Towards more trustworthy automated driving: comparing Anthropomorphic and Biophilic interfaces: Comparing Biophilic and Anthropomorphic in automated driving

Given the relative success of both anthropomorphism and biophilic interventions in automated vehicles, the aim of this study was to compare these two interventions within a simulated driving scenario. A within-subjects study design was employed, in which 30 participants experienced both interventions in addition to a 4-minute baseline driving session. The biophilic intervention was presented in a mixed reality environment, while the anthropomorphic intervention was delivered via a humanoid robot. To ensure the comparability of intervention levels, both interventions were intentionally designed to be superficial rather than deep. Statistical analyses including ANOVA, t-tests, and Wilcoxon tests were conducted to compare trust, stress, user experience, and mental workload indicators. The results showed that although both interventions slightly increased mental workload and, to some extent, stress compared to the baseline condition (with no statistically significant difference), they led to an improvement in affective trust relative to the baseline. The comparison of participants' user experience indicated that the anthropomorphic intervention was perceived as more practical (higher pragmatic quality), whereas the biophilic intervention was experienced as more enjoyable and exciting (higher hedonic quality). The use of interventions such as anthropomorphizing the vehicle or incorporating natural elements into interfaces can partially address the issue of trust in autonomous vehicles. However, further studies are needed to compare each of these approaches both in simulators and on test tracks in real-world environments. At present, these results should be interpreted with caution.