Advertisement

The Effect of Displaying Kinetic Energy on Hybrid Electric Vehicle Drivers’ Evaluation of Regenerative Braking

  • Doreen Schwarze
  • Matthias G. Arend
  • Thomas Franke
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 825)

Abstract

More energy efficient and sustainable systems become increasingly widespread in automotive applications (e.g., hybrid electric vehicles; HEVs). Yet, their real-world energy efficiency strongly depends on driver behaviour and, often, showing optimal eco-driving behaviour is challenging especially if energy dynamics are not sufficiently represented in the driver interface. For example, previous research indicated that HEV drivers try to actively utilize and regain electric energy, without sufficiently considering conversion losses that are part of this process (i.e., energy conversion fallacy). One possible explanation is that HEV drivers do not actively consider kinetic energy while driving, mainly because it is not represented in energy displays. The object of the present research was to examine whether drivers can be supported in a less biased perception of the efficiency of regenerative braking when an indicator of kinetic energy is also represented in the interface. To this end, we designed an online video experiment. Two displays were presented to drivers, a conventional energy flow display in which only electric energy resources were represented and an adapted display in which also kinetic energy resources were represented. Drivers rated the perceived energy efficiency of two types of deceleration scenarios, regenerative braking and neutral mode. The results provide first evidence that adding a representation of kinetic energy resources to displays of energy flows in HEVs can reduce drivers’ energy conversion fallacy.

Keywords

Driver behaviour User-Energy interaction Regenerative braking Neutral mode Framing effect 

References

  1. 1.
    Barkenbus JN (2010) Eco-driving: an overlooked climate change initiative. Energy Policy 38:762–769.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis S, Caldeira K, Matthews H (2010) Future CO2 emissions and climate change from existing energy infrastructure. Science 329:1330–1333.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.118856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dijk M, Orsato RJ, Kemp R (2013) The emergence of an electric mobility trajectory. Energy Policy 52:135–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cocron P, Bühler F, Neumann I, Franke T, Krems JF, Schwalm M, Keinath A (2011) Methods of evaluating electric vehicles from a user’s perspective – the MINI E field trial in Berlin. IET Intell Transp Syst 5:127–133.  https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2010.0126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neumann I (2015) Energieeffizienz im Elektrofahrzeug – Implikationen für die Nutzerschnittstelle, die Fahraufgabe und motivationale Aspekte. Dissertation, TU ChemnitzGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    af Wåhlberg AE (2007) Long-term effects of training in economical driving: fuel consumption, accidents, driver acceleration behavior and technical feedback. Int J Ind Ergon 37:333–343.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2006.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McIlroy R, Stanton N (2013) Sustainability, transport and design: reviewing the prospects for safely encouraging eco-driving. In: AutomotiveUI 2013 (ed) Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Eindhoven, pp 278–284Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hanson MA (2013) Green ergonomics: challenges and opportunities. Ergonomics 56:399–408.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.751457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thatcher A (2013) Green ergonomics: definition and scope. Ergonomics 56:38–398.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.718371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arend MG, Franke T (2017) The role of interaction patterns with hybrid electric vehicle eco-features for drivers’ eco-driving performance. Hum Factors 59:314–327.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816670819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Franke T, Arend MG, McIlroy RC, Stanton NA (2016) Ecodriving in hybrid electric vehicles - exploring challenges for user-energy interaction. Appl Ergon 55:33–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tulusan J, Staake T, Fleisch E (2012) Providing eco-driving feedback to corporate car drivers: what impact does a smartphone application have on their fuel efficiency? In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, Pittsburgh, USA, pp 212–215Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stocké V (2002) Framing und Rationalität: Die Bedeutung der Informationsdarstellung für das Entscheidungsverhalten. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH, MünchenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58:697–720.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–292.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kahneman D (2011) Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Q J Econ 106:1039–1061.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2937956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. J Bus 59:251–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levin IP, Schneider S, Gaeth G (1998) All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 76:149–188.  https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A (1984) Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol 39:341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Franke T, Attig C, Wessel D (2018) A personal resource for technology interaction: development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ATI) scale. Int J Hum Comput Interact.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1456150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davies G (2003) Understanding your prius. http://prius.ecrostech.com/original/PriusFrames.htm. Accessed 31 Aug 2017
  24. 24.
    Cikanek SR, Bailey KE (2002) Regenerative braking system for a hybrid electric vehicle. In: Proceedings of the american control conference. IEEE, pp 3129–3134Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gliem JA, Gliem RR (2003) Calculating, interpreting, and reporting cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for likert-type scales. In: 2003 Midwest research to practice conference in adult, continuing, and community education, Columbus, OH, pp 82–88Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS. SAGE Publications Ltd., LondonMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112:155–159.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doreen Schwarze
    • 1
  • Matthias G. Arend
    • 2
  • Thomas Franke
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Multimedia and Interactive Systems, Engineering Psychology and Cognitive ErgonomicsUniversity of LübeckLübeckGermany
  2. 2.Institute of PsychologyRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations