Developing human-machine trust: Impacts of prior instruction and automation failure on driver trust in partially automated vehicles

To prompt the use of driving automation in an appropriate and safe manner, system designers require knowledge about the dynamics of driver trust. To enhance this knowledge, this study manipulated prior information of a partial driving automation into two types (detailed and less) and investigated the effects of the information on the development of trust with respect to three trust attributions proposed by Muir (1994): predictability, dependability, and faith. Furthermore, a driving simulator generated two types of automation failures (limitation and malfunction), and at six instances during the study, 56 drivers completed questionnaires about their levels of trust in the automation. Statistical analysis found that trust ratings of automation steadily increased with the experience of simulation regardless of the drivers’ levels of knowledge. Automation failure led to a temporary decrease in trust ratings; however, the trust was rebuilt by a subsequent experience of flawless automation. Results showed that dependability was the most dominant belief of drivers’ trust throughout the whole experiment, regardless of their knowledge level. Interestingly, detailed analysis indicated that trust can be accounted by different attributions depending on the drivers’ circumstances: the subsequent experience of error-free automation after the exposure to automation failure led predictability to be a secondary predictive attribution of drivers’ trust in the detailed group whilst faith was consistently the secondary contributor to shaping trust in the less group throughout the experiment. These findings have implications for system design regarding transparency and for training methods and instruction aimed at improving driving safety in traffic environments with automated vehicles.     

Delusions as harmful malfunctioning beliefs

Delusional beliefs are typically pathological. Being pathological is clearly distinguished from being false or being irrational. Anna might falsely believe that his husband is having an affair but it might just be a simple mistake. Again, Sam might irrationally believe, without good evidence, that he is smarter than his colleagues, but it might just be a healthy self-deceptive belief. On the other hand, when a patient with brain damage caused by a car accident believes that his father was replaced by an imposter or another patient with schizophrenia believes that “The Organization” painted the shops on a street in red and green to convey a message, these beliefs are not merely false or irrational. They are pathological. What makes delusions pathological? This paper explores the negative features because of which delusional beliefs are pathological. First, I critically examine the proposals according to which delusional beliefs are pathological because of (1) their strangeness, (2) their extreme irrationality, (3) their resistance to folk psychological explanations or (4) impaired responsibility-grounding capacities of people with them. I present some counterexamples as well as theoretical problems for these proposals. Then, I argue, following Wakefield’s harmful dysfunction analysis of disorder, that delusional beliefs are pathological because they involve some sorts of harmful malfunctions. In other words, they have a significant negative impact on wellbeing (=harmful) and, in addition, some psychological mechanisms, directly or indirectly related to them, fail to perform the jobs for which they were selected in the past (=malfunctioning). An objection to the proposal is that delusional beliefs might not involve any malfunctions. For example, they might be playing psychological defence functions properly. Another objection is that a harmful malfunction is not sufficient for something to be pathological. For example, false beliefs might involve some malfunctions according to teleosemantics, a popular naturalist account of mental content, but harmful false beliefs do not have to be pathological. I examine those objections in detail and show that they should be rejected after all.