Life on the Road: Exposing Drivers’ Tendency to Anthropomorphise In-Vehicle Technology

Anthropomorphism is often used in the design of products and technology, with the aim of enhancing the user experience. However, ‘human’ elements may also be employed for practical reasons, e.g. using speech as an interaction mechanism to minimise visual/manual distraction while driving. A self-report questionnaire survey (attracting 285 respondents from the UK), enriched by over thirteen hours of ethnographic-style observations involving 14 participants, explored drivers’ tendency to anthropomorphise a routine in-vehicle navigation device (employing speech to deliver instructions). While the self-reported behaviour of drivers revealed only limited evidence of anthropomorphism, the observations clearly demonstrated that such behaviour was abundant during everyday use, with plentiful examples of drivers and passengers assigning gender, names and personality to the device. Drivers also attempted to engage the device in conversation, apparently endowing it with independent thought, and blamed it for mistakes. The results raise important considerations for the design and development of future in-vehicle technology (where speech is employed as an interaction mechanism), and speech-based systems more widely.

[1]  C. Bartneck,et al.  Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots , 2008, HRI 2008.

[2]  J. Schade,et al.  Reactance or acceptance? Reactions towards the introduction of road pricing , 2007 .

[3]  S. Guthrie,et al.  Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion , 1994 .

[4]  Jean J. Schensul,et al.  Essential Ethnographic Methods: Observations, Interviews, and Questionnaires , 1999 .

[5]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (4th Edition) , 2004 .

[6]  Robert W. Mitchell,et al.  Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals. , 1997 .

[7]  L. Caporael.  Anthropomorphism and mechanomorphism: two faces of the human machine , 1986 .

[8]  Myungsuk Kim,et al.  Anthropomorphic Design : Projecting Human Characteristics to Product , 2009 .

[9]  K. Keniston,et al.  Yeasayers and naysayers: agreeing response set as a personality variable. , 1960, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[10]  Colin G. Drury,et al.  Towards an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Computerized Systems: Distinguishing Concepts and Types of Trust , 1998 .

[11]  Lee Skrypchuk,et al.  Steering the conversation: A linguistic exploration of natural language interactions with a digital assistant during simulated driving. , 2017, Applied ergonomics.

[12]  Paul Green,et al.  Safety and Usability of Speech Interfaces for In-Vehicle Tasks while Driving: A Brief Literature Review , 2006 .

[13]  Michel Chion,et al.  The Voice in Cinema , 1999 .

[14]  Matthew G. Chin,et al.  Measuring Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism toward Machines and Animals , 2004 .

[15]  D. Kiesler.  The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. , 1983 .

[16]  Carl F. DiSalvo,et al.  From seduction to fulfillment: the use of anthropomorphic form in design , 2003, DPPI '03.

[17]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  The chatty co-driver: A linguistics approach applying lessons learnt from aviation incidents , 2017 .

[18]  L. Daston,et al.  Thinking With Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism , 2006 .

[19]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Wired for Speech: How Voice Activates and Advances the Human-Computer Relationship , 2005 .

[20]  David R. Large,et al.  Drivers’ preferences and emotional responses to satellite navigation voices , 2013 .

[21]  Andy Crabtree,et al.  Designing collaborative systems - a practical guide to ethnography , 2003, The Kluwer international series on computer supported cooperative work.

[22]  David R. Large,et al.  Driven to discussion: engaging drivers in conversation with a digital assistant as a countermeasure to passive task-related fatigue , 2018 .

[23]  Linda Ng Boyle,et al.  Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to assess automation , 2011, Cognition, Technology & Work.