Trust and risky technologies: Aligning and coping with Tesla Autopilot

Products are increasingly digitized, and they incorporate digital components, smart features and partial automation. Modern cars are a prime example of consumer-oriented automation; they sense the environment and perform specific driving tasks on the driver’s behalf. The driving assistance and safety features provided by automation are under constant development, and as these features evolve, drivers experience and learn about their capabilities as they use them and develop their trust in automation in the light of new experiences and information. In this paper, we present a study on how trust in car automation unfolds as users gain experiences and information that conflicts with their expectations concerning the level of automation. We use Tesla Model S car as our case technology and explore how its users develop their trust and cope with issues with the novel automation technology. Our findings suggest important directions for future research of consumeroriented automation and digitized products.

[1]  S. Folkman,et al.  Stress, appraisal, and coping , 1974 .

[2]  S. Fuchs.  Trust and Power , 2019, Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews.

[3]  N. Luhmann.  Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives , 2000 .

[4]  Yong Gu Ji,et al.  Investigating the Importance of Trust on Adopting an Autonomous Vehicle , 2015, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[5]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[6]  Jack Stilgoe,et al.  Machine learning, social learning and the governance of self-driving cars , 2017, Social studies of science.

[7]  William J. Horrey,et al.  Automated driving: Safety blind spots , 2018 .

[8]  J. Cho.  The mechanism of trust and distrust formation and their relational outcomes , 2006 .

[9]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[10]  A. Shariff,et al.  Psychological roadblocks to the adoption of self-driving vehicles , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[11]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust , 1998 .

[12]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Design Requirements Engineering: A Ten-Year Perspective , 2009 .

[13]  Kari M. Koskinen,et al.  The Ambivalent Characteristics of Connected, Digitised Products: Case Tesla Model S , 2016, SCIS/IFIP8.6.

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[15]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[16]  L. Pearlin,et al.  The structure of coping. , 1978, Journal of health and social behavior.

[17]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[18]  Katherine Hawley,et al.  Trust, Distrust and Commitment , 2014 .

[19]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model , 2003, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[20]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[21]  Ryan T. Wright,et al.  Research Note - Using Expectation Disconfirmation Theory and Polynomial Modeling to Understand Trust in Technology , 2016, Inf. Syst. Res..

[22]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[23]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[24]  D. Wiegmann,et al.  Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: an integrative review , 2007 .

[25]  Jannis Kallinikos,et al.  The Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artifacts , 2013, MIS Q..

[26]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[27]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Managing technological change in the digital age: the role of architectural frames , 2014, J. Inf. Technol..

[28]  Bonnie Nardi,et al.  Technology, Agency, and Community: The Case of Modding in World of Warcraft , 2010 .

[29]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Research Commentary - The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..

[30]  Sanjay Jain,et al.  Incomplete by Design and Designing for Incompleteness , 2008 .