Development and Validation of the Lifelong Artificial Intelligence Ethical Awareness Scale (LAIEAS)

Year 2025, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 319 - 329, 31.12.2025

Veysel Bilal Arslankara , Ertuğrul Usta

https://doi.org/10.51535/tell.1813310

Abstract

This study aimed to develop and validate the Lifelong Ethical Awareness in Artificial Intelligence Scale (LAIEAS), designed to measure individuals’ ethical awareness toward artificial intelligence (AI) technologies within the framework of lifelong learning. The research followed a methodological design, including item pool generation, expert evaluation, pilot testing, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and reliability-validity assessments. Data were collected online from two independent samples: a pilot group of 200 participants for Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and a confirmatory group of 472 participants for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The initial 60-item pool was refined to a 26-item final form after excluding low-loading and cross-loading items. EFA results revealed a five-factor structure Awareness, Values/Attitude, Behavioral Intention, Critical Evaluation, and Lifelong Learning/Adaptation explaining 82.4% of the total variance (KMO = .931, Bartlett’s χ²(1770) = 6214.54, p < .001). CFA results confirmed the model’s adequacy with excellent fit indices (χ²/df = 2.47, CFI = .962, TLI = .953, RMSEA = .049, SRMR = .041). Reliability coefficients were high across all dimensions (Cronbach’s α ≥ .86), and validity analyses supported the convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity of the scale (AVE = .65-.72, HTMT < .85). The test–retest reliability over a three week interval yielded r = .89 (p < .001). The findings indicate that AIEAS is a psychometrically sound and theoretically grounded instrument for assessing individuals’ ethical awareness, values, and behaviors concerning AI technologies. The scale highlights that ethical awareness is not a static trait but a dynamic and lifelong competency integrating cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Therefore, LAIEAS provides a valid and reliable tool for educational, institutional, and policy contexts to evaluate and promote ethical consciousness in the age of artificial intelligence.

Keywords

lifelong ethic , ethical awareness , artificial intelligence , scale development

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Arslankara, V. B. (2025). Artificial intelligence age communication in the context of instrumental rationality. Journal of Continuous Vocational Education and Training, 8(1), 98-114.
• Arslankara, V. B., & Usta, E. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence as a lifelong learning self efficacy: Usage and competence scale. Journal of Teacher Education and Lifelong Learning, 6(2), 288-302. https://doi.org/10.51535/tell.1489304
• Arslankara, V. B., & Usta, E. (2025). Yapay zeka her dilde aynı mı konuşur? üretken yapay zeka yanıtlarının dile göre farklılaşması üzerine bir inceleme. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Ereğli Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 623-641.
• Boddington, P. (2017). Towards a code of ethics for artificial intelligence. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31960648-4
• Candy, P. C. (2002). Lifelong learning and information literacy. White House Conference on School Libraries. Washington, DC: U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.
• Cath, C. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: Ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2133), 20180080. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0080
• Collins, C., Dennehy, D., Conboy, K., & Mikalef, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence in information systems research: A systematic literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 60, 102383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102383
• Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). London: Sage. Floridi, L. (2019). The logic of information: A theory of philosophy as conceptual design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
• Gert, B. (2004). Common morality: Deciding what to do. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Grassini, S. (2023). Development and validation of the AI attitude scale (AIAS-4): a brief measure of general attitude toward artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 14:1191628. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1191628
• Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines, 30(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8
• Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Paris: OECD Publishing. Structural
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Equation https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), -1-55.
• Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389-399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 Journal of Teacher Education and Lifelong Learning 329
• Knapper, C., & Cropley, A. J. (2010). Lifelong learning in higher education (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Lin, P., Abney, K., & Bekey, G. A. (2020). Robot ethics 2.0: From autonomous cars to artificial intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-16). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
• Ma, M., Ng, D. T. K., Liu, Z., Lin, J., & Wong, G. K. W. (2025). Why don’t teachers teach AI ethics? Understanding teachers’ beliefs and intentions in Chinese AI curriculum implementation through the theory of planned behaviour. Computers and Education:
• Artificial Intelligence, 9, 100518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100518 Attitude Marengo, A., Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., Yilmaz, R., & Ceylan, M. (2025). Development and validation of Generative Artificial Intelligence Scale for https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2025.1528455 Students. Frontiers in Computer Science, Volume 7.
• Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
• Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D. K. (2005). The psychological foundations of everyday morality and moral expertise. In D. K. Lapsley & C. Power (Eds.), Character psychology and character education (pp. 140-165). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-590241-0.50006-X
• Peng, Y., Wang, Y., & Hu, J. (2023). Examining ICT attitudes, use and support in blended learning settings for students’ reading performance: Approaches of artificial intelligence and multilevel model. Computers & Education, 203, 104846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104846
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
• Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger. Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the role of individualdifferences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 233-243. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.233
• Siau, K., & Wang, W. (2018). Building trust in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and robotics. Cutter Business Technology Journal, 31, 47-53.
• Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
• UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
• Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2009). The proximity effect: The role of inter-item distance on reverse-item bias. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(1), 2-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.09.003
• Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missing strands, and future patterns: AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1798995