Pilot 7
New in this pilot
We now have a scenario about replacing/upgrading devices as well as one about unexpected behavior and broken promises. We also have a likert scale (see the second and third graphs below.)
Stuart updated the scripts so that the loss stories are annotated with the categorization that the participant matched them to.
Stuart added a graph of duration of harm across scenarios.
Stuart's notes on reading loss stories.
Lots of great loss stories. Worth the read. After reading, participant 22 and 49, they seem most likely to be the result of feeding the questions into an LLM (large language model). Participant 46 did not answer initial questions in a meaningful way.
A number of respondents describe events that happened to friends or loved ones. We may want to emphasize that they should only harms due to themselves or due to their own reliance on technology. (Good meeting discussion topic.)
The distinction between having a device or account hacked is something that might have been clear in the 1990s, but with one's Apple ID or Google Account ID becoming our means of moving identity amongst devices, this line is now very blurred.
Results
There were 49 participants in this pilot.
Participants started by writing loss stories about the three worst technology-related harms they had experienced.
We then told participants we would "describe technology-related harms that that have happened to others, and ask if they have also happened to" them.
Summary Across Scenarios
When participants reported having suffered one of the described scenarios, we asked them how recently they had experienced it.
Scenario Pair: Device Compromise & Lockout
We asked participants who had a device compromised/stolen or locked what type of device it was. (If they had experienced more than one incident of a scenario we asked about the worst.)