ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

While the public claim concern for their privacy, they frequently appear to overlook it. This disparity between concern and behaviour is known as the Privacy Paradox. Such issues are particularly prevalent on wearable devices. These products can store personal data, such as text messages and contact details. However, owners rarely use protective features. Educational games can be effective in encouraging changes in behaviour. Therefore, we developed the first privacy game for (Android) Wear OS watches. 10 participants used smartwatches for two months, allowing their high-level settings to be monitored. Five individuals were randomly assigned to our treatment group, and they played a dynamically-customised privacy-themed game. To minimise confounding variables, the other five received the same app but lacking the privacy topic. The treatment group improved their protection, with their usage of screen locks significantly increasing (p = 0.043). In contrast, 80% of the control group continued to never restrict their settings. After the posttest phase, we evaluated behavioural rationale through semi-structured interviews. Privacy concerns became more nuanced in the treatment group, with opinions aligning with behaviour. Actions appeared influenced primarily by three factors: convenience, privacy salience and data sensitivity. This is the first smartwatch game to encourage privacy-protective behaviour.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Smartwatch Games: Encouraging Privacy-Protective
Behaviour in a Longitudinal Study
Meredydd Williams, Jason R C Nurse, Sadie Creese
Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, UK
School of Computing, University of Kent, UK
Abstract—While the public claim concern for their privacy,
they frequently appear to overlook it. This disparity between
concern and behaviour is known as the Privacy Paradox. Such
issues are particularly prevalent on wearable devices. These
products can store personal data, such as text messages and
contact details. However, owners rarely use protective features.
Educational games can be effective in encouraging changes in
behaviour. Therefore, we developed the first privacy game for
(Android) Wear OS watches. 10 participants used smartwatches
for two months, allowing their high-level settings to be monitored.
Five individuals were randomly assigned to our treatment group,
and they played a dynamically-customised privacy-themed game.
To minimise confounding variables, the other five received the
same app but lacking the privacy topic. The treatment group
improved their protection, with their usage of screen locks
significantly increasing (p= 0.043). In contrast, 80% of the
control group continued to never restrict their settings. After the
posttest phase, we evaluated behavioural rationale through semi-
structured interviews. Privacy concerns became more nuanced
in the treatment group, with opinions aligning with behaviour.
Actions appeared influenced primarily by three factors: conve-
nience, privacy salience and data sensitivity. This is the first
smartwatch game to encourage privacy-protective behaviour.
Index Terms—Privacy, game, smartwatch, behavior, wearable,
A. Study Motivation
The public claim to be concerned about privacy, as sug-
gested by a range of polls and surveys (Morar Consulting,
2016; Pike, Kelledy, & Gelnaw, 2017). However, we frequently
exhibit behaviour which places our data at risk (Beresford,
ubler, & Preibusch, 2012; Felt et al., 2012). This disparity
between claimed concern and empirical action is known as
the Privacy Paradox (Norberg, Horne, & Horne, 2007). The
situation often arises through a lack of awareness (Deuker,
2009). This poses a particular risk to wearables, which are
both novel and unfamiliar (Williams, Nurse, & Creese, 2017).
Smartwatches offer exciting functionality, providing interac-
tive apps and online connectivity. They can also store a variety
of personal data, from text messages to contact details (Do,
Martini, & Choo, 2017). Despite this, users rarely use available
settings to protect their privacy (Udoh & Alkharashi, 2016).
This has led to the Privacy Paradox being prevalent in this
environment (Williams et al., 2017).
