Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interaction Design and Experiment with Conversational Storytelling for Road Safety Culture

Pollini, Alessandro, Paciello, Marinella, Saleri, Giorgia, Corbelli, Giuseppe·2023·Interaction Design and Architecture(s)
DOI 10.55612/s-5002-058-008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.55612/s-5002-058-008

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. 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 · DOI
  2. 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 · DOI
  3. 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 · doi:10.1016/j.trd.2021.102790
  4. 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 · DOI
  5. 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 · DOI
  6. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 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 · DOI
  8. 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 · DOI
  9. 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 · DOI
  10. 13. Bailey, B. (2009). America's army: Making the all-volunteer force. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr.117.3.897 · doi:10.1086/ahr.117.3.897
  11. 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 · DOI
  12. 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 · DOI
  13. 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 · DOI
  14. 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 · DOI
  15. 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 · DOI
  16. 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 · DOI
  17. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 22. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031819100033131 · doi:10.1017/s0031819100033131
  20. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 29. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5(1), 307-337.
  25. 30. Bandura, A. (1976). Self-reinforcement: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Behaviorism, 4(2), 135-155.
  26. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 33. Bandura, A. (2015). On deconstructing commentaries regarding alternative theories of self-regulation. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315572826 · DOI
  29. 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 · DOI
  30. 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 · DOI
  31. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 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 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 2

Metadata

Authors
Pollini, A., Paciello, M., Saleri, G., & Corbelli, G.
Venue
Interaction Design and Architecture(s)
Publisher
Association for Smart Learning Ecosystems and Regional Development
Published
2023-10-01
Issue
58
Pages
185-206
ISSN
2283-2998
DOI
10.55612/s-5002-058-008
Cited by
2
References
4

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interaction Design and Experiment with Conversational Storytelling for Road Safety Culture. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.55612/s-5002-058-008
The paper
Pollini, A., Paciello, M., Saleri, G., & Corbelli, G. (2023). Interaction Design and Experiment with Conversational Storytelling for Road Safety Culture. Interaction Design and Architecture(s). https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-058-008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.