Cited by 80Human-Automation Interaction and SafetySocial Robot Interaction and HRIAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety

No Risk No Trust: Investigating Perceived Risk in Highly Automated Driving

Li, Mengyao, Holthausen, Brittany E., Stuck, Rachel E., Walker, Bruce N.·2019·Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications

Abstract

When evaluating drivers' trust in automated systems, perceived risk is an inevitable, yet underestimated component, especially during initial interaction. We designed two experimental studies focusing on how people assess risk in different driving environments and how introductory information about automation reliability influences trust and risk perception. First, we designed nine driving scenarios to determine which factors influence Perceived Situational Risk (PSR) and Perceived Relational Risk (PRR). Results showed that participants identified levels of risk based on traffic type and vehicles' abnormal behaviors. We then evaluated how introductory information and situational risk influence trust and PRR. Results showed that participants reported the highest level of trust, perceived automation reliability, and the lowest level of PRR when presented with information about a highly reliable system, and when driving in a low-risk situation. These results highlight the importance of incorporating perceived risk and introductory information to support the trust calibration in automated vehicles.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3342197.3344525

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, M., Holthausen, B. E., Stuck, R. E., & Walker, B. N.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications
Publisher
ACM
Published
2019-09-21
Pages
177-185
OpenAlex
W2973456219
Cited by
80
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7
FWCI
10.73
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Keywords
trust in automated vehicles, risk perception, relational risk, automation reliability, driver-automation interaction, trust calibration, driving scenarios, traffic types

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review