Previous work has suggested that this issue can be mit-
igated by increasing awareness (Deuker, 2009). Therefore,
many studies have sought to educate users on privacy matters
(Kelley, Bresee, Cranor, & Reeder, 2009; H´
elou, Guandouz,
& A¨
ımeur, 2012). Unfortunately, highlighting a problem is
often not sufficient to change behaviour (Bada, Sasse, &
Nurse, 2015). Since privacy is rarely a primary goal (Hughes-
Roberts & Furnell, 2015), individuals might lack the moti-
vation to protect their data. If we hope to incentivise pro-
tection, privacy should be aligned with user wants (Dolan,
Hallsworth, Halpern, King, & Vlaev, 2010). Rather than
mandating compliance, we can then highlight the empowering
aspects of protection. Serious games embed incentives within
interactivity, using positive reinforcement to instil knowledge
(Kumar, 2013). Such apps have succeeded in phishing training
(Sheng, Magnien, & Kumaraguru, 2007) and network defence
(Irvine, Thompson, & Allen, 2005). However, privacy games
have never been developed for smartwatches. In previous
work (under review), we constructed and evaluated an online
prototype. Through a 504-person survey, we found that pro-
tective actions could be encouraged. Therefore, to empirically
assess behaviour, we develop and evaluate the first smartwatch
privacy game.
B. Background and Related Work
Privacy and awareness. Privacy is a nebulous topic, en-
compassing confidentiality, anonymity and autonomy (Solove,
2008). However, since we target technological behaviour, we
scope our focus to these interactions. Therefore, we consider
informational privacy: “the interest an individual has in con-
trolling, or at least significantly influencing, the handling of
data about themselves” (Clarke, 1999).
Polls repeatedly suggest that the public care about their
privacy (Pike et al., 2017; Morar Consulting, 2016). A 2017
survey found 84% of US consumers were worried about their
data, with 70% stating their concerns have increased (Pike et
al., 2017). Despite these assertions, we rarely act to protect our
information. We ignore permissions (Felt et al., 2012), skim
policies (Glanville, 2018) and settle for lax default settings
(Bonneau & Preibusch, 2010). This attitude-behaviour gap has
been labelled the Privacy Paradox (Norberg et al., 2007).
We define the Privacy Paradox as the “discrepancy between
the expressed concern and the actual behavior of users
(Barth & de Jong, 2017). Due to its popularity, it has been
deconstructed in many previous studies. Veltri and Ivchenko
arXiv:1905.05222v1 [cs.HC] 13 May 2019
(2017) explored the influence of cognitive scarcity. Through
an experiment with 969 users, they discovered that fatigue
encouraged disclosure. They used this factor to partially justify
the Privacy Paradox. Hallam and Zanella (2017) adopted the
lens of Construal Level Theory, which studies whether con-
cepts are considered abstract or concrete (Trope & Liberman,
2010). If issues are hypothetical or temporally distant, as
often the case with privacy, they are frequently deemed to
be abstract. The authors describe how this ‘psychological
distance’ tends to lead to the topic lacking salience. As a
result, they concluded that concerns have little influence on
protective behaviour. Our work also considers the influence of
privacy salience. While the above studies discuss the topic, we
actively seek to mitigate the Privacy Paradox.
Research suggests that increasing awareness should address
the Privacy Paradox. Deuker (2009) found a concern-behaviour
disparity existed due to bounded rationality, incomplete infor-
mation and psychological variables. When describing bounded
rationality, he highlighted that “users’ capabilities in pro-
cessing information and drawing the right conclusions are
restricted by nature”. Since individuals fail to process the
technical details, they tend to underestimate the risks of
privacy invasion. Through building awareness, he believed
that both bounded rationality and incomplete information
could be addressed. P¨
otzsch (2009) saw two solutions to
the disparity: align concern to behaviour or behaviour to
concern. By highlighting privacy risk, individuals should be
more likely to act. Indeed, Bartsch and Dienlin (2016) found
that knowledge can increase the chance of protective action.
