Hi everybody,
I am a Master student at the School of Informatics (Lund University) and I am conducting a brief anonymous survey for the Master Thesis to study about user's privacy and risk taking on Social Networking Communities. If you could take five minutes to fill out the survey below, it would be invaluable help to me.
Here is a link to the survey:
http://bit.ly/risktaking
Thank you so much for your time! I really appreciate it.
I'll fill it in, but only if you promise to contribute to our community - and by that I mean help out - not just post one line responses
PHP Code:$s = new signature();
$s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display();
Sure, Steve!
done
Post Counts and Other Rewards, Rules, Folding@Home, Fans: Push vs Pull vs Push-Pull, Corsair PSU OEMs.
TAKTAK.co.ukOriginally Posted by razer121
done. strange last question.
sig removed by Zak33
Done, as with IBM, V strange last question.
*tootles off to do survey*
I said 25
It's not strange question. He is trying to quantify how risk taking/adverse people feel/deal with online privacy. More risk adverse people will say a lower number for the last question and are probably share less info online because of the risk of identity fraud.
He should have left it a multiple choice question though, no real value by having an open answer.
Well it's more accurate this way though, he can just average it.
Websensed - sorry.
Society's to blame,
Or possibly Atari.
You ask about what information one includes on one's Facebook profile; but take no account of the fact that you can give different access to different people. For instance, I have all my info listed on there, but only a few people can see it all; most get a watered down version. How is one meant to take account of that in the survey with just the "Yes or No" answers you offer?
done.
Done, but again a bit miffed by the last question!
=========
NOTHING TO BE SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG PLEASE....
:: of all the things i've lost i miss my mind the most ::
The last question made perfect sense. It's a measure of somebody's risk-tolerance. If you are 100% logical, you go for the 50% figure. Anything less than that is the measure of how much you value the "sure thing" over the risk of "losing out".
I don't entirely agree about it being "logical", because it depends where you're coming from. It is, however, clearly a sense of risk aversion.
50% would make sense, logically, if you were conducting a series of transactions, because over a big enough sample, they'd average out at that (excluding the chances of the coin landing on it's edge, or getting grabbed out the the sky by a passing falcon or UFO, or something).
But, if £30 is very important to you, then a guaranteed £30 might be far preferable to a 50% chance of £100, but a 50% chance of zero.
On the other hand, if £30 means not much, and if you start from the "I've got nothing now" attitude, then you're no worse off if you end up with nothing, so go for the bigger prize. That, after all, is the mentality of buying a lottery ticker by anyone that understands odds. You know, statistically, you aren't going to win the big ones and, long-term, you'll even get less back on the small ones than you put in. But someone wins a life-changing sum regularly, and it might be me. I'm not expecting it and if it happened, the shock might give me a heart attack, but nevertheless, I buy a ticket from time to time.
Why? Because, logically, the £1 it costs me means very little to me, so I'm prepared to have a punt if the mood catches me. I don't do it regularly, and I certainly don't expect to become a lottery millionaire. Yet I buy the occasional ticket.
The "logic" of how you'd decide on the coin-toss value, or on buying a lottery ticket, depends on value judgements about cost and prospective outcomes, so by definition is judgemental, not logical.
That's my view, anyway.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
