Trust in the Automatic Train Supervision System and Its Effects on Subway Dispatchers’ Operational Behavior
Source abstract
Abstract
The evolution of Fully Automatic Operation (FAO) subway control systems has increased the importance of dispatchers’ trust in automation. This study focuses on the dynamics of trust formation among Chinese subway dispatchers and its downstream effects on their reliance behavior. Through the structural equation modeling of questionnaire data, we identify key factors influencing trust and its operational implications. Interface transparency and system capability redundancy directly strengthen trust, while dispatchers’ system knowledge indirectly shapes trust through interface interpretation. Trust strongly correlates with reliance behavior during routine monitoring, which in turn significantly influences reliance behavior in emergencies. Two mediation pathways approaching significance suggest that both capability redundancy and trust may influence emergency reliance behavior through routine reliance behavior. This implies that frequent daily use of automation systems enhances dispatchers’ understanding of system reliability. Our findings underscore the need for transparent interface design, adaptive redundancy strategies, and training programs that bridge system knowledge with operational practices to enhance both trust and scenario-specific reliance. Practical recommendations include designing user-friendly interfaces, implementing adaptive redundancy, and developing targeted training programs to improve dispatchers’ system knowledge and operational efficiency.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Human-Automation Interaction and Safety · Risk and Safety Analysis · Safety Warnings and Signage
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Mechanical, Electronic and Control Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
State Key Laboratory of Advanced Rail Autonomous Operation, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China · Systematic major projects of China State Railway Group · Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality · Ministry of Education’s Industry–University Cooperation Collaborative Education Project · National Key Research and Development Program of China
References (70)
Show source-provided references
1. Zeng, J., and Li, Z. (2024). Trust towards autonomous driving, worthwhile travel time, and new mobility business opportunities. Appl. Econ., 1–15.10.1080/00036846.2024.2367171 ↗
2. Vasile, L., Seitz, B., Staab, V., Liebherr, M., Däsch, C., and Schramm, D. (2023). Influences of personal driving styles and experienced system characteristics on driving style preferences in automated driving. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app13158855 ↗
3. Trustworthiness of unmanned automated subway services and its effects on passengers’ anxiety and fear10.1016/j.trf.2019.07.014 ↗
4. Humans and Automation: Augmenting Security Operation Centers10.3390/jcp4030020 ↗
5. A model-driven approach to ensure trust in the IoT10.1186/s13673-020-00257-3 ↗
6. Effects of adaptive task allocation on monitoring of automated systems10.1518/001872096778827279 ↗
7. The use of adaptable automation: Effects of extended skill lay-off and changes in system reliability10.1016/j.apergo.2016.08.007 ↗
8. Detecting a single automation failure: The impact of expected (but not experienced) automation reliability10.1177/00187208211037188 ↗
9. Feng, J., Shang, J., Ibrahim, A.N.H., Borhan, M.N.B., and Tao, Y. (2024, January 16–17). Analysis of Safe Operation Behavior for Dispatching Fully Automated Operation Urban Rail Transit Lines Based on FTA. Proceedings of the The International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Logistics Engineering, Guiyang, China.10.1007/978-3-031-72017-8_13 ↗
10. Katastrophen-und Zivilschutz in Deutschland10.1055/s-0042-120231 ↗
11. Effects of automation reliability on error detection and attention to auditory stimuli in a multi-tasking environment10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103303 ↗
12. Human vs. Automation: Which One Will You Trust More If You Are About to Lose Money?10.1080/10447318.2022.2076772 ↗
13. Dimitrova, E., and Tomov, S. (2021, January 8–11). Automatic Train Operation for Mainline. Proceedings of the 2021 13th Electrical Engineering Faculty Conference (BulEF), Varna, Bulgaria.10.1109/BulEF53491.2021.9690777 ↗
14. Deployment of autonomous trains in rail transportation: Current trends and existing challenges10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3091550 ↗
15. Ajenaghughrure, I.B., Sousa, S.D.C., and Lamas, D. (2020). Measuring trust with psychophysiological signals: A systematic mapping study of approaches used. Multimodal Technol. Interact., 4.10.3390/mti4030063 ↗
16. Linking precursors of interpersonal trust to human-automation trust: An expanded typology and exploratory experiment10.1080/21515581.2019.1579730 ↗