However, informed individuals must also have the motivation
to put that knowledge into practice. While these researchers
theorised wise solutions, we evaluate the success of a privacy
Jackson and Wang (2018) successfully mitigated the Pri-
vacy Paradox on mobile phones. They used customised no-
tifications, with charts highlighting the discrepancy between
a user’s attitude and their app permissions. Attitudes were
evaluated through a concern questionnaire at the start of the
study. Based on their selected permissions, the system then
predicted their degree of privacy risk. Through an online
simulation, the authors found that the disparity decreased after
these notifications were viewed. This is encouraging, and we
adopt personalised challenges within our games. However, the
Privacy Paradox was studied on mobile phones at a single
point in time. In contrast, we evaluate smartwatch interactions
over a two-month period.
Privacy behaviour change. Awareness can highlight the
existence of a particular risk. However, this is often insufficient
to change privacy behaviour (Bada et al., 2015). Sasse et al.
(2007) recommended a three-stage approach: raise awareness,
give education and provide training. In this manner, individuals
have an opportunity to practice and refine their behaviour.
Finally, even if users possess the knowledge, they must be
incentivised to act (Bada et al., 2015). Our game, introduced
in Section III, seeks to implement all these approaches.
We explore privacy-protective behaviour through the lens
of Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) (Rogers, 1983). This
model “postulates the three crucial components of a fear
appeal to be (a) the magnitude of noxiousness of a depicted
event; (b) the probability of that event’s occurrence; and (c)
the efficacy of a protective response” (Rogers, 1975). It seeks
to deconstruct why individuals do (or do not) use protection
(Rogers, 1983). Therefore, it appeared relevant to our efforts at
behaviour change. It is comprised of two primary components:
threat appraisal and coping appraisal. The former is informed
by the severity and vulnerability of a risk. The rewards of
functionality are also taken into account. For the latter, self-
efficacy and response efficacy is considered. This is balanced
against the costs of protection. Our games sought to influence
these components to encourage privacy.
We also considered the Theory of Reasoned Action1
(Fishbein, 1979), but this model does not recognise constraints
on action (Briggs, Jeske, & Coventry, 2017). It is not deemed
appropriate for skilled tasks (Liska, 1984), and privacy protec-
tion appears to require skill. While we investigated the Theory
of Planned Behaviour2(Ajzen, 1991), this fails to account
for susceptibility or response efficacy (P. Norman & Conner,
1996). In contrast, PMT aligns well with privacy and has been
recommended for security behaviour change (Briggs et al.,
In non-wearable environments, education has prompted pro-
tection. Albayram et al. (2017) encouraged screen lock usage
on smartphones. In their 228-person study, they divided their
participants between a treatment group and a control group.
The former watched an educational video, whereas the latter
did not. Both groups reported their smartphone actions in
pretest and posttest. The treatment group reported improved
behaviour, suggesting the video was persuasive. Since we
evaluate the efficacy of an intervention, we also adopt a
pretest-posttest two-group design. However, rather than using
smartphone self-reports, we study smartwatches empirically.
Albayram et al. (2017) later explored whether videos can en-
courage the use of Two-Factor Authentication (2FA). Through
a 2x2x2 design, they generated and evaluated eight videos.
Their content varied on whether risk, self-efficacy and con-
tingency were included. When the first two components were
highlighted in the videos, participants were found to adopt
2FA. Both risk and self-efficacy are considered within PMT,
and we also use the theory to encourage alterations. However,
while Albayram et al. (2017) used Amazon Mechanical Turk,
we analyse participants through a field study. Our in-person
approach delivers several advantages. Since our behaviour is
empirical rather than self-reported, it should be less prone
to falsehood (Fielding, 2006). With participants using a real
smartwatch in a native environment, our findings should also
have external validity. Finally, although our in-person approach
limited our sample size, it supported rationale extraction
through rich interviews.
‘Nudging’ has become a popular approach to encourage
protection (Wisniewski, Knijnenburg, & Lipford, 2016). Wang
1The Theory of Reasoned Action is based on “the proposition that an
individual’s behavior is determined by the individual’s behavioral intention
to perform that behavior” (Chang, 1998)
2The Theory of Planned Behaviour “states that the proximal determinant
of behaviour is the intention to act. The intention, in turn, is influenced by the
attitude towards the behaviour, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural
control” (Hardeman et al., 2002)
et al. (2014) augmented Facebook to highlight the audience
of a person’s posts. Through their six-week trial, they found
unintended disclosures were decreased. Although temporarily
influential, behaviour can revert when nudges are removed
(Bruyneel & Dewitte, 2016). This approach differs from
techniques within serious games. Nudging modifies the choice
architecture to encourage certain decisions. In contrast, serious
games seek to instil lessons through education and positive
reinforcement (Connolly, Boyle, MacArthur, & Hainey, 2012).
Since intrinsic motivation can be highly persuasive (Ryan &
Deci, 2000), the latter approach might prove more persistent.
Behaviour change games. Serious games can be defined as
any form of interactive computer-based game software...that
has been developed with the intention to be more than
entertainment” (Ritterfeld, Cody, & Vorderer, 2009). Such
tools have been highly successful, often considered more
persuasive than direct training (Wouters, Van Nimwegen, Van
Oostendorp, & Van Der Spek, 2013). In non-smartwatch
environments, security has been frequently addressed. Anti-
Phishing Phil (Sheng et al., 2007) challenged users to identify
fraudulent URLs. After playing an aquatic game, players
were better able to avoid phishing campaigns. We differ by
targeting smartwatches, but adopt similar Learning Science
principles. For example, we implement reflection (Donovan,
Bransford, & Pellegrino, 1999), where players contemplate
their learning experience. We also include story-based agents
by using Non-Player Characters to guide the user through our
narrative (Moreno, Mayer, Spires, & Lester, 2001). Finally, we
use the conceptual-procedural principle by augmenting high-
level information with specific instructions (Rittle-Johnson
& Koedinger, 2002). These techniques sought to encourage
protective behaviour.
Immaculacy (Suknot, Chavez, Rackley, & Kelley, 2014) is
a proposed privacy game, in which the user faces dystopian
scenarios. Characters progress through challenges by under-
taking privacy-protective actions. This encourages reflection
on behaviour, and we adopt a similar approach. Vaidya et
al. (2014) considered interactive techniques to teach privacy.
Since privacy is inherently complex, they recommended that
scenarios be used. We implement scenario-based challenges,
developing the first smartwatch privacy game.
Smartwatch behaviour. Although wearables have existed
for decades, smartwatches have gained recent popularity. They
can be defined as “an electronic wristwatch that is able to
perform many of the functions of a smartphone” (Collins
English Dictionary, 2017). The environment differs greatly
from other contexts, particularly when concerning the topic
of privacy. Internet-of-Things (IoT) products (defined as be-
longing to a “global network interconnecting smart objects by
means of extended Internet technologies” (Miorandi, Sicari,
Pellegrini, & Chlamtac, 2012)) have been criticised for lacking
usability (Williams, Nurse, & Creese, 2016). Smartwatches
have small screens and few buttons, with this constraining
the use of protective settings (Horcher, 2015; Benbunan-Fich,
2017). The devices are also unfamiliar and therefore their
navigation is less likely to be understood (Williams et al.,
2017). Furthermore, they can possess highly-sensitive data
(Al-Sharrah, Salman, & Ahmad, 2018), while often having
great vulnerability (Hewlett Packard Enterprise, 2014). Due to
the novelty and idiosyncrasy of this environment, behavioural
studies might uncover new insights.
Pizza et al. (2016) evaluated behaviour for 34 days, with
their participants possessing wearable cameras. They found
smartwatches were most often used as timepieces, though they
also provided notifications. Jeong et al. (2017) undertook a
203-day longitudinal study, collecting data on 50 participants.
They analysed wear, but never considered security or privacy.
Indeed, there have been no empirical studies on smartwatch
privacy. Our analysis offers a rare glimpse into how these
settings are used.
Smartwatches are a challenging interface for games, since
they possess small screens and few buttons. Casano et al.
(2016) evaluated an app entitled ‘Estimate It!’, which sought
to teach measurement and geometry. The game was ported
to a Tizen OS watch, and users were engaged in gameplay.
Design requirements and usability guidelines have also been
created for this environment (Li, 2017; Jim´
enez Vargas, 2016).
However, educational games remain greatly underexplored.
Before undertaking this research, we developed an online
prototype of our smartwatch game (under review). Through
this app, we evaluated behaviour change and qualitative ra-
tionale. To achieve this, we recruited 504 smartwatch users
through a crowdsourcing platform. The treatment half played
the prototype, which included privacy questions and chal-
lenges. The control participants did not interact with an
application. In pretest and posttest, we solicited concern and
behaviour through an online survey. Whereas the Privacy
Paradox was mitigated in the treatment group, control actions
failed to change. While this study was encouraging, the game
was emulated and behaviour was self-reported. To empirically
evaluate the matter, we now construct and evaluate the first
smartwatch privacy game.
A. Recruitment
Sampling process. 10 Huawei Watch 2 devices were pur-
chased for this study. Since we monitored all participants over
the same two-month period (to minimise extraneous variables),
the size of our sample was practically limited. Individuals were
loaned an expensive device, and as such there was a security
risk. Therefore, in compliance with our university’s ethical
requirements, we recruited from the institution’s students. This
demographic offers decent external validity, since smartwatch
owners tend to be young and educated (Desarnauts, 2016).
Recruitment. To participate, individuals were required to
fulfil three criteria. They had to be full-time university stu-
dents, and therefore accountable for their device. They also
needed to be 18 years or older, so they could provide informed
consent. Finally, they had to possess a modern Android
smartphone, to allow their watch to be configured. Of those
eligible applicants, we sought to prioritise diversity. Rather
than compiling a white British sample, we included a range
of nationalities. Privacy is inherently cultural (Alashoor, Keil,
Liu, & Smith, 2015), with research suggesting Asian societies
do less to protect personal data (Huang & Bashir, 2016).
Therefore, we explored whether European students would use
greater protection than those from Asian nations. We also
selected individuals from a variety of degree specialisms.
We felt this would be more-representative of the public than
choosing technologists.
To recruit, flyers were affixed to notice boards across the
halls of the university. Emails were also sent to mailing list
curators, who could forward the messages if they wished.
Participants were fully informed of, and consented to, the
monitoring of their watch settings. In addition to the privacy-
relevant data, we also received approval to track font size,
screen brightness and battery level. This disguised the purpose
of our study, while also ensuring high ethical standards.
B. Experimental Structure
Overview. Our longitudinal study was divided into three
distinct phases: pretest, gameplay and posttest. The exper-
imental structure is shown in Fig 1. In a 18-day pretest
phase, we monitored the baseline concerns and behaviour of
our 10 participants. During a 16-day gameplay phase, these
individuals were randomly divided into a treatment group
and a control group. Group allocation was truly random,
with the process undertaken before study commencement. We
considered matching, but thought pure randomisation would
reflect the external environment. Fortunately, our groups still
appeared well-matched on demographics.
Fig. 1. Experimental structure
The treatment group (n= 5) received a customised privacy
game, including challenges to refine behaviour. To minimise
confounding variables, the control group (n= 5) received
the same app, but without the privacy theme. Their game
concerned general smartwatch use, such as using gestures
and adjusting screen brightness. We originally considered
having the control group play no game. However, we were
concerned that treatment participants might adjust behaviour
purely due to study interaction. Therefore, to reduce bias from
the Hawthorne Effect (Adair, 1984), both groups received a
game. All participants played their game over a five-day and
four-day period, with a one-week gap in the middle. Such
two-stage approaches can help to construct mental models
(Mayer, Mathias, & Wetzell, 2002). After these periods were
completed, we ended with an 18-day posttest phase. This
allowed us to explore whether actions had changed.
We decided against including control variables in our study.
We could have considered users’ smartwatch familiarity, but
all participants lacked prior experience. By collecting non-
watch privacy opinions, we might have identified baseline
concerns. However, since we sought to disguise the topic (to
avoid priming), we decided against this approach.
Pretest. In total, we monitored concerns and behaviour over
a 52-day period. We were limited to this span due to the term
lengths of our student participants. On day one, 10 individuals
were given a Wear OS smartwatch. Once configuration was
complete, the monitoring app was installed on each device.
This (ethically-approved) service logged settings every five
minutes, with details outlined in Subsection II-D. At the end
of the phase, we distributed a concern questionnaire to each
participant. Its queries can be found in the appendices as Table
VII. We considered soliciting these opinions at the start of the
study. However, users might be unfamiliar with smartwatches
and therefore unable to provide informed responses. As none
of the participants had used such a device before (as revealed
in our posttest interviews), our notion was validated. We also
sought to assess concern directly before gameplay, since we
wished to explore our games’ influence. At the end of the
pretest phase, individuals had used their smartwatches for 18
days. Therefore, they should have now been able to provide
informed opinions.
Gameplay. While users completed the questionnaire, we in-
stalled one of two games on their watches. The treatment group
received a privacy-themed game, which sought to encourage
protection. The control group were given an app with identical
gameplay, but concerning a different theme. Rather than the
challenges (highlighted below) targeting privacy, they related
to general smartwatch usage (e.g., adjusting screen brightness).
Since both groups received interactive games, we restricted the
influence of extraneous variables. Users were instructed to play
the games three times per day for 10 minutes each time. At the
end of this 16-day phase, participants completed an evaluation
questionnaire. These questions can be found in Table IX of
the appendices. This sought to inform future refinements to
the games. The questions did not concern privacy, since we
did not wish to prime the topic before the posttest phase.
Posttest. To prevent further gameplay influencing be-
haviour, the apps were uninstalled from the watches. For the
final 18 days, we continued to monitor privacy behaviour. At
the end, we distributed identical concern questionnaires to
pretest. This enabled analysis of whether opinions changed
as the study progressed. Since these forms were completed 18
days after gameplay, we doubt concerns were unfairly primed.
Finally, we conducted semi-structured interviews to explore
behavioural rationale. The questions were all open-ended and
can be found in Table VIII of the appendices. Smartwatches
were then reset while users received their compensation. They
were each compensated with a £40 voucher and entry into a
£70 draw. They were also debriefed on our privacy focus, as
this was disguised in forms and recruitment. With concerns
and behaviour collected, we could now analyse the Privacy
C. Threat Model
As will be described, we evaluated privacy concerns through
hypothetical scenarios. For these concerns to be assessed fairly,
we must define a reasonable threat model.
All individuals made use of a Wear OS smartwatch. This
watch contains a number of apps, with some developed by
companies other than Google/Huawei. Apps are constrained by
permissions, allowing data access to be restricted. Data which
is read is often shared (potentially anonymised or aggregated)
with external parties (Schneier, 2015). The watches can access
GPS, offering location-customised functionality. While this
provides navigational benefits, the device’s current location is
accessed (Ashbrook & Starner, 2003). These watches are also
small, expensive, and consumer-oriented. Like Android smart-
phones, this places them at a reasonable risk of loss or theft
(Matthews, 2016). Indeed, their “size and portability makes
them easy to steal” (Baggili, Oduro, Anthony, Breitinger, &
McGee, 2015). Therefore, if a threat is encountered, it would
likely come from app companies or petty criminals.
