scholarly journals Why Does Privacy Paradox Exist?

2022 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Sakhhi Chhabra
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Grounded Theory ◽  
Mobile Computing ◽  
Learned Helplessness ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Mobile Users ◽  
Privacy Paradox ◽  
Biases And Heuristics ◽  
Depth Interviews

In this exploratory study, the main aim was to find, ‘why do people disclose information when they are concerned about their privacy?’. The reasons that provide a plausible explanation to the privacy paradox have been conjectural. From the analysis of the eighteen in-depth interviews using grounded theory, themes were then conceptualized. We found rational and irrational explanations in terms of cognitive biases and heuristics that explain the privacy paradox among mobile users. We figured out some reasons in this context of mobile computing which were not emphasized earlier in the privacy paradox literature such as Peanut Effect, Fear of Missing Out- FoMo, Learned Helplessness, and Neophiliac Personality. These results add to the privacy paradox discourse and provide implications for smartphone users for making privacy-related decisions more consciously rather than inconsiderately disclosing information. Also, the results would help marketers and policymakers design nudges and choice architectures that consider privacy decision-making hurdles.

scholarly journals Qualitative exploration of factors associated with shared decision-making in diabetes management: a health care provider’s perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (7) ◽  
pp. 464-469
Author(s):  
Amena Moazzam Baig ◽  
Ayesha Humayaun ◽  
Sara Mehmood ◽  
Muhammed Waqar Akram ◽  
Syed Abbass Raza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Grounded Theory ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cultural Context ◽  
Diabetes Management ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Depth Interviews

Abstract Objective Internationally, patient–doctor interaction has shifted from the paternalist model to the shared decision-making (SDM) model, which is an essential part of effective management of chronic illnesses, especially diabetes. It is a relatively new concept in Pakistan, and data about healthcare providers’ perspectives are lacking. The aim was to explore significant facilitators and barriers to effective SDM as perceived by endocrinologists. Design A qualitative research using in-depth interviews based on grounded theory was done. It was written in line with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist. Setting The interviews were conducted at the workplace of the endocrinologist between April and July 2019. Participants Prominent endocrinologists of Pakistan residing in Lahore were approached for in-depth interviews. The transcripts were analyzed simultaneously, and theme saturation was achieved in 11 interviews. Main outcome measures Thematic analysis of data done using grounded theory. Results Four major and two minor themes were identified. The most cited barriers to effective SDM from the doctors’ side were the shortage of time during consultations and the absence of formal training of clinicians in communication skills. However, the patients’ hesitation in questioning the doctor, perceiving him as a paternalist ‘messiah’ in society and lack of education limits their ability to understand and comprehend treatment options. Conclusion There are many barriers perceived by providers as well as clients/patients by effectively using SDM. Local cultural context is influencing a lot.

scholarly journals Initial evidence for biased decision-making despite human-centered AI explanations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Scharowski ◽  
Florian Brühlmann
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Explainable Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Financial Decision ◽  
Biases And Heuristics ◽  
User Trust ◽  
Initial Price

In explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) research, explainability is widely regarded as crucial for user trust in artificial intelligence (AI). However, empirical investigations of this assumption are still lacking. There are several proposals as to how explainability might be achieved and it is an ongoing debate what ramifications explanations actually have on humans. In our work-in-progress we explored two posthoc explanation approaches presented in natural language as a means for explainable AI. We examined the effects of human-centered explanations on trust behavior in a financial decision-making experiment (N = 387), captured by weight of advice (WOA). Results showed that AI explanations lead to higher trust behavior if participants were advised to decrease an initial price estimate. However, explanations had no effect if the AI recommended to increase the initial price estimate. We argue that these differences in trust behavior may be caused by cognitive biases and heuristics that people retain in their decision-making processes involving AI. So far, XAI has primarily focused on biased data and prejudice due to incorrect assumptions in the machine learning process. The implications of potential biases and heuristics that humans exhibit when being presented an explanation by AI have received little attention in the current XAI debate. Both researchers and practitioners need to be aware of such human biases and heuristics in order to develop truly human-centered AI.

Roadblocks to Scientific Thinking in Educational Decision Making

2008 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory C. R. Yates
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Scientific Reasoning ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Theory Change ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Secured Data ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Biases And Heuristics

Principles of scientific data accumulation and evidence‐based practices are vehicles of professional enhancement. In this article, the author argues that a scientific knowledge base exists descriptive of the relationship between teachers’ activities and student learning. This database appears barely recognised however, for reasons including (a) the scientific tradition may not be seen as an appropriate basis for humanistic decision making; (b) personal observations can override impersonal statistics; (c) alternative frames, such as postmodernism, may contribute towards an anti‐science stance; (d) qualitative research may be viewed as representing a sampled universe; (e) educational theorising thrives upon dichotomisations which cannot be mapped against objectively‐secured data; and (f) individuals are relatively unable to undertake the mental processes demanded of theory change. The author also discusses the distinction between scientific reasoning and everyday cognition, as illustrated by research findings into cognitive biases and heuristics.

scholarly journals Behavioral Bias Within The Decision Making Process

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Chira ◽  
Michael Adams ◽  
Barry Thornton
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Behavioral Finance ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Business Students ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Font Size ◽  
Human Decision ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Graduate Business Students ◽  
Biases And Heuristics

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Behavioral finance studies how subjective behavioral elements introduce distortions in the individual&rsquo;s decision-making process. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span></span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 10pt;">The empirical study of systematic errors in cognitive reasoning and perception, and ultimately what these errors reveal about the individual&rsquo;s underlying thought processes, is often referred to as investor heuristics and biases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>This paper investigates the cognitive biases and heuristics to which business students are subject. This was achieved by administering a questionnaire and collecting empirical evidence about both undergraduate and graduate business students&rsquo; own perceptions of bias.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The psychological phenomenon known as bias and its presence in human decision making, both financial and non-financial, will provide additional insight on the subject of investor irrationality and broaden the ideals of rationality assumed in classical financial theory. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span></span></p>

Theoretical Framework of Collaborative Design Issues

2014 ◽  
Vol 70 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yani Rahmawati ◽  
Christiono Utomo ◽  
Nadjadji Anwar ◽  
Cahyono Bintang Nurcahyo ◽  
Nugroho Priyo Negoro
Keyword(s):  
Grounded Theory ◽  
Design Process ◽  
Conceptual Understanding ◽  
Collaborative Design ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Engineering Systems ◽  
Theory Analysis ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
Current Practices

Building’s design is developing to involve complexities of engineering systems, where design process requires various disciplines of participants to solve the complex issues. Collaborative design is developed with main purpose to facilitate the integration of multiple participants in design process to produce best design. This paper presents conceptual understanding, current practices, and theoretical framework of collaborative design. Literature review builds the conceptual understanding, exploratory study through in-depth interviews to design managers and designers reveals the current practices, and grounded theory constructs the theoretical framework. The review had found three main indicators of collaborative design, and through those indicators it has been identified that collaborative design is implemented at design process. The interviews had revealed that best design is hard to be achieved although collaborative design has been applied. Through grounded theory analysis, it has been found that the lack understanding of Knowledge Management (KM) roles is found to be main issue collaborative design practices.

scholarly journals The Exploratory Study Experience: Developing as a Researcher

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-138
Author(s):  
Patrícia Alves ◽  
M. Lima-Basto ◽  
Célia Simão Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Grounded Theory ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Nursing Care ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Critical Reflection ◽  
Hospice Care ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Study Experience

Abstract This article presents the experience of the researcher during the exploratory study, within the scope of her research in a qualitative paradigm, using the Grounded Theory as a methodological approach, which aims to understand the process of nursing care to the end-of-life patient in the performing activity of living eating and drinking. While structuring the research project, it became important to explore the field of data collection (hospice care unit of a hospital in the Lisbon region) in order to achieve a contact with the reality (represented by the actors), allowing an overview and approximation of the phenomenon under study, the break with the investigator's prentices and the modification of these ideas as well as the construction of the researcher's acceptance by the actors (potential participants), and the decision making during the research course. The sharing of this experience as well as the critical reflections presented here, enabled the researcher to review the difficulties encountered and the strategies used to overcome them, to become aware of the lessons learned and to consolidate them. It is also hoped that the sharing of this experience will help other researchers in their path, allow them to perceive that the mishaps / difficulties of the course they are carrying out are common, that a lot of critical reflection is needed on this trajectory, eventually finding strategies for the problems they might face.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document