Investigating the Importance of Trust on Adopting an Autonomous Vehicle

Choi, Jong Kyu; Ji, Yong Gu

doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1070549

Cited by 850 publications

(467 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

423

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, the correlation between perceived risk and BI was significant ( R = −0.15, p < 0.01). However, their link was nonsignificant after controlling for the influences of perceived benefit and social trust, which can also be seen in Choi and Ji's study (). The insignificant role of perceived risk has been reported before (Bronfman & Vázquez, ; Midden & Huijts, ; Terwel et al., ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

“…People with higher trust in and higher knowledge of AD technology (Ward, Raue, Lee, Ambrosio, & Coughlin, ) reported higher likelihood to purchase an AD vehicle. Trust in AD technology (Choi & Ji, ; Ward et al., ), perceived usefulness of this technology (Choi & Ji, ), and anxiety toward this technology (Hohenberger, Spörrle, & Welpe, ) were found to be strong predictors of people's intention to use AD technology. Men were observed to have a higher intention to use AD technology than women (Hohenberger et al., ; Payre et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automated driving (AD) is one of the most significant technical advances in the transportation industry. Its safety, economic, and environmental benefits cannot be realized if it is not used. To explain, predict, and increase its acceptance, we need to understand how people perceive and why they accept or reject AD technology. Drawing upon the trust heuristic, we tested a psychological model to explain three acceptance measures of fully AD (FAD): general acceptance, willingness to pay (WTP), and behavioral intention (BI). This heuristic suggests that social trust can directly affect acceptance or indirectly affect acceptance through perceived benefits and risks. Using a survey (N = 441), we found that social trust retained a direct effect as well as an indirect effect on all FAD acceptance measures. The indirect effect of social trust was more prominent in forming general acceptance; the direct effect of social trust was more prominent in explaining WTP and BI. Compared to perceived risk, perceived benefit was a stronger predictor of all FAD acceptance measures and also a stronger mediator of the trust-acceptance relationship. Predictive ability of the proposed model for the three acceptance measures was confirmed. We discuss the implications of our results for theory and practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beyond that, although advancements in passive and active safety technologies have led to a significant reduction in road accidents (Choi & Ji, 2015), European data, for example, show that 26,000 road fatalities were still reported in the European Union in 2015 (European Commission, 2016). It is assumed that fully automating the driver's tasks will reduce human error, such as speeding or distraction, and, thereby, the number of fatalities further still.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, these claimed benefits may only occur if automated vehicles are successfully implemented into road traffic and trust in this technology is a vital precondition for this. Ghazizadeh, Lee, and Boyle (2012) stated in their Automation Acceptance Model that trust is a crucial contributor to an individual's acceptability of automation technology and several previous studies have empirically shown that trust is a key determinant for reliance on automated systems (Bailey & Scerbo, 2007;Muir & Moray, 1996), adoption of automation (Gefen, Karahanna, & Straub, 2003;Lee & Moray, 1994), and the intention to use autonomous vehicles (Choi & Ji, 2015). In other words, operators tend to use automation that they trust while rejecting automation that they do not (Pop, Shrewsbury, & Durso, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust in automation is a key determinant for the adoption of automated systems and their appropriate use. Therefore, it constitutes an essential research area for the introduction of automated vehicles to road traffic. In this study, we investigated the influence of trust promoting (Trust promoted group) and trust lowering (Trust lowered group) introductory information on reported trust, reliance behavior and takeover performance. Forty participants encountered three situations in a 17-minute highway drive in a conditionally automated vehicle (SAE Level 3). Situation 1 and Situation 3 were non-critical situations where a take-over was optional. Situation 2 represented a critical situation where a take-over was necessary to avoid a collision. A non-driving-related task (NDRT) was presented between the situations to record the allocation of visual attention. Participants reporting a higher trust level spent less time looking at the road or instrument cluster and more time looking at the NDRT. The manipulation of introductory information resulted in medium differences in reported trust and influenced participants' reliance behavior. Participants of the Trust promoted group looked less at the road or instrument cluster and more at the NDRT. The odds of participants of the Trust promoted group to overrule the automated driving system in the non-critical situations were 3.65 times (Situation 1) to 5 times (Situation 3) higher. In Situation 2, the Trust promoted group's mean take-over time was extended by 1154 ms and the mean minimum time-to-collision was 933 ms shorter. Six participants from the Trust promoted group compared to no participant of the Trust lowered group collided with the obstacle. The results demonstrate that the individual trust level influences how much drivers monitor the environment while performing an NDRT. Introductory information influences this trust level, reliance on an automated driving system, and if a critical take-over situation can be successfully solved.

show abstract

“…Parasuraman & Riley, 1997), and the intention to use autonomous vehicles (Choi & Ji, 2015). The 80 incremental value of investigating trust in studies on acceptance has been successfully shown by several 81 studies such as on an on-board monitoring system (Ghazizadeh, Peng et al, 2012), on ADAS 82 (Trübswetter & Bengler, 2013) and on the reliance on and intention to use automated vehicles (Choi 83 & Ji, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%