Tue26Apr201612:00 pm - 01:00 pmNQ 3100 (The Ehrlicher Room), North Quad, 105 S. State St. Ann Arbor MI 48109
[Talk] Daphne Chang and Chanda Phelan
Daphne Chang is a doctoral candidate at UMSI. She draws on methods and concepts from economics and psychology to examine the impact of social influence and personal perception on individuals’ behaviors. Her current projects include the influence of social norms on prosocial behavior, the effect of moods on risky choices, and the impact of nudges on information disclosure.
Nudging behaviors through user interface design is a practice that is well-studied in HCI research. Corporations often use this knowledge to modify online interfaces to influence user information disclosure. In this paper, we experimentally test the impact of norm-shaping design patterns on information divulging behavior. We show that (1) a set of images, biased toward more revealing figures, change subjects’ personal views of appropriate information to share; (2) that shifts in perceptions significantly increases the probability that a subject divulges personal information; and (3) that these shift also increases the probability that the subject advises others to do so. Our main contribution is empirically identifying a key mechanism by which norm-shaping designs can change beliefs and subsequent disclosure behaviors.
Chanda Phelan is a PhD student in human-computer interaction working with Dr. Paul Resnick at UMSI. Her research focus is designing for underprivileged groups, particularly as related to health behavior change. Her current research projects include a walking program that leverages existing social networks to promote social support and motivation to help users become more active. She is also a Rackham Merit Fellow. She holds a MS in information economics from UMSI and a BA in English from Pomona College.
Undergraduates interviewed about privacy concerns related to online data collection made apparently contradictory statements. The same issue could evoke concern or not in the span of an interview, sometimes even a single sentence. Drawing on dual-process theories from psychology, we argue that some of the apparent contradictions can be resolved if privacy concern is divided into two components we call intuitive concern, a “gut feeling,” and considered concern, produced by a weighing of risks and benefits. Consistent with previous explanations of the so-called privacy paradox, we argue that people may express high considered concern when prompted, but in practice act on low intuitive concern without a considered assessment. We also suggest a new explanation: a considered assessment can override an intuitive assessment of high concern without eliminating it. Here, people may choose rationally to accept a privacy risk but still express intuitive concern when prompted.