Cited by 74Social Robot Interaction and HRIHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyAI in Service Interactions

To Please in a Pod: Employing an Anthropomorphic Agent-Interlocutor to Enhance Trust and User Experience in an Autonomous, Self-Driving Vehicle

Open access
Large, David R., Harrington, Kyle, Burnett, Gary, Luton, Jacob, Thomas, Peter, Bennett, Pete·2019·Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications

Abstract

Recognising that one of the aims of conversation is to build, maintain and strengthen positive relationships with others, the study explores whether passengers in an autonomous vehicle display similar behaviour during transactions with an on-board conversational agent-interface; moreover, whether related attributes (e.g. trust) transcend to the vehicle itself. Employing a counterbalanced, within-subjects design, thirty-four participants were transported in a self-driving pod using an expansive testing arena. Participants undertook three journeys with an anthropomorphic agent-interlocutor (via Wizard-of-Oz), a voice-command interface, or a traditional touch-surface; each delivered equivalent task-related information. Results show that the agent-interlocutor was the most preferred interface, attracting the highest ratings of trust, and significantly enhancing the pleasure and sense of control over the journey experience, despite the inclusion of 'trust challenges' as part of the design. The findings can help support the design and development of in-vehicle agent-based voice interfaces to enhance trust and user experience in autonomous cars.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3342197.3344545

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • People trust autonomous vehicles more when they display anthropomorphic cues (e.g., name, gender, voice), even when these superficial cues are unrelated to the underlying abilities of the vehicle.

    “people trust vehicles more when they display anthropomorphic cues (e.g., name, gender, voice), even when these superficial cues are unrelated to the underlying abilities of the vehicle15–18.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Large, D. R., Harrington, K., Burnett, G., Luton, J., Thomas, P., & Bennett, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Jaguar Land Rover (United Kingdom) (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications
Publisher
ACM
Published
2019-09-21
Pages
49-59
OpenAlex
W2974669844
Cited by
74
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2
FWCI
9.92
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI) (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Jaguar Land Rover
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
autonomous vehicles, chatbots, in-vehicle interfaces, Wizard of Oz, speech interfaces, trust, passenger experience, perceived control, pleasure, human-agent interaction

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