Using the Ideas Café to Explore Trust in Autonomous Vehicles

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 796)


Trust has been shown to play a key role in our ability to safely use autonomous vehicles; hence the authors used the Ideas Café to explore the factors affecting trust in autonomous vehicles. The Ideas Café is an informal collaborative event that brings the public together with domain experts for exploratory research. The authors structured the event around factors affecting trust in the technology, privacy and societal impact. The event followed a mixed methods approach using: table discussions, spectrum lines and line ups. 36 participants attended the Ideas Café event held at the Coventry Transport Museum in June 2017. Table discussions provided the key findings for Thematic Analysis as part of Grounded Theory; which found, contrary to current research trends, designing for the technology’s integration with society as equally important for trust as the vehicle design itself. The authors also reported on the emergent high level interface guidelines.


Human factors Trust Autonomous vehicles Engagement Ideas Café 


  1. 1.
    Petts, J.: Public engagement to build trust: false hopes? J. Risk Res. 11, 821–835 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yang, K., Pandey, S.K.: Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: when does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Adm. Rev. 71, 880–892 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Irwin, A.: Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Underst. Sci. 10, 1–18 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Inayatullah, S.: Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming. Foresight 10, 4–21 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Varum, C.A., Melo, C.: Directions in scenario planning literature–a review of the past decades. Futures 42, 355–369 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Held, D.: Democracy and the global order (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper, T.L., Bryer, T.A., Meek, J.W.: Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Adm. Rev. 66, 76–88 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoff, K.A., Bashir, M.: Trust in automation integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 57, 407–434 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cranor, L.F.: A framework for reasoning about the human in the loop. In: UPSEC, vol. 8, pp. 1–15 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Strand, N., Nilsson, J., Karlsson, I.M., Nilsson, L.: Semi-automated versus highly automated driving in critical situations caused by automation failures. Veh. Autom. Driver Behav. 27, 218–228 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khastgir S., Birrell S., Dhadyalla G., Jennings, P.: Calibrating trust to increase the use of automated systems in a vehicle. In: Stanton N., Landry S., Di Bucchianico, G., Vallicelli, A. (eds) Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 484, pp. 535–546. Springer, Cham (2017). Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muir, B.M.: Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 27, 527–539 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parasuraman, R., Manzey, D.H.: Complacency and bias in human use of automation: an attentional integration. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 52, 381–410 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dzindolet, M.T., Peterson, S.A., Pomranky, R.A., Pierce, L.G., Beck, H.P.: The role of trust in automation reliance. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 58, 697–718 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jian, J.-Y., Bisantz, A.M., Drury, C.G.: Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. Int. J. Cogn. Ergon. 4, 53–71 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spain, R.D., Bustamante, E.A., Bliss, J.P.: Towards an empirically developed scale for system trust: Take two. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. Proc. 52(19), 1335–1339 (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fallon, C.K., Bustamante, E.A., Ely, K.M., Bliss, J.P.: Improving user trust with a likelihood alarm display. Presented at the proceedings of the 1st international conference on augmented cognition, Las Vegas, NV (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCarley, J.S., Wiegmann, D.A., Wickens, C.D., Kramer, A.F.: Effects of age on utilization and perceived reliability of an automated decision-making aid for luggage screening. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergono. Soc. Annu. Meet. 47(3), 340–343 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hedges, A., Sykes, W., Groom, C.: Extending working life: changing the culture. Qualitative research into effective messages (2009). Department for Work and Pensions Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mechanic, D., Meyer, S.: Concepts of trust among patients with serious illness. Soc. Sci. Med. 51, 657–668 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muñoz-Leiva, F., Luque-Martínez, T., Sánchez-Fernández, J.: How to improve trust toward electronic banking. Online Inf. Rev. 34, 907–934 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J.: A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 30, 251–290 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brown, J., Isaacs, N.M.: Hosting conversations that matter at the world cafe. Whole Syst. Assoc. 1, 1–20 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berthet, E.T., Barnaud, C., Girard, N., Labatut, J., Martin, G.: How to foster agroecological innovations? A comparison of participatory design methods. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 59, 280–301 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Berger, J., Fitzsimons, G.: Dogs on the street, pumas on your feet: how cues in the environment influence product evaluation and choice. J. Mark. Res. 45, 1–14 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carlsson, A.M.: Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain 16, 87–101 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bryson, J.M., Anderson, S.R.: Applying large-group interaction methods in the planning and implementation of major change efforts. Public Adm. Rev. 60, 143–162 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee, J.D., See, K.A.: Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 46, 50–80 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Teacy, W.L., Patel, J., Jennings, N.R., Luck, M.: Travos: trust and reputation in the context of inaccurate information sources. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 12, 183–198 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kalra, N., Paddock, S.M.: Driving to safety: how many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability? Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 94, 182–193 (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Eigner, F., Maffei, M.: Differential privacy by typing in security protocols, pp. 272–286 (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., DiFonzo, N.: Uncertainty during organizational change: is it all about control? Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 13, 345–365 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Choi, J.K., Ji, Y.G.: Investigating the importance of trust on adopting an autonomous vehicle. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 31, 692–702 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Koo, J., Kwac, J., Ju, W., Steinert, M., Leifer, L., Nass, C.: Why did my car just do that? Explaining semi-autonomous driving actions to improve driver understanding, trust, and performance. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 9, 269–275 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schaefer, K.E., Chen, J.Y.C., Szalma, J.L., Hancock, P.A.: A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 58, 377–400 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gibson, G.E., Whittington, D.A.: Charrettes as a method for engaging industry in best practices research. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 136, 66–75 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Asbury, J.-E.: Overview of focus group research. Qual. Health Res. 5, 414–420 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WMG, University of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.Loughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  3. 3.Coventry UniversityCoventryUK
  4. 4.Jaguar Land RoverWhitley, CoventryUK

Personalised recommendations