Privacy Attitudes toward Mouse-Tracking Paradata Collection.

IF 2.9 1区 社会学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Felix Henninger, Pascal J Kieslich, Amanda Fernández-Fontelo, Sonja Greven, Frauke Kreuter
{"title":"Privacy Attitudes toward Mouse-Tracking Paradata Collection.","authors":"Felix Henninger,&nbsp;Pascal J Kieslich,&nbsp;Amanda Fernández-Fontelo,&nbsp;Sonja Greven,&nbsp;Frauke Kreuter","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Survey participants' mouse movements provide a rich, unobtrusive source of paradata, offering insight into the response process beyond the observed answers. However, the use of mouse tracking may require participants' explicit consent for their movements to be recorded and analyzed. Thus, the question arises of how its presence affects the willingness of participants to take part in a survey at all-if prospective respondents are reluctant to complete a survey if additional measures are recorded, collecting paradata may do more harm than good. Previous research has found that other paradata collection modes reduce the willingness to participate, and that this decrease may be influenced by the specific motivation provided to participants for collecting the data. However, the effects of mouse movement collection on survey consent and participation have not been addressed so far. In a vignette experiment, we show that reported willingness to participate in a survey decreased when mouse tracking was part of the overall consent. However, a larger proportion of the sample indicated willingness to both take part and provide mouse-tracking data when these decisions were combined, compared to an independent opt-in to paradata collection, separated from the decision to complete the study. This suggests that survey practitioners may face a trade-off between maximizing their overall participation rate and maximizing the number of participants who also provide mouse-tracking data. Explaining motivations for paradata collection did not have a positive effect and, in some cases, even reduced participants' reported willingness to take part in the survey.</p>","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":"87 Suppl 1","pages":"602-618"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10496572/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Opinion Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad034","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Survey participants' mouse movements provide a rich, unobtrusive source of paradata, offering insight into the response process beyond the observed answers. However, the use of mouse tracking may require participants' explicit consent for their movements to be recorded and analyzed. Thus, the question arises of how its presence affects the willingness of participants to take part in a survey at all-if prospective respondents are reluctant to complete a survey if additional measures are recorded, collecting paradata may do more harm than good. Previous research has found that other paradata collection modes reduce the willingness to participate, and that this decrease may be influenced by the specific motivation provided to participants for collecting the data. However, the effects of mouse movement collection on survey consent and participation have not been addressed so far. In a vignette experiment, we show that reported willingness to participate in a survey decreased when mouse tracking was part of the overall consent. However, a larger proportion of the sample indicated willingness to both take part and provide mouse-tracking data when these decisions were combined, compared to an independent opt-in to paradata collection, separated from the decision to complete the study. This suggests that survey practitioners may face a trade-off between maximizing their overall participation rate and maximizing the number of participants who also provide mouse-tracking data. Explaining motivations for paradata collection did not have a positive effect and, in some cases, even reduced participants' reported willingness to take part in the survey.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

对鼠标跟踪Paradata收集的隐私态度。
调查参与者的鼠标移动提供了丰富而不引人注目的para - ata来源,提供了对观察到的答案之外的反应过程的洞察。然而,使用鼠标跟踪可能需要参与者明确同意他们的动作被记录和分析。因此,问题出现了,它的存在如何影响参与者参加调查的意愿——如果潜在的受访者不愿意完成调查,如果记录了额外的措施,收集资料可能弊大于利。以往的研究发现,其他数据收集模式会降低参与者的参与意愿,而这种降低可能受到参与者收集数据的特定动机的影响。然而,鼠标移动收集对调查同意和参与的影响迄今尚未得到解决。在一个小插曲实验中,我们表明,当鼠标跟踪是整体同意的一部分时,报告的参与调查的意愿减少。然而,当这些决定结合在一起时,与独立选择加入para数据收集(与完成研究的决定分开)相比,更大比例的样本表示愿意参与并提供鼠标跟踪数据。这表明,调查从业者可能面临着在最大化总体参与率和最大化同时提供鼠标跟踪数据的参与者数量之间的权衡。解释收集帕拉塔的动机并没有产生积极的影响,在某些情况下,甚至降低了参与者参与调查的意愿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
2.90%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: Published since 1937, Public Opinion Quarterly is among the most frequently cited journals of its kind. Such interdisciplinary leadership benefits academicians and all social science researchers by providing a trusted source for a wide range of high quality research. POQ selectively publishes important theoretical contributions to opinion and communication research, analyses of current public opinion, and investigations of methodological issues involved in survey validity—including questionnaire construction, interviewing and interviewers, sampling strategy, and mode of administration. The theoretical and methodological advances detailed in pages of POQ ensure its importance as a research resource.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信