隐私风险感知对自动驾驶汽车初始信任的影响：从业者与非从业者的差异化反应

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.1279

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 过往研究主要关注公众对自动驾驶系统的信任不足, 但普通消费者的过度信任同样可能导致系统误用, 进而增加使用风险。本文通过三项研究系统探索了从业背景对初始信任的影响, 聚焦于比较和校准普通消费者的信任水平, 使其更接近作为专家的从业者。研究1发现, 非从业者表现出过度信任倾向, 并且隐私风险感知和从业背景对初始信任的影响存在交互作用。研究2通过操纵隐私风险水平发现从业者与非从业者存在差异化反应, 风险水平提升显著增强了非从业者的隐私风险感知, 并降低其初始信任; 而从业者的初始信任较少受到风险变化的影响。研究3进一步揭示了非从业者对隐私风险信息的非对称反应：在低风险情境下, 尽管隐私风险感知显著提升, 初始信任无显著变化; 而在高风险情境下, 隐私风险感知显著增加, 初始信任显著下降。这些结果揭示了从业背景与隐私风险感知对自动驾驶初始信任的交互作用, 凸显了从业者与非从业者在初始信任形成中的差异, 并提示自动驾驶系统的设计者应采用更具针对性的信任校准策略以应对从业者与非从业者的差异化反应。

关键词: 自动驾驶汽车, 初始信任, 从业背景, 感知隐私风险, 人与AI信任

Abstract: This study investigates the role of professional background in shaping initial trust in autonomous vehicles (AVs), with a particular focus on how privacy risk perception influences trust differences between professionals and non-professionals. Previous research has primarily concentrated on the issue of insufficient trust in AVs and sought to enhance trust through improved design and communication. However, excessive trust among ordinary consumers may equally lead to greater risks and hazards. Therefore, how to calibrate consumers' trust to be closer to that of industry professionals—who are also the system designers—has become a pressing issue. Although existing studies have examined various perceptual factors affecting trust in AVs, there remains a lack of systematic evidence on how prior experiential differences, represented by professional background, shape initial trust.
Drawing on three empirical studies with a total of 1, 027 participants, this research systematically examines the mechanisms through which privacy risk perception influences trust formation. Study 1 employed an online survey to compare professionals and non-professionals. Results showed that non-professionals reported significantly higher initial trust in AVs, were more likely to overestimate system performance, underestimate potential risks, and be more susceptible to social influence. Regression analyses further revealed an interaction effect between privacy risk perception and professional background: privacy risk perception significantly predicted professionals' trust levels but had no significant effect on non-professionals. In addition, social influence, perceived usefulness, and safety risk perception jointly predicted initial trust, indicating that trust formation is a complex process shaped by multiple interacting factors.
Study 2 experimentally manipulated privacy risk levels to further explore the interaction between privacy risk perception and professional background. Results demonstrated that increased privacy risk significantly reduced professionals' trust, whereas non-professionals' trust fluctuated more dramatically. A moderated mediation analysis showed that privacy risk level predicted non-professionals' trust through privacy risk perception, but the effect was nonsignificant for professionals. This suggests that professionals' trust is relatively stable, while non-professionals—lacking accurate recognition of privacy risks—are more sensitive to contextual changes.
Study 3 examined the impact of enhancing privacy risk perception. Results indicated that increasing non-professionals' privacy risk awareness heightened their sensitivity to risks, thereby significantly reducing their initial trust. This finding suggests that enhancing privacy risk perception among non-professionals can effectively mitigate excessive trust and narrow the trust gap with professionals.
Taken together, this research reveals that professionals and non-professionals rely on different cognitive pathways in forming initial trust in AVs, and clarifies the interactive mechanism between privacy risk perception and professional background. The findings provide important implications for strategies to strengthen consumer trust in AVs. Specifically, enhancing non-professionals' privacy risk perception helps calibrate excessive trust and narrow the trust gap, while social influence and perceived usefulness also play critical roles in shaping trust. Leveraging social influence and emphasizing the usefulness of AVs may be effective approaches to promoting rational trust. Overall, this research deepens the understanding of trust formation mechanisms in human-machine interaction and offers practical insights for fostering more rational and well-calibrated public trust in autonomous vehicles.

