HELLO AND WELCOME TO DECEPTION RESEARCH
This page is a result of a joint project funded by EPSRC and conducted by Cambridge University, UCL, Newcastle University and the University of Portsmouth. Here you will find info on researchers and literature on deception. Simply follow the links above.
We are eager to hear from you if you wish to contribute to this repository.
Drop us a line at: david.modic[@]cl.cam.ac.uk (as is usual, remove the square brackets).
|Scam Compliance and the Psychology of Persuasion [working paper]||
Abstract. Social psychologists have established various psychological mechanisms that influence perception of risk and compliance in general. The empirical investigation in this paper focused on how those mechanisms apply to complying with scams. A scale of susceptibility to persuasion was developed, validated and then applied to the phenomena of scam compliance in two studies. In the first study participants answered questions on the susceptibility to persuasion scale and a series of questions about lifetime compliance with 14 fraudulent scenarios. The scale was factorised and tested for reliability.
|Reading this May Harm Your Computer: The Psychology of Malware Warnings||
Abstract. Internet users face large numbers of security warnings, which they mostly ignore. To improve risk communication, warnings must be fewer but better. We report an experiment on whether compliance can be increased by using some of the social-psychological techniques the scammers themselves use, namely appeal to authority, social compliance, concrete threats and vague threats. We also investigated whether users turned off browser malware warnings (or would have, had they known how).
Preprint available from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2374379
|“What good are they going to do with our information?” - UK Citizens’ Perceptions of the 2011 Census||
UK Census (2011) respondents answered questions regarding their census filing behaviour. Those who were most likely to engage in privacy protection behaviour (submitting incomplete/incorrect data, or withholding data) were respondents who (1) submitted their census later, (2) were ethnic minorities, (3) those less comfortable with census data disclosure. Privacy concern (Westin) did not correspond with behaviour.
|“Fairly truthful”: The impact of perceived effort, fairness, relevance, and sensitivity on personal data disclosure||
In a simulated market research questionnaire on Mturk , participants were asked to disclose 17 open-ended items which varied by hypothesized fairness, relevance, sensitivity, and effort. Responders were then contacted and invited to a follow up questionnaire. Perceived fairness was a strong predictor of item disclosure, whereas relevance, sensitivity, and effort were weak or null predictors. Perceived fairness did have positive effect on reported truthfulness, whereas perceived sensitivity had a negative effect on reported truthfulness. Reciprocity personality scores correlated with disclosure, whereas Westin privacy categories did not (as expected).
|Would You Sell Your Mother's Data? Personal Data Disclosure in a Simulated Credit Card Application||
Beyond financial indicators, alternative indicators have been shown to predict financial behaviour (e.g., loan repayment). However, as these alternative indicators include factors such as mental health, physical health, parental attachment, relationship stability, and social capital (e.g., centrality in online social network), there are issues of sensitivity and transparency. In a simulated credit card application, perceived question sensitivity correlated negatively with disclosure. In one condition, text-based justifications were provided for each items, although this had no impact on disclosure, suggesting people may generate and rely on internal models of legitimacy.