Before Automated Driving Systems (ADS) with full driving automation (SAE Level 5) are placed into practical use, the issue of calibrating drivers’ initial trust in Level 5 ADS to an appropriate degree to avoid inappropriate disuse or improper use should be resolved. This study aimed to identify the factors that affected drivers’ initial trust in Level 5 ADS. We conducted two online surveys. Of these, one explored the effects of automobile brands and drivers’ trust in automobile brands on drivers’ initial trust in Level 5 ADS using a Structural Equation Model (SEM). The other identified drivers’ cognitive structures regarding automobile brands using the Free Word Association Test (FWAT) and summarized the characteristics that resulted in higher initial trust among drivers in Level 5 ADS. The results showed that drivers’ trust in automobile brands positively impacted their initial trust in Level 5 ADS, which showed invariance across gender and age. In addition, the degree of drivers’ initial trust in Level 5 ADS was significantly different across different automobile brands. Furthermore, for automobile brands with higher trust in automobile brands and Level 5 ADS, drivers’ cognitive structures were richer and varied, which included particular characteristics. These findings suggest the necessity of considering the influence of automobile brands on calibrating drivers’ initial trust in driving automation. Following the taxonomy and definition of driving automation by the Society of Automotive Engineers , an AutoTo realize the practical application of Level 5 ADS in society, both technical issues and social and human issues, such as drivers’ trust calibration, should be solved. Based on Lee and See’s definition of human-automation trust , driversTrust is dynamic because it develops as the relationship between the trustor and trustee advances ,9. Accorinitial trust.We aimed to focus on initial trust as it played an important role in the connection between dispositional, ongoing, and post-task trust ,11. FurtAccording to Lee and See’s conceptual model of the dynamic process of trust in automation , prior iA brand is a name, symbol, trademark, or design used as an unique identifier of an individual, organization, or company in owned commodities and services to differentiate from those of its competitors ,19. JustBesides the automobile brand itself, drivers’ trust in the automobile brand that developed the driving automation may be another possible influencing factor in the formation of the initial trust. Previous studies on consumer goods verified that consumers’ purchase intention largely depended on their trust in the brand –24. For If drivers’ trust in ADS depends on and can be influenced automobile brands that develop it, it is necessary to discuss the kinds of automobile brands that can earn more trust in themselves and an ADS. Previous studies found that consumers’ trust in a brand depended on various factors, such as consumer satisfaction , perceivAutomobile brands and drivers’ trust in automobile brands have the potential to influence drivers’ initial trust in Level 5 ADS. However, few studies have provided direct evidence to verify whether or to what degree these influences existed.Therefore, this study aimed to examine whether drivers’ initial trust in Level 5 ADS depended on automobile brands that developed the Level 5 ADS and can be positively influenced by drivers’ trust in the automobile brands. In addition, we aimed to explore drivers’ cognition characteristics of automobile brands that could earn much more initial trust in Level 5 ADS by clarifying drivers’ cognitive structures on the automobile brands. To achieve these, we conducted two online surveys and our hypotheses are as follows:Hypothesis 1 (H1): There would be a positive relationship between drivers’ trust in automobile brands and their initial trust in Level 5 ADS.Hypothesis 2 (H2): The levels of drivers’ initial trust in Level 5 ADS would differ across different automobile brands.Hypothesis 3 (H3): The cognitive structures of automobile brand drivers with higher trust and lower trust would have distinctly different characteristics.M = 44.6 years, SD = 11.8), with an ordinary license participated .An online survey in Japanese was conducted by commissioning an Internet Research Company in June 2020. In total, 206 anonymous Japanese drivers (103 men and 103 women), aged 18–69 years . Although informed consent could not be obtained since all participants were anonymously and randomly recruited in the sample pool of the Internet Research Company, all the participants were voluntary to finish the questionnaires without any prejudice and were paid according to the regulations of the Internet Research Company.The human-automation trust scale was proposed by Muir and Moray , which iTo verify H1, structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using Amos version 26.0. Before the structural model was analyzed to examine the impact of trust in automobile brands on trust in Level 5 ADS, it was necessary to examine the goodness-of-fit (GOF) of the measurement model. Therefore, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the two variables was performed. Subsequently, the two measurement models were modified with modification indices  until a p < .05) ..p < .01)ps < .001). In the structural model, trust in automobile brands positively influenced trust in Level 5 ADS . For the model fit, the values of chi-square/df was approximately 5, GFI, AGFI, and CFI were greater than 0.9, and RMSEA was less than 0.05. These results indicated an acceptable model fit  . Since nM = 142.5, M = 20.5) were higher than those for the medium trust  and low trust groups .Since some participants