skip to main content
Explore Scholarly Publications and Datasets in the NSF-PAR

Title: Privacy as a Planned Behavior: Effects of Situational Factors on Privacy Perceptions and Plans
To account for privacy perceptions and preferences in user models and develop personalized privacy systems, we need to understand how users make privacy decisions in various contexts. Existing studies of privacy perceptions and behavior focus on overall tendencies toward privacy, but few have examined the context-specific factors in privacy decision making. We conducted a survey on Mechanical Turk (N=401) based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to measure the way users’ perceptions of privacy factors and intent to disclose information are affected by three situational factors embodied hypothetical scenarios: information type, recipients’ role, and trust source. Results showed a positive relationship between subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, and between each of these and situational privacy attitude; all three constructs are significantly positively associated with intent to disclose. These findings also suggest that, situational factors predict participants’ privacy decisions through their influence on the TPB constructs.
Authors:
; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1657774
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10223377
Journal Name:
UMAP ’21, June 21–25, 2021, Utrecht, Netherlands © 2021 Association for Computing Machinery.
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ( , Information and computer security)
    Furnell, Steven (Ed.)
    A huge amount of personal and sensitive data is shared on Facebook, which makes it a prime target for attackers. Adversaries can exploit third-party applications connected to a user’s Facebook profile (i.e., Facebook apps) to gain access to this personal information. Users’ lack of knowledge and the varying privacy policies of these apps make them further vulnerable to information leakage. However, little has been done to identify mismatches between users’ perceptions and the privacy policies of Facebook apps. We address this challenge in our work. We conducted a lab study with 31 participants, where we received data on how they share information in Facebook, their Facebook-related security and privacy practices, and their perceptions on the privacy aspects of 65 frequently-used Facebook apps in terms of data collection, sharing, and deletion. We then compared participants’ perceptions with the privacy policy of each reported app. Participants also reported their expectations about the types of information that should not be collected or shared by any Facebook app. Our analysis reveals significant mismatches between users’ privacy perceptions and reality (i.e., privacy policies of Facebook apps), where we identified over-optimism not only in users’ perceptions of information collection, but also on their self-efficacy in protectingmore »their information in Facebook despite experiencing negative incidents in the past. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study on the gap between users’ privacy perceptions around Facebook apps and the reality. The findings from this study offer directions for future research to address that gap through designing usable, effective, and personalized privacy notices to help users to make informed decisions about using Facebook apps.« less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ( , 2018 IEEE World Congress on Services (SERVICES))
    In Location-Based Services (LBS), users are required to disclose their precise location information to query a service provider. An untrusted service provider can abuse those queries to infer sensitive information on a user through spatio-temporal and historical data analyses. Depicting the drawbacks of existing privacy-preserving approaches in LBS, we propose a user-centric obfuscation approach, called KLAP, based on the three fundamental obfuscation requirements: k number of locations, l-diversity, and privacy area preservation. Considering user's sensitivity to different locations and utilizing Real-Time Traffic Information (RTTI), KLAP generates a convex Concealing Region (CR) to hide user's location such that the locations, forming the CR, resemble similar sensitivity and are resilient against a wide range of inferences in spatio-temporal domain. For the first time, a novel CR pruning technique is proposed to significantly improve the delay between successive CR submissions. We carry out an experiment with a real dataset to show its effectiveness for sporadic, frequent, and continuous service use cases.
  3. ; ( , ARES 2021: The 16th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security)
    In order to create user-centric and personalized privacy management tools, the underlying models must account for individual users’ privacy expectations, preferences, and their ability to control their information sharing activities. Existing studies of users’ privacy behavior modeling attempt to frame the problem from a request’s perspective, which lack the crucial involvement of the information owner, resulting in limited or no control of policy management. Moreover, very few of them take into the consideration the aspect of correctness, explainability, usability, and acceptance of the methodologies for each user of the system. In this paper, we present a methodology to formally model, validate, and verify personalized privacy disclosure behavior based on the analysis of the user’s situational decision-making process. We use a model checking tool named UPPAAL to represent users’ self-reported privacy disclosure behavior by an extended form of finite state automata (FSA), and perform reachability analysis for the verification of privacy properties through computation tree logic (CTL) formulas. We also describe the practical use cases of the methodology depicting the potential of formal technique towards the design and development of user-centric behavioral modeling. This paper, through extensive amounts of experimental outcomes, contributes several insights to the area of formal methods andmore »user-tailored privacy behavior modeling.« less
  4. ( , Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.)
    Abstract: 100 words Jurors are increasingly exposed to scientific information in the courtroom. To determine whether providing jurors with gist information would assist in their ability to make well-informed decisions, the present experiment utilized a Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired intervention and tested it against traditional legal safeguards (i.e., judge instructions) by varying the scientific quality of the evidence. The results indicate that jurors who viewed high quality evidence rated the scientific evidence significantly higher than those who viewed low quality evidence, but were unable to moderate the credibility of the expert witness and apply damages appropriately resulting in poor calibration. Summary: <1000 words Jurors and juries are increasingly exposed to scientific information in the courtroom and it remains unclear when they will base their decisions on a reasonable understanding of the relevant scientific information. Without such knowledge, the ability of jurors and juries to make well-informed decisions may be at risk, increasing chances of unjust outcomes (e.g., false convictions in criminal cases). Therefore, there is a critical need to understand conditions that affect jurors’ and juries’ sensitivity to the qualities of scientific information and to identify safeguards that can assist with scientific calibration in the courtroom. The current project addresses thesemore »issues with an ecologically valid experimental paradigm, making it possible to assess causal effects of evidence quality and safeguards as well as the role of a host of individual difference variables that may affect perceptions of testimony by scientific experts as well as liability in a civil case. Our main goal was to develop a simple, theoretically grounded tool to enable triers of fact (individual jurors) with a range of scientific reasoning abilities to appropriately weigh scientific evidence in court. We did so by testing a Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired intervention in court, and testing it against traditional legal safeguards. Appropriate use of scientific evidence reflects good calibration – which we define as being influenced more by strong scientific information than by weak scientific information. Inappropriate use reflects poor calibration – defined as relative insensitivity to the strength of scientific information. Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995) predicts that techniques for improving calibration can come from presentation of easy-to-interpret, bottom-line “gist” of the information. Our central hypothesis was that laypeople’s appropriate use of scientific information would be moderated both by external situational conditions (e.g., quality of the scientific information itself, a decision aid designed to convey clearly the “gist” of the information) and individual differences among people (e.g., scientific reasoning skills, cognitive reflection tendencies, numeracy, need for cognition, attitudes toward and trust in science). Identifying factors that promote jurors’ appropriate understanding of and reliance on scientific information will contribute to general theories of reasoning based on scientific evidence, while also providing an evidence-based framework for improving the courts’ use of scientific information. All hypotheses were preregistered on the Open Science Framework. Method Participants completed six questionnaires (counterbalanced): Need for Cognition Scale (NCS; 18 items), Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; 7 items), Abbreviated Numeracy Scale (ABS; 6 items), Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS; 11 items), Trust in Science (TIS; 29 items), and Attitudes towards Science (ATS; 7 items). Participants then viewed a video depicting a civil trial in which the defendant sought damages from the plaintiff for injuries caused by a fall. The defendant (bar patron) alleged that the plaintiff (bartender) pushed him, causing him to fall and hit his head on the hard floor. Participants were informed at the outset that the defendant was liable; therefore, their task was to determine if the plaintiff should be compensated. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 experimental conditions: 2 (quality of scientific evidence: high vs. low) x 3 (safeguard to improve calibration: gist information, no-gist information [control], jury instructions). An expert witness (neuroscientist) hired by the court testified regarding the scientific strength of fMRI data (high [90 to 10 signal-to-noise ratio] vs. low [50 to 50 signal-to-noise ratio]) and gist or no-gist information both verbally (i.e., fairly high/about average) and visually (i.e., a graph). After viewing the video, participants were asked if they would like to award damages. If they indicated yes, they were asked to enter a dollar amount. Participants then completed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Modified Short Form (PANAS-MSF; 16 items), expert Witness Credibility Scale (WCS; 20 items), Witness Credibility and Influence on damages for each witness, manipulation check questions, Understanding Scientific Testimony (UST; 10 items), and 3 additional measures were collected, but are beyond the scope of the current investigation. Finally, participants completed demographic questions, including questions about their scientific background and experience. The study was completed via Qualtrics, with participation from students (online vs. in-lab), MTurkers, and non-student community members. After removing those who failed attention check questions, 469 participants remained (243 men, 224 women, 2 did not specify gender) from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds (70.2% White, non-Hispanic). Results and Discussion There were three primary outcomes: quality of the scientific evidence, expert credibility (WCS), and damages. During initial analyses, each dependent variable was submitted to a separate 3 Gist Safeguard (safeguard, no safeguard, judge instructions) x 2 Scientific Quality (high, low) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Consistent with hypotheses, there was a significant main effect of scientific quality on strength of evidence, F(1, 463)=5.099, p=.024; participants who viewed the high quality evidence rated the scientific evidence significantly higher (M= 7.44) than those who viewed the low quality evidence (M=7.06). There were no significant main effects or interactions for witness credibility, indicating that the expert that provided scientific testimony was seen as equally credible regardless of scientific quality or gist safeguard. Finally, for damages, consistent with hypotheses, there was a marginally significant interaction between Gist Safeguard and Scientific Quality, F(2, 273)=2.916, p=.056. However, post hoc t-tests revealed significantly higher damages were awarded for low (M=11.50) versus high (M=10.51) scientific quality evidence F(1, 273)=3.955, p=.048 in the no gist with judge instructions safeguard condition, which was contrary to hypotheses. The data suggest that the judge instructions alone are reversing the pattern, though nonsignificant, those who received the no gist without judge instructions safeguard awarded higher damages in the high (M=11.34) versus low (M=10.84) scientific quality evidence conditions F(1, 273)=1.059, p=.30. Together, these provide promising initial results indicating that participants were able to effectively differentiate between high and low scientific quality of evidence, though inappropriately utilized the scientific evidence through their inability to discern expert credibility and apply damages, resulting in poor calibration. These results will provide the basis for more sophisticated analyses including higher order interactions with individual differences (e.g., need for cognition) as well as tests of mediation using path analyses. [References omitted but available by request] Learning Objective: Participants will be able to determine whether providing jurors with gist information would assist in their ability to award damages in a civil trial.« less
  5. ; ; ( , Physics Education Research Conference 2022)
    Frank, Brian W. ; Jones, Dyan L. ; Ryan, Qing X. (Ed.)
    The ways in which physics majors make career decisions is a critical, yet understudied, aspect of the undergraduate experience. Such decisions are important to students, physics departments, and administrators. In this project, we specifically examine how students develop interests and intent to pursue specific subfields of physics by interviewing 13 physics majors from all years of study. The interviews examined factors that led students to choose their most preferred and least preferred subfields. Interviews leveraged the framework of Social Cognitive Career Theory, a model that describes how several constructs such as self-efficacy, learning experiences, and outcome expectations relate to decision-making. Findings highlight the differences in decision-making between upper-division students and beginning students. For instance, we see how popular culture and popular science provide an initial learning experience about certain subfields, such as astronomy and astrophysics, which strongly affect beginning students' perceptions of that subfield. Initial exposure to biology and chemistry in high school or early undergraduate classes often negatively affected students' interests in fields like biophysics or chemical physics. Data also suggests a splitting between students with respect to their outcome expectations of a desirable career in science. While some students prioritize using science to help people, others prioritize discoverymore »of new knowledge though science, and some are in between. Students in both groups form perceptions about subfields that do not align with their identities and hence make decisions based on these perceptions. For instance, a student who prioritizes helping others through science may be quick to reject astrophysics as a subfield choice as they do not think that astrophysics can help people enough.« less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email