People Attribute Purpose to Autonomous Vehicles When Explaining Their Behavior: Insights from Cognitive Science for Explainable AI
Balint Gyevnar, Stephanie Droop, Tadeg Quillien, Shay B. Cohen, Neil R. Bramley, Christopher G. Lucas, Stefano V. Albrecht
Abstract
It is often argued that effective human-centered explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) should resemble human reasoning. However, empirical investigations of how concepts from cognitive science can aid the design of XAI are lacking. Based on insights from cognitive science, we propose a framework of explanatory modes to analyze how people frame explanations, whether mechanistic, teleological, or counterfactual. Using the complex safety-critical domain of autonomous driving, we conduct an experiment consisting of two studies on (i) how people explain the behavior of a vehicle in 14 unique scenarios (N1 = 54) and (ii) how they perceive these explanations (N2 = 382), curating the novel Human Explanations for Autonomous Driving Decisions (HEADD) dataset. Our main finding is that participants deem teleological explanations significantly better quality than counterfactual ones, with perceived teleology being the best predictor of perceived quality. Based on our results, we argue that explanatory modes are an important axis of analysis when designing and evaluating XAI and highlight the need for a principled and empirically grounded understanding of the cognitive mechanisms of explanation. The HEADD dataset and our code are available at: https://datashare.ed.ac.uk/handle/10283/8930.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 127b8a7a-d282-4fe0-9834-fa4c0c56fa88Builds on8
- Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User ExperiencesQ. Vera Liao, Daniel M. Gruen, Sarah MillerCHI 2020 · 758 citations
- Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measuresI. Elizabeth Kumar, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, Carlos Scheidegger, Sorelle A. FriedlerICML 2020 · 458 citations
- "Help Me Help the AI": Understanding How Explainability Can Support Human-AI InteractionSunnie S. Y. Kim, Elizabeth Anne Watkins, Olga Russakovsky, Ruth Fong et al.CHI 2023 · 178 citations
- The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI ExplanationsUpol Ehsan, Samir Passi, Q. Vera Liao, Larry Chan et al.CHI 2024 · 121 citations
- Calibrating Pedestrians' Trust in Automated Vehicles: Does an Intent Display in an External HMI Support Trust Calibration and Safe Crossing Behavior?Stefanie M. Faas, Johannes Kraus, Alexander Schoenhals, Martin BaumannCHI 2021 · 56 citations
Related papers
- When to Explain: Modeling User Need for Explanations in Real-World Autonomous DrivingShihong Ling, Yaohan Ding, Yu Liu, Yue Wan et al.CHI 2026 · 1 citation
- Contrastive Explanations That Anticipate Human Misconceptions Can Improve Human Decision-Making SkillsZana Buçinca, Siddharth Swaroop, Amanda E. Paluch, Finale Doshi-Velez et al.CHI 2025 · 31 citations
- A Psychological Theory of ExplainabilityScott Cheng-Hsin Yang, Tomas Folke, Patrick ShaftoICML 2022 · 21 citations
- Preferences for AI Explanations Based on Cognitive Style and Socio-Cultural FactorsHana Kopecka, Jose Such, Michael LuckCSCW 2024 · 15 citations
- What Do People Want to Know about Artificial Intelligence (AI)? The Importance of Answering End-user Questions to Explain Autonomous Vehicle (AV) DecisionsSomayeh Molaei, Lionel Peter Robert, Nikola BanovicCSCW 2025 · 2 citations
