All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Response Patterns in Computer-Administered Surveys
Unformatted Document Text:  Computer Administered Surveys 16 This table indicates that while the self-reported behavior of reading privacy policies is again approximately a 50-50 split, the observed behavior is not concurrent with these findings. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Hypothesis 1 (Users who are warned about the dangers of cookies being placed on their computers will nonetheless accept the cookies without an explanation of the cookie’s purpose.) was intended to test participants’ willingness to accept what could conceivably be a malicious or mischievous piece of tracking software. Surprisingly, 85.5% of participants who were randomly assigned to be part of the Hypothesis 1 Group chose to accept what they thought was a cookie. Because this particular study did not need to use an actual cookie for data gathering purposes, one was not placed on participants’ computers – this is also fortuitous in that the researcher did not possess the programming ability to create a cookie. It was deemed to be an acceptable risk – not actually putting a cookie on participants’ computers – because, as cookies are usually placed on Internet users’ computers without the users’ knowledge of it, the assumption that the participants would not actually know if a cookie was deposited on their system or not was a safe one. The fact that this hypothesis is supported is both a boon and a burden. If Internet marketing professionals can replicate this study on a larger scale and continue to support Hypothesis 1, their work could be enhanced with the use of cookies; however, should malicious parties recognize the implications of the support of Hypothesis 1, they could apply themselves to further harming Internet users. Hypothesis 2, which tests participants’ behaviors when it came to providing personal information, was also supported. Of the 87 participants in the Hypothesis 2 Group, 93.1% of them chose to provide personal information – operationalized as a personal e-mail address –

Authors: Roseman, Joshua. and Mitrook, Michael.
first   previous   Page 17 of 25   next   last



background image
Computer Administered Surveys
16
This table indicates that while the self-reported behavior of reading privacy policies is again
approximately a 50-50 split, the observed behavior is not concurrent with these findings.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Hypothesis 1 (Users who are warned about the dangers of cookies being placed on
their computers will nonetheless accept the cookies without an explanation of the cookie’s
purpose.) was intended to test participants’ willingness to accept what could conceivably be a
malicious or mischievous piece of tracking software. Surprisingly, 85.5% of participants who
were randomly assigned to be part of the Hypothesis 1 Group chose to accept what they
thought was a cookie. Because this particular study did not need to use an actual cookie for
data gathering purposes, one was not placed on participants’ computers – this is also
fortuitous in that the researcher did not possess the programming ability to create a cookie. It
was deemed to be an acceptable risk – not actually putting a cookie on participants’
computers – because, as cookies are usually placed on Internet users’ computers without the
users’ knowledge of it, the assumption that the participants would not actually know if a
cookie was deposited on their system or not was a safe one.
The fact that this hypothesis is supported is both a boon and a burden. If Internet
marketing professionals can replicate this study on a larger scale and continue to support
Hypothesis 1, their work could be enhanced with the use of cookies; however, should
malicious parties recognize the implications of the support of Hypothesis 1, they could apply
themselves to further harming Internet users.
Hypothesis 2, which tests participants’ behaviors when it came to providing personal
information, was also supported. Of the 87 participants in the Hypothesis 2 Group, 93.1% of
them chose to provide personal information – operationalized as a personal e-mail address –


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 17 of 25   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.