Search

Privacy has always been an important consideration in computer mediated connections but, more recently, the hyper-connectedness of current internet landscape and its natives has created an urgency for more complete privacy regulations. This research project is inspired by the EU privacy laws, General Data Protection Regulations and the E-Privacy Directives, and the onslaught of cookie banners that resulted from their mistaken interpretations. The current internet environment is a collaborative play between internet users, its myriad service providers, and the regulating bodies aiming to govern the relationships between them. It behoves us to study the interaction of internet users and the new consent management tool that promises to provide users control over their personal information. Of particular interest is the current body of literature that suggests there is a gap between users intending to implement their privacy decisions but not following through with appropriate behaviours. This is dubbed the Privacy Paradox in the literature. There are behavioural explanations for why the paradox may exist, and criticisms that the privacy paradox is observed only when the research design is flawed. The aim of this study is to identify whether there is a gap between the privacy intentions and behaviours when it comes to disabling cookies. It has been suggested in many studies of privacy paradox that the personality of the internet user may also affect the privacy intentions and behaviours. The current explanations of the effect of personal disposition on privacy behaviours are derived from personality psychology and lack depth. This research project intends to explore the effect of personal dispositions on the formation of privacy intentions and behaviours relating to disabling browser cookies on desktop computers. Specifically, the study aims to check if the personal dispositions of internet users affect how they make decisions about their privacy, and whether the differences in disposition could explain the privacy paradox. The study undertakes a rational decision-making approach to privacy, starting with a literature review on how privacy risks are usually modelled in situational settings. Furthermore, research into dispositional factors is explored. Finally, two formal theories, the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) and the Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT), are identified to test the effect of disposition on privacy decision-making in the presence of situational risk elements. A survey study was designed with the constructs Perceived Severity, Self-Efficacy and Maladaptive Rewards from PMT to model privacy risk appraisal. A new scale called the Privacy Regulatory Scale with two subscales for Promotion and Prevention orientation were developed to measure privacy dispositions. The effect of these independent variables was checked on two dependent variables of Intention (intention to disable cookies) and Behaviour in the contexts of disabling cookies through cookie banners, as well as disabling cookies through browser settings. Behaviour data is collected separately for 3rd-party cookies and for all cookies together, as well as towards cookie banners served on trusted, non-trusted and unknown websites as well. Data was collected through an online survey presented to a Qualtrics panel of UK internet users aged between 18 and 35 for a total usable number of cases n=330. Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to verify the factor structure before checking for the hypothesized relationships through Structural Equation Modelling using three nested models. A post-hoc analysis was conducted to check for moderating effects of the two dispositional variables on the relationships between PMT variables and the dependent variables. The study finds that the perceived severity of harms from cookie setting is a significant positive indicator of intention to disable cookies, but not the behaviour of disabling cookies. Self-efficacy significantly predicts the behaviour of disabling cookies both through the cookie banners and through the browser settings. Promotion regulatory focus does not affect the formation of intentions to disable cookies. However, promotion focus positively affects the behaviour of disabling cookies both through cookie banners and through browser settings. The effect is particularly large for disabling all cookies through browser settings. Mixed results were observed for prevention regulatory focus, which significantly predicts the intention to disable 3rd-party cookies only. Furthermore, a higher prevention focus significantly reduces the odds that a user would disables cookies through browser settings. Maladaptive Rewards were found to have no direct effects towards intentions or behaviour. We also find that while intentions are significant indicators of respective behaviours their effect is small, thus indicating a presence of privacy paradox in this sample as well. Post-hoc analysis of moderation effects of promotion and prevention focus reveal that they significantly affect the relationship between perceived severity and intentions to disable cookies. Interestingly, prevention orientation significantly affects the relationship between maladaptive rewards and cookie disabling behaviour for trusted websites only. The findings reveal that the regulatory dispositions of internet users directly affect the kind of solutions they adopt to preserve their privacy and indirectly also affect the magnitude of relationships between risk appraisal variables and intentions. The study directly contributes to the understanding of the effect of personal dispositions towards privacy behaviours. The development of privacy regulatory scale can help understand the extent that dispositions affect privacy self-management behaviours in other settings as well. However, the most significant practical implication of this work is that it suggests that neither kind of privacy disposition, as well as the solutions originating from that disposition, performs better at privacy self-management. Therefore, we may keep observing privacy-paradox in further studies as well if the framework for privacy provisions is the notice and choice paradigm. Hence, it can be concluded that the regulations that are based solely on the notice-andchoice framework are likely to fail universally.

