## 3 Method
### Statistical Analysis  
The resulting _DS_ values of all participants were correlated with their self-reported driving style of the pre-questionnaire using [PERSON]'s tau correlation to compare the perception of driving dynamics across participants. The difference between driving styles was calculated between the _PDS_ and _ADS_ according to the following formula:  
\[\Delta{DS}=ADS-PDS, \tag{2}\]  
The resulting differences were divided into three groups. Positive differences represent a more aggressive (DS\({}_{\text{magg}}\)) and negative differences a more defensive (DS\({}_{\text{mdef}}\)) driving style of the AV compared to the participant's PDS. Differences close to zero represent a driving style that is similar or equal to the PDS (DS\({}_{\text{eq}}\)). The similarity threshold \(ST\) for differences defining a similar to equal driving style was calculated by Equation (3) and based on two factors. \[ST=\pm(2\sigma_{ADS}+\Delta{DB}). \tag{3}\]  
Although the AV and safety driver followed a strict driving style guideline, the AV's driving style varied within a certain value range due to different traffic conditions. The first factor, therefore, considers the influence of traffic on the driving style by taking twice the variance of the AV's driving style. The influence of the driver was considered negligible as the driver was trained in replicating the same driving style. In addition, the L2 function was active for more than 75% of the drive on average, which further reduced any potential influence \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Unit** & **Artificial VD Driver** & **Artificial VA Driver** & **Condition** \\ \hline Maximum Velocity & km/h & 115 & 180 & No Speed Limit \\  & & & & \(60\,\text{km}/\text{h}<v\leq 140\) km/h \\ Median Time gap & s & \(-2.50\) & \(-1.00\) & \(dhw\leq\ s_{stop}\) \\  & & & & \(v>60\,\text{km}/\text{h}\) \\ Time gaps below 1 s & \% & 5 & 40 & \(dhw\leq\ s_{stop}\) \\  & & & & \(v>60\,\text{km}/\text{h}\) \\ Time above Speed Limit & \% & 0 & 80 & \(80\,\text{km}/\text{h}\leq v_{lim}\leq 120\) km/h \\ \hline Resulting Driving Style DS & - & **0.02** & **0.87** & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Parameter values for an artificial very defensive (VD) and very aggressive (VA) driver. of the driver. The second factor \(\Delta DB\) represents the difference between two driving styles due to differences in driving behavior and was set to 0.1. For H1, a Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare the participants' comfort and safety ratings between the groups' \(\text{DS}_{\text{mdef}}\) and \(\text{DS}_{\text{eq}}\), as well as \(\text{DS}_{\text{eq}}\) and \(\text{DS}_{\text{magg}}\). A prerequisite for a group comparison was a minimum number of five participants and ten ratings in each group. Furthermore, the differences and ratings needed to show a significant correlation before a group comparison was performed in order to check if a general relationship between the two parameters could be observed without group classification. For the calculation of the correlation, [PERSON]'s tau was used. For all group comparisons, a Bonferroni-Holm correction was applied. In addition to H1, the PDS and DDS were compared using a paired \(t\)-test to evaluate if the participants' DDS was more defensive than their PDS. To analyze the increase in trust before and after the AV drive in dependency on the different group classifications of the experienced automated driving style, a mixed ANOVA for H2 was performed. For H3 and H4, an unpaired \(t\)-test was used to compare the experienced anthropomorphism and driving strategy that were asked in the post-questionnaire between participants who selected the experienced ADS as their exclusive or one of several preferred driving styles for CAD (Selected ADS) and those who selected among other driving styles for CAD (Unselected ADS).