skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Who Would Bob Blame? Factors in Blame Attribution in Cyberattacks Among the Non-adopting Population in the Context of 2FA.
Title: Who Would Bob Blame? Factors in Blame Attribution in Cyberattacks Among the Non-adopting Population in the Context of 2FA.
This study focuses on identifying the factors contributing to a sense of personal responsibility that could improve understanding of insecure cybersecurity behavior and guide research toward more effective messaging targeting non-adopting populations. Towards that, we ran a 2(account type)x2(usage scenario)x2(message type) between-group study with 237 United States adult participants on Amazon MTurk, and investigated how the non-adopting population allocates blame, and under what circumstances they blame the end user among the parties who hold responsibility: the software companies holding data, the attackers exposing data, and others. We find users primarily hold service providers accountable for breaches but they feel the same companies should not enforce stronger security policies on users. Results indicate that people do hold end users accountable for their behavior in the event of a breach, especially when the users’ behavior affects others. Implications of our findings in risk communication is discussed in the paper.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1750908
PAR ID:
10171230
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
IEEE 44th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC)
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; (, IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems)
    Cognitive and psychological studies on morality have proposed underlying linguistic and semantic factors. However, laboratory experiments in the philosophical literature often lack the nuances and complexity of real life. This paper examines how well the findings of these cognitive studies generalize to a corpus of over 30,000 narratives of tense social situations submitted to a popular social media forum. These narratives describe interpersonal moral situations or misgivings; other users judge from the post whether the author (protagonist) or the opposing side (antagonist) is morally culpable. Whereas previous work focuses on predicting the polarity of normative behaviors, we extend and apply natural language processing (NLP) techniques to understand the effects of descriptions of the people involved in these posts. We conduct extensive experiments to investigate the effect sizes of features to understand how they affect the assignment of blame on social media. Our findings show that aggregating psychology theories enables understanding real-life moral situations. Moreover, our results suggest that there exist biases in blame assignment on social media, such as males are more likely to receive blame no matter whether they are protagonists or antagonists. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; (, Business and Politics)
    Abstract Public decision-makers incorporate algorithm decision aids, often developed by private businesses, into the policy process, in part, as a method for justifying difficult decisions. Ethicists have worried that over-trust in algorithm advice and concerns about punishment if departing from an algorithm’s recommendation will result in over-reliance and harm democratic accountability. We test these concerns in a set of two pre-registered survey experiments in the judicial context conducted on three representative U.S. samples. The results show no support for the hypothesized blame dynamics, regardless of whether the judge agrees or disagrees with the algorithm. Algorithms, moreover, do not have a significant impact relative to other sources of advice. Respondents who are generally more trusting of elites assign greater blame to the decision-maker when they disagree with the algorithm, and they assign more blame when they think the decision-maker is abdicating their responsibility by agreeing with an algorithm. 
    more » « less
  3. ; (, Harvard Dataverse)
    This dataset includes Replication Data for the paper "Regret, blame, and division of responsibility in games." 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; (, Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages)
    Contract systems, especially of the higher-order flavor, go hand in hand with blame. The pragmatic purpose of blame is to narrow down the code that a programmer needs to examine to locate the bug when the contract system discovers a contract violation. Or so the literature on higher-order contracts claims. In reality, however, there is neither empirical nor theoretical evidence that connects blame with the location of bugs. The reputation of blame as a tool for weeding out bugs rests on anecdotes about how programmers use contracts to shift blame and their attention from one part of a program to another until they discover the source of the problem. This paper aims to fill the apparent gap and shed light to the relation between blame and bugs. To that end, we introduce an empirical methodology for investigating whether, for a given contract system, it is possible to translate blame information to the location of bugs in a systematic manner. Our methodology is inspired by how programmers attempt to increase the precision of the contracts of a blamed component in order to shift blame to another component, which becomes the next candidate for containing the bug. In particular, we construct a framework that enables us to ask for a contract system whether (i) the process of blame shifting causes blame to eventually settle to the component that contains the bug; and (ii) every shift moves blame ``closer'' to the faulty component. Our methodology offers a rigorous means for evaluating the pragmatics of contract systems, and we employ it to analyze Racket's contract system. Along the way, we uncover subtle points about the pragmatic meaning of contracts and blame in Racket: (i) the expressiveness of Racket's off-the-shelf contract language is not sufficient to narrow down the blamed portion of the code to the faulty component in all cases; and (ii) contracts that trigger state changes (even unexpectedly, perhaps in the runtime system's data structures or caches) interfere with program evaluation in subtle ways and thus blame shifting can lead programmers on a detour when searching for a bug. These points highlight how evaluations such as ours suggest fixes to language design. 
    more » « less
  5. ; (, Leibniz international proceedings in informatics)
    In this work, we present an unexpected connection between gradual typing and type error debugging. Namely, we illustrate that gradual typing provides a natural way to defer type errors in statically ill-typed programs, providing more feedback than traditional approaches to deferring type errors. When evaluating expressions that lead to runtime type errors, the usefulness of the feedback depends on blame tracking, the defacto approach to locating the cause of such runtime type errors. Unfortunately, blame tracking suffers from the bias problem for type error localization in languages with type inference. We illustrate and formalize the bias problem for blame tracking, present ideas for adapting existing type error debugging techniques to combat this bias, and outline further challenges. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email