were unable to come up with all five words related to automobile brands, 540 (effective rate 20.97%) valid words were obtained for all automobile brands, with 338 different words . Both vaA correlation analysis was conducted to confirm the relationship between valid word numbers, different word numbers, and trust in automobile brands as well as trust in Level 5 ADS. For each automobile brand, words listed only once were deleted, and the remaining (338 words) were categorized according to their meaning or property. The remaining words were divided into seven categories: “brand personality,” “product,” “person,” “country/region,” “brand/logo,” “advertising” and “others.” The category of “brand personality,” contained words that described participants’ perceived brand personality, such as “reliable” and “safe.” “Product” contained words in the name of specific products. “Person” contained names of persons related to the brand, such as the CEO or advertising spokesperson. For “country/region,” names of countries or cities in which the brands were located were mentioned. “Brand/logo” was related to the word that the brand or logo itself was associated with, such as aliases or what the logo looked like. Finally, words from the advertising slogans were contained in the category “advertising,” and words that do not belong to any categories were contained “others.” To clearly understand the drivers’ cognitive structure for each brand, we drew word clouds with the remaining words Figs –9. HowevM = 6) than for brands in the medium (M = 4.5) and low trust groups (M = 4). Furthermore, it was highly positively correlated with both trust in automobile brands and trust in Level 5 ADS, although it was non-significant for both . However, there were no negative words associated with the other four brands.This study explored the relationship among automobile brands, drivers’ trust in automobile brands, and drivers’ initial trust in Level 5 ADS. Furthermore, we clarified the common characteristics of drivers’ cognitive structures regarding automobile brands that could earn higher trust in automobile brands and higher initial trust in Level 5 ADS. We hypothesized that drivers’ initial trust in Level 5 ADS was different across automobile brands and positively impacted by drivers’ trust in automobile brands. Moreover, drivers’ cognitive structures regarding automobile brands in the high trust group had some common characteristics. These findings were discussed and integrated with previous studies to provide implications for the practical use of Level 5 ADS.Consistent with H1, we found that when drivers did not have any direct interaction experience with Level 5 ADS, their initial trust was directly affected by the level of their trust in the automobile brand that developed it. Specifically, according to the results of Survey 1, trust in the automobile brand had a positive impact on trust in Level 5 ADS, which was invariant across gender and age. Accordingly, for automobile brands, promoting drivers’ trust in automobile brands may also be a possible approach to promote drivers’ initial trust in Level 5 ADS. In addition, the positive impact of trust in automobile brands on trust in Level 5 ADS implied that over-trust in automobile brands could lead to over-trust in Level 5 ADS. Meanwhile, distrust in automobile brands could lead to distrust in Level 5 ADS. Previous studies revealed the effectiveness of elaborate practice and adequate knowledge of driving automation on the calibration of drivers’ initial trust in driving automation ,53. HoweSince significant differences in the level of consumers’ brand trust existed among brands, we examined the discrimination of the chosen nine automobile brands at the level of drivers’ brand trust before we verified H2 to avoid a type I error. The results showed that drivers’ trust in automobile brands was indeed different across automobile brands, which indicated the good discrimination of the chosen automobile brands. According to the subsequent results, drivers’ initial trust in Level 5 ADS was also different across different automobile brands. Thus, H2 was verified. This implied that automobile brands influenced drivers’ initial trust in the Level 5 ADS, which provided empirical evidence for Lee and See’s conceptual model of the dynamic process of trust in automation . To adjuBased on the associated words analyses from automobile brands via FWAT, H3 was confirmed. Furthermore, several common characteristics of drivers’ cognitive structures of automobile brands earned higher trust in automobile brands and higher initial trust in Level 5 ADS.For automobile brands in the high trust group, both the number and category of associated words were far more than those in the medium and low trust groups. Therefore, for automobile brands that could earn higher trust in automobile brands and higher initial trust in Level 5 ADS, drivers had richer and more varied cognitive structures. This implied that to acquire higher trust in both the automobile brand itself and the Level 5 ADS, automobile brands should be well known and familiar to drivers, which was related to the accumulation of long-term brand promotion. Generally, familiarity was regarded as a precondition to trust somebody or something , and hasNo word relevant to “product” was associated with Brand 4 in the low trust group. In contrast, for the brands in the high and medium trust groups, many automobile products were associated. Even though the word number of “product” was quite different for each brand, the proportions of “product” in the total word number was approximately 40%. Among these associated products, many were classic automobile products with decades of history and generations of innovation, and some were special products with special functions or techniques. This indicated that the quality assurance of products played an important role in brand development. Product quality was reported to influence the level of brand trust by creating consumer satisfaction  and inflNo words relevant to “person” or “brand personality” were associated with brands in the medium trust group. Thus, it could be considered that for brands with medium trust, although the part of “product” existed in drivers’ cognitive structures to almost the same degree as brands with high trust, there was always a missing piece, such as “person” or “brand personality.” Accordingly, use of the public influence of brand spokespersons to help promote brand influence and trust seemed effective. Although attractiveness of an advertisement spokesperson seemed relatively unimportant when consumers assessed a new high-technology product , a betteFocusing on Brand 3, the valid word number and different word numbers were both between the two brands in the high trust group, Brands 1 and 2, which implied that drivers’ cognitive structures for Brand 3 were almost as rich and varied as Brand 1s and 2. Hence, Brand 3 could also be highly trusted. However, it was contradictory as Brand 3 was in the medium trust group. Since Brand 3 was the only brand that has some associated words  relevant to unethical events, it was concluded that the negative cognition composed of these words could be invalid in drivers’ cognitive structures to help build trust or could even reduce the trust built previously. According to previous studies on business behavior and consumer trust, unethical business behavior and climate of the employees and organizations were significantly related to lower levels of trust ,30. In cOur findings have several practical implications for calibrating initial trust in Level 5 ADS. To avoid the disuse and misuse of Level 5 ADS, the influence of automobile brands should be considered during the initial trust calibration. For automobile corporations, determining consumers’ cognition of their automobile brands and performing targeted brand management based on consumers’ cognition is required. This may help eliminate consumers’ distrust in their Level 5 ADS. In contrast, drivers’ over-trust in Level 5 ADS in some highly trusted automobile brands may exist, which can lead to misuse, and thus, cause negative consequences, such as severe accidents. Therefore, for a more appropriate initial trust of drivers in Level 5 ADS, it is also necessary to pay attention to the prevention of drivers’ over-trust in the automobile brands. Finally, considering the existing problems of distrust and over-trust in driving automation and common civil and market attributes of ADS with various SAE levels of driving automation , the praFirst, this study selected only nine automobile brands to verify the hypotheses in Survey 1. In addition, only five brands were further selected in Survey 2. However, besides the selected brands, many other brands or companies have been developing driving automation. Therefore, the relationships between automobile brands, trust in automobile brands, initial trust in Level 5 ADS, and drivers’ cognitive structures of automobile brands should be examined with more automobile brands. In contrast, since only one or two brands were selected for each trust group in survey 2, more conclusions regarding drivers’ cognitive structures of automobile brands could not be drawn. Moreover, all the findings should be further confirmed with experimental research that can manipulate brand characteristics to observe the differences in the levels of initial trust in driving automation. Finally, this study focused only on the brands of traditional automobile manufacturers. Currently, the social realization of driving automation is also associated with entities other than traditional automobile manufacturers, such as technology and transportation service companies , which also provide technological or service support for the development of driving automation. Therefore, research can focus on trust formation when a vehicle with ADS was manufactured and promoted by multiple entities, instead of only traditional automobile manufacturers.The level of drivers’ initial trust in the Level 5 ADS depended on the automobile brand that developed the Level 5 ADS and could be positively influenced by the levels of drivers’ trust in the automobile brands. For automobile brands that could earn higher levels of driver trust in the automobile brand and Level 5 ADS, drivers possessed richer and more varied cognitive structures with some particular characteristics. Consequently, the influence of automobile brands and drivers’ prior trust in automobile brands should be noted for the initial trust calibration of Level 5 ADS to avoid future disuse and misuse.S1 File(PDF)Click here for additional data file. 24 Jan 2023 <div> PONE-D-22-29912 </div>  <div> Effects of brand and brand trust on initial trust in fully automated driving system </div>  <div> PLOS ONEDear Dr. Cui, </div>  <div>   </div>  <div> Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 10 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. </div> A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. <div> If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.Kind regards,Wojciech Trzebinski, Ph.D.Academic EditorPLOS ONEJournal Requirements:When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained . If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender).3. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun . The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. </font> The Reviewer #1: NoReviewer #2: No********** <font color="black"> 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? </font> PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #2: No********** <font color="black"> 5. Review Comments to the Author </font> Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. Reviewer #1: Thank you for the timely contribution. I only have a couple of questions/suggestions that the authors may want to consider.1. Although the study doesn't focus primarily on dispositional trust, it would be interesting and helpful to see results cut by age and gender, as the samples include a wide age range and has a balanced gender split. Presenting such result may also help readers to better understand the possible linkage between dispositional and initial trust.2. Driving automation is not only offered by automobile manufacturers, but also from technology companies focused on the software development, and also distributed through transportation service companies such as Uber and Lyft. I'm wondering how trust may form when there are multiple producing/delivery parties involved, and if there's anything that can be inferred on this topic from the study conducted.Reviewer #2: Dear author,Thank you for submitting your article for review. I have reviewed the document and have added my feedback to the attached PDF. If there are any you do not agree with, please provide a suitable rebuttal. Finally, the manuscript requires thorough proofreading to remove grammatical errors and words used in the wrong context.Thank you for your time and I wish you the best of luck with your future research.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -********** <font color="black"> 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. </font> Reviewer #1: NoReviewer #2: No**********https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, AttachmentPONE-D-22-29912_reviewer.pdfSubmitted filename: Click here for additional data file. 22 Mar 2023Dear Reviewers,Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. We have further revised the manuscript for further improvement based on your comments. The major changes in the manuscript are as follows:1.We have revised the sentences in “Introduction” to make clearer statements of the driving automation referred in the current study .2.We have changed all of the “fully automated driving system (FADS)” to “Automated Driving System with full driving automation (Level 5 ADS)” based on the the taxonomy and definition of driving automation by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE 2021).3.We have added data analyses against age and gender for study 1 .4.We have added limitations of the current study  5.We have addressed the language problems throughout the manuscript to make clearer statements.All of the changes made in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in yellow in the file "Revised Manuscript with Track Changes" except for the format and language issues. The followings are our reply to your comments one by one. Reviewer #1Comment 1Although the study doesn't focus primarily on dispositional trust, it would be interesting and helpful to see results cut by age and gender, as the samples include a wide age range and has a balanced gender split. Presenting such result may also help readers to better understand the possible linkage between dispositional and initial trust.Reply Thank you for your suggestions.For survey 1, we have added analyses against age and gender to test whether the effect of trust in automobile brand on trust in Level 5 ADS is invariant across gender and age. We updated the details of the methods . “Since people of different ages and gender can develop initial trust in driving automation based on different factors, such as cognitive or emotional factors towards driving automation [41], it was also necessary to verify whether the effect of trust in automobile brands on trust in Level 5 ADS was invariant across gender and age. For sex, a multigroup invariance test was performed, and the invariance was indicated by a significant difference in the chi-square value (p < .05) [40] or ΔCFI, ΔGFI, ΔAGFI, and ΔRMSEA, which were not higher than 0.01 [42]. For age, the invariance was indicated by the non-significant moderating effect of age on the relationship. Therefore, a “moderation by interaction terms” method [43] was used, in which age was first multiplied with the scores of each item of trust in the automobile brand, and the subsequent combined effect was examined against trust in Level ADS. ”For gender, we added multigroup invariance test. The results showed the positive effect of trust in automobile brand on trust in Level 5 ADS was invariant for male  and female  . Then for age, we added moderating effect test by “moderation by interaction terms” based on the previous structural equation modeling. The results showed the moderating effect of age was not significant on the relationship between trust in automobile brand and trust in Level 5 ADS  . However, because of the invariant results across age and gender for survey 1, we did not continue to add analyses against age and gender for survey 2.41.Cui Z, Tu N, Lee J, Itoh M. Influence of Demographic Factors and Automobile Brands on the Structure of Initial Trust in Driving Automation. In: 2023 Transportation Research Board 102nd Annual Meeting. 2023.https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.41142.Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin. 1988;103(3): 411-423. doi: 43.Wu G, Hu Z, Zheng J. Role stress, job burnout, and job performance in construction project managers: the moderating role of career calling. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2019;16(13): 2394. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16132394 PMID: 31284496Comment 2Driving automation is not only offered by automobile manufacturers, but also from technology companies focused on the software development, and also distributed through transportation service companies such as Uber and Lyft. I'm wondering how trust may form when there are multiple producing/delivery parties involved, and if there's anything that can be inferred on this topic from the study conducted.Reply Thank you for your comments.We agree with your opinion about discussing trust formation when there are multiple producing/delivery parties involved. This is actually a limitation of our study. We have added sentences in the section “Limitation”  to make further statements of the limitations of the current study and possible research topic in the future. “Finally, this study focused only on the brands of traditional automobile manufacturers. Currently, the social realization of driving automation is also associated with entities other than traditional automobile manufacturers, such as technology and transportation service companies , which also provide technological or service support for the development of driving automation. Therefore, research can focus on trust formation when a vehicle with ADS was manufactured and promoted by multiple entities, instead of only traditional automobile manufacturers. ”Reviewer #2Comment 1The manuscript requires thorough proofreading to remove grammatical errors and words used in the wrong context. Page 2, line 17；Page 8 line 130; Page 9 line 157: “win” ReplyThank you for your comments. We have changed "win" to "earn" in the three places and checked the same wrongs in other places such as Page 7 line 126; Page 8 lines 151; Page 24 line 404; Page 25 line 439; Page 26 line 443; Page 27 line 470; Page 29 line 522. Besides, we checked other language-usage issues.Comment 2Page 2 line 19 in abstract: Please revise this sentence “For automobile brands highly trusted in, drivers possess more rich and various cognitive structures with some particular characteristics. ”ReplyThank you for your suggestions. We have revised the sentence in abstract to “for automobile brands with higher trust in automobile brands and Level 5 ADS, drivers’ cognitive structures were richer and varied, which included particular characteristics.” Comment 3Page 3 line 24: Should talk about SAE levels - you are referring to Level 5, which are a long way from being a realityReplyThank you for your suggestions. We have revised the the first paragraph  to make clearer statements. Since the survey object is automated driving system with full driving automation (SAE level 5), we also changed all “FADS” to “Level 5 ADS” following the descriptions in the document “Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles (J3016_202104)” from SAE International. “Following the taxonomy and definition of driving automation by the Society of Automotive Engineers [1], an Automated Driving System (ADS) with full driving automation (Level 5) can operate vehicles under all road conditions, just as a skilled human driver, and does not require any supervision. Although Level 5 ADS is a long way from reality, its practical application is always expected since it can further optimize the traffic environment and help decrease the risk rate of traffic accidents.”Comment 4Page 3 line 41: Based on your definition of FADs there are no conditions they operate as they are not a reality. I would limit the capability of what you define as a FAD to Level 4 in the introduction.ReplyThank you for your comments. We have rechecked the literature we referred and the descriptions of driving automation in the document “Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles (J3016_202104)” from SAE International. We realized our mistakes in the understanding and presentation of FAD. Therefore, we deleted the inappropriate quotation of the previous studies, changed all “FADS” to “Level 5 ADS” and revised the sentences  to make clearer statements. “Level 5 ADS can work under all road conditions, just as a skilled human driver, and can reduce risk in unmanageable conditions, such as flooded roads and glare ice [1]. However, drivers’ over-trust and misuse of Level 5 ADS are problems that are impossible to predict. Therefore, the appropriate calibration of drivers’ trust in Level 5 ADS should be considered to ensure their appropriate use in the future.”In addition, we added sentences in the section of “Practice implications” (Page 28 line 499-502) to further state that the practice implications from our findings may also be applicable for calibrating initial trust in Automated Driving System with other SAE levels of driving automation besides Level 5 ADS. “Finally, this study focused only on the brands of traditional automobile manufacturers. Currently, the social realization of driving automation is also associated with entities other than traditional automobile manufacturers, such as technology and transportation service companies , which also provide technological or service support for the development of driving automation. Therefore, research can focus on trust formation when a vehicle with ADS was manufactured and promoted by multiple entities, instead of only traditional automobile manufacturers. ”Comment 5Page 9 line 160: You are assuming that all brands increases trust. Wouldn’t you assume that a strong respected brand would increase trust and the least respected brand would lower trust?ReplyThank you for your comments. We have revised the sentences  to make clearer hypothesis. “Hypothesis 1 (H1): There would be a positive relationship between drivers’ trust in automobile brands and their initial trust in Level 5 ADS. ”Comment 6Page 9 line 164: “ higher and less initial trust ” Doesn't make sense.ReplyThank you for your comments. We have revised the sentences  to make a clearer Hypothesis 3. “Hypothesis 3 (H3): The cognitive structures of automobile brand drivers with higher trust and lower trust would have distinctly different characteristics.”Comment 7Page 10 line 171: Was this survey in English or Japanese? Please state clearly.ReplyThank you for your suggestions.We have added “in Japanese” to make a clearer state for both survey 1  and survey 2 Comment 8Page 10 line 179: “Brand 1 in the current paper. Brand 1, Brand 2”Please state these Brands e.g. Honda, Mercedes, etc.Page 18 line 288: “ Brand 1 and 2 in the high trust group, Brand 3 and 5 ” Again, must make it very clear what these brands werePage 24-25 line 383-392: Figure 5-9, Not readableReplyThank you for your suggestions.We did not revise these, because we have to comply with our ethics review results and hide the actual brands surveyed in the current study. For figure 5-9, the unreadable words with mosaics were those can easily lead readers to know what these brands are, such as the name of the product.Comment 9Page 10 line 187: “following”following what?ReplyThank you for your comments.We have added the missed words “the descriptions of SAE” (Page 10 line 177).Comment 10Page 17 line 272: “The above results of repeated” Don't use the term above or below, state the sectionReplyThank you for your comments.We have revised the sentences to “The results of the repeated measures ANOVA on the main effect of automobile brand on trust showed both trust in automobile brand and trust in Level 5 ADS significantly differ across automobile brands.” to clearly state the section  ” Any females? ReplyThank you for your comments.We have checked the raw data and added the data of females (Page 17 line 287).Comment 11Page 17 line 283: “ right, seems very high?ReplyThank you for your comments.We have checked the raw data and revised the inaccurate or wrong values of age (Page 17 line 287). The accurate age range of the collected samples in study 2 was 25-70 years. Since there were 23.3% of 40-49 years, 33.0% of 50-59 years, and 22.3% of over 60 years, the averaged age was actually very high.Comment 12https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201806/”, Updated version: https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_202104/Page 33 line 548: “SAE. Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated Driving Systems. 2018;J3016_201806. Available from: ReplyThank you for your comments. https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_202104/. ”We have updated the newest version in the reference list for introduction. “[1]SAE. Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicle. 2021; J3016_202104. Available from: https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201806/.”For the one for method, because study 1 was conducted in 2020, during which the version of J3016_201806 was used to introduce driving automation to the participants, we added another reference in the reference list. “[37] SAE. Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicle. 2018; J3016_201806. Available from:  5 Apr 2023Effects of brand and brand trust on initial trust in fully automated driving systemPONE-D-22-29912R1Dear Dr. Cui,We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.Please see the comment of Reviewer #1 (below) asking you to explain how the L5 ADS was described to the respondents. I encourage you to insert this information into the final proof. Additionally, you may wish to clarify right before listing your hypotheses that they are based on your considerations presented above.Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at onepress@plos.org.If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact Kind regards,Wojciech Trzebinski, Ph.D.Academic EditorPLOS ONEAdditional Editor Comments :Reviewers' comments:Reviewer's Responses to Questions <font color="black"> Comments to the Author </font> 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressedReviewer #2: All comments have been addressed********** <font color="black"> 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? </font> The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #2: Yes********** <font color="black"> 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?  </font> Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #2: Yes********** <font color="black"> 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. </font> The Reviewer #1: NoReviewer #2: Yes********** <font color="black"> 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? </font> PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #2: Yes********** <font color="black"> 6. Review Comments to the Author </font> Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing all previous comments. The only question I have left is how the L5 ADS was described to the respondents. Given that self-driving is a concept that is widely misunderstood by the general public, it would be helpful to see how the term was presented to participants and how a baseline understanding was established.Reviewer #2: (No Response)********** <font color="black"> 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. </font> Reviewer #1: NoReviewer #2: No********** 26 Apr 2023PONE-D-22-29912R1 Effects of brand and brand trust on initial trust in fully automated driving systemDear Dr. Cui:I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. onepress@plos.org.If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact plosone@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staffon behalf ofDr. Wojciech Trzebinski Academic EditorPLOS ONE