This study investigated how people respond to driving errors committed by human drivers versus algorithm-controlled autonomous driving systems, focusing on how the driving agent and error severity shape error tolerance and trust. Drawing on Social Identity Theory and the Perfect Automation Schema, we proposed that autonomous driving systems operated by algorithms are perceived as out-group entities held to extremely high performance standards; consequently, even minor errors caused by autonomous vehicle algorithms may elicit disproportionately negative reactions. We conducted an online experiment employing a 2 (driving agent: algorithm vs. human) × 2 (error severity: fatal vs. minor) between-subjects design. Participants (N = 800) were randomly assigned to read one of four driving error scenarios, and then evaluated the error as well as the driving agent’s trustworthiness. Results revealed a significant interaction between driving agent and error severity. When the error was fatal, both driving agents received highly negative evaluations on both error tolerance and trust. By contrast, when the error was minor, participants were more tolerant of the human error and expressed greater trust in the human driver than in the algorithm. These findings suggest that even minor, noncritical malfunctions in autonomous driving systems can undermine users’ confidence and exacerbate negative evaluations. Overall, this study highlights social and cognitive biases in how people perceive and judge autonomous driving systems, deepening our understanding of the algorithm aversion phenomenon.
SinghS. Critical reasons for crashes investigated in the national motor vehicle crash causation survey. Report no. DOT HS 812 115. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Washington, DC; 2018.
2.
WangJ, ZhangL, HuangY, et al.Safety of autonomous vehicles. J Adv Transp2020;2020(1): 8867757; doi: 10.1155/2020/8867757
3.
RajA, KumarJA, BansalP. A multicriteria decision making approach to study barriers to the adoption of autonomous vehicles. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract2020;133:122–137; doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2020.01.013
DixonG, HartPS, ClarkeC, et al.What drives support for self-driving car technology in the United States? J Risk Res2020;23(3):275–287; doi: 10.1080/13669877.2018.1517384
6.
KeneseiZ, ÁsványiK, KökényL, et al.Trust and perceived risk: How different manifestations affect the adoption of autonomous vehicles. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract2022;164:379–393; doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2022.08.022
7.
LiuP, YangR, XuZ. How safe Is safe enough for self-driving vehicles? Risk Anal2019;39(2):315–325; doi: 10.1111/risa.13116
8.
LiuP, WangL, VincentC. Self-driving vehicles against human drivers: Equal safety is far from enough. J Exp Psychol Appl2020;26(4):692–704; doi: 10.1037/xap0000267
9.
NeesMA. Safer than the average human driver (who is less safe than me)? Examining a popular safety benchmark for self-driving cars. J Safety Res2019;69:61–68; doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2019.02.002
10.
ShariffA, BonnefonJF, RahwanI. How safe is safe enough? Psychological mechanisms underlying extreme safety demands for self-driving cars. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol2021;126:103069; doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2021.103069
11.
YokoiR. Trust in autonomous cars does not largely differ from trust in human drivers when they make minor errors. Transp Res Rec2025;2679(2):592–601; doi: 10.1177/03611981241263350
12.
TajfelH, TurnerJC. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Psychology of intergroup relations. (WorchelS, AustinWG., eds) Nelson-Hall; Chicago, IL; 1986, pp. 7–24.
13.
DzindoletMT, PierceLG, BeckHP, et al.The perceived utility of human and automated aids in a visual detection task. Hum Factors2002;44(1):79–94; doi: 10.1518/0018720024494856
14.
AmodioDM, RatnerKG. The neuroscience of social cognition. In: The Oxford handbook of social cognition. (CarlstonD., ed) Oxford University Press; 2013, pp. 702–728.
15.
BrewerMB. Depersonalized trust and ingroup cooperation. In: Rationality and social responsibility: Essays in honor of Robyn Mason Dawes. (KruegerJI., ed.) Psychology Press: New York, NY; 2008, pp. 215–232.
16.
HoggMA, TerryDJ, WhiteKM. A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Soc Psychol Q1995;58(4):255–269; doi: 10.2307/2787127
17.
