## 3 Research Methodology and Empirical Analysis  
### Summary of Core Constructs and Hypotheses  
By summarizing the established literature and sorting out the current state of practical work, nine research hypotheses are proposed as follows, and these can be summarized as shown in Figure 1.  
**Hypothesis 1.**_The Transparency of the ATS Interface (TAI) affects the Dispatcher's Trust in ATS system (DTA) (H1: TAI \(\Rightarrow\) DTA)._  
**Hypothesis 2a.**_The dispatcher's ATS System Knowledge (ASK) directly affects the Dispatcher's Trust in ATS system (DTA) (H2a: ASK \(\Rightarrow\) DTA)._  
**Hypothesis 2b.**_The dispatcher's ATS System Knowledge (ASK) affects their understanding of the Transparency of the ATS Interface (TAI) (H2b: ASK \(\Rightarrow\) TAI)._  
**Hypothesis 3.**_The ATS's Capability Redundancy (ACR) directly affects the Dispatcher's Trust in ATS system (DTA) (H3: ACR \(\Rightarrow\) DTA)._  
**Hypothesis 4a.**_The Dispatchers' Trust in the ATS system (DTA) affects their Reliance Behavior on ATS under Routine monitoring (RBR) (H4a: DTA \(\Rightarrow\) RBR)._  
**Hypothesis 4b.**_The Dispatchers' Trust in the ATS system (DTA) affects their Reliance Behavior on ATS under Emergency response (RBE) (H4b: DTA \(\Rightarrow\) RBE)._  
**Hypothesis 4c.**_The dispatchers' Reliance Behavior on ATS under Routine monitoring (RBN) affects their Reliance Behavior on ATS under Emergency response (RBE) (H4c: DTR \(\Rightarrow\) RBE)._  
**Hypothesis 5a.**_The ATS's Capability Redundancy (ACR) affects dispatchers' Reliance Behavior on ATS under Routine monitoring (RBR) (H5a: ACR \(\Rightarrow\) RBR)._  
**Hypothesis 5b.**_The ATS's Capability Redundancy (ACR) affects dispatchers' Reliance Behavior on ATS under Emergency response (RBE) (H5b: ACR \(\Rightarrow\) RBE)._  
Figure 1 presents the hypothesized model, illustrating the influence paths among the six key constructs in this study. To further clarify the theoretical foundation of these constructs, Table 1 provides their detailed definitions, factor codes, and supporting sources from the literature.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Construct** & **Factor Code** & **Conceptual Definitions and Sources** \\ \hline Dispatcher’s Trust in the ATS System & DTA & How much the dispatcher subjectively believes in the ATS system [39; 51]. \\ ATS’s Capability Redundancy & ACR & Redundancy in the ATS system’s capability to ensure safety that is perceptible to dispatchers [31; 52; 53]. \\ Dispatcher’s ATS System Knowledge & ASK & The dispatcher’s familiarity with the ATS system, associated hardware- and software-related information, and operational dispatching rules and regulations [3; 54]. \\ Transparency of the ATS Interface & TAI & The degree to which the user interface allows the dispatcher to review past history records, understand the current system status, and assist in predicting future trends [30; 31; 32]. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Conceptual definitions and sources of research constructs.  
Figure 1: Conceptual framework of the hypotheses and their influence paths. Notes: TAI, Transparency of the ATS Interface; ASK, dispatcher’s ATS System Knowledge; ACR, ATS’s Capability Redundancy; DTA, Dispatcher’s Trust in ATS system; RBR, Reliance Behavior on ATS under Routine monitoring; RBE, Reliance Behavior on ATS under Emergency response.