Key words: Autonomous vehicle, initial trust, professional background, perceived privacy risk, human-AI trust

中图分类号:

B849

孙一飞, 李秀兰, 杜峰, 齐玥. (2026). 隐私风险感知对自动驾驶汽车初始信任的影响：从业者与非从业者的差异化反应. 心理学报, 58(7), 1279-1296.

SUN Yifei, LI Xiulan, DU Feng, QI Yue. (2026). The impact of privacy risk perception on initial trust in autonomous vehicle: Differential responses of professionals and non-professionals. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(7), 1279-1296.

参考文献

[1] Abraham H., Lee C., Brady S., Fitzgerald C., Mehler B., Reimer B., & Coughlin J. F. (2017). Autonomous vehicles and alternatives to driving: Trust, preferences, and effects of age. Transportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting.
[2] Ahmed S. S., Pantangi S. S., Eker U., Fountas G., Still S. E., & Anastasopoulos P. Ch. (2020). Analysis of safety benefits and security concerns from the use of autonomous vehicles: A grouped random parameters bivariate probit approach with heterogeneity in means.Analytic Methods in Accident Research, 28, 100134.
[3] Balfe N., Sharples S., & Wilson J. R. (2018). Understanding is key: An analysis of factors pertaining to trust in a real- world automation system.Human Factors, 60(4), 477-495.
[4] Beggiato, M., & Krems, J. F. (2013). The evolution of mental model, trust and acceptance of adaptive cruise control in relation to initial information.Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 18, 47-57.
[5] Biassoni F., Ruscio D., & Ciceri R. (2016). Limitations and automation. The role of information about device-specific features in ADAS acceptability.Safety Science, 85, 179-186.
[6] Booth S., Tompkin J., Pfister H., Waldo J., Gajos K., & Nagpal R. (2017). Piggybacking robots: Human-robot overtrust in university dormitory security. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human- Robot Interaction(pp.426-434). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, United States.
[7] Carlson M. S., Desai M., Drury J. L., Kwak H., & Yanco H. A. (2014). Identifying factors that influence trust in automated cars and medical diagnosis systems. In 2014 AAAI Spring Symposium Series on The Intersection of Robust Intelligence and Trust in Autonomous Systems. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Washington, D.C., United States.
[8] Celmer N., Branaghan R., & Chiou E. (2018). Trust in branded autonomous vehicles & performance expectations: A theoretical framework.Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62(1), 1761-1765.
[9] Choi, J. K., & Ji, Y. G. (2015). Investigating the importance of trust on adopting an autonomous vehicle.International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(10), 692-702.
[10] Christensen A. B. H., Dam C. R., Rasle C., Bauer J. E., Mohamed R. A., & Jensen L. C. (2019). Reducing overtrust in failing robotic systems. 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)(pp.542-543). IEEE.
[11] Davis F., Bagozzi R., & Warshaw P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of 2 theoretical- models.Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
[12] Deloitte China. (2019). Consumers pump the brakes on autonomous vehicle adoption | Deloitte China | Newsroom. Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com/cn/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/pr-consumers-pump-the-brakes-on-autonomous-vehicle-adoption.html
[13] Dirsehan, T., & Can, C. (2020). Examination of trust and sustainability concerns in autonomous vehicle adoption.Technology in Society, 63, 101361.
[14] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A.-G., & Buchner A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
[15] Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research (Vol. 27). Addison-Wesley.
[16] Gao Z., Li W., Liang J., Pan H., Xu W., & Shen M. (2021). Trust in automated vehicles.Advances in Psychological Science, 29(12), 2172-2183.
[高在峰, 李文敏, 梁佳文, 潘晗希, 许为, 沈模卫. (2021). 自动驾驶车中的人机信任.心理科学进展, 29(12), 2172-2183.]
[17] Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research.Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627-660.
[18] Gopinath, K., & Narayanamurthy, G. (2022). Early bird catches the worm! Meta-analysis of autonomous vehicles adoption - Moderating role of automation level, ownership and culture.International Journal of Information Management, 66, 102536.
[19] Ha T., Kim S., Seo D., & Lee S. (2020). Effects of explanation types and perceived risk on trust in autonomous vehicles.Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 73, 271-280.
