OBJECTIVE: This paper presents a theoretical model and two simulator studies on the psychological processes during early trust calibration in automated vehicles. BACKGROUND: The positive outcomes of automation can only reach their full potential if a calibrated level of trust is achieved. In this process, information on system capabilities and limitations plays a crucial role. METHOD: In two simulator experiments, trust was repeatedly measured during an automated drive. In Study 1, all participants in a two-group experiment experienced a system-initiated take-over, and the occurrence of a system malfunction was manipulated. In Study 2 in a 2 × 2 between-subject design, system transparency was manipulated as an additional factor. RESULTS: Trust was found to increase during the first interactions progressively. In Study 1, take-overs led to a temporary decrease in trust, as did malfunctions in both studies. Interestingly, trust was reestablished in the course of interaction for take-overs and malfunctions. In Study 2, the high transparency condition did not show a temporary decline in trust after a malfunction. CONCLUSION: Trust is calibrated along provided information prior to and during the initial drive with an automated vehicle. The experience of take-overs and malfunctions leads to a temporary decline in trust that was recovered in the course of error-free interaction. The temporary decrease can be prevented by providing transparent information prior to system interaction. APPLICATION: Transparency, also about potential limitations of the system, plays an important role in this process and should be considered in the design of tutorials and human-machine interaction (HMI) concepts of automated vehicles.
OBJECTIVE: This paper presents a theoretical model and two simulator studies on the psychological processes during early trust calibration in automated vehicles. BACKGROUND: The positive outcomes of automation can only reach their full potential if a calibrated level of trust is achieved. In this process, information on system capabilities and limitations plays a crucial role. METHOD: In two simulator experiments, trust was repeatedly measured during an automated drive. In Study 1, all participants in a two-group experiment experienced a system-initiated take-over, and the occurrence of a system malfunction was manipulated. In Study 2 in a 2 × 2 between-subject design, system transparency was manipulated as an additional factor. RESULTS: Trust was found to increase during the first interactions progressively. In Study 1, take-overs led to a temporary decrease in trust, as did malfunctions in both studies. Interestingly, trust was reestablished in the course of interaction for take-overs and malfunctions. In Study 2, the high transparency condition did not show a temporary decline in trust after a malfunction. CONCLUSION: Trust is calibrated along provided information prior to and during the initial drive with an automated vehicle. The experience of take-overs and malfunctions leads to a temporary decline in trust that was recovered in the course of error-free interaction. The temporary decrease can be prevented by providing transparent information prior to system interaction. APPLICATION: Transparency, also about potential limitations of the system, plays an important role in this process and should be considered in the design of tutorials and human-machine interaction (HMI) concepts of automated vehicles.
Entities:
Keywords:
compliance and reliance; function allocation; human-automation interaction; trust formation; trust in automation