skip to main content
10.1145/3319502.3374790acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

On-Road and Online Studies to Investigate Beliefs and Behaviors of Netherlands, US and Mexico Pedestrians Encountering Hidden-Driver Vehicles

Published: 09 March 2020 Publication History

Abstract

A growing number of studies use a "ghost-driver" vehicle driven by a person in a car seat costume to simulate an autonomous vehicle. Using a hidden-driver vehicle in a field study in the Netherlands, Study 1 (N = 130) confirmed that the ghostdriver methodology is valid in Europe and confirmed that European pedestrians change their behavior when encountering a hidden-driver vehicle. As an important extension to past research, we find pedestrian group size is associated with their behavior: groups look longer than singletons when encountering an autonomous vehicle, but look for less time than singletons when encountering a normal vehicle. Study 2 (N = 101) adapted and extended the hidden-driver method to test whether it is believable as online video stimuli and whether car characteristics and participant feelings are related to the beliefs and behavior of pedestrians who see hidden-driver vehicles. As expected, belief rates were lower for hidden-driver vehicles seen in videos compared to in a field study. Importantly, we found noticing no driver was the only significant predictor of belief in car autonomy, which reinforces prior justification for the use of the ghostdriver method. Our contributions are a replication of the hidden-driver method in Europe and comparisons with past US and Mexico data; an extension and evaluation of the ghostdriver method in video form; evidence of the necessity of the hidden driver in creating the illusion of vehicle autonomy; and an extended analysis of how pedestrian group size and feelings relate to pedestrian behavior when encountering a hidden-driver vehicle.

Supplementary Material

ZIP File (fp1112aux.zip)
Readme for Supplemental Materials Paper Title: On-Road and Online Studies to Investigate Beliefs and Behaviors of Netherlands, US and Mexico Pedestrians Encountering Hidden-Driver Vehicles Videos: video49b_edit.mov is a "street-view" video of a hidden-driver vehicle shown to online study (Study 2) participants. It is referenced as video49 in Figure 3. video51b_edit.mov is also a "street-view" video of a hidden-driver vehicle shown to online study participants. It is referenced as video51 in Figure 3.
MP4 File (p141-li.mp4)

