skip to main content
10.1145/3411763.3451656acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Designing for Trust and Well-being: Identifying Design Features of Highly Automated Vehicles

Published: 08 May 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Vehicle automation is one of the major trends in the automotive industry and beyond. In our study, we investigate how future users with different levels of initial trust evaluate design features of level 4 automated vehicles in regards to the features’ ability to create passenger well-being. For this purpose, we identified potential design features from existing automated vehicle concepts and asked experts (n = 15) to rate them regarding their relevance to passenger well-being. In a second step, we conducted a user study (n = 69) to investigate how future users classify those features deemed relevant by the experts. Using the Kano method, the subsample with low initial trust rated 14 of 28 features as relevant, while the subsample with high initial trust rated 20 of 28 features as relevant. Further, the results indicate that the features deemed important for passenger well-being differ depending on the level of initial trust.

References

[1]
Tobias Adam. 2012. Die Bewertung von Innovationsideen: Eine empirische Analyse von Bewertungsdimensionen und sozialen Einflussfaktoren. Ph.D. Dissertation. RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
[2]
Matthias Beggiato, Franziska Hartwich, Katja Schleinitz, Josef Krems, Ina Othersen, and Ina Petermann-Stock. 2015. What Would Drivers Like to Know During Automated Driving? Information Needs at Different Levels of Automation. In 7. Tagung Fahrerassistenzsysteme. 1–6.
[3]
Charles Berger, Robert Blauth, and David Boger. 1993. Kano’s Mehods for Understanding Customer-defined Quality. Center for Quality of Management Journal 2 (1993), 3–36.
[4]
Teresa Brell, Ralf Philipsen, and Martina Ziefle. 2019. sCARy! Risk Perceptions in Autonomous Driving: The Influence of Experience on Perceived Benefits and Barriers. Risk analysis 39, 2 (2019), 342–357.
[5]
Luca Caberletti. 2013. Assessment Methods for Optimisation of Innovative Vehicle Interior Lighting. Ph.D. Dissertation. TU Illemnau, Ilemnau, Germany.
[6]
International Organization for Standardization. 2018. ISO 9241-20, Ergonomics of Human-system Interaction — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and Concepts. ISO. Retrieved October 23, 2020 from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:63500:en
[7]
Anna-Katharina Frison, Philipp Wintersberger, Tianjia Liu, and Andreas Riener. 2019. Why Do You Like to Drive Automated? A Context-dependent Analysis of Highly Automated Driving to Elaborate Requirements For Intelligent User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 528–537.
[8]
Christian Gold, Moritz Körber, Christoph Hohenberger, David Lechner, and Klaus Bengler. 2015. Trust in Automation–Before and After the Experience of Take-over Scenarios in a Highly Automated Vehicle. Procedia Manufacturing 3(2015), 3025–3032.
[9]
Nikhil Gowda, Wendy Ju, and Kirstin Kohler. 2014. Dashboard Design for an Autonomous Car. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 1–4.
[10]
Franziska Hartwich, Cornelia Schmidt, Daniela Gräfing, and Josef F Krems. 2020. In the Passenger Seat: Differences in the Perception of Human vs. Automated Vehicle Control and Resulting HMI Demands of Users. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 31–45.
[11]
Myounghoon Jeon, Andreas Riener, Ju-Hwan Lee, Jonathan Schuett, and Bruce N Walker. 2012. Cross-cultural Differences in the Use of In-vehicle Technologies and Vehicle Area Network Services: Austria, USA, and South Korea. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 163–170.
[12]
Jiun-Yin Jian, Ann M Bisantz, and Colin G Drury. 2000. Foundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics 4, 1 (2000), 53–71.
[13]
Noriaki Kano, N. Seraku, F. Takahashi, and S. Tsuji. 1984. Attractive Quality and Must-be Quality. Quality, The Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control 14 (1984), 165–186.
[14]
Tawhid Khan, Matthew Pitts, and Mark A Williams. 2016. Cross-cultural Differences in Automotive HMI Design: A Comparative Study Between UK and Indian Users’ Design Preferences. Journal of Usability Studies 11, 2 (2016), 45–65.
[15]
Hakgyun Kim, HaeGeun Song, and Young T Park. 2013. Evaluating Customer Perceptions of Car Seats’ Functions Using the Kano Model. Journal of the Korean Society for Quality Management 41, 4(2013), 683–692.
[16]
Sangwon Kim, Jennifer Jah Eun Chang, Hyun Ho Park, Seon Uk Song, Chang Bae Cha, Ji Won Kim, and Namwoo Kang. 2020. Autonomous Taxi Service Design and User Experience. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 36, 5(2020), 429–448.
[17]
John D Lee and Katrina A See. 2004. Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors 46, 1 (2004), 50–80.
[18]
Seul Chan Lee, Chihab Nadri, Harsh Sanghavi, and Myounghoon Jeon. 2020. Exploring User Needs and Design Requirements in Fully Automated Vehicles. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–9.
[19]
Abhijai Miglani, Cyriel Diels, and Jacques Terken. 2016. Compatibility Between Trust and Non-driving Related Tasks in UI Design for Highly and Fully Automated Driving. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 75–80.
[20]
Emmanuel OC Mkpojiogu and Nor Laily Hashim. 2016. Understanding the Relationship Between Kano Model’s Customer Satisfaction Scores and Self-stated Requirements Importance. SpringerPlus 5, 1 (2016), 197.
[21]
Andreea I Niculescu, Alan Dix, and Kheng Hui Yeo. 2017. Are You Ready for a Drive? User Perspectives on Autonomous Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2810–2817.
[22]
Bastian Pfleging, Maurice Rang, and Nora Broy. 2016. Investigating User Needs for Non-driving-related Activities During Automated Driving. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. 91–99.
[23]
Gloria Pöhler, Tobias Heine, and Barbara Deml. 2016. Itemanalyse und Faktorstruktur eines Fragebogens zur Messung von Vertrauen im Umgang mit automatischen Systemen. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft 70, 3 (2016), 151–160.
[24]
R Core Team. 2019. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
[25]
LG Richards. 1980. On the Psychology of Passenger Comfort. Human Factors in Transport Research 2 (1980), 15–23.
[26]
Christina Rödel, Susanne Stadler, Alexander Meschtscherjakov, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2014. Towards Autonomous Cars: The Effect of Autonomy Levels on Acceptance and User Experience. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 1–8.
[27]
SAE. 2016. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems (SAE J3016). Retrieved October 23, 2020 from https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201806/
[28]
Vanessa Sauer. 2020. Passenger Well-being in Highly Automated Vehicles. Ph.D. Dissertation. RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
[29]
Vanessa Sauer, Alexander Mertens, Jens Heitland, and Verena Nitsch. 2019. Exploring the Concept of Passenger Well-being in the Context of Automated Driving. International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics 6, 3 (2019), 227–248.
[30]
Xu Sun, Shi Cao, and Pinyan Tang. 2021. Shaping Driver-vehicle Interaction in Autonomous Vehicles: How the New In-vehicle Systems Match the Human Needs. Applied Ergonomics 90(2021), 1–13.
[31]
Tetsuo Tomiyama, Eric Lutters, Rainer Stark, and Michael Abramovici. 2019. Development Capabilities for Smart Products. CIRP Annals 68, 2 (2019), 727–750.
[32]
Gudrun MI Voß, Caroline M Keck, and Maximilian Schwalm. 2018. Investigation of Drivers’ Thresholds of a Subjectively Accepted Driving Performance With a Focus on Automated Driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 56 (2018), 280–292.
[33]
Joscha Wasser, Cyriel Diels, Anthony Baxendale, and Michael Tovey. 2017. Driverless Pods: from Technology Demonstrators to Desirable Mobility Solutions. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Springer, 538–550.
[34]
Qianli Xu, Roger J Jiao, Xi Yang, Martin Helander, Halimahtun M Khalid, and Anders Opperud. 2009. An Analytical Kano Model for Customer Need Analysis. Design Studies 30, 1 (2009), 87–110.
[35]
HC Yadav, Rajeev Jain, AR Singh, and PK Mishra. 2017. Kano Integrated Robust Design Approach for Aesthetical Product Design: A Case Study of a Car Profile. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 28, 7 (2017), 1709–1727.
[36]
Tingru Zhang, Da Tao, Xingda Qu, Xiaoyan Zhang, Jihong Zeng, Haoyu Zhu, and Han Zhu. 2020. Automated Vehicle Acceptance in China: Social Influence and Initial trust are Key Determinants. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 112 (2020), 220–233.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Designing for Collaborative Non-Driving Related Activities in Future Cars: Fairness and Team PerformanceProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36042497:MHCI(1-28)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2023

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
CHI EA '21: Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
May 2021
2965 pages
ISBN:9781450380959
DOI:10.1145/3411763
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 the author(s) 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: 08 May 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Automated driving
  2. Passenger well-being
  3. Trust
  4. Vehicle design

Qualifiers

  • Poster
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

CHI '21
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 6,164 of 23,696 submissions, 26%

Upcoming Conference

CHI 2025
ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
April 26 - May 1, 2025
Yokohama , Japan

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)52
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10
Reflects downloads up to 20 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Designing for Collaborative Non-Driving Related Activities in Future Cars: Fairness and Team PerformanceProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36042497:MHCI(1-28)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2023

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media