The attribution of success when using navigation aids

Figures & data

Table 1 Independent variables.

Variable	Level	Text presented
Navigation success	On time	‘She/He takes the correct route and arrives on time.’
	Delayed	‘She/He takes a wrong turn on the way and arrives at the pub a little late.’
	Lost	‘After an hour of searching she/he is completely lost and has to ask a passer-by for directions.’
Type of navigation aid^a	Satellite navigation	‘Following the directions from her/his satellite Navigation System (such as a TomTom or Garmin).’
	Routing engine	‘uses a web-based routing engine (such as Google Maps or Bing Maps)’
	Paper map	‘uses a paper map’

a Note that while the type of navigation aid was described, detailed information about integration with the aid, such as drawing on a map or printing the results from a routing engine, was not specified. It was thought that this level of specificity would increase the risk of participants commenting on an interaction with which they were not familiar, thus introducing a confounding variable.

Figure 1 Questions presented with each vignette in section one of the survey.

Figure 2 Mean scores and 95% confidence boundaries for ‘Navigation Aid Attribution’ in others.

Figure 3 Mean scores and 95% confidence boundaries for ‘Skill Attribution’ in others.

Table 2 Univariate MANOVA results for section one with Greenhouse–Geisser sphericity correction.

IV	Measure	Sum of squares	F	df
Level of success	Skill Attribution	19.865	3.840	1.807
	Aid Attribution	148.024	26.375	1.824
Type of navigation aid	Skill Attribution	115.722	21.926	1.736
	Aid Attribution	72.667	16.690	1.983

Note: All effects significant at p < 0.05.

Table 3 Pairwise comparisons for section one results.

Comparison by success	Level of Success 1	Level of Success 2	Mean difference	Standard error
Skill Attribution	Lost	Delayed	0.024	0.225
	Lost	On time	0.607	0.286
	Delayed	On time	0.583	0.228
Aid Attribution	Lost	Delayed	0.060	0.295
	Lost	On time	− 1.595	0.244
	Delayed	On time	− 1.655	0.232
Comparison by navigation type	Navigation Type 1	Navigation Type 2
Skill Attribution	Paper map	Routing engine	0.940	0.207
	Paper map	Sat. Nav.	1.655	0.246
	Routing engine	Sat. Nav.	0.712	0.292
Aid Attribution	Paper map	Routing Engine	− 0.548	0.217
	Paper map	Sat. Nav.	− 1.310	0.231
	Routing engine	Sat. Nav.	− 0.762	0.234

Note: Significant results at p ≤ 0.05 after correction are highlighted in bold.

Table 4 Thematic analysis of section two responses for level of success and attribution of success.

Level of success theme	Number of comments	Example comments
Disastrous	9	‘It was a total disaster and meant instead of taking 1 hour to get there it took us 3 hours!’ – Participant 89‘Completely unsuccessful, I basically just ended up at my destination through pure luck’ – Participant 16
Annoying delays	13	‘Once I'd reached the rough area, it took me over an hour to find the hotel.’ – Participant 1‘Not very successful on the way there. Although we made it, and didn't take any wrong turns or have to backtrack, the journey was much longer than it should have been.’ – Participant 26
Mixed feelings	7	‘I found my way in the end although getting lost was frustrating. The upside was that using the map meant I got to know that area much better and the next time I had to drive out that direction I found my way without a map.’ – Participant 6‘The original navigation was not very successful, as I failed to find the station. However, the second attempt went well, and I had no problems once I had the more detailed information.’ – Participant 66
Positive experience	43	‘We only took one wrong turn on the way there which only delayed us for a minute as we were able to turn around swiftly. Apart from that we navigated successfully.’ – Participant 32‘Very successful – only one wrong turn, corrected almost instantly.’ – Participant 77
Complete success	16	‘The journey turned out to be excellent. I took no wrong turns and got to my destination with time to spare!’ – Participant 64‘No problems, did not take any wrong turns, followed planned route.’ – Participant 96
Attribution of success theme	Number of comments	Example comments
Egocentric view	36	‘I am a very experienced traveller and am rarely lost.’ – Participant 22‘My ability to match a description to a map, therefore I feel it was my ability to navigate.’ – Participant 81
Navigation aids	25	‘Google maps knowing about traffic/road closures etc. in real time.’ – Participant 34
External factors	9	‘Garmin definitely was the reason we got lost.’ – Participant 94‘It was partly bad luck … which led to us getting lost.’ – Participant 4‘Being able to ask people for directions.’ – Participant 12
Mixed	18	‘The quality of my navigation aids, my friend's ability to follow instructions while driving and bit of luck that my HSPA+ connection held out for the entire journey.’ – Participant 30‘The quality of the system and I usually have a good sense of direction.’ – Participant 93

Table 5 χ² residuals, after Yates' correction, for success level against success attribution.

	Egocentric view	Navigation aid	External factors	Mixed
Disastrous	− 2.1	2.6	1.1	− 1.6
Annoying delays	− 2.5	− 1.2	4.9	− 1.2
Mixed feelings	2.8	− 0.9	− 0.7	− 1.3
Positive experience	− 1.7	0.6	− 3.1	4.2
Complete success	3.5	− 1.1	− 2.2	− 0.2

Note: Significant residuals (absolute value ≥ 2.0) are highlighted in bold.

Table 6 χ² residuals after Yates' correction for navigation aid against success attribution.

	Egocentric view	Navigation aid	External factors	Mixed
Asking someone	− 0.42	− 0.02	1.31	0.00
Satellite navigation	− 4.29	3.07	0.00	0.31
Routing engine	0.08	− 0.15	− 0.81	0.88
Map	2.38	− 0.84	− 0.34	− 0.19
Multiple methods	1.75	− 0.56	0.00	− 0.63

Note: Significant residuals (absolute value ≥ 2.0) are highlighted in bold.