Investigating Privacy Decision-Making Processes Among Nigerian Men and Women
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The privacy calculus framework and trust heuristics has been used to understand people’s privacy decision-making processes. However, most existing studies are mainly focused on people from developed countries. In this study, we use the privacy calculus in combination with trust heuristics to analyse how people from a developing African nation make decisions. Specifically, we conduct a web-based experiment in which 232 participants from Nigeria used a financial planning prototype app to respond to a number of disclosure questions. We examined how their perceived benefit, perceived sensitivity, and trust in the app influenced their disclosure decisions. In addition, we investigated possible moderating effects of gender and used Partial Least Squares path modelling to analyze our data. Our results show that perceived sensitivity (risks) and perceived benefits influenced the decision-making process of our participants. In addition, women were more likely to change their perception of sensitivity and benefits based on trust, while men were more likely to disclose information based on their perception of benefits. We also found that women were less likely to disclose their information to the app than men. Based on our findings, we make recommendations for educators, financial institutions, designers, and policymakers that aim to raise privacy awareness and design interventions in Nigeria and Africa at large.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it