IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i8p3404-d1378404.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of Proactive Interaction on Trust in Autonomous Vehicles

Author

Listed:
  • Jingyue Sun

    (Key Laboratory of Mechanism Theory and Equipment Design of Ministry of Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300354, China)

  • Yanqun Huang

    (Key Laboratory of Mechanism Theory and Equipment Design of Ministry of Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300354, China
    School of Intelligent Media and Design Arts, Tianjin Ren’ai College, Tianjin 301636, China)

  • Xueqin Huang

    (Key Laboratory of Mechanism Theory and Equipment Design of Ministry of Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300354, China)

  • Jian Zhang

    (Key Laboratory of Mechanism Theory and Equipment Design of Ministry of Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300354, China)

  • Hechen Zhang

    (Key Laboratory of Mechanism Theory and Equipment Design of Ministry of Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300354, China)

Abstract

With rapid advancements in autonomous vehicles (AVs), mistrust between humans and autonomous driving systems has become a focal concern for users. Meanwhile, proactive interaction (PI), as a means to enhance the efficiency and satisfaction of human–machine collaboration, is increasingly being applied in the field of intelligent driving. Our study investigated the influence of varying degrees of PI on driver trust in Level 4 (L4) AVs set against a virtual reality (VR)-simulated driving backdrop. An experiment with 55 participants revealed that, within an autonomous driving scenario without interference, elevated PI levels fostered increased trust in AVs among drivers. Within task scenarios, low PI resulted in enhanced trust compared to PI characterized by information provision. Compared to females, males demonstrated reduced trust in medium PIs. Drivers with elevated extroversion levels exhibited the highest trust in advanced PIs; however, the difference between excessively and moderately extroverted participants was not significant. Our findings provide guidance for interaction designs to increase trust, thereby enhancing the acceptance and sustainability of AVs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jingyue Sun & Yanqun Huang & Xueqin Huang & Jian Zhang & Hechen Zhang, 2024. "Effect of Proactive Interaction on Trust in Autonomous Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:8:p:3404-:d:1378404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/8/3404/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/8/3404/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katarzyna Samson & Patrycjusz Kostyszyn, 2015. "Effects of Cognitive Load on Trusting Behavior – An Experiment Using the Trust Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-10, May.
    2. Kalra, Nidhi & Paddock, Susan M., 2016. "Driving to safety: How many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 182-193.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrea Bertolini & Massimo Riccaboni, 2021. "Grounding the case for a European approach to the regulation of automated driving: the technology-selection effect of liability rules," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 243-284, April.
    2. Khastgir, Siddartha & Brewerton, Simon & Thomas, John & Jennings, Paul, 2021. "Systems Approach to Creating Test Scenarios for Automated Driving Systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    3. Yueqi Mao & Qiang Mei & Peng Jing & Ye Zha & Ying Xue & Jiahui Huang & Danning Shao & Pan Luo, 2022. "Factors Affecting the Parental Intention of Using AVs to Escort Children: An Integrated SEM–Hybrid Choice Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-21, September.
    4. Blume, Maximilian & Oberländer, Anna Maria & Röglinger, Maximilian & Rosemann, Michael & Wyrtki, Katrin, 2020. "Ex ante assessment of disruptive threats: Identifying relevant threats before one is disrupted," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    5. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "How Safe Is Safe Enough for Self‐Driving Vehicles?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 315-325, February.
    6. Winston, Clifford & Karpilow, Quentin, 2017. "A New Route to Increasing Economic Growth: Reducing Highway Congestion with Autonomous Vehicles," Working Papers 03323, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    7. Zoltan Ferenc Magosi & Christoph Wellershaus & Viktor Roland Tihanyi & Patrick Luley & Arno Eichberger, 2022. "Evaluation Methodology for Physical Radar Perception Sensor Models Based on On-Road Measurements for the Testing and Validation of Automated Driving," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-20, March.
    8. Hudson, John & Orviska, Marta & Hunady, Jan, 2019. "People’s attitudes to autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 164-176.
    9. Liu, Peng & Zhang, Yawen & He, Zhen, 2019. "The effect of population age on the acceptable safety of self-driving vehicles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 341-347.
    10. Cian Ryan & Finbarr Murphy & Martin Mullins, 2019. "Semiautonomous Vehicle Risk Analysis: A Telematics‐Based Anomaly Detection Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 1125-1140, May.
    11. Hazel Si Min Lim & Araz Taeihagh, 2019. "Algorithmic Decision-Making in AVs: Understanding Ethical and Technical Concerns for Smart Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-28, October.
    12. Jie Min & Yili Hong & Caleb B. King & William Q. Meeker, 2022. "Reliability analysis of artificial intelligence systems using recurrent events data from autonomous vehicles," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 71(4), pages 987-1013, August.
    13. Duffy, Sean & Naddeo, JJ & Owens, David & Smith, John, 2016. "Cognitive load and mixed strategies: On brains and minimax," MPRA Paper 71878, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Marius Wenning & Anton Akira Backhaus & Tobias Adlon & Peter Burggräf, 2022. "Testing the reliability of monocular obstacle detection methods in a simulated 3D factory environment," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 33(7), pages 2157-2165, October.
    15. Mauricio Marcano & José A. Matute & Ray Lattarulo & Enrique Martí & Joshué Pérez, 2018. "Low Speed Longitudinal Control Algorithms for Automated Vehicles in Simulation and Real Platforms," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-12, March.
    16. Nourinejad, Mehdi & Bahrami, Sina & Roorda, Matthew J., 2018. "Designing parking facilities for autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 110-127.
    17. Demin Nalic & Aleksa Pandurevic & Arno Eichberger & Branko Rogic, 2020. "Design and Implementation of a Co-Simulation Framework for Testing of Automated Driving Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-12, December.
    18. Kumar, Girish & James, Ajith Tom & Choudhary, Krishna & Sahai, Rishi & Song, Weon Keun, 2022. "Investigation and analysis of implementation challenges for autonomous vehicles in developing countries using hybrid structural modeling," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    19. Talebian, Ahmadreza & Mishra, Sabyasachee, 2022. "Unfolding the state of the adoption of connected autonomous trucks by the commercial fleet owner industry," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    20. Kurani, Kenneth S., 2019. "User Perceptions of Safety and Security: A Framework for a Transition to Electric-Shared-Automated Vehicles," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt40g1637b, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:8:p:3404-:d:1378404. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.