References

[1]
Sigal G Barsade. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47, 4 (2002), 644--675.
[2]
Gerard J Blaauw. 1982. Driving experience and task demands in simulator and instrumented car: a validation study. Human Factors, Vol. 24, 4 (1982), 473--486.
[3]
Gregory Camilli and Kenneth D Hopkins. 1978. Applicability of chi-square to 2× 2 contingency tables with small expected cell frequencies. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 85, 1 (1978), 163.
[4]
Chia-Ming Chang, Koki Toda, Takeo Igarashi, Masahiro Miyata, and Yasuhiro Kobayashi. 2018. A Video-based Study Comparing Communication Modalities between an Autonomous Car and a Pedestrian. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, 104--109.
[5]
Vicky Charisi, Azra Habibovic, Jonas Andersson, Jamy Li, and Vanessa Evers. 2017. Children's views on identification and intention communication of self-driving vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 399--404.
[6]
Michael Clamann, Miles Aubert, and Mary L Cummings. 2017. Evaluation of vehicle-to-pedestrian communication displays for autonomous vehicles . Technical Report.
[7]
Rebecca Currano, So Yeon Park, Lawrence Domingo, Jesus Garcia-Mancilla, Pedro C Santana-Mancilla, Victor M Gonzalez, and Wendy Ju. 2018. !` Vamos!: Observations of Pedestrian Interactions with Driverless Cars in Mexico. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, 210--220.
[8]
Shuchisnigdha Deb, Lesley Strawderman, Daniel W Carruth, Janice DuBien, Brian Smith, and Teena M Garrison. 2017. Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess pedestrian receptivity toward fully autonomous vehicles. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, Vol. 84 (2017), 178--195.
[9]
Debargha Dey, Marieke Martens, Berry Eggen, and Jacques Terken. 2017. The impact of vehicle appearance and vehicle behavior on pedestrian interaction with autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications Adjunct . ACM, 158--162.
[10]
Debargha Dey, Marieke Martens, Berry Eggen, and Jacques Terken. 2019. Pedestrian road-crossing willingness as a function of vehicle automation, external appearance, and driving behaviour. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, Vol. 65 (2019), 191--205.
[11]
Debargha Dey, Marieke Martens, Chao Wang, Felix Ros, and Jacques MB Terken. 2018. Interface Concepts for Intent Communication from Autonomous Vehicles to Vulnerable Road Users. In AutomotiveUI (adjunct). 82--86.
[12]
Jolyon J Faria, Stefan Krause, and Jens Krause. 2010. Collective behavior in road crossing pedestrians: the role of social information. Behavioral Ecology, Vol. 21, 6 (2010), 1236--1242.
[13]
Andrew C Gallup, Joseph J Hale, David JT Sumpter, Simon Garnier, Alex Kacelnik, John R Krebs, and Iain D Couzin. 2012. Visual attention and the acquisition of information in human crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 109, 19 (2012), 7245--7250.
[14]
Julie Hatfield, Ralston Fernandes, RF Soames Job, and Ken Smith. 2007. Misunderstanding of right-of-way rules at various pedestrian crossing types: observational study and survey. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 39, 4 (2007), 833--842.
[15]
Julie Hatfield and Susanne Murphy. 2007. The effects of mobile phone use on pedestrian crossing behaviour at signalised and unsignalised intersections. Accident analysis & prevention, Vol. 39, 1 (2007), 197--205.
[16]
Kotaro Hayashi, Daisuke Sakamoto, Takayuki Kanda, Masahiro Shiomi, Satoshi Koizumi, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Tsukasa Ogasawara, and Norihiro Hagita. 2007. Humanoid robots as a passive-social medium-a field experiment at a train station. In 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 137--144.
[17]
Matthew Lombard, Jennifer Snyder-Duch, and Cheryl Campanella Bracken. 2010. Practical resources for assessing and reporting intercoder reliability in content analysis research projects. (2010).
[18]
Karthik Mahadevan, Sowmya Somanath, and Ehud Sharlin. 2018. Communicating awareness and intent in autonomous vehicle-pedestrian interaction. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 429.
[19]
Milecia Matthews, Girish Chowdhary, and Emily Kieson. 2017. Intent communication between autonomous vehicles and pedestrians. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07123 (2017).
[20]
Nicole Mirnig, Nicole Perterer, Gerald Stollnberger, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2017. Three strategies for autonomous car-to-pedestrian communication: A survival guide. In Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 209--210.
[21]
World Health Organization. 2015. Global status report on road safety 2015 .World Health Organization.
[22]
David R Ragland and Meghan Fehlig Mitman. 2007. Driver/pedestrian understanding and behavior at marked and unmarked crosswalks. (2007).
[23]
Samantha Reig, Selena Norman, Cecilia G Morales, Samadrita Das, Aaron Steinfeld, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2018. A Field Study of Pedestrians and Autonomous Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, 198--209.
[24]
Laurel D Riek. 2012. Wizard of oz studies in hri: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, Vol. 1, 1 (2012), 119--136.
[25]
Dirk Rothenbücher, Jamy Li, David Sirkin, Brian Mok, and Wendy Ju. 2015. Ghost driver: a platform for investigating interactions between pedestrians and driverless vehicles. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, 44--49.
[26]
Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak. 2014. A survey of public opinion about autonomous and self-driving vehicles in the US, the UK, and Australia . Technical Report. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research Institute.
[27]
Masahiro Shiomi, Francesco Zanlungo, Kotaro Hayashi, and Takayuki Kanda. 2014. Towards a socially acceptable collision avoidance for a mobile robot navigating among pedestrians using a pedestrian model. International Journal of Social Robotics, Vol. 6, 3 (2014), 443--455.
[28]
Leah L Thompson, Frederick P Rivara, Rajiv C Ayyagari, and Beth E Ebel. 2013. Impact of social and technological distraction on pedestrian crossing behaviour: an observational study. Injury prevention, Vol. 19, 4 (2013), 232--237.
[29]
Astrid Weiss, Regina Bernhaupt, Manfred Tscheligi, Dirk Wollherr, Kolja Kuhnlenz, and Martin Buss. 2008. A methodological variation for acceptance evaluation of human-robot interaction in public places. In RO-MAN 2008-The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, 713--718.
[30]
Sarah N Woods, Michael L Walters, Kheng Lee Koay, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2006. Methodological issues in HRI: A comparison of live and video-based methods in robot to human approach direction trials. In ROMAN 2006-the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, 51--58.
[31]
Jingyi Zhang, Erik Vinkhuyzen, and Melissa Cefkin. 2017. Evaluation of an autonomous vehicle external communication system concept: a survey study. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Springer, 650--661.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Towards Balancing Preference and Performance through Adaptive Personalized ExplainabilityProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3610977.3635000(658-668)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
  • (2023)Designing Robot Sound-In-InteractionProceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3568162.3576979(172-182)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2023
  • (2023)A Field Study on Pedestrians’ Thoughts toward a Car with Gazing EyesExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544549.3585629(1-7)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. On-Road and Online Studies to Investigate Beliefs and Behaviors of Netherlands, US and Mexico Pedestrians Encountering Hidden-Driver Vehicles

