信任技术的倾向和主观知识(而非客观知识)可预测对高级驾驶辅助系统的信任度

IF 3.5 2区 工程技术 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour Pub Date : 2024-10-15 DOI:10.1016/j.trf.2024.09.025
Chelsea A. DeGuzman, Birsen Donmez
{"title":"信任技术的倾向和主观知识(而非客观知识)可预测对高级驾驶辅助系统的信任度","authors":"Chelsea A. DeGuzman,&nbsp;Birsen Donmez","doi":"10.1016/j.trf.2024.09.025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Trust has been shown to influence whether drivers use advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) appropriately, and thus understanding the factors influencing trust in ADAS may help inform interventions to support appropriate use. We surveyed 369 drivers to investigate the factors that predict trust in ADAS for current users. Participants were required to have experience using ADAS, specifically systems that simultaneously control longitudinal and lateral movement of the vehicle (participants reported using adaptive cruise control and lane keeping assist systems at the same time in their vehicle at least 1–4 times per month). In addition to assessing trust, the survey included questions to assess objective knowledge about ADAS limitations, self-reported understanding of ADAS (i.e., how correct and complete drivers thought their understanding of ADAS was), number of methods they had previously used to learn about ADAS, frequency of ADAS use, familiarity with technology, propensity to trust technology, and demographics. Regression results showed that self-reported understanding, but not objective knowledge, predicted trust in ADAS, with higher self-reported understanding being associated with higher trust. Self-reported understanding was not correlated with objective knowledge; participants rated their self-reported understanding highly, but only identified an average of 42% of the system limitations included in the survey. Propensity to trust technology was also a significant predictor of trust in ADAS, with higher propensity to trust technology in general associated with higher trust in ADAS. These findings suggest that interventions aimed at supporting appropriate trust in ADAS could be designed to increase drivers’ awareness of potential gaps in their understanding and adjust expectations of ADAS for those with a high propensity to trust technology.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48355,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Propensity to trust technology and subjective, but not objective, knowledge predict trust in advanced driver assistance systems\",\"authors\":\"Chelsea A. DeGuzman,&nbsp;Birsen Donmez\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.trf.2024.09.025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Trust has been shown to influence whether drivers use advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) appropriately, and thus understanding the factors influencing trust in ADAS may help inform interventions to support appropriate use. We surveyed 369 drivers to investigate the factors that predict trust in ADAS for current users. Participants were required to have experience using ADAS, specifically systems that simultaneously control longitudinal and lateral movement of the vehicle (participants reported using adaptive cruise control and lane keeping assist systems at the same time in their vehicle at least 1–4 times per month). In addition to assessing trust, the survey included questions to assess objective knowledge about ADAS limitations, self-reported understanding of ADAS (i.e., how correct and complete drivers thought their understanding of ADAS was), number of methods they had previously used to learn about ADAS, frequency of ADAS use, familiarity with technology, propensity to trust technology, and demographics. Regression results showed that self-reported understanding, but not objective knowledge, predicted trust in ADAS, with higher self-reported understanding being associated with higher trust. Self-reported understanding was not correlated with objective knowledge; participants rated their self-reported understanding highly, but only identified an average of 42% of the system limitations included in the survey. Propensity to trust technology was also a significant predictor of trust in ADAS, with higher propensity to trust technology in general associated with higher trust in ADAS. These findings suggest that interventions aimed at supporting appropriate trust in ADAS could be designed to increase drivers’ awareness of potential gaps in their understanding and adjust expectations of ADAS for those with a high propensity to trust technology.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48355,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847824002766\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847824002766","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究表明,信任会影响驾驶员是否适当使用高级驾驶辅助系统(ADAS),因此了解影响驾驶员对高级驾驶辅助系统信任的因素可能有助于为支持适当使用高级驾驶辅助系统的干预措施提供依据。我们对 369 名驾驶员进行了调查,以研究预测当前用户对 ADAS 信任度的因素。要求参与者有使用 ADAS 的经验,特别是同时控制车辆纵向和横向移动的系统(参与者称每月至少有 1-4 次在其车辆中同时使用自适应巡航控制和车道保持辅助系统)。除了评估信任度外,调查还包括一些问题,以评估关于ADAS局限性的客观知识、自我报告的对ADAS的理解(即驾驶员认为自己对ADAS的理解有多正确和全面)、他们以前用来了解ADAS的方法的数量、ADAS的使用频率、对技术的熟悉程度、信任技术的倾向以及人口统计学特征。回归结果显示,自我报告的了解程度(而非客观知识)可以预测对 ADAS 的信任度,自我报告的了解程度越高,信任度越高。自我报告的理解能力与客观知识并不相关;参与者对自我报告的理解能力评价很高,但平均只能识别出调查中42%的系统局限性。信任技术的倾向也是ADAS信任度的一个重要预测因素,一般来说,信任技术的倾向越高,对ADAS的信任度就越高。这些研究结果表明,可以设计一些干预措施来支持对ADAS的适当信任,以提高驾驶员对其理解中潜在差距的认识,并调整那些对技术信任倾向较高的驾驶员对ADAS的期望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Propensity to trust technology and subjective, but not objective, knowledge predict trust in advanced driver assistance systems
Trust has been shown to influence whether drivers use advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) appropriately, and thus understanding the factors influencing trust in ADAS may help inform interventions to support appropriate use. We surveyed 369 drivers to investigate the factors that predict trust in ADAS for current users. Participants were required to have experience using ADAS, specifically systems that simultaneously control longitudinal and lateral movement of the vehicle (participants reported using adaptive cruise control and lane keeping assist systems at the same time in their vehicle at least 1–4 times per month). In addition to assessing trust, the survey included questions to assess objective knowledge about ADAS limitations, self-reported understanding of ADAS (i.e., how correct and complete drivers thought their understanding of ADAS was), number of methods they had previously used to learn about ADAS, frequency of ADAS use, familiarity with technology, propensity to trust technology, and demographics. Regression results showed that self-reported understanding, but not objective knowledge, predicted trust in ADAS, with higher self-reported understanding being associated with higher trust. Self-reported understanding was not correlated with objective knowledge; participants rated their self-reported understanding highly, but only identified an average of 42% of the system limitations included in the survey. Propensity to trust technology was also a significant predictor of trust in ADAS, with higher propensity to trust technology in general associated with higher trust in ADAS. These findings suggest that interventions aimed at supporting appropriate trust in ADAS could be designed to increase drivers’ awareness of potential gaps in their understanding and adjust expectations of ADAS for those with a high propensity to trust technology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
14.60%
发文量
239
审稿时长
71 days
期刊介绍: Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour focuses on the behavioural and psychological aspects of traffic and transport. The aim of the journal is to enhance theory development, improve the quality of empirical studies and to stimulate the application of research findings in practice. TRF provides a focus and a means of communication for the considerable amount of research activities that are now being carried out in this field. The journal provides a forum for transportation researchers, psychologists, ergonomists, engineers and policy-makers with an interest in traffic and transport psychology.
期刊最新文献
Understanding car-sharing by integrating long-, medium- and short-term cognitions High-speed curve negotiation: Can differences in expertise account for the different effects of cognitive load? Description and analysis of aberrant riding behaviors of pedal cyclists, e-bike riders and motorcyclists: Based on a self-report questionnaire The role of emotional coherence in electric vehicle purchasing decisions Incorporating personality traits for the study of user acceptance of electric micromobility-sharing services
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1