D. Protective Features and Concern Scenarios
Selection. To gauge privacy concern, we were required to
solicit personal opinions. However, privacy is highly contex-
tual (Nissenbaum, 2009), and this can challenge a simple
rating (Paine, Reips, Stieger, Joinson, & Buchanan, 2007). For
example, ‘very concerned’ means little when it is divorced
from the particular situation. Context is also important when
comparing concerns against behaviour. Trepte et al. (2014)
were critical of works that juxtaposed abstract opinions against
concrete actions. To compare these factors, it is wise to situate
them within the same context. We adapted the design of Lee
et al.’s influential work (2016), by requesting responses to
hypothetical scenarios. This supports an analysis grounded
within the smartwatch environment. To enable a fair evalu-
ation, scenarios were selected through three criteria:
1) The issue must be feasible and part of our threat model.
2) The situation should be comprehensible to our sample.
3) Most importantly, there should be a direct correspon-
dence between scenario and privacy-protective tools.
Responses were made on a five-point Likert Scale, also
adapted from Lee et al. (2016), which ranged from Indifferent
to Very Concerned. As highlighted earlier, these questions
can be found in Table VII of the appendices. Individuals
then provided a qualitative justification for each answer.
Since concerns can be inflated when insufficiently considered
(Baek, 2014), these queries provided a pause for reflection.
When analysing behaviour, it was important to consider the
available protective tools. In Wear OS environments, three
features appeared particularly relevant. These comprised of:
app permissions,GPS disabling and screen locks. The settings
are outlined below, alongside their respective concern scenario.
Permissions. Apps3provide useful functions to the smart-
watch owner. To provide these services, they often access
personal data. While this access is legitimate, details are com-
monly traded with third parties (Schneier, 2015). Fortunately,
as on smartphones, privacy permissions can restrict access.
When applications cannot read details, they cannot share them
with partners. To gauge concern, we asked users how they
3Wear OS apps can be standalone watch applications, and do not require
a smartphone equivalent.
would feel if their data was accessed. We also asked how
they would react if data was shared with others. If a person
is opposed, they can reduce their risk through permissions.
GPS. GPS can support great functionality, such as naviga-
tion and fitness tracking. To provide these features, a satellite
geolocates the smartwatch. By its very nature, this allows the
position of a device to be monitored (Ashbrook & Starner,
2003). If an individual wants to limit this, they can easily
disable their GPS. Then, when functionality is required, it can
be briefly re-enabled. To evaluate concerns, we asked users
how they would feel if their position was monitored. We also
asked how they would react if this data was shared with others.
If a person fears this, disabling GPS can reduce the risk.
Screen locks. Passcodes are well-known barriers, and have
been suggested to deter smartphone theft (Consumer Reports,
2014). Since the Watch OS interface is similar to Android,
this deterrent could apply to watches. Smartwatches are small,
expensive and popular. As a result, they have been deemed a
feasible target for theft (Baggili et al., 2015). Through using
a screen lock, personal data is better-protected. To gauge
concerns, we asked users how they would feel if their missing
device was accessed. We also solicited reactions to their apps
being used by a stranger. If users are concerned about physical
access, a screen lock is a simple solution.
E. Research Questions
We explore whether the Privacy Paradox can be mitigated
through an educational game. To achieve this, we must com-
pare concerns and behaviour in pretest and posttest. Further-
more, we must judge our treatment group results against those
of our control group. Therefore, it is crucial that we first define
our study metrics.
Metrics. Concerns are evaluated based on reactions to
the above scenarios. Since our Likert data is ordinal, it is
conventional to avoid means. However, if questions consider
the same topic, it is deemed acceptable to aggregate the scores
(G. Norman, 2010; Carifio & Perla, 2008). By taking means
of these responses, we receive location scores,stranger scores
and app scores. The Cronbach alpha values for these question
pairs were 0.837, 0.204 and 0.631, respectively (Cronbach,
1951). Since the second alpha was particularly low, we report
responses to the two ‘stranger’ scenarios (stranger app access
and stranger app use) separately.