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Conferences
        HRI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
        March 2020
        690 pages
        ISBN:9781450367462
        DOI:10.1145/3319502
        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Sponsors

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 09 March 2020

        Permissions

        Request permissions for this article.

        Check for updates

        Badges

        • Honorable Mention

        Author Tags

        1. autonomous vehicles
        2. cars
        3. hidden-driver vehicles
        4. human-robot interaction
        5. pedestrians
        6. self-driving vehicles
        7. wizard-of-oz

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article

        Conference

        HRI '20
        Sponsor:

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,124 submissions, 24%

        Upcoming Conference

        HRI '25
        ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
        March 4 - 6, 2025
        Melbourne , VIC , Australia

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)43
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
        Reflects downloads up to 15 Feb 2025

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2024)Towards Balancing Preference and Performance through Adaptive Personalized ExplainabilityProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3610977.3635000(658-668)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
        • (2023)Designing Robot Sound-In-InteractionProceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3568162.3576979(172-182)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2023
        • (2023)A Field Study on Pedestrians’ Thoughts toward a Car with Gazing EyesExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544549.3585629(1-7)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
        • (2022)On-Road Assessment of Driver Mode Awareness of Assisted and Automated DrivingProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting10.1177/107118132266114566:1(357-361)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2022
        • (2022)Pedestrian-Vehicle Interaction in Shared Space: Insights for Autonomous VehiclesProceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications10.1145/3543174.3546838(330-339)Online publication date: 17-Sep-2022
        • (2022)Explanations in Autonomous Driving: A SurveyIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems10.1109/TITS.2021.312286523:8(10142-10162)Online publication date: Aug-2022
        • (2022)Communication Between Automated Vehicles and Drivers in Manual Driving Vehicles: Using a Mechanical Arm to Produce GesturesInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2022.208202239:13(2644-2655)Online publication date: 12-Jun-2022
        • (2022)Reproducibility in Human-Robot Interaction: Furthering the Science of HRICurrent Robotics Reports10.1007/s43154-022-00094-53:4(281-292)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2022
        • (2020)Sound Decisions: How Synthetic Motor Sounds Improve Autonomous Vehicle-Pedestrian Interactions12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications10.1145/3409120.3410667(94-103)Online publication date: 21-Sep-2020
        • (2020)Autonomous Vehicle-Pedestrian Interaction Across Cultures: Towards Designing Better External Human Machine Interfaces (eHMIs)Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3334480.3382957(1-8)Online publication date: 25-Apr-2020
        • Show More Cited By

        View Options

        Login options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Figures

        Tables

        Media

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media