Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: decision-making
- Creators: Adame, Bradley J.
- Creators: Berry, Megan Cheyenne
Description
The current study examines the role that context plays in hackers' perceptions of the risks and payoffs characterizing a hacktivist attack. Hacktivism (i.e., hacking to convey a moral, ethical, or social justice message) is examined through a general game theoretic framework as a product of costs and benefits, as well as the contextual cues that may sway hackers' estimations of each. In two pilot studies, a bottom-up approach is utilized to identify the key motives underlying (1) past attacks affiliated with a major hacktivist group, Anonymous, and (2) popular slogans utilized by Anonymous in its communication with members, targets, and broader society. Three themes emerge from these analyses, namely: (1) the prevalence of first-person plural pronouns (i.e., we, our) in Anonymous slogans; (2) the prevalence of language inducing status or power; and (3) the importance of social injustice in triggering Anonymous activity. The present research therefore examines whether these three contextual factors activate participants' (1) sense of deindividuation, or the loss of an individual's personal self in the context of a group or collective; and (2) motive for self-serving power or society-serving social justice. Results suggest that participants' estimations of attack likelihood stemmed solely from expected payoffs, rather than their interplay with subjective risks. As expected, the use of we language led to a decrease in subjective risks, possibly due to primed effects of deindividuation. In line with game theory, the joint appearance of both power and justice motives resulted in (1) lower subjective risks, (2) higher payoffs, and (3) higher attack likelihood overall. Implications for policymakers and the understanding and prevention of hacktivism are discussed, as are the possible ramifications of deindividuation and power for the broader population of Internet users around the world.
ContributorsBodford, Jessica (Author) / Kwan, Virginia S. Y. (Thesis advisor) / Shakarian, Paulo (Committee member) / Adame, Bradley J. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
By providing vignettes with manipulated scientific evidence, this research examined if including more or less scientific detail affected decision-making in regards to the death penalty. Participants were randomly assigned one of the two manipulations (less science and more science) after reading a short scenario introducing the mock capital trial and their role as jury members. Survey respondents were told that a jury had previously found the defendant guilty and they would now deliberate the appropriate punishment. Before being exposed to the manipulation, respondents answered questions pertaining to their prior belief in the death penalty, as well as their level of support of procedural justice and science. These questions provided a baseline to compare to their sentencing decision. Participants were then asked what sentence they would impose \u2014 life in prison or death \u2014 and how the fMRI evidence presented by an expert witness for the defense affected their decision. Both quantitative and qualitative measures were used to identify how the level of scientific detail affected their decision. Our intended predictor variable (level of scientific detail) did not affect juror decision-making. In fact, the qualitative results revealed a variety of interpretations of the scientific evidence used both in favor of death and in favor of life. When looking at what did predict juror decision-making, gender, prior belief in the death penalty, and political ideology all were significant predictors. As in previous literature, the fMRI evidence in our study had mixed results with regards to implementation of the death penalty. This held true in both of our manipulations, showing that despite the level of detail in evidence intended for mitigation, jurors with preconceived notions may still disregard the evidence, and some jurors may even view it is aggravating and thus increase the likelihood of a death sentence for a defendant with such brain abnormalities.
ContributorsBerry, Megan Cheyenne (Author) / Fradella, Hank (Thesis director) / Pardini, Dustin (Committee member) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
The purpose for creating this thesis project is to discover the effects that options have on consumer behavior and satisfaction, and to determine whether or not more options are a good thing. In exploring these questions, Information Measurement Theory (IMT), a theory founded by Dr. Dean Kashiwagi which relies on understanding natural laws to help minimize decision-making and risk, was utilized to draw conclusions. IMT illustrates that any given situation can only have one unique outcome, and minimizing decision-making in turn leads to reduced stress. The more information an individual has for the given situation, the better he/she can predict the outcome. The concepts of IMT, specifically the ideal that more decision-making leads to higher stress, were utilized to illustrate that more options naturally leads to more decisions and as a result more decision-makers will feel greater stress and less satisfaction. To conduct this research we explored two different segments of consumer markets. The first branch of our research was comprised of analyzing the differences in operations and menu structures of different fast food chains, most specifically In-N-Out and McDonald's and how these differences affect customer satisfaction. The other branch of our research involved reviewing phone case ratings based on Amazon reviews for a number of different phone types with varying popularity to gauge consumer satisfaction. Our results found that while both In-N-Out and McDonald's are successful companies, In-N-Out ranked consistently higher in customer satisfaction. Furthermore, a large portion of this satisfaction can be attributed to In-N-Out's simplistic menu structure which limits the amount of options and therefore decisions that a customer must make. Similarly, our study of phone cases found that for phone models where less case options are offered, customers rated their cases higher on a scale of 1-5 stars regardless of brand or the number of reviews. Through a combination of IMT and our research we were able to conclude that less options does indeed lead to higher consumer satisfaction.
ContributorsBrandt, Lawrence (Co-author) / Spiller, Ryan (Co-author) / Kashiwagi, Dean (Thesis director) / Kashiwagi, Jacob (Committee member) / Department of Finance (Contributor) / Department of Management (Contributor) / Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Program (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05