To evaluate behaviour, we developed metrics to summarise
participant activity. For the GPS score, we calculated the per-
centage of recordings (taken every five minutes) in which the
feature was enabled. Similarly, for the lock score, we analysed
the percentage of logs in which a lock was present. When
assessing permissions, we chose to consider the context of the
application. Some permissions were deemed to be innocuous,
such as waking the screen or increasing the volume. We made
this judgement by considering the personal data that might
be accessed. Two permissions concerned particularly private
details: precise location and text message contents. We anal-
ysed these elements since such details could support privacy
invasions (Creese, Goldsmith, Nurse, & Phillips, 2012). The
permission score comprised the average acceptance percentage
of these two permissions.
Research questions. We both monitor 52 days of empirical
behaviour and conduct 10 in-depth interviews. Through this
quantity of data, we seek to address the following questions:
1) Do smartwatch users take action to protect their data?
If not, this has implications for smartwatch risk and
interface design.
2) In smartwatch environments, does a Privacy Paradox
appear to be prevalent? If so, users might place their
personal data at risk.
3) Can the smartwatch game encourage privacy-protective
behaviour? If so, such apps could offer an interactive
and low-cost complement to awareness campaigns.
4) What factors influence smartwatch behaviour? If we can
understand behavioural rationale, we might be better-
placed to design interventions.
We now move forward to discuss the design of our two
smartwatch games. Most attention will be given to the privacy
version, since this sought to encourage protective behaviour.
A YouTube video of the game can be found at: https://
A. Game Narrative and Mechanics
Overview. Both games challenged users to navigate across
a maze-like map. The privacy version can be found below in
Figure 2. The player starts at their house and then must traverse
four levels to reach the shops. En route, they collect coins to
increase their score. When the game ends (or is completed),
this score is ranked on a competitive leaderboard.
During their journey, users encounter two types of Non-
Player Character (NPC): ‘villagers’ and ‘thieves’. Villagers
ask functionality questions and reward correct answers with
points. For example, a player might be asked, “How can
I prevent apps accessing contact details?”, and select the
Revoke contacts permission” response.
Thieves block the user’s path and trigger functionality
challenges. In these challenges, characters must configure a
settings menu before their health expires. For example, a
player might be tasked to enable a screen lock. Success is
rewarded by additional coins, while failure ends the game.
If the final level is completed on normal difficulty, extra
modes are unlocked. All aforementioned components are iden-
tical on both games. The only differences were that the privacy
app’s challenges/questions related to protective features.
Challenges. The general version concerned generic non-
privacy smartwatch features. These included adjusting font
size, changing screen brightness and configuring alarm vol-
ume. In our concern questionnaires, we included decoy ques-
tions relating to these settings. Therefore, the purpose of our
study was further disguised. The privacy game focused on the
three protective approaches: restricting permissions, disabling
GPS and enabling a screen lock. These were divided into 14
challenges, shown below in Table I.
In seeking to highlight each participant’s risk exposure,
these challenges were dynamically customised around user
behaviour. This was achieved through reading the recent
Fig. 2. Smartwatch privacy game. Left: SAM playing the game in ‘Morning’
mode. Right: BOB facing a customised challenge in ‘Night’ mode.
Level One (2 Challenges: 1 Set, 1/3 Random)
Disable GPS Enable a screen lock pattern
Check app permissions Revoke contacts permissions
Level Two (3 Challenges: 1 Set, 2/3 Remaining)
Enable a screen lock pattern Check app permissions
Revoke contacts permissions Revoke audio permissions
Level Three (4 Challenges: 1 Set, 3/3 Random Order)
Enable a screen lock PIN Revoke location permissions
Check system app permissions Disable GPS & location perms
Level Four (5 Challenges: 5/5 Set Order)
Revoke SMS permissions Enable a screen lock password
Revoke sensors permissions Lock pattern, GPