Frank Verberne
Eindoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Jaap Ham
Eindoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Cees Midden
Eindoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Ladda ner artikel
Ingår i: Persuasive Technology: Design for Health and Safety; The 7th International Conference on Persuasive Technology; PERSUASIVE 2012; Linköping; Sweden; June 6-8; Adjunct Proceedings
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 68:15, s. 57-60
Publicerad: 2012-06-06
ISBN:
ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)
Automation technology can increase safety on the road; but only when it is trusted. As shared goals lead to social trust; and people exhibit social responses towards intelligent machines; we hypothesized that shared driving goals would also lead to increased trustworthiness and acceptability of Adaptive Cruise Control Systems (ACCs). In an experiment; participants (N = 61) were presented with descriptions of three ACCs with different automation levels which were described as systems that either shared their driving goals or did not. Trustworthiness and acceptability of the three ACCs were measured. Results indicated that participants judged ACCs sharing their own driving goals to be more trustworthy and acceptable than ACCs not sharing their driving goals. Furthermore; participants judged ACCs that took over driving tasks while providing information as more trustworthy and acceptable than ACCs that took over driving tasks without providing information. Thereby; these results help opening the road to safer driving.
1. Treat; J. R.; Tumbas; N. S.; McDonald; S. T.; Shinar; D.; Hume; R. D.; Mayer; R. E.; ... Castellan; N. J. (1979). Tri-level study of the causes of traffic accidents: Executive summary (NTIS Technical Report No. DOT HS-805 099). Bloomington: University of Indiana.
2. Lee; J. D.; & Moray; N. (1992). Trust; control strategies and allocation of function in humanmachine system. Ergonomics; 35; 1243-1270.
3. Reeves; B.; & Nass; C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers; television; and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. Siegrist; M.; Cvetkovich; G.; & Roth; C. (2000). Salient value similarity; social trust; and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis; 20; 353-362.
5. Verberne; F. M. F.; Ham; J.; & Midden; C. J. H. (2011). Trust in smart systems: Sharing driving goals and giving information to increase trustworthiness and acceptability of smart systems in cars. Manuscript submitted for publication.
6. Jian; J.; Bisantz; A. M.; & Drury; C. G. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics; 4; 53- 71.
7. Van der Laan; J. D.; Heino; A.; & De Waard; D. (1997). A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transportation Research; C5; 1- 10.
