Factors Influencing the Purchase of Security Software for Mobile Devices - Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated whether we could \textit{nudge} users to purchase a premium version of mobile security software after using a trial version for 2-3 months. Our three interface designs used two persuasion methods: two \textit{decoy} interfaces that attempted to nudge users to purchasing longer duration licenses, and one interface that used \textit{reciprocity} in order to determine the value that people associated with the security software. We had approximately 60,000 participants for our study who completed a questionnaire, and again we had approximately 60,000 who were exposed to proposed variants. There were 12,000 participants who intersected both data samples, from which we also analyzed purchase decision patterns across our wide participant range, including users of English, German, Slovak, and Czech language versions. Our results indicate that factors such as gender, age, home country, and attitudes towards privacy and data sensitivity each had a significant impact on whether or not a premium license was purchased.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".