[20] Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust.Human Factors, 57(3), 407-434.
[21] Hu Y., Xiao J., & Liu Q. (2025). Privacy protection from the perspective of risk perception: A meta-analysis study.Journal of Intelligence, 44(1), 198-206.
[胡雅萍, 肖江艳, 刘千里. (2025). 风险感知视角下个人隐私安全保护——一项元分析研究.情报杂志, 44(1), 198-206.]
[22] Huang, X., & Li, Y. (2024). Trust dampening and trust promoting: A dual-pathway of trust calibration in human- robot interaction.Advances in Psychological Science, 32(3), 527-542.
[黄心语, 李晔. (2024). 人机信任校准的双途径:信任抑制与信任提升.心理科学进展, 32(3), 527-542.]
[23] Jin M., Lu G., Chen F., & Shi X. (2020). How driving experience affect trust in automation from level 3 automated vehicles? An experimental analysis. 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 1-6. IEEE.
[24] Kahl, B. (2021). Human biases preventing the widespread adoption of self-driving cars.ArXiv, abs/2104.01022.
[25] Kraus J., Scholz D., Stiegemeier D., & Baumann M. (2020). The more you know: Trust dynamics and calibration in highly automated driving and the effects of take-overs, system malfunction, and system transparency.Human Factors, 62(5), 718-736.
[26] Kyriakidis M., Happee R., & de Winter, J. C. F. (2015). Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents.Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 32, 127-140.
[27] Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance.Human Factors, 46(1), 50-80.
[28] Lee, J., & Lee, K. (2022). Polite speech strategies and their impact on drivers' trust in autonomous vehicles.Computers in Human Behavior, 127, 107015.
[29] Lyons, J. B., & Guznov, S. Y. (2019). Individual differences in human-machine trust: A multi-study look at the perfect automation schema.Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 20(4), 440-458.
[30] Ma Y., Li S., Qin S., & Qi Y. (2020). Factors affecting trust in the autonomous vehicle: A survey of primary school students and parent perceptions. Proceedings - 2020 IEEE 19th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications, TrustCom 2020, 2020-2027. IEEE.
[31] Madigan R., Louw T., Wilbrink M., Schieben A., & Merat N. (2017). What influences the decision to use automated public transport? Using UTAUT to understand public acceptance of automated road transport systems.Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 50, 55-64.
[32] Merritt, S. M., & Ilgen, D. R. (2008). Not all trust is created equal: Dispositional and history-based trust in human- automation interactions.Human Factors, 50(2), 194-210.
[33] Narayanan S., Chaniotakis E., & Antoniou C. (2020). Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review.Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 111, 255-293.
[34] Onnasch L., Hoesterey S., & Fahrner V. (2023). To (dis)agree with automation: Effects of automation levels on trust attitude and trust behavior in high-risk situations.Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 67(1), 1393-1399.
[35] On-Road Automated Driving (Orad) Committee. (2023). J3016 (WIP) Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. SAE International. https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016/
[36] Osswald S., Wurhofer D., Trösterer S., Beck E., & Tscheligi M. (2012). Predicting information technology usage in the car: Towards a car technology acceptance model. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications(pp.51- 58). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, United States.
[37] Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J.-Y., & Podsakoff N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
[38] Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects.Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544.
[39] Pop V. L., Shrewsbury A., & Durso F. T. (2015). Individual differences in the calibration of trust in automation.Human Factors, 57(4), 545-556.
[40] PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2023). Digital Auto Report 2023. PricewaterhouseCoopers. https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/tr/tr/pdf/digital-auto-report-2023.pdf
[41] Pype P., Daalderop G., Schulz-Kamm, E., Walters, E., & von Grafenstein, M. (2017). Privacy and security in autonomous vehicles. In D. Watzenig & M. Horn (Eds), Automated driving: Safer and more efficient future driving (pp. 17-27). Springer International Publishing.
[42] Qi Y., Chen J., Qin S., & Du F. (2024). Human-AI mutual trust in the era of artificial general intelligence.Advances in Psychological Science, 32(12), 2124-2136.
