digital-economy-inclusion/

89.

Tan

(2019, January 26). Singapore releases framework on ethical use of AI. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-releases-framework-on-ethical-use-of-ai

90.

Tomlinson

E. C.

Schnackenberg

A. K.

Dawley

Ash

S. R.

(2018). Revisiting the trustworthiness-trust relationship: Exploring the differential predictors of cognition- and affect-based trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(6), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2448

91.

Tracy

S. J.

(2013). Qualitative research methods. Wiley-Blackwell.

92.

Udacity. (2021, February 10). So you want to be a self-driving car engineer. https://www.udacity.com/blog/2021/02/so-you-want-to-be-a-self-driving-car-engineer.html

93.

Ulahannan

Cain

Dhadyalla

Jennings

Birrell

Waters

Mouzakitis

(2018, July 12–15). Using the ideas café to explore trust in autonomous vehicles [Conference session]. Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics Conference, Orlando, FL, United States. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93888-2_1

94.

Wang

Lin

Shao

(2022). Artificial intelligence changes the way we work: A close look at innovating with chatbots. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(3), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24621

95.

Weingart

(1998). Science and the media. Research Policy, 27(8), 869–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00096-1

96.

Widen

W. H.

Koopman

(2022). Autonomous vehicle regulation & trust: The impact of failures to comply with standards. UCLA Journal of Law & Technology, 27(3), 169–261.

97.

Wilson

(1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Greenwood.

98.

World Economic Forum. (2019). Global technology governance: A multistakeholder approach. https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/global-technology-governance-a-multistakeholder-approach/

99.

Yuen

K. F.

(2023). Initial trust formation on shared autonomous vehicles: Exploring the effects of personality-, transfer- and performance-based stimuli. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 173, Article 103704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103704

100.

Wynne

(2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet, 9(3), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1159/000092659

101.

Yuan

Kanthawala

Ott-Fulmore

(2022). “Listening” to science: Science podcasters’ view and practice in strategic science communication. Science Communication, 44(2), 200–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211065068

102.

Yuan

Besley

J. C.

(2019). Should scientists talk about GMO nicely? Exploring the effects of communication styles, source expertise, and preexisting attitude. Science Communication, 41(3), 267–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019837623

103.

Zhou

Zheng

Whitehead

Washington

Perrsons

R. K.

Page

(2020). Preference heterogeneity in mode choice for car-sharing and shared automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part A, 132, 633–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.12.004

104.

Zipper

(2023, March 2). Gen Z’s turn against driving is a mirage. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-01/is-gen-z-really-done-with-driving-cars-don-t-bet-on-it

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB