Please, Go Ahead! Fostering Prosocial Driving with Sympathy-Eliciting Automated Vehicle External Displays
Article No.: 218, Pages 1 - 18
Abstract
Road traffic is strongly regulated, however informal communication is essential whenever formal rules are flexibly treated. Consequently, conflict-avoidant automated vehicles (AVs) can be disadvantaged when humans do not behave prosocially towards them. This can lead to disruptions of mixed traffic, where human and automated driving co-exists. Equipping AVs with sympathy-eliciting external Human-Machine Interfaces (eHMI) mimicking informal communication cues could mitigate this challenge by fostering the prosocial behavior of drivers. This work contributes video vignettes that are experimentally validated in an online survey (N=90). While we found participants to not behave differently towards human-controlled and baseline automated vehicles, eHMIs were potent in eliciting sympathy and encouraged yielding behavior. This effect was more pronounced when the interface signaled an urgent situation or indicated prolonged waiting times. Non-yielding behavior was rationalized based on priority rules. These results emphasize how fostering prosocial behavior in traffic can be achieved via sympathy-eliciting external displays.
Supplementary Material
These are the first half of the video vignettes shown in the online survey.
- Download
- 280.07 MB
References
[1]
Christoph Bartneck, Juliane Reichenbach, and Julie Carpenter. 2008. The carrot and the stick: The role of praise and punishment in human--robot interaction. Interaction Studies, Vol. 9, 2 (2008), 179--203.
[2]
Douglas Bates, Martin M"achler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, Vol. 67, 1 (2015), 1--48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
[3]
Charles Daniel Batson. 2011. Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press, USA.
[4]
Gerry Byrne. 2000. Road rage. New Scientist, Vol. 168, 2268 (2000), 38--41.
[5]
Fanta Camara, Serhan Cosar, Nicola Bellotto, Natasha Merat, Charles Fox, et al. 2020. Continuous Game Theory Pedestrian Modelling Method for Autonomous Vehicles. (2020).
[6]
Fanta Camara, Richard Romano, Gustav Markkula, Ruth Madigan, Natasha Merat, and Charles Fox. 2018. Empirical game theory of pedestrian interaction for autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of measuring behavior 2018. Manchester Metropolitan University, 238--244.
[7]
Mark Colley, Elvedin Bajrovic, and Enrico Rukzio. 2022. Effects of pedestrian behavior, time pressure, and repeated exposure on crossing decisions in front of automated vehicles equipped with external communication. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--11.
[8]
Mark Colley, Mirjam Lanzer, Jan Henry Belz, Marcel Walch, and Enrico Rukzio. 2021. Evaluating the impact of decals on driver stereotype perception and exploration of personalization of automated vehicles via digital decals. In 13th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 296--306.
[9]
Mike Cooley. 2000. Human-centered design. Information design (2000), 59--81.
[10]
Joost de Winter and Dimitra Dodou. 2022. External Human-Machine Interfaces: Gimmick or Necessity. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands (2022).
[11]
Debargha Dey, Azra Habibovic, Andreas Löcken, Philipp Wintersberger, Bastian Pfleging, Andreas Riener, Marieke Martens, and Jacques Terken. 2020a. Taming the eHMI jungle: A classification taxonomy to guide, compare, and assess the design principles of automated vehicles' external human-machine interfaces. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 7 (2020), 100174.
[12]
Debargha Dey, Azra Habibovic, Bastian Pfleging, Marieke Martens, and Jacques Terken. 2020b. Color and animation preferences for a light band eHMI in interactions between automated vehicles and pedestrians. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--13.
[13]
Debargha Dey and Jacques Terken. 2017. Pedestrian interaction with vehicles: roles of explicit and implicit communication. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. 109--113.
[14]
Aurelie Dommès, Gaëtan Merlhiot, Regis Lobjois, Nguyen-Thong Dang, Fabrice Vienne, Joris Boulo, Anne-Hélène Oliver, Armel Cretual, and Viola Cavallo. 2021. Young and older adult pedestrians' behavior when crossing a street in front of conventional and self-driving cars. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 159 (2021), 106256.
[15]
John F Dovidio, Jane Allyn Piliavin, David A Schroeder, and Louis A Penner. 2017. The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Psychology Press.
[16]
Kai Eckoldt, Marc Hassenzahl, Matthias Laschke, Thies Schneider, Josef Schumann, and Stefan Könsgen. 2016. The Gentleman. A prosocial assistance system to promote considerate driving. In Proceedings on the 10th Conference on Design and Emotion. 307--314.
[17]
Stefanie M Faas, Andrea C Kao, and Martin Baumann. 2020. A longitudinal video study on communicating status and intent for self-driving vehicle--pedestrian interaction. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--14.
[18]
CW Fox, F Camara, G Markkula, RA Romano, R Madigan, and N Merat. 2018a. When Should the Chicken Cross the Road? - Game Theory for Autonomous Vehicle - Human Interactions. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems, Vol. 1 (March 2018), 431--439. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/127403/
[19]
Charles Fox, Fanta Camara, Gustav Markkula, Richard Romano, Ruth Madigan, Natasha Merat, et al. 2018b. When should the chicken cross the road?: Game theory for autonomous vehicle-human interactions. (2018).
[20]
Azra Habibovic, Victor Malmsten Lundgren, Jonas Andersson, Maria Klingegård, Tobias Lagström, Anna Sirkka, Johan Fagerlönn, Claes Edgren, Rikard Fredriksson, Stas Krupenia, et al. 2018. Communicating intent of automated vehicles to pedestrians. Frontiers in psychology, Vol. 9 (2018), 1336.
[21]
Pentti Haddington and Mirka Rauniomaa. 2014. Interaction between road users: Offering space in traffic. Space and culture, Vol. 17, 2 (2014), 176--190.
[22]
Paul B Harris, John M Houston, Jose A Vazquez, Janan A Smither, Amanda Harms, Jeffrey A Dahlke, and Daniel A Sachau. 2014. The Prosocial and Aggressive Driving Inventory (PADI): A self-report measure of safe and unsafe driving behaviors. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 72 (2014), 1--8.
[23]
Merel Keijsers and Christoph Bartneck. 2018. Mindless robots get bullied. In 2018 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 205--214.
[24]
Martin Knobel, Marc Hassenzahl, Simon M"annlein, Melanie Lamara, Josef Schumann, Kai Eckoldt, Matthias Laschke, and Andreas Butz. 2013. Become a member of the last gentlemen: designing for prosocial driving. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces. 60--66.
[25]
Mirjam Lanzer, Franziska Babel, Fei Yan, Bihan Zhang, Fang You, Jianmin Wang, and Martin Baumann. 2020. Designing communication strategies of autonomous vehicles with pedestrians: an intercultural study. In 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 122--131.
[26]
Eric Laurier. 2019. Civility and mobility: drivers (and passengers) appreciating the actions of other drivers. Language & Communication, Vol. 65 (2019), 79--91.
[27]
DJ Leiner. 2014. SoSci Survey (Version 3.2. 33). SoSci Survey (2014).
[28]
Yeti Li, Murat Dikmen, Thana G Hussein, Yahui Wang, and Catherine Burns. 2018. To cross or not to cross: Urgency-based external warning displays on autonomous vehicles to improve pedestrian crossing safety. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 188--197.
[29]
Peng Liu, Yong Du, Lin Wang, and Ju Da Young. 2020. Ready to bully automated vehicles on public roads? Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 137 (2020), 105457.
[30]
Daniel Lüdecke. 2018. ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. Journal of Open Source Software, Vol. 3, 26 (2018), 772.
[31]
Victor Malmsten Lundgren, Azra Habibovic, Jonas Andersson, Tobias Lagström, Maria Nilsson, Anna Sirkka, Johan Fagerlönn, Rikard Fredriksson, Claes Edgren, Stas Krupenia, et al. 2017. Will there be new communication needs when introducing automated vehicles to the urban context? In Advances in human aspects of transportation. Springer, 485--497.
[32]
Daniel Lüdecke, Mattan S. Ben-Shachar, Indrajeet Patil, Philip Waggoner, and Dominique Makowski. 2021. performance: An R Package for Assessment, Comparison and Testing of Statistical Models. Journal of Open Source Software, Vol. 6, 60 (2021), 3139. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03139
[33]
Ruth Madigan, Sina Nordhoff, Charles Fox, Roja Ezzati Amini, Tyron Louw, Marc Wilbrink, Anna Schieben, and Natasha Merat. 2019. Understanding interactions between Automated Road Transport Systems and other road users: A video analysis. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, Vol. 66 (2019), 196--213.
[34]
Karthik Mahadevan, Sowmya Somanath, and Ehud Sharlin. 2018. Communicating awareness and intent in autonomous vehicle-pedestrian interaction. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--12.
[35]
Dylan Moore, Rebecca Currano, Michael Shanks, and David Sirkin. 2020. Defense against the dark cars: Design principles for griefing of autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 201--209.
[36]
Dylan Moore, Rebecca Currano, G Ella Strack, and David Sirkin. 2019. The case for implicit external human-machine interfaces for autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 295--307.
[37]
Emi Moriuchi. 2020. "Social credit effect" in a sharing economy: A theory of mind and prisoner's dilemma game theory perspective on the two-way review and rating system. Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 37, 5 (2020), 641--662.
[38]
John Ashworth Nelder and Robert WM Wedderburn. 1972. Generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General), Vol. 135, 3 (1972), 370--384.
[39]
Trung Thanh Nguyen, Kai Holl"ander, Marius Hoggenmueller, Callum Parker, and Martin Tomitsch. 2019. Designing for projection-based communication between autonomous vehicles and pedestrians. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. 284--294.
[40]
World Health Organization. Dept. of Violence, Injury Prevention, World Health Organization. Violence, Injury Prevention, and World Health Organization. 2009. Global status report on road safety: time for action. World Health Organization.
[41]
Jane Allyn Piliavin et al. 1981. Emergency intervention. Academic Press.
[42]
Anatol Rapoport and Albert M Chammah. 1966. The game of chicken. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 10, 3 (1966), 10--28.
[43]
Ralf Risser. 1985. Behavior in traffic conflict situations. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 17, 2 (1985), 179--197.
[44]
RStudio Team. 2020. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. RStudio, PBC., Boston, MA. http://www.rstudio.com/
[45]
Shadan Sadeghian, Marc Hassenzahl, and Kai Eckoldt. 2020. An exploration of prosocial aspects of communication cues between automated vehicles and pedestrians. In 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 205--211.
[46]
Taxonomy SAE. 2016. Definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. SAE Standard J, Vol. 3016 (2016), 2016.
[47]
Hatice Sahin, Sebastian Hemesath, and Susanne Boll. 2022. Deviant Behavior of Pedestrians: A Risk Gamble or Just Against Automated Vehicles? How About Social Control? Frontiers in Robotics and AI (2022), 177.
[48]
Hatice Sahin, Heiko Müller, Shadan Sadeghian, Debargha Dey, Andreas Löcken, Andrii Matviienko, Mark Colley, Azra Habibovic, and Philipp Wintersberger. 2021. Workshop on Prosocial Behavior in Future Mixed Traffic. In 13th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 167--170.
[49]
Pericle Salvini, Gaetano Ciaravella, Wonpil Yu, Gabriele Ferri, Alessandro Manzi, Barbara Mazzolai, Cecilia Laschi, Sang-Rok Oh, and Paolo Dario. 2010. How safe are service robots in urban environments? Bullying a robot. In 19th international symposium in robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, 1--7.
[50]
David A Schroeder and William G Graziano. 2015. The field of prosocial behavior: An introduction and overview. (2015).
[51]
Ronald Schroeter, Andry Rakotonirainy, and Marcus Foth. 2012. The social car: new interactive vehicular applications derived from social media and urban informatics. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 107--110.
[52]
Marin Sikkenk and Jacques Terken. 2015. Rules of conduct for autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. 19--22.
[53]
Orit Taubman-Ben-Ari, Mario Mikulincer, and Omri Gillath. 2004. The multidimensional driving style inventory-scale construct and validation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 36, 3 (2004), 323--332.
[54]
Peter Trautman and Andreas Krause. 2010. Unfreezing the robot: Navigation in dense, interacting crowds. In 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 797--803.
[55]
Chao Wang, Jacques Terken, Jun Hu, and Matthias Rauterberg. 2016. "Likes" and "Dislikes" on the Road: A Social Feedback System for Improving Driving Behavior. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 43--50.
[56]
Nicholas J Ward, Kari Finley, Jay Otto, David Kack, Rebecca Gleason, and T Lonsdale. 2020. Traffic safety culture and prosocial driver behavior for safer vehicle-bicyclist interactions. Journal of safety research, Vol. 75 (2020), 24--31.
Index Terms
- Please, Go Ahead! Fostering Prosocial Driving with Sympathy-Eliciting Automated Vehicle External Displays
Recommendations
Workshop on Prosocial Behavior in Future Mixed Traffic
AutomotiveUI '21 Adjunct: 13th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications“Prosocial Behavior‘‘ means cooperating and acting in a way to benefit others. Since more and more diverse road users (such as electronic bicycles, scooters, etc.) but also vehicles at different levels of automation are sharing the safety-critical road ...
The Influence of Belief in a Just World (BJW) on Driving Prosocial Behavior
CHCHI '23: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of Chinese CHIProsocial driving behaviors help to decrease incidence of accidents. The present research aimed to explore the impact of driver’s psychological factor on prosocial driving behavior. Three studies were developed to achieve this objective. Study 1 tested ...
Effects of reward and punishment in prosocial video games on attentional bias and prosocial behaviors
AbstractBased on the General Learning Model, previous studies have examined how video game content affects players' post-game attentional bias toward prosocial information and prosocial behaviors. However, these studies ignored the reward and ...
Highlights- Short-term exposure to prosocial video games could increase post-game prosocial behaviors.
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
September 2023
1017 pages
Copyright © 2023 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 13 September 2023
Published in PACMHCI Volume 7, Issue MHCI
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 152Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)152
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12
Reflects downloads up to 01 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in