Social science experiment
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 27

Social Science Experiment PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 42 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Social Science Experiment. Jan-Willem Bullee. Background. Effectiveness of authority on compliance We can get some of the answers from Literature (Meta-analysis) Attacker stories/interviews But the answers are inconclusive Different context Hard to measure human nature

Download Presentation

Social Science Experiment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Social science experiment

Social Science Experiment

  • Jan-Willem Bullee


Background

Background

  • Effectiveness of authority on compliance

  • We can get some of the answers from

    • Literature (Meta-analysis)

    • Attacker stories/interviews

  • But the answers are inconclusive

    • Different context

    • Hard to measure human nature

    • Difficult to standardize behaviour.

2

Cyber-crime Science


Principles of persuasion

Principles of Persuasion

  • Authority

    • More likely to listen to an police officer

  • Conformity

    • Peer pressure

  • Commitment

    • Say yes to something small first

  • Reciprocity

    • Return the favour

  • Liking

    • People like you and me

  • Scarcity

    • Wanting the ungettable

3

Cyber-crime Science


Literature on authority

[Mil63] S. Milgram. Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.

Literature on Authority

  • Classical Milgram Shock Experiment

    • 66% full compliance

5

Cyber-crime Science


Introduction key experiment

Introduction Key Experiment

  • Get something from an employee

  • Equal to password or PIN

  • Intervention

  • Impersonate

5

Cyber-crime Science


Experimental setup

Experimental Setup

  • Design

  • Intervention

    • Written memo

    • Key-chain

    • Poster

5

Cyber-crime Science


Hypotheses

Hypotheses

  • H0: Intervention and Control comply equally

  • H0: Authority and Control comply equally

  • H0: Effect of Authority on compliance

5

Cyber-crime Science


Results

Results

  • 351 rooms targeted

    • N=118 (33,6%) populated

  • Demographics Targets

    • Female: 24 (20%) Male: 94 (80%)

    • Mage = 34, range (23-63) years

  • Overall compliance distribution

    • 52.5%/47.5%

5

Cyber-crime Science


Results1

Results

5

Cyber-crime Science


Results2

Results

  • Intervention distribution

    • 60%/40%

  • H0: Intervention and Control comply equally

    • χ²-test

    • Hypothesis rejected

5

Cyber-crime Science


Results3

Results

  • Authority distribution

    • ≈50/50

  • H0: Authority and Control comply equally

    • χ²-test

    • Hypothesis accepted

5

Cyber-crime Science


Results4

Results

  • Effect of authority

    • Logistic Regression

    • Employees that did not get the intervention are 2.84 times morelikely to give their key away

Give Key

Intervention

5

Cyber-crime Science


Results5

Results

  • Effect of authority

    • Logistic Regression

    • Employees that did not get the intervention are 2.84 times morelikely to give their key away

    • Authority: No effect

Give Key

Intervention

Authority

5

Cyber-crime Science


Results6

Results

  • Comments:

    • “Great test!” “Cool Experiment” “Interesting study”

    • “I had doubts” “Having an keychain is important”

    • “Suspicious looking box”

    • “Guy in suit looked LESS trustworthy”

    • “Asked for my ID”

    • “Trusted me since I looked friendly”

    • “I feel stupid”

    • “I didn’t wanted to give the key, but did it anyway”

5

Cyber-crime Science


Take home message

Take Home Message

  • Children, animals, people never react the way you want.

  • Limited availability in July and August

  • You are not important for others

  • …unless you want to break the system

  • 1/3 of employees works on a Wednesday in September

  • 2.84 times higher odds to get key if no intervention

5

Cyber-crime Science


Charging mobile phone

Charging Mobile Phone

10

Cyber-crime Science


Charging mobile phone1

Charging Mobile Phone

  • What are the security considerations of the users of a public mobile phone charger?

    • What is the use rate of the device (per number of people at that location per hour),

    • Why do people use (or not) the system?

    • How do the safety perceptions of the current users differ between the former users and the non-users.

  • You are the researchers!

10

Cyber-crime Science


Crime prevention

Crime Prevention

[Coz05] Cozens, P. M., Saville, G., & Hillier, D. (2005). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): a review and modern bibliography. Property management, 23(5), 328-356.

  • CPTED Framework (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design)

  • Activity Support

    • Eyes on the street

    • Unfortunately: also provides opportunity

    • Overall crimes are reduced by increasing activity

10

Cyber-crime Science


Hypotheses1

Hypotheses

  • H0: Cabinets in busy and quite areas are equally used.

  • H0: Cabinets with surveillance (e.g. service desk) and with no surveillance are equally used.

  • H0: Cabinets in lunch hours (e.g. lunch) and lecture hours are equally used.

10

Cyber-crime Science


Our design

Our Design

  • Researchers: You (Student)

  • Target: Fellow Students and Employee

  • Goal: Observe

    • Observe and interview people

  • Interface: Face 2 Face

  • Count people and short questionnaire

11

Cyber-crime Science


Method our design

Method : Our design

  • 2 experimental conditions

    • Users of the system / non users of the system

  • 6 locations

    • Experimental: Bastille, Hal-B, Horst and Spiegel

    • Control: ITC (city center), Ravelijn

12

Cyber-crime Science


Method our procedure

Method : Our procedure

  • Subjects from the experimental building

    • Teams of 1 researcher

    • One minute count: the people that pass-by

    • Approach users of the system

  • Subjects from the control building

    • Teams of 2 researchers

    • Interview people walking in the area

  • More details on the course-site

13

Cyber-crime Science


What to do

What to do

  • Before Tuesday 9 September

    • Register in the Doodle

  • On 10, 17 (and 24) September

    • 09:30 - 09:50 Briefing at ZI4047

    • Travel to location

    • 10:30 - 12:45 Experiment

    • 12:45 - 13:30 Break and travel

    • 13:30 - 15:45 Experiment part 2

15

Cyber-crime Science


What to do1

What to do

  • We have permission to do this only at

    • UT: Bastille, Hal-B, Horst, Ravelijn, Spiegel and ITC

  • Enter your data in SPSS

    • Directly after the attack

    • Come to me ZI4047

  • Earn 0.5 (out of 10) bonus points

16

Cyber-crime Science


Ethical issues

Ethical issues

  • Informed consent not possible

  • Zero risk for the subjects

  • Approved by facility management

  • Consistent with data protection (PII form)

  • Approved by ethical committee, see http://www.utwente.nl/ewi/en/research/ethics_protocol/

17

Cyber-crime Science


Conclusion

Conclusion

  • Designing research involves:

    • Decide what data are needed

    • Decide how to collect the data

    • Use validated techniques where possible

    • Experimental Design, pilot, evaluate and improve

    • Training, data gathering

18

Cyber-crime Science


Further reading

[Cia09] R. B. Cialdini. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Harper Collins, 2009. http://www.harpercollins.com/browseinside/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061241895

[Gre96a] T. Greening. Ask and ye shall receive: a study in 'social engineering'. SIGSAC Rev., 14(2):8-14, Apr 1996. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/228292.228295

[Hof66] C. Hofling, E. Brotzman, S. Dalrymple, N. Graves, and C. Pierce. An experimental study in Nurse-Physician relationships. J. of Nervous & Mental Disease, 143(2):171-180, Aug 1966.

Further Reading

19

Cyber-crime Science


  • Login