{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023148148148148147, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001851851851851852, 'mean_word_length': 5.591463414634147, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Accumulating Distrust: A Dynamic Model of Automation Disuse

Human-automation driving style similarity may be a source of trust that influences drivers’ automation use decisions. This is generally examined in scenarios where the driver is attentive to the automation. However, future automation may not require driver attention. Thus, driving style similarity must be revisited as various levels of attention may affect how drivers accumulate evidence of driving style similarity. A model that considers two levels of driver attention (attentive and non-attentive) in the drivers’ evidence accumulation process is proposed. Dissimilarity is used as the evidence that contributes to driver distrust leading to automation disuse. A 2 (conservative and aggressive automation) × 2 (attentive and non-attentive driver) simulation of car following is examined where the driver is assumed to behave conservatively. Simulation results indicated no significant effect of driving styles on disuse, but inattentiveness mitigates disuse. These simulations may inform future empirical studies.