## 5 Discussion  
This study was conducted to analyze how an automated driving style that differs from a participant's own driving style influences the perception of trust, comfort, and safety in conditional automated driving on a motorway. In addition, it was examined how anthropomorphism and driving strategy influence whether a presented automated driving style is preferred. The correlation between the calculated and self-reported DS shows a comparable perception of driving dynamics across all participants. Interestingly, the participants' self-reported DS from a co-pilot's perspective is rated as significantly more dynamic compared to their self-reported DS from the driver's perspective. This could indicate that participants are aware that the passive experience of the same situation is generally perceived as more dynamic compared to when participants are actively driving by themselves. As a result, it is conceivable that the same driving dynamics experienced during conditional automated driving are also perceived to be higher than during active manual driving. Assuming that participants perceive their own driving style as appropriate when driving actively, an improved comfort and safety experience could be achieved if the automated driving style does not correspond to the actual, but to the participants' perceived personal driving style. This thesis is supported by previous findings of [9], showing that participants want to be driven the way they think they drive, regardless of how they actually drive. Consequently, in order to develop an automated DS that participants perceive as positive, a comparatively more defensive DS would have to be selected in order to be perceived as similar to their PDS. This is in contrast with the results for H1 where participants preferred their PDS compared to an ADS that is more defensive than their own with regard to comfort. The dependency of comfort or safety on the driving style differences between PDS and ADS was set as a precondition for further analysis in H1. As it is not fulfilled for safety, only a group comparison for comfort was performed. For interpretation of the results, however, it has to be considered that only participants with a very defensive to moderate DS, with DS values ranging from 0.09 to 0.38, experienced an ADS that was equal to their PDS. Defensive drivers preferring their own DS has also been seen in [5; 6; 7]. It is, therefore, possible that the comfort level of a defensive driver is already at saturation and cannot be further increased by an even more defensive driving style. The magnitude of DS difference, on the other hand, may explain why participants who experienced a more defensive DS than their own gave lower comfort ratings. Although it has been observed in previous studies that aggressive drivers can also prefer a more defensive DS [5; 6], it might be that a too-defensive DS compared to the PDS of an aggressive driver leads to a rejection of the automated system. However, this raises the question of how an automated L3 system could adapt its driving style to the preferences of an aggressive driver while still complying with traffic regulations. As it was assumed in H1 that participants prefer a more defensive DS than their PDS, the increase in trust after the automated drive was also assumed to be higher for participants who experienced a more defensive ADS than their PDS compared to participants who experienced an ADS similar to their PDS. As the opposite was found for H1, it was assumed that participants who experienced an ADS similar to their PDS would show a higher increase in trust, contrary to the previous assumption of H2. However, no interaction effect between the experienced ADS relative to PDS and time before and after the AV drive wasfound, although participants experiencing a PDS-like ADS showed a higher increase in trust compared to participants who experienced a more defensive ADS. H2 can, therefore, either way not be confirmed.