[齐玥, 陈俊廷, 秦邵天, 杜峰. (2024). 通用人工智能时代的人与AI信任.心理科学进展, 32(12), 2124-2136.]
[43] Qin S., Li C., & Qi Y. (2024). Trust transfer in autonomous vehicles: The role of warm brand image amid automation failure. In D. Harris & W.-C. Li (Eds), Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics(pp. 123-140). Springer Nature Switzerland.
[44] Rieger T., Roesler E., & Manzey D. (2021). The imperfect automation schema—Evidence for increased trust in human support agents.Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 65(1), 1020-1020.
[45] Robinette P., Howard A. M., & Wagner A. R. (2017). Effect of robot performance on human-robot trust in time-critical situations.IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 47(4), 425-436.
[46] Rupp M. A., Michaelis J. R., McConnell D. S., & Smither J. A. (2018). The role of individual differences on perceptions of wearable fitness device trust, usability, and motivational impact.Applied Ergonomics, 70, 77-87.
[47] Sheridan, T. B. (2019). Individual differences in attributes of trust in automation: Measurement and application to system design.Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1117.
[48] Tan H., Zhao X., & Yang J. (2022). Exploring the influence of anxiety, pleasure and subjective knowledge on public acceptance of fully autonomous vehicles.Computers in Human Behavior, 131, 107187.
[49] Tao D., Yuan J., Shao F., Li D., Zhou Q., & Qu X. (2018). Factors affecting consumer acceptance of an online health information portal among young internet users.CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 36(11), 530-539.
[50] Walker G. H., Stanton N. A., & Salmon P. (2016). Trust in vehicle technology.International Journal of Vehicle Design, 70(2), 157-182.
[51] Wang K., Wu J., Sun Y., Chen J., Pu Y., & Qi Y. (2024). Trust in human and virtual live streamers: The role of integrity and social presence.International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40(23), 8274-8294.
[52] Waung M., McAuslan P., & Lakshmanan S. (2021). Trust and intention to use autonomous vehicles: Manufacturer focus and passenger control.Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 80, 328-340.
[53] Wen, Z.L., & Ye, B.J. (2014). Different methods for testing moderated mediation models: Competitors or backups?Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(5), 714-726.
[温忠麟, 叶宝娟. (2014). 有调节的中介模型检验方法: 竞争还是替补?心理学报, 46(5), 714-726.]
[54] Wintersberger P., Noah B. E., Kraus J., McCall R., Mirnig A. G., Kunze A., Thakkar S., & Walker B. N. (2018). Second workshop on trust in the age of automated driving. Adjunct Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications(pp.56-64). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, United States.
[55] Wu M., Wang N., & Yuen K. F. (2023). Deep versus superficial anthropomorphism: Exploring their effects on human trust in shared autonomous vehicles.Computers in Human Behavior, 141, 107614.
[56] Xu, W., & Ge, L. (2020). Engineering psychology in the era of artificial intelligence.Advances in Psychological Science, 28(9), 1409-1425.
[许为, 葛列众. (2020). 智能时代的工程心理学.心理科学进展, 28(9), 1409-1425.]
[57] You S., Qi Y., Chen J., Luo L., & Zhang K. (2025). Safety trust in intelligent domestic robots: Human and AI perspectives on trust and relevant influencing factors.Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(11), 1951-1972.
[由姗姗, 齐玥, 陈俊廷, 骆磊, 张侃. (2025). 人与AI对智能家居机器人的安全信任及其影响因素.心理学报, 57(11), 1951-1972.]
[58] Yuen K. F., Wong Y. D., Ma F., & Wang X. (2020). The determinants of public acceptance of autonomous vehicles: An innovation diffusion perspective.Journal of Cleaner Production, 270, 121904.
[59] Zhang T., Tao D., Qu X., Zhang X., Lin R., & Zhang W. (2019). The roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public's acceptance of automated vehicles.Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 98, 207-220.
[60] Zhang T., Tao D., Qu X., Zhang X., Zeng J., Zhu H., & Zhu H. (2020). Automated vehicle acceptance in China: Social influence and initial trust are key determinants.Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 112, 220-233.
[61] Zhu A., Yang S., Chen Y., & Xing C. (2022). A moral decision-making study of autonomous vehicles: Expertise predicts a preference for algorithms in dilemmas.Personality and Individual Differences, 186, 111356.
[62] Zmud J., Sener I., & Wagner J. (2016). Consumer Acceptance and Travel Behavior Impacts of Automated Vehicles.