SeabornK. Social identity in human-agent interaction: A primer. J Hum-Robot Interact2025; doi: 10.1145/3760500
18.
EdwardsC, EdwardsA, StollB, et al.Evaluations of an artificial intelligence instructor’s voice: Social Identity Theory in human-robot interactions. Comput Hum Behav2019;90:357–362; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.027
19.
JooYK. How do people interpret an autonomous vehicle’s accident?: Perceived controllability, anxiety, and responsibility. J Next-Gener Converg Technol Assoc2023;7(8):1346–1357; doi: 10.33097/JNCTA.2023.07.08.1346
20.
ChávezDG, CloarecJ, Meyer-WaardenL. Opening the moral machine’s cover: How algorithmic aversion shapes autonomous vehicle adoption. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract2024;187:104193; doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2024.104193
21.
Kadić-MaglajlićS, Arslanagić-KalajdžićM, MicevskiM, et al.Controversial advert perceptions in SNS advertising: The role of ethical judgement and religious commitment. J Bus Ethics2017;141(2):249–265; doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2755-5
22.
MurataK, Arias-OlivaM, Pelegrín-BorondoJ. Cross-cultural study about cyborg market acceptance: Japan versus Spain. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ2019;25(3):129–137; doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.07.003
23.
ReidenbachRE, RobinDP. Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics. J Bus Ethics1990;9(8):639–653; doi: 10.1007/BF00383391
24.
ChoiJK, JiYG. Investigating the importance of trust on adopting an autonomous vehicle. Int J Hum Comput Interact2015;31(10):692–702; doi: 10.1080/10447318.2015.1070549
25.
JooYK, KimB. Selfish but socially approved: The effects of perceived collision algorithms and social approval on attitudes toward autonomous vehicles. Int J Hum Comput Interact2023;39(19):3717–3727; doi: 10.1080/10447318.2022.2102716
26.
JooYK, JeongMW, KimB. “You’re a cop and you gotta help me!”: How the type of automated vehicles and collision algorithms influence individuals’ attitudes toward the vehicles. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2023;93:266–279; doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2023.01.012
27.
DietvorstBJ, SimmonsJP, MasseyC. Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. J Exp Psychol Gen2015;144(1):114–126; doi: 10.1037/xge0000033
28.
JussupowE, BenbasatI, HeinzlA. An integrative perspective on algorithm aversion and appreciation in decision-making. Mis Q2024;48(4):1575–1590; doi: 10.25300/misq/2024/18512
29.
ReichT, KajuA, MaglioSJ. How to overcome algorithm aversion: Learning from mistakes. J Consum Psychol2023;33(2):285–302; doi: 10.1002/jcpy.1313
30.
ZerilliJ, BhattU, WellerA. How transparency modulates trust in artificial intelligence. Patterns (N Y)2022;3(4):100455; doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2022.100455
WardC, RaueM, LeeC, et al.Acceptance of automated driving across generations: The role of risk and benefit perception, knowledge, and trust. In: Human-computer interaction user interface design, development and multimodality. (KurosuM, ed.) Springer International Publishing: Cham; 2017, pp. 254–266.
33.
ZhangT, ZengW, ZhangY, et al.What drives people to use automated vehicles? A meta-analytic review. Accid Anal Prev2021;159:106270; doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2021.106270
34.
LukyanenkoR, MaassW, StoreyVC. Trust in artificial intelligence: From a foundational trust framework to emerging research opportunities. Electron Markets2022;32(4):1993–2020; doi: 10.1007/s12525-022-00605-4
35.
DuH, ZhuG, ZhengJ. Why travelers trust and accept self-driving cars: An empirical study. Travel Behav Soc2021;22:1–9; doi: 10.1016/j.tbs.2020.06.012
36.
BuckleyL, KayeS-A, PradhanAK. Psychosocial factors associated with intended use of automated vehicles: A simulated driving study. Accid Anal Prev2018;115:202–208; doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2018.03.021
