Efectos beneficiosos de la fibra alimentaria

This treatment combined traffic lights of PA with the review pages of PC allowing participants to make initial selections of what to disclose based on the privacy salient information and then review and edit this information again. The levels of disclosure observed were least in the higher sensitivity ratings than in the green category suggesting participants were selective in terms of what they answered and either followed the advice of the treatment or regarded their own privacy during the experiment. The initial results in this group (before the PC treatment) are not statistically different from the single factor PA group suggesting similar behaviour (p=.546 and p=.914 for only “Yes” responses). It was also not statistically different from single factor PC1 (p=.127 and p=.096). Unlike single factor PC1 however, there was a statistically significant decrease when compared to the control (although, not when only considering “yes” responses). This would suggest that participants are making a selective decision over what to answer based on the PA treatment before submitting their data to the PC treatment. Having already made these choices would they then reconsider them based on the PC treatment? Disclosure was decreased post-review and the change in the group is significant for both yes and no responses (Wilcoxon p=.028 and p=.001) and PAPC2 was statistically reduced from the PA group (Mann Whitney p<.0001 for both counts of disclosure) suggesting that participants made their choices and were then persuaded to protect further by the control mechanism. However, despite there being a decrease compared to PC2 with a seemingly large reduction in the yellow and red categories (23% and 18% respectively) this is not statistically significant (p=.175 and p=.325).

154 Table 39 - PAPC Exit-Survey Results

Statement Agreed Neutral Disagreed

I found the privacy information

helpful 46%

38% 15%

The privacy information helped

me select what to fill in 54%

23% 23%

The privacy information helped me select which settings to

choose

38% 31% 31%

I believe the privacy information would be beneficial

in the long-run

54% 31% 15%

I acted differently due to the

privacy information’s presence 38% 38% 23%

I liked the extra privacy

information 46%

38% 15%

The presence of two sources of

information was confusing 31%

46% 23%

The presence of two sources of

information was better than one 23%

62% 15%

Much as in the PA and SN treatment group, participant responses are reduced in the agreed column from the single factor groups; despite the apparent effect of the treatment being greater than those groups. Participant’s appreciation for the treatment seems to diminish the higher the potential effect of the treatment is. Again, perhaps being unwilling to admit the extent of its influence or finding the combination of the two an annoyance. Indeed, the focus group highlighted: I’d already made my decision about what to disclose before reviewing, it was overkill. In relation to this, 62% of participants in this group preferred the traffic lights over the review form (23% the review and 15% neither) suggesting that, for those participants, the added review may have provided an annoyance rather than an aid. So similar to the previous two factor group there appears to be a preference for the more suggestive traffic lights rather than the more explicit advice box. The reason for change despite already making privacy conscious decisions according to a participant echoes the response from the single PC group: I wanted to get the score low. Participants, despite potentially already making their privacy decisions, endeavoured to disclose less than perhaps they would have done otherwise and this seems to be due to the persuasiveness of the dynamic score giving them something tangible to aim for. Again, the influence of a sub-conscious goal may be playing a part in informing and influencing their behaviour as mentioned earlier; in this case the goal of getting a low score which may not be representative of actual participant desire. A Participant post-experiment felt that their choices were based on their own common sense rather than because of the treatment yet did not elaborate on whether they were reminded of their common sense due to the treatment of not. Indeed, they felt they may have been but could not say for certain.

155 Interestingly, the settings scores increased with statistical significance within this group when compared to the control; this and the other combined PC treatment were the only groups were this was the case. This statistical increase occurred upon the review of data after participant changed their originally submitted scores. Despite this, only 38% of participants agreed with the statement that the treatment helped them choose their settings and 31% outright disagreed with it. Furthermore, the group did not change the connection settings until reviewing their data when the settings are explicitly presented to the participant by the treatment; they may have felt that, when presented, they can choose the settings but that the treatment did not aid in that. Again, it maybe those participants are unaware of the effect that the treatment potentially held over them and felt that it did not play a role at all.