Kristie Fisher

Nudging People Away from Privacy-Invasive Mobile Apps through Visual Framing

Smartphone users visit application marketplaces (or app stores) to search and install applications. However, these app stores are not free from privacy-invasive apps, which collect personal information without sufficient disclosure or people’s consent. To nudge people away from privacy-invasive apps, we created a visual representation of the mobile app’s privacy rating. Inspired by “Framing Effects,” we designed semantically equivalent visuals that are framed in either a positive or negative way. We investigated the effect of the visual privacy rating, framing, and user rating on people’s perception of an app (e.g., trustworthiness) through two experiments. In Study 1, participants were able to understand the intended meaning of the visual privacy ratings. In Study 2, we found a strong main effect for visual privacy rating on participants’ perception of an app, and framing effects in a low privacy rating app. We discuss implications for designing visual privacy ratings, including the use of positive visual framing to nudge people away from privacy-invasive apps.

Following the standard form: effects of equation format on algebraic modeling.

When people construct algebraic equations to represent quantitative relations, they often reverse the roles of the variables (6S = P instead of 6P = S). Results from three experiments show that a major reason for such reversal errors is people’s adherence to, and interpretation of, the Standard Form of algebraic models. College students constructed, selected, and interpreted algebraic models that either had the standard multiplication format (MF: ax = y), or the mathematically equivalent division format (DF: y/a = x). A large minority of participants constructed reversed MF models, whereas most participants who were instructed to use DF equations constructed correct models (Experiment 1). Most participants understood that MF and DF models of the same relation should be mathematically equivalent (Experiment 2), but they drew a conceptual distinction between these models (Experiment 3). The authors discuss the impact of notational conventions on people’s interpretation and use of representational tools.