Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- Genre: Masters Thesis
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
Beliefs about change reflect how we understand phenomena and what kind of predictions we make for the future. Cyclical beliefs about change state that events are in a constant flux, and change is inevitable. Linear beliefs about change state that events happen in a non-fluctuating pattern and change is not commonplace. Cultural differences in beliefs about change have been documented across various domains, but research has yet to investigate how these differences may affect health status predictions. The present study addresses this gap by inducing different beliefs about change in a European-American college sample. Health status predictions were measured in terms of predicted likelihood of exposure to the flu virus, of contraction of the flu, and of receiving a flu vaccine. Most differences were observed among those who have a recent history of suffering from the flu. Among them, cyclical thinkers tended to rate their likelihood for exposure and contraction to be higher than linear thinkers. However, linear thinkers indicated that they were more likely to receive a flu vaccine. The different patterns suggest the possibility that cyclical beliefs may activate concepts related to cautionary behaviors or pessimistic biases, while linear beliefs may activate concepts related to taking action and exercising control over the environment. Future studies should examine the interplay between beliefs about change and the nature of the predicted outcome.
ContributorsKim, Summer Hyo Yeon (Author) / Kwan, Virginia S. Y. (Thesis advisor) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Committee member) / Cohen, Adam B. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
Resource transfers can confer many adaptive benefits such as specialization, helping genetically related individuals, future compensation, and risk-pooling. Need-based transfers are a risk-pooling mechanism in which partners mitigate unpredictable losses by transferring resources based on need. Need-based transfers are likely to be most useful for resources that are necessary and unpredictable because being unable to reliably obtain essential resources would be devastating. However, need-based transfers make people vulnerable to two types of exploitation: a person can be greedy by asking when not in need and a person with a surplus of resources can be stingy by not giving to someone in need. Previous research suggests that people might have cognitive mechanisms for detecting greediness and stinginess, which would serve to protect against exploitation by cheaters. This study investigated whether resources that are necessary and unpredictable are most likely to trigger greediness and stinginess detection mechanisms. Participants saw four types of rules. One rule could be violated through greedy behavior, another through stingy behavior, another by not paying a debt, and another was a descriptive rule that could be violated by not finding one type of resource near another type of resource. Then, participants saw information about events relating to one of the rules and indicated whether the rule in question could have been violated. Consistent with past research, participants were better at detecting greediness, stinginess, and debts not paid than at detecting violations of a descriptive rule. However, contrary to my predictions, the necessity and unpredictability of resources did not impact people’s ability to detect greediness and stinginess. The lack of support for my hypothesis might be because the benefits of detecting greediness and stinginess might outweigh the costs even for situations in which need-based transfer rules are unlikely to apply, because people might be able to consciously activate their greediness and stinginess mechanisms even for resources that would not naturally trigger them, or because of methodological limitations.
ContributorsMunoz Castro, Andres (Author) / Aktipis, Athena (Thesis advisor) / Hruschka, Daniel (Committee member) / Neuberg, Steven (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
Previous research used the context-free Big Five model of personality traits to predict social media behaviors. The perspective implicit in this research assumes that expression of the Big Five is free of situational context. This thesis challenges this assumption to address whether people express the same Big Five on social media as offline. In two studies, this thesis addressed three issues: (1) whether there are self-reported differences in the Big Five between social media/online and offline contexts, (2) whether a five-factor structure replicates in the offline and social media context reports, and (3) whether the predictive validity of the Big Five is the same between offline and social media contexts. College students (total N = 2102) reported their offline and social media Big Five. Main findings reveal that, first, all of the Big Five have lower expressions in social media/online than offline, except for those in the lowest quartile of offline trait expressions; possible explanations include regression towards the mean or the environmental impact of social media. Second, a similar factor structure appeared with openness, extraversion, and neuroticism items being the most robust between offline and social media contexts. However, some conscientiousness and agreeableness items did not apply across offline and social media contexts. Third, the Big Five had different predictive patterns of social media behaviors depending on the context. These findings inform that future research may better serve to specify the context of Big Five expression to understand social media behavior.
ContributorsBunker, Cameron James (Author) / Kwan, Virginia S. Y. (Thesis advisor) / Edwards, Michael C. (Committee member) / Kenrick, Douglas T. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020