A growing literature has addressed the impact of mask-wearing on people’s social interaction, mental health, and physical health. However, the potential relationship between mask-wearing and people’s risk preference has not been extensively studied in the current literature. We hypothesize that mask wearing can temporarily make people more prevention-focused, and in this mode, people are more cautious and risk- averse to avoid negative outcomes. To test our hypothesis, we conducted multiple sessions of lab experiments on 117 students in Cornell University. The experiment involves risk elicitation methods and the Regulatory Focus Scale. We found weak evidence that participants in the treatment are more risk seeking than the control, which is contrary to our initial assumption. We reflected on the potential limitations of the experiment and the behavioral models, discussed the possibility and reasoning of the alternative assumption, and synthesized relevant literature that might support our contradictory finding.

Regulatory focus theory is a motivational orientation theory encompassing two regulatory systems: promotion focus and prevention focus. Promotion focused individuals tend to seek success, implement risky tactics, and an eager goal pursuit. Prevention focused individuals tend to avoid failure, implement conservative tactics, and a vigilant goal pursuit. Scholer and Higgins (2011) propose an exception to the rule where individuals break the natural RF alignment, which individuals typically seek to maintain. Scholer and Higgins (2011) proposed that promotion (prevention) focused individuals in a state of gain (loss) become conservative (riskier) in their behavior while maintaining an eager (vigilant) goal pursuit. However, literature supporting this theory is between-subjects in methodology and does not measure GP strategy, only risk. The current study proposes two competing regulation patterns: 1) When individuals change in their risk, they maintain their GP strategy 2) when individuals change in their risk, their GP strategy also changes, becoming more eager with higher levels of risk and more vigilant with more conservative behavior. Therefore, the following study examined how tactics and GP strategies change within-person when experiencing loss and gain states. Specifically, examining change in risk and GP after positive and negative goal discrepancy feedback. In order to examine this self-regulation, participants who were primed to be in either a promotion or prevention focused state played three rounds of a simple risk-measuring game. Even though the RF prime did not produce the expected results, there was regulation occurring. After recategorizing the baseline risk and GP to create a high risk /eager GP and a low risk /vigilant GP groups, there was support for the idea that as behavior changes to be riskier, so too does GP change to become more eager. This finding is in contradiction to Scholer and Higgins' (2011) theory that there is a cognitive reappraisal of what it means to be risky, such that it can fit within the vigilant goal pursuit strategy. Additionally, latent profile analyses further supported the second of the competing regulation patterns, in that higher risk-taking corresponded with eager GP, and more conservative behaviors led to greater levels of vigilant GP. Future directions and limitations are discussed.

Under the regulatory focus framework (Higgins, 1997, 1998), this dissertation research has examined the persuasive effects of the four types of outcomes framed in philanthropy advertising. Through a comprehensive review of the literature, this research discussed 1) how regulatory-focused messages can be classified into the four frames—gains, non-gains, losses, and non-losses—which varies in overall valence and outcome focus, as well as 2) how previous studies have differentially operationalized their promotion and prevention frames on the basis of the refined message distinction above. Based on the literature review, this research subsequently conducted three empirical studies to examine 3) how the four types of message framing systematically affect the intensity of subjective feelings among message recipients (H1~H2), 4) the moderating role of subjective feelings to understand how the four types of message framing produce differences in ad effectiveness (H3~H4) through change in the intensity levels of pleasure and pain among the message recipients (H5~H6), and 5) the mediating role of individuals’ momentary regulatory focus to understand how the persuasive effects of the advertisement are contingent upon its message frame (i.e., overall valence and outcome focus) and the message recipient’s motivational state (i.e., momentary regulatory focus) functioning synergistically (H7~H8). Results of this research found that participants felt greater pleasure from the ad being framed as gains than as non-losses, whereas participants felt greater pain about the ad being framed as losses than non-gains (Studies 1 and 2). This research also supported that among participants subjective feelings play a mediating role, such that the gain (loss) frame loomed larger than did the non-loss (non-gain) frame, and experiencing more intense subjective feelings in turn led to more positive effects on participants’ attitudes towards the advertising and attitudes towards the nonprofit organization (Study 2). This study also identified a significant moderating role of individuals’ momentary regulatory focus, but revealed a new pattern of three-way interaction on their evaluations of helping others, which departed from the study’s prediction (Study 3). For example, the gain versus non-gain asymmetry in evaluations towards helping behavior was significant only for participants in a promotion focus, with the message framed as gains (vs. non-losses) being more positive; for those in a prevention focus, this asymmetry vanished. In contrast, the loss versus non-loss asymmetry in evaluations of helping behavior was significant only for participants in a prevention focus, with the message framed as losses (vs. non-gains) being more positive; this asymmetry vanished for those in a promotion focus

Regulatory focus is a goal attainment theory that states that people use one of two self-regulations to achieve their goals. The first self-regulation is promotion; promotion focused people are risk-takers, they are more likely to use heuristics or biases to make decisions, and they make decisions quickly. The other self-regulation is prevention; these people are risk-averse, they are more likely to use analytic reasoning to make decisions, and they make decisions slowly. In this study, the authors measured the participants’ work regulatory focus and then attempted to manipulate them into one of the two conditions (prevention or promotion). The manipulation was not strong enough to influence the participants’ regulatory focus. For this reason, the study was completed using the chronic work regulatory focus. The authors aimed to determine how the participants’ work regulatory focus affected their ethical decision making on three cases (two university situations and one career situation). Overall, promotion focused participants we more likely than prevention focused participants to partake in the unethical behavior. These results were only significant for Cases 1 and 2, which is believed to be because the students could relate better to these situations than the career situation (Case 3).

Gain-loss framing has produced inconsistent results in communication (O’Keefe & Jensen, 2006, 2007, 2009). Yet, studies from psychology demonstrate consistent gain-loss message effects (Higgins, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005). Regulatory focus theory suggests the lack of operational clarity in communication applications may be the one of the reasons for inconsistent results. It is proposed that communication scholars use approach-gain and avoid-loss frames to create effective messages. The dissertation extends regulatory focus theory by arguing (a) frames’ relationship with perceived effectiveness is mediated by attention to the frames, (b) the combination of approach-gain and avoid-loss frames will receive the most attention, when the message has low to moderate arousing content, and (c) the combination of approach-gain and avoid-loss will be most effective. Two within-subjects experiments were conducted, using visual fixations to operationalize attention. Study 1 examined the combination of approach-gain and avoid-loss frames, without manipulating arousing content. Study 2 examined the combination of frames and manipulated arousing content. The two studies revealed that individuals looked the most at approach-gain information, and attention to information did not influence perceived message effectiveness. As predicted, when arousal was controlled for, messages with the combination of approach-gain and avoid-loss frames were perceived as more effective than messages with only one type of frame.

Theorists have proposed two seemingly contradictory ways to allocate pay among interdependently working individuals--equity-based and equality-based pay--a problem called theoretical dilemma. This study diverges from the dominant view of the level of interdependence consideration and suggests a novel factor, group goal, as a determinant of fair pay allocation decisions. By evoking regulatory focus theory, I propose that individuals pursuing gain-oriented group goals prefer to differentiate pay among group members more than individuals pursuing nonloss-oriented group goals, because of different levels of cooperation and independent/interdependent self perceptions. Moreover, I propose that the theorized processes are strengthened when task complexity is high. The results from two laboratory experiments show general support of the theorized relationships.

The purpose of this dissertation is to provide a better understanding of individual characteristics related to savings and the relationship between saving goals and saving behaviors. Hypotheses based on Regulatory Focus Theory are developed to make predictions related to the connection between saving goals and individual characteristics related to saving. The hypotheses are tested using two different methods: an experimentally manipulated survey and secondary data analysis. In Study 1, using an Internet-based survey format, data were collected to examine the effects of framing and different saving goals on individuals’ attitudes toward saving. Messages preceding the questionnaire differed as to framing and saving goal characteristics. Individual characteristics were measured based on self-reported responses. In Study 2, data from the 2007 Survey of Consumer Finances was analyzed to explore the relationship between saving goals and savings behavior. Multiple regression and multivariate analysis of variances were employed to analyze experimental data. Logistic regression was used to analyze the Survey of Consumer Finances data. Results from Study 1 revealed that demographic variables played a significant role in explaining attitude toward saving. However, when demographic variables were not considered, characteristics of saving goals and individual regulatory orientation were significantly related to attitude toward saving. Specifically, promotion-related saving goal and the characteristics of being promotion- or prevention-oriented, positively influenced attitudes toward saving. Study 2 revealed that having a saving goal significantly increased the likelihood of saving, whether the goal was promotion- or prevention-related. In addition, the effect of saving goals was moderated by a household’s regulatory orientation. The likelihood of regular saving was higher when the household exhibited prevention orientation and when the household also listed saving goals that are in the prevention domain. The regulatory fit between an individual characteristic and a goal characteristic was effective only in the prevention domain.Based on findings from the two studies, it was concluded that saving goals affect attitude towards saving and saving behavior. Moreover, saving goals can be divided into two motivational statuses, which have divergent effects on saving. It was also found that individual regulatory orientations were important factors in explaining people’s attitude toward saving and regular saving behavior. These findings have implications for public policy and consumer education. Public messages can be developed to influence either promotion- or prevention-focused behavior. Targeting consumer segmentation, according to regulatory focus tendency, would increase the effectiveness of public messages. Consumers also can set their financial goals based on whether they are promotion oriented or prevention oriented.