journal article·2025-07-10Open access

Designing for Trust: Enhancing Passenger Confidence in Shared Autonomous Vehicles

Xiongfeng Deng, Selby Coxon, Robbie Napper

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 14

Abstract

Passengers’ trust in Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs) can be affected by different factors, such as their attitudes toward new technologies and perceptions of the vehicles’ reputation. While the existing literature has begun to explore these issues, there is limited research investigating how industrial design in SAVs can enhance passengers’ trust levels. To address this gap, this study responds to the central question: How can passengers’ trust in the vehicle itself and in fellow passengers be enhanced through design intervention? This question conceptualises trust in the vehicle and trust in strangers as an integrated trust issue within the SAV context. To fill this gap, this study adopts a project-grounded methodology. The design work is guided by five trust principles: anthropomorphic design, a defensible space, system transparency, personalisation features, and a restorative environment. Drawing on insights from an auto-ethnography of current ride-sharing services, these principles are further explored and applied to identify design opportunities for both the physical and digital elements of SAVs. The final conceptual SAV design demonstrates how different design elements can be orchestrated to engender user trust. The outcome contributes to ongoing design practices and helps researchers and designers better understand trust design for SAVs.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Transportation and Mobility Innovations · Human-Automation Interaction and Safety · Sharing Economy and Platforms

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3145, Australia

Funding

Monash Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture

References (42)

Show source-provided references
1. The role of shared autonomous vehicle systems in delivering smart urban mobility: A systematic review of the literature10.1080/15568318.2020.1798571 ↗
2. The morning commute problem with endogenous shared autonomous vehicle penetration and parking space constraint10.1016/j.trb.2019.04.001 ↗
3. Factors affecting traffic flow efficiency implications of connected and autonomous vehicles: A review and policy recommendations10.1016/bs.atpp.2020.02.004 ↗
4. Autonomous taxi service design and user experience10.1080/10447318.2019.1653556 ↗
5. Passenger comfort and trust on first-time use of a shared autonomous shuttle vehicle10.1016/j.trc.2020.02.026 ↗
6. Merat, N., Madigan, R., and Nordhoff, S. (2017). Human factors, user requirements, and user acceptance of ride-sharing in automated vehicles. International Transport Forum Discussion Paper, OECD.
7. To share or not to share: Investigating the social aspects of dynamic ridesharing10.3141/2605-11 ↗
8. Factors that influence the acceptance of future shared automated vehicles–A focus group study with United Kingdom drivers10.1016/j.trf.2021.08.009 ↗
9. A study of users’ preferences after a brief exposure in a Shared Autonomous Vehicle (SAV)10.1016/j.trpro.2021.01.063 ↗
10. Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust10.1177/0018720814547570 ↗
11. Searching for design research questions: Some conceptual clarifications. Questions
12. Council Design (2023, July 10). A Study of the Design Process. Available online: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/archive/reports-resources/11-lessons-managing-design-global-brands/.
13. Candy, L., Ernest, E., and Craig, V. (2021). Practice-based research. The Routledge International Handbook of Practice-Based Research, Routledge.10.4324/9780429324154-3 ↗
14. Vom, B., Jan, A.H., and Alexander, M. (2020). Introduction to design science research. Design Science Research. Cases, Springer.
15. The effect of anthropomorphism and failure comprehensibility on human-robot trust10.1177/1071181320641028 ↗
16. Exploring personalised autonomous vehicles to influence user trust10.1007/s12559-020-09757-x ↗
17. Literature review on surveys investigating the acceptance of automated vehicles10.1007/s11116-017-9808-9 ↗
18. Trusting automation: Designing for responsivity and resilience10.1177/00187208211009995 ↗
19. Lee, M., and Lee, Y. (2020, January 19–24). UI proposal for shared autonomous vehicles: Focusing on improving user’s trust. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Virtual.10.1007/978-3-030-50537-0_21 ↗
20. Martelaro, N., Patrick, C., Sarah, F., and Jodi, F. (2022, January 17–20). Designing an inclusive mobile app for people with disabilities to independently use autonomous vehicles. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Seoul, Republic of Korea.10.1145/3543174.3546850 ↗
21. Guest, G., Emily, N., and Mario, C. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS ONE, 15.10.1371/journal.pone.0232076 ↗
22. How to use thematic analysis in qualitative research10.4337/jqrt.2023.0006 ↗
23. Factors affecting pedestrians’ trust in automated vehicles: Literature review and theoretical model10.1109/THMS.2021.3112956 ↗
24. The influence of system transparency on trust: Evaluating interfaces in a highly automated vehicle10.1016/j.trf.2020.06.001 ↗
25. Shared autonomous vehicle simulation and service design10.1016/j.trc.2019.08.006 ↗
26. Dynamic ride sharing using traditional taxis and shared autonomous taxis: A case study of NYC10.1016/j.trc.2018.10.007 ↗
27. Luccarelli, M., Lienkamp, M., Matt, D., and Spena, P.R. (2014;, January 8–10). Automotive design quantification: Parameters defining exterior proportions according to car segment. Proceedings of the SAE 2014 World Congress & Exhibition, Detroit, MI, USA.10.4271/2014-01-0357 ↗
28. Lee, G., Taesu, K., and Hyeon-Jeong, S. (2022, January 18–24). GP22: A car styling dataset for automotive designers. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, New Orleans, LA, USA.10.1109/CVPRW56347.2022.00250 ↗
29. The MAYA principle as applied to apparel products: The effects of typicality and novelty on aesthetic preference
30. Consumer preference and apparel products: Investigating the role of the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics concept
31. Facing dominance: Anthropomorphism and the effect of product face ratio on consumer preference10.1093/jcr/ucx090 ↗
32. Pareidolia: Characterising facial anthropomorphism and its implications for product design
33. Visual customization: Diversity in color preferences in the automotive interior and implications for interior design10.1002/col.22218 ↗
34. The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits10.1177/00139160121973115 ↗
35. Islas Muñoz, J.A., Baha, S.E., and Muratovski, G. (2022). Radically Innovating the Automotive Design Process with Immersive Technologies. DS 117, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE 2022), London South Bank University.10.35199/EPDE.2022.15 ↗
36. Pheasant, S., and Christine, M.H. (2018). Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and the Design of Work, CRC Press.10.1201/9781315375212 ↗
37. Digital human modeling: A review and reappraisal of origins, present, and expected future methods for representing humans computationally10.1080/10447318.2021.1976507 ↗
38. Stuart, M., and Geoff, W. (2014). H-Point: The Fundamentals of Car Design & Packaging, Design Studio Press.
39. Torre, I., Carrigan, E., McDonnell, R., Domijan, K., McCabe, K., and Harte, N. (2019, January 28–30). The effect of multimodal emotional expression and agent appearance on trust in human-agent interaction. Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Motion, Interaction and Games, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.10.1145/3359566.3360065 ↗
40. Rapid manufacturing of automotive polymer series parts: A systematic review of processes, materials and challenges
41. Fabrication of bioinspired superliquiphobic synthetic leather with self-cleaning and low adhesion10.1016/j.colsurfa.2018.02.052 ↗
42. Meyer, M., Dietrich, S., Schulz, H., and Mondschein, A. (2021). Comparison of the technical performance of leather, artificial leather, and trendy alternatives. Coatings, 11.10.3390/coatings11020226 ↗