Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Most studies of privacy assume that people are concerned about their online privacy, but few studies investigate why.Cognitive Science can advance our understanding by documenting the cognitive rules that influence people's judgments about privacy -judgments about what kind of personal information to reveal to whom.The purpose of my dissertation was to explicate these cognitive rules.Experiment 1 examined if the willingness to consent to share personal information varied with the kinds of personal information requested and the kinds of requestors.Fiftyfour undergraduate students and 12 middle-aged adults rated their willingness to consent to the collection of 12 different kinds of personal information by five different kinds of organizations.Participants also wrote their reasons for consenting/not consenting to share personal information with each kind of organization.Results showed that the willingness to consent varied with the kinds of personal information requested, and the organization requesting the personal information.Reasons for consenting more often reflected self-interest and reasons for not consenting more often reflected moral reasons.Willingness-to-consent ratings were also correlated with personality variables.For example, the more participants rated themselves as anxious the less willing they were to consent to share personal information.Experiment 2 explored possible double standards of willingness to consent judgments.The same participants as those in Experiment 1 rated whether or not other people should consent to the collection of the same kinds of personal information by the same kinds of organizations.Results showed that participants mostly made similar judgments about self and others' privacy, but sometimes exhibited double standards.For example, participants who rated themselves as reserved rated that others should be less willing than themselves to consent to reveal personal information. Cognitive Rules and Online Privacy iiiExperiment 3 examined if how willing people were to share personal information influenced judges' impressions of them.A different sample of 51 undergraduate students was asked to form impressions of 12 anonymous participants from Experiment 1 (the targets), selected for their variations in willingness to consent to share personal information.Participants recorded their impressions of these 12 targets on scales related to trust, trustworthiness, honesty, friendliness, and likelihood of hiding information.The targets received less favorable impressions the less willing they were to share personal information.Collectively, the experiments indicated that the cognitive rules for judgments about privacy served functions related to self-interest and morality, and were sensitive to the kinds of personal information requested and the nature of the requestor.Prescriptions of what others should be willing to share mostly mirrored people's own willingness judgments, and the less willing others were to share requested information, the more negative impressions of them were formed.Conceptual and practical implications of the findings are discussed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».