Providing personalized behavioral information as feedback to drivers can lead to safer practices. However, feedback efficacy is likely moderated by the driver's level of motivation towards behavioral change. Gamification of feedback, which is the incorporation of game design elements intended to motivate drivers toward safe behaviors, could potentially reduce unsafe behaviors in the long term. This article assesses a gamified driver feedback design in mitigating driver distraction and enhancing driving performance among younger drivers. A driving simulator study was conducted with 42 drivers, 21–30 years old, comparing: 1) no feedback; 2) real-time feedback; 3) real-time feedback + postdrive feedback; and 4) real-time feedback + postdrive feedback + game design elements to examine their impact on distraction engagement (manual-visual interactions with an in-vehicle display) and driving performance. Groups that received postdrive feedback, both with and without gamification elements, showed reduced distraction engagement and enhanced driving performance compared to no feedback. Between the two types of postdrive feedback, the nongamified feedback provided more benefits in reducing the 95th percentile glance duration to the in-vehicle display, and the one with gamification provided more benefits in reducing the rate of manual interactions with the in-vehicle display. Meanwhile, no benefits were observed with the real-time feedback only condition over no feedback. Despite minor differences in efficacy, both postdrive and gamification feedback appear to be effective countermeasures for distracted driving in the short term. Future research should investigate other game designs for driver feedback and assess the impact of feedback gamification over longer-term exposure.

Inappropriate speed choice increases crash risk. Emerging technologies, such as in-vehicle systems, can provide real-time and post-drive feedback to alert or educate drivers of their unsafe speed choices. Financial incentives, such as insurance reductions, can also be integrated with feedback. Although previous research supports the benefits of these approaches, research is limited in establishing their relative effectiveness and their long-term impact on speed limit compliance. A naturalistic driving study with 58 participants was conducted to investigate the effects of post-drive feedback versus financial incentives, both provided in conjunction with real-time feedback, on mitigating speeding behaviors. The study included a four-week long baseline data collection period (no feedback), a ten-week intervention period examining three feedback types in a between subjects design (real-time only; real-time and financial incentives; and real-time and post-drive feedback), and a two-week post-intervention period (feedback removed). Both real-time feedback alone and in conjunction with financial incentives were effective in raising speed limit compliance, but the effects did not sustain after the removal of feedback/incentives. Post-drive feedback, which was provided in the vehicle after a trip and as aggregated feedback on a website, does not appear to provide any benefits toward speed limit compliance; potential factors, including (voluntary) access frequency of post-drive feedback website, are discussed. Future research should continue to explore the feedback/incentive design space—carefully considering individual differences in driver characteristics and motivations—for supporting speed limit compliance and other risky driving behaviors.

Algorithmic fairness research has traditionally been linked to the disciplines of philosophy, ethics, and economics, where notions of fairness are prescriptive and seek objectivity. Increasingly, however, scholars are turning to the study of what different people perceive to be fair, and how these perceptions can or should help to shape the design of machine learning, particularly in the policy realm. The present work experimentally explores five novel research questions at the intersection of the "Who," "What," and "How" of fairness perceptions. Specifically, we present the results of a multi-factor conjoint analysis study that quantifies the effects of the specific context in which a question is asked, the framing of the given question, and who is answering it. Our results broadly suggest that the "Who" and "What," at least, matter in ways that are 1) not easily explained by any one theoretical perspective, 2) have critical implications for how perceptions of fairness should be measured and/or integrated into algorithmic decision-making systems.

This study examines driver engagement with smartwatches and smartphones while driving. Twelve participants (7 novice and 5 experienced smartwatch users) drove in a high-fidelity simulator while receiving notifications from either a smartwatch (Pebble) or a smartphone (LG Nexus 5). It was found that participants had more glances, on average, per notification while using the smartwatch compared to the smartphone. Further, their brake response times were longer when they received notifications prior to a lead vehicle braking event on the smartwatch compared to when they did not receive any notifications and when they received notifications on the smartphone. Contrary to these glance and driving performance findings, participants perceived similar levels of risk for the two devices, and they largely reported that smartwatch use while driving should receive penalties equal to or less than smartphone use with respect to distracted driving legislation. Thus, there appears to be a disconnection between drivers' actual performance while using smartwatches and their perceptions.

Driver distraction research primarily focuses on voluntary distraction. Little known research explicitly evaluates driver susceptibility to involuntary distractions. This paper investigates the relationships between glance behavior in response to irrelevant stimuli in a driving simulator and measures of inhibitory control assessed through a modified flanker task. Overall, inhibitory control appears to be a mechanism that relates to number of glances and average glance duration. Data from 16 participants show that smaller flanker compatibility effects (i.e., better inhibitory control) are significantly associated with fewer glances and shorter average glance durations to irrelevant stimuli in the simulator. No significant relation was found between time fixation on the irrelevant stimulus after its onset and the size of the flanker compatibility effect.