LA ACTUALIDAD EN EL ÁREA DE LOS ALIMENTOS FUNCIONALES: PERFILES

A total of 45 participants where gathered for this phase of the study from courses across the University of Salford. A full breakdown of participants within this experiment can be found in appendix 7. Specifically, these participants came from the Business School (E-business and Information Systems) and the School of Science and Technology (Media and Networking). Participants were randomised between the treatment groups.

Table 13, below, summarises the results of the levels of non-disclosure across all the treatment groups. Note, there are two measures for the perceived control group, the first summarises the initial behaviour before it is reviewed and resubmitted as a result of the treatment applied to the group.

Table 13 - Summary of Results

Group Number of Participants Average Total Amount of non-disclosure per participant

Standard Deviation Total % of questions answered for the whole group

% of Yes answers when responded (total answered) Control ₁₀ 3.7 4.3 _{87% 53.4%} PA ₁₁ 9.73 6.74 _{68% 36.7%} SN ₁₂ 10.17 7.32 _{66% 47.1%} PC1 ₁₂ 12.17 9.6 _{59% 41.4%} PC2 ₁₂ 18.58 7.54 _{38% 54.1%}

Note, PC1 and PC2 represent perceived control prior and after privacy review and is the same group

The table presents the average number of unanswered questions per question grouping per participant and gives the average per participant for the process as a whole as well as the standard deviation for the groups. The total number of non-disclosed items for the entire

114 group is also provided. Again, from the previous chapter, the Perceived Control group holds two measures, one before and one after the privacy salient review added by the treatment. Table 14 - Summary of Disclosure - Only "Yes" Responses

Group Number of Participants Average Total Amount of non-disclosure per participant

Standard Deviation Total Group Disclosure when only counting “yes” responses Control ₁₀ 8.8 3.3 _68% PA ₁₁ 15.8 5.9 _45% SN ₁₂ 14.6 6.3 _48% PC1 ₁₂ 16.3 5.5 _39% PC2 ₁₂ 20.5 7.1 _28%

Table 15, below, details the results of a series of Mann Whitney U tests performed on the levels of non-disclosure for the treatment group compared to the control. The Mann Whitney test is chosen due to the small sample size and as result of the data not following a normal distribution. Hence, nonparametric tests are chosen as the statistical analysis tool for this experiment.

Table 15 - Summary of Statistical Tests ran on levels of disclosure

Group Statistical Test applied Disclosure P-Value for unanswered questions

Disclosure P-Value using only “Yes” responses to binary questions

Personal Attitude Mann Whitney U P=0.029 P=0.005

Perceived Control (Pre Salient Review)

Mann Whitney U P=.003 P=0.002

Perceived Control (Post Salient review)

Mann Whitney U P<0.0001 P<0.0001

Subjective Norms Mann Whitney U P=0.025 P=0.043

Given that a value of p<0.05 is considered required for statistically significant results, an initial look at the table would suggest that participants within treatment groups answered significantly less questions during their account creation. This does not take into account which questions were answered by the participants but illustrates that, where treatments are present, less questions were filled in for the group as a whole. The second P-Value calculation does take into account what responses were made to the questions. Specifically, those with a binary response and deals only with yes responses (i.e. responding “no” counts as non-

115 disclosure); findings, again, indicate that there statistically significant difference between the groups.

It would appear that H1, H3 and H5 have therefore tested true after an initial review of the data obtained from this experiment and this will be returned to throughout the discussion to ascertain the potential cause of the effect. A detailed breakdown of the results will be provided through the discussion following this section.

The above, initial, review of H1, H3 and H5 would suggest that changes to the UI have altered the behaviour of participants in the treatment groups. Table 16 breaks down the responses to questions according to the sensitivity areas described in the experiment design chapter and used as the basis for advice offered by the treatments in other groups. The table details responses for both the total questions answered in each category and total when discounting questions where “no” has been answered. As the green category does not contain any yes/no questions there is no data for this section and no column for it.

Table 16 - Location of Disclosure (Note, red indicates the least answered sensitivity grouping)

Group % of “Green” questions answered % of “Yellow” questions answered % of “Red” questions answered % of “Yellow” questions, only yes % of “Red” questions, only yes Control 82% 90.3% 90% 60% 63% Attitude 60% 75% 67% 42% 32% PC1 54% 64% 57% 40% 33% PC2 39% 42% 33% 30% 18% Subjective 63% 76% 58% 48% 33.3%

If participants are considering their privacy then it is a reasonable assumption to make that disclosure will be the least in the more sensitive categories. The size of this effect should be greater in groups with salient properties embedded as they may draw attention to the sensitivity of information, providing participants with a “nudge” to consider their privacy. It would appear, from table 17, that participants did not choose to disclose based on their privacy due to the decreases in the green category also.

Table 17 - Statistical comparisons of categories to control

Group Test Green Yellow Red Yellow, only yes Red, only yes PA Mann Whitney .082 .084 .022 .033 .001 SN Mann Whitney .131 .199 .004 .193 .005 PC1 Mann Whitney .026 .003 .005 .014 .002 PC2 Mann Whitney .006 .001 .001 .006 .001

116

When examining only “Yes” responses disclosure was the least in the yellow and red

categories when compared to the control. However, the spread when examining total questions answered is less clear; for example, the PA and SN group is not statistically different from the control for the yellow categories while the PC group held a significant reduction in the green category also. This may suggest that participants are not disclosing based on the sensitivity of the information asked for.

H2, H4 and H6 posited that participants within groups with salient features embedded in the UI would exhibit increased application of privacy settings when compared to the control. Table 18 details the averages for the settings scores obtained across the groups.

Table 18 - Settings Results Overview

Group Privacy Settings (St. Dev) Connection Settings Control 108 0 PA 145.45 0 SN 72.5 10 PC1 160 13.3 PC2 171.67 92.5

Table 19 details the results of Mann Whitney tests performed on the settings scores. Table 19 - Settings Statistical Tests

The treatments representing personal attitude and perceived control held increases in the average settings scores for their groups as a whole. However, these were not statistically significant as detailed in table 19. The subjective norms treatment actually held a decrease (trending in the direction opposite to the expected) in the group average when compared to the control and this, also, was without statistical significance. The reasons for this will be explored in the following discussion.

Group Statistical Test Settings P Values

Personal Attitude Mann Whitney U P=0.468

Perceived Control (Pre Salient Review)

Mann Whitney U P=0.381

Perceived Control (Post Salient review)

Mann Whitney U P=0.228

117 No groups followed the connection settings with any consistency suggesting that perhaps self-efficacy was not affected to the extent that participants were willing to explore further privacy enhancing mechanisms. This will be explored later in the chapter.

Therefore, the null hypothesis for H2, H4 and H6 cannot be rejected from this dataset as there was no evidence that participants protected more when reminded of privacy when compared to the control group.