17. Schaefer, K. (2013). The Perception and Measurement of Human-Robot Trust, University of Central Florida.
18. A quantum-inspired model for human-automation trust in air traffic controllers derived from functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging and correlated with behavioural indicators10.1016/j.jairtraman.2021.102143 ↗
19. Social Internet of Things: Vision, challenges, and trends10.1186/s13673-020-00254-6 ↗
20. Systematic review: Trust-building factors and implications for conversational agent design10.1080/10447318.2020.1807710 ↗
21. Kohn, S.C., De Visser, E.J., Wiese, E., Lee, Y.-C., and Shaw, T.H. (2021). Measurement of trust in automation: A narrative review and reference guide. Front. Psychol., 12.10.3389/fpsyg.2021.604977 ↗
22. Delegation of Moral Tasks to Automated Agents—The Impact of Risk and Context on Trusting a Machine to Perform a Task10.1109/TTS.2021.3118355 ↗
23. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392 ↗
24. French, B., Duenser, A., and Heathcote, A. (2018). Trust in Automation A Literature Review, IEEE.
25. Using agent transparency to support situation awareness of the Autonomous Squad Member10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.02.003 ↗
26. Wang, K., Hou, W., Hong, L., and Guo, J. (2025). Smart Transparency: A User-Centered Approach to Improving Human–Machine Interaction in High-Risk Supervisory Control Tasks. Electronics, 14.10.3390/electronics14030420 ↗
27. Eloy, L., Doherty, E.J., Spencer, C.A., Bobko, P., and Hirshfield, L. (2022). Using fNIRS to identify transparency-and reliability-sensitive markers of trust across multiple timescales in collaborative human-human-agent triads. Front. Neuroergonomics, 3.10.3389/fnrgo.2022.838625 ↗
28. Li, J., Liu, J., Wang, X., and Liu, L. (2024). The Impact of Transparency on Driver Trust and Reliance in Highly Automated Driving: Presenting Appropriate Transparency in Automotive HMI. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app14083203 ↗
29. Effect of automation transparency in the management of multiple unmanned vehicles10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103243 ↗
30. Acceptance of Full Driving Automation: Personally Owned and Shared-Use Concepts10.1177/0018720819870658 ↗
31. What happens when decision support systems fail?—The importance of usability on performance in erroneous systems10.1080/0144929X.2019.1581258 ↗
32. Cheng, X., Guo, F., Chen, J., Li, K., Zhang, Y., and Gao, P. (2019). Exploring the Trust Influencing Mechanism of Robo-Advisor Service: A Mixed Method Approach. Sustainability, 11.10.3390/su11184917 ↗
33. Humans and Automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse10.1518/001872097778543886 ↗
34. Calibrating trust through knowledge: Introducing the concept of informed safety for automation in vehicles10.1016/j.trc.2018.07.001 ↗
35. Brdnik, S., Podgorelec, V., and Šumak, B. (2023). Assessing perceived trust and satisfaction with multiple explanation techniques in XAI-enhanced learning analytics. Electronics, 12.10.3390/electronics12122594 ↗
36. Zhang, X., Song, Z., Huang, Q., Pan, Z., Li, W., Gong, R., and Zhao, B. (2024). Shared eHMI: Bridging Human–Machine Understanding in Autonomous Wheelchair Navigation. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app14010463 ↗
37. Relationship between automation trust and operator performance for the novice and expert in spacecraft rendezvous and docking (RVD)10.1016/j.apergo.2018.03.014 ↗
38. Chen, L., Zhang, L., and Zheng, W. (2023, January 24–28). Research on Quantitative Evaluation of Emergency Handling Workload of Railway Dispatcher. Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Bilbao, Spain.10.1109/ITSC57777.2023.10421860 ↗
39. Understanding Is Key: An Analysis of Factors Pertaining to Trust in a Real-World Automation System10.1177/0018720818761256 ↗
40. How people perceive the safety of self-driving buses: A quantitative analysis model of perceived safety10.1177/03611981221104455 ↗
41. The Effect of Informing Participants of the Response Bias of an Automated Target Recognition System on Trust and Reliance Behavior10.1177/00187208211021711 ↗
42. Does automation trust evolve from a leap of faith? An analysis using a reprogrammed pasteurizer simulation task10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103674 ↗
43. The Perception of Automation Reliability and Acceptance of Automated Advice10.1177/00187208211062985 ↗
44. A framework to guide the assessment of human–machine systems10.1177/0018720817695077 ↗
45. Trust and reliance on AI—An experimental study on the extent and costs of overreliance on AI10.1016/j.chb.2024.108352 ↗
46. Understanding reliance on automation: Effects of error type, error distribution, age and experience10.1080/1463922X.2011.611269 ↗
47. Trust calibration of automated security IT artifacts: A multi-domain study of phishing-website detection tools10.1016/j.im.2020.103394 ↗
48. Niu, K., Liu, W., Zhang, J., Liang, M., Li, H., Zhang, Y., and Du, Y. (2023). A Task Complexity Analysis Method to Study the Emergency Situation under Automated Metro System. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 20.10.3390/ijerph20032314 ↗
49. Modeling takeover behavior in level 3 automated driving via a structural equation model: Considering the mediating role of trust10.1016/j.aap.2021.106156 ↗
50. Fenn, Z. (2020). Lassoing the Loop: An Examination of Factors Influencing Trust in Automation. [Master’s Thesis, University of Basel].
51. Design, development and evaluation of a human-computer trust scale10.1080/0144929X.2019.1656779 ↗
52. Chancey, E.T. (2016). The Effects of Alarm System Errors on Dependence: Moderated Mediation of Trust with and Without Risk. [Ph.D. Thesis, Old Dominion University].
53. The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123 ↗
54. Madsen, M., and Gregor, S. (2000, January 6–8). Measuring human-computer trust. Proceedings of the 11th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, Australia.
55. Automation-induced “complacency”: Development of the complacency-potential rating scale10.1207/s15327108ijap0302_2 ↗
56. Automation-Induced Complacency Potential: Development and Validation of a New Scale10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00225 ↗
57. The Importance of Cognitive and Mental Factors on Prediction of Job Performance in Chinese High-Speed Railway Dispatchers10.1155/2020/7153972 ↗
58. Task complexity: A review and conceptualization framework10.1016/j.ergon.2012.09.001 ↗
59. Comrey, A.L., and Lee, H.B. (2013). A First Course in Factor Analysis, Psychology Press.10.4324/9781315827506 ↗
60. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., and Anderson, R.E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis, Andover.
61. Muthumani, A., Diederichs, F., Galle, M., Schmid-Lorch, S., Forsberg, C., Widlroither, H., Feierle, A., and Bengler, K. (2020, January 16–20). How visual cues on steering wheel improve users’ trust, experience, and acceptance in automated vehicles. Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Orlando, FL, USA.10.1007/978-3-030-50943-9_24 ↗
62. Enhancing Component-Specific Trust with Consumer Automated Systems through Humanness Design10.1080/00140139.2022.2079728 ↗
63. Egoistic and altruistic motivation: How to induce users’ willingness to help for imperfect AI10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.009 ↗
64. Developing human-machine trust: Impacts of prior instruction and automation failure on driver trust in partially automated vehicles10.1016/j.trf.2021.06.013 ↗
65. Neuhuber, N., Lechner, G., Kalayci, T.E., Stocker, A., and Kubicek, B. (2020, January 19–24). Age-related differences in the interaction with advanced driver assistance systems-a field study. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Copenhagen, Denmark.10.1007/978-3-030-50523-3_26 ↗
66. Miller, D., Sun, A., and Ju, W. (2014, January 5–8). Situation Awareness with Different Levels of Automation. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, San Diego, CA, USA.10.1109/SMC.2014.6973989 ↗
67. Automation trust and attention allocation in multitasking workspace10.1016/j.apergo.2018.03.008 ↗
68. Driver conflict response during supervised automation: Do hands on wheel matter?10.1016/j.trf.2020.10.001 ↗
69. Nordhoff, S., Stapel, J., He, X., Gentner, A., and Happee, R. (2021). Perceived safety and trust in SAE Level 2 partially automated cars: Results from an online questionnaire. PLoS ONE, 16.10.1371/journal.pone.0260953 ↗
70. Sato, T. (2020). Exploring the Effects of Task Priority on Attention Allocation and Trust Towards Imperfect Automation: A Flight Simulator Study. [Master’s Thesis, Old Dominion University].