skip to main content

Title: Exploring Defaults and Framing effects on Privacy Decision Making in Smarthomes
Research has shown that privacy decisions are affected by heuristic influences such as default settings and framing, and such effects are likely also present in smarthome privacy de- cisions. In this paper we pose the challenge question: How exactly do defaults and framing influence smarthome users’ privacy decisions? We conduct a large-scale scenario-based study with a mixed fractional factorial design, and use sta- tistical analysis and machine learning to investigate these effects. We discuss the implications of our findings for the designers of smarthome privacy-setting interfaces.
; ;
Award ID(s):
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the SOUPS 2018 Workshop on the Human aspects of Smarthome Security and Privacy (WSSP)
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. The Internet of Things provides household device users with an ability to connect and manage numerous devices over a common platform. However, the sheer number of possible privacy settings creates issues such as choice overload. This article outlines a data-driven approach to understand how users make privacy decisions in household IoT scenarios. We demonstrate that users are not just influenced by the specifics of the IoT scenario, but also by aspects immaterial to the decision, such as the default setting and its framing.
  2. Differential privacy protects an individual's privacy by perturbing data on an aggregated level (DP) or individual level (LDP). We report four online human-subject experiments investigating the effects of using different approaches to communicate differential privacy techniques to laypersons in a health app data collection setting. Experiments 1 and 2 investigated participants' data disclosure decisions for low-sensitive and high-sensitive personal information when given different DP or LDP descriptions. Experiments 3 and 4 uncovered reasons behind participants' data sharing decisions, and examined participants' subjective and objective comprehensions of these DP or LDP descriptions. When shown descriptions that explain the implications instead ofmore »the definition/processes of DP or LDP technique, participants demonstrated better comprehension and showed more willingness to share information with LDP than with DP, indicating their understanding of LDP's stronger privacy guarantee compared with DP.« less
  3. We investigate the effects of perspective taking, privacy cues, and portrayal of photo subjects (i.e., photo valence) on decisions to share photos of people via social media. In an online experiment we queried 379 participants about 98 photos (that were previously rated for photo valence) in three conditions: (1) Baseline: participants judged their likelihood of sharing each photo; (2) Perspective-taking: participants judged their likelihood of sharing each photo when cued to imagine they are the person in the photo; and (3) Privacy: participants judged their likelihood to share after being cued to consider the privacy of the person in themore »photo. While participants across conditions indicated a lower likelihood of sharing photos that portrayed people negatively, they – surprisingly – reported a higher likelihood of sharing photos when primed to consider the privacy of the person in the photo. Frequent photo sharers on real-world social media platforms and people without strong personal privacy preferences were especially likely to want to share photos in the experiment, regardless of how the photo portrayed the subject. A follow-up study with 100 participants explaining their responses revealed that the Privacy condition led to a lack of concern with others’ privacy. These findings suggest that developing interventions for reducing photo sharing and protecting the privacy of others is a multivariate problem in which seemingly obvious solutions can sometimes go awry.« less
  4. Purpose. To make course-based, undergraduate design projects more manageable, instructors often reduce or remove the open-ended quality, which in turn limits opportunities for students to learn to frame design problems. Here we introduce and characterize the construct, framing agency, which involves taking up opportunities to make consequential decisions about design problems and how to proceed in learning and developing solutions. Methodology. We employed a multi-case study design, selecting cases of student design teams across different sites and levels, all in undergraduate engineering courses. Teams were audio/video recorded during their design process. We adapted a functional linguistics tool [1] to identifymore »markers of agency in students’ design discourse, comparing and contrasting the cases to illuminate the nuances of framing agency. We also identified learning versus task-completion orientations. Results. All students exhibited agency in some form, but not all exhibited framing agency. Analysis suggests that framing agency is commonly shared across participants and tentative in nature early in the design process. Students who exhibited framing agency tended to adopt a learning rather than task-completion orientation. Students who exhibited agency, but not framing agency, made decisions that foregrounded accuracy and efficiency at the expense of exploring tentative ideas, and tended to treat the problem as having a single right answer. Conclusions. We argue that how students negotiate design problem framing depends on whether or not they consider the design problem relevant and authentic, the belief that each member brings different and potentially useful information to the task, and the opportunity to iterate design ideas over time. Framing agency provides a lens for understanding the kinds of design learning experiences students need to direct their own learning and negotiate that learning with peers in design projects.« less
  5. In the innovation process, design practice involves multiple iterations of framing and reframing under high levels of uncertainty and ambiguity. Additionally, as user desirability is a significant criterion for innovative design, designers' empathy in the framing and reframing process is considered a critical user-centered design ability that engineering students should develop. In this context, this study aims to discuss how problem framing and empathy manifestation interplay in the innovation process. As an exploratory study, this study investigates biomedical engineering (BME) students’ reframing processes and decisions in a one-semester design project involving problem definition and concept identification. This investigation is guidedmore »by the following research questions: 1) how do engineering students perceive the relationship between empathy and reframing in the innovation process, 2) how and how often do they make reframing decisions over the stages of problem definition and concept identification, and 3) how different are reframing processes and decisions between teams with higher and lower empathetic design tendency scores? This study was conducted in a junior-level design course, including 76 BME students. We collected and analyzed three data sources: students’ self-reflection reports about their reframing processes, empathic design tendency score, and interviews with selected teams and instructors. The results demonstrated that more than half of the students perceived the connection between empathy and their reframing decisions and that they usually had one reframing moment in the stages of problem definition and concept identification. Also, the findings illustrate triggers for their reframing moments, information sources guiding their reframing processes, changes made through reframing, and influences of reframing decisions on team project processes. Furthermore, the comparison of the selected two teams revealed two differences in reframing processes between the high and low empathic design tendency-scoring teams. The authors believe that the study expands engineering education research on engineering students’ empathy and problem-framing by illustrating students’ reframing processes throughout a design project and exploring the interplay of empathy and reframing processes. Also, based on our study findings, engineering design educators can promote student empathy development by including more project activities and evaluation criteria related to empathic design and providing formative feedback on their reframing processes.« less