Indian and American consumer perceptions of cockpit configuration policy

Prior studies have examined the passenger's trust in a human operated system versus an autonomous autopilot operated system. The results indicated that passengers had a more negative attitude toward the autopilot systems. The current study expands on this by examining perceptions of different cockpit configurations, and exploring cultural differences between Indian and American individuals. Participants from both India and the United States were asked to imagine a) that they were on a commercial flight, b) that they were sending a package on a cargo flight, or c) that they were on a corporate flight. In addition they were told that the aircraft was piloted by: a) two pilots in the cockpit, b) one pilot in the cockpit and one pilot located in a ground facility using remote controls, or c) two pilots in a ground facility using the remote controls. The results demonstrated that participants were strongly against having two pilots on the ground controlling the aircraft with remote controls, although most accepted this if the pilots were remote controlling cargo flights. In addition, American participants had more extreme views than the Indian participants, except with the cargo situation.

[1]  G. Hofstede Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? , 1980 .

[2]  Cou-Chen Wu,et al.  The Moderating Role of Referent of Focus on Purchase Intent for Consumers with Varying Levels of Allocentric Tendency in a Collectivist Culture , 2008 .

[3]  David Trafimow,et al.  The automated cockpit: A comparison of attitudes towards human and automated pilots , 2009 .

[4]  H. Markus,et al.  Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. , 1991 .

[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]  David D. Woods,et al.  Systems with Human Monitors: A Signal Detection Analysis , 1985, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[7]  J. McLennan,et al.  Conceptualizing and Measuring Global Interpersonal Mistrust-Trust , 2000, The Journal of social psychology.

[8]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Is the Web as good as the lab? Comparable performance from Web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments , 2012, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[9]  Timothy G. Rosser,et al.  Passengers from India and the United States Have Differential Opinions about Autonomous Auto-Pilots for Commercial Flights , 2014 .

[10]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: a synthesis of the literature , 2007 .

[11]  R. Helmreich Culture and error in space: implications from analog environments. , 2000, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[12]  Michael D. Buhrmester,et al.  Amazon's Mechanical Turk , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[13]  Scott R. Winter,et al.  Aviation Consumers' Trust in Pilots: A Cognitive or Emotional Function , 2014 .

[14]  C. L. Cox,et al.  Evaluating the circumplexity of interpersonal traits and the manifestation of interpersonal traits in interpersonal trust , 1997 .

[15]  Stephen Rice Examining Single- and Multiple-Process Theories of Trust in Automation , 2009, The Journal of general psychology.

[16]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Not All Trust Is Created Equal: Dispositional and History-Based Trust in Human-Automation Interactions , 2008, Hum. Factors.