Alessandro Pollini, Marinella Paciello, Giorgia Saleri, Giuseppe Corbelli
pp. 185 – 206, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-058-008)
Abstract
Road safety culture among young people necessarily needs to be addressed with a multidisciplinary approach, since they are more reluctant than adults to engage and be openly evaluated in safety research. The present research, using a psychographic through psychometrics approach, combines concepts and methods from cognitive psychology and design to investigate behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes and to increase knowledge about the design and effects of adopting interactive technologies. In particular, we describe the processes, experiences, and results of the research and interaction design of a conversational storytelling mobile app for road safety, in which mobile computing was used to collect and give meaning to qualitative and quantitative data related to road safety decisions. The results of the analyses carried out on the data collected by the mobile app confirm the effectiveness of this interactional tool in capturing the complexity of the combination of contextual, personal, and behavioral factors related to compliance toward road safety.
Keywords: Conversational Storytelling, Decision-making, Interaction design, Moral Engagement.
References
1. Weston, L. M. (2005). What helps and what hinders the independent mobility of non-driving teens. The University of Texas at Austin.
2. Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M.: Human error taxonomies applied to driving: A generic driver error taxonomy and its implications for intelligent transport systems. Saf. Sci. 47, 227–237 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.03.006
3. Lu, M., Wevers, K., Van Der Heijden, R.: Technical Feasibility of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) for Road Traffic Safety. Transp. Plan. Technol. 28, 167–187 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060500120282
4. Lopez-Carreiro, I., Monzon, A., Lopez, E., & Lopez-Lambas, M. E. (2020). Urban mobility in the digital era: An exploration of travellers’ expectations of MaaS mobile-technologies. Technology in Society, 63, 101392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101392
5. Nikiforiadis, A., Paschalidis, E., Stamatiadis, N., Raptopoulou, A., Kostareli, A., & Basbas, S. (2021). Analysis of attitudes and engagement of shared e-scooter users. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 94, 102790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102790
6. Chaudhry, A.-G., Masoumi, H., & Dienel, H.-L. (2023). A systematic literature review of mobility attitudes and mode choices: MENA and South Asian cities. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2022.1085784
7. Roosan, D., Li, Y., Law, A., Truong, H., Karim, M., Chok, J., & Roosan, M. (2019). Improving medication information presentation through interactive visualization in mobile Apps: human factors design. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7(11), e15940. https://doi.org/10.2196/15940
8. Faherty, L. J., Hantsoo, L., Appleby, D., Sammel, M. D., Bennett, I. M., & Wiebe, D. J. (2017). Movement patterns in women at risk for perinatal depression: use of a mood-monitoring mobile application in pregnancy. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(4), 746-753. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx005
9. Tong, T., Chignell, M., Tierney, M. C., & Lee, J. (2016). A serious game for clinical assessment of cognitive status: validation study. JMIR serious games, 4(1), e5006. https://doi.org/10.2196/games.5006
10. Penuelas-Calvo, I., Jiang-Lin, L. K., Girela-Serrano, B., Delgado-Gomez, D., Navarro-Jimenez, R., Baca-Garcia, E., & Porras-Segovia, A. (2020). Video games for the assessment and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review. European child & adolescent psychiatry, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-020-01557-w
11. Charalambous, A. P., Pye, A., Yeung, W. K., Leroi, I., Neil, M., Thodi, C., & Dawes, P. (2020). Tools for app-and web-based self-testing of cognitive impairment: systematic search and evaluation. Journal of medical Internet research, 22(1), e14551. https://doi.org/10.2196/14551
12. Dergousoff, K., & Mandryk, R. L. (2015, April). Mobile gamification for crowdsourcing data collection: Leveraging the freemium model. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1065-1074). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702296
13. Bailey, B. (2009). America’s army: Making the all-volunteer force. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr.117.3.897
14. Schrier, K. (2019). Designing games for moral learning and knowledge building. Games and Culture, 14(4), 306-343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412017711514
15. Schrier, K. (2016). Emotion, empathy, and ethical thinking in Fable III. In Emotions, technology, and digital games (pp. 35-60). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-801738-8.00003-8
16. Sicart, M. (2009). The banality of simulated evil: designing ethical gameplay. Ethics and information technology, 11(3), 191-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-009-9199-5
17. Consalvo, M. (2005). Rule sets, cheating, and magic circles: Studying games and ethics. The International Review of Information Ethics, 4, 7-12. https://doi.org/10.29173/irie162
18. Koo, G., & Seider, S. (2010). Video games for prosocial learning. In Ethics and game design: Teaching values through play (pp. 16-33). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-845-6.ch002
19. Wouters, P., & Van Oostendorp, H. (2017). Overview of instructional techniques to facilitate learning and motivation of serious games. In Instructional techniques to facilitate learning and motivation of serious games (pp. 1-16). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39298-1_1
20. Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 32(5), 519-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032005001
21. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American psychologist, 44(9), 1175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.44.9.1175
22. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031819100033131
23. Kohlberg, L., & Kramer, R. (1969). Continuities and discontinuities in childhood and adult moral development. Human development, 12(2), 93-120. https://doi.org/10.1159/000270857
24. Damasio, A. R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 351(1346), 1413-1420. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0125
25. Pizarro, D. (2000). Nothing more than feelings? The role of emotions in moral judgment. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(4), 355-375. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00135
26. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological review, 108(4), 814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814
27. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The quarterly journal of economics, 69(1), 99-118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
28. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 248-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-l
29. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5(1), 307-337.
30. Bandura, A. (1976). Self-reinforcement: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Behaviorism, 4(2), 135-155.
31. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 4(3), 359-373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359
32. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(2), 364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364
33. Bandura, A. (2015). On deconstructing commentaries regarding alternative theories of self-regulation. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315572826
34. Hystad, S. W., Mearns, K. J., & Eid, J. (2014). Moral disengagement as a mechanism between perceptions of organisational injustice and deviant work behaviours. Safety Science, 68, 138-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.03.012
35. Barbaranelli, C., & Perna, A. (2004). Meccanismi di disimpegno morale nell’applicazione delle normative sulla sicurezza: contributo empirico. Risorsa Uomo.
36. Probst, T. M., Petitta, L., Barbaranelli, C., & Austin, C. (2020). Safety-related moral disengagement in response to job insecurity: Counterintuitive effects of perceived organizational and supervisor support. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(2), 343-358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4002-3
37. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and psychological measurement, 55(5), 818-831. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055005017
38. Lindeman, M., & Verkasalo, M. (2005). Measuring values with the short Schwartz’s value survey. Journal of personality assessment, 85(2), 170-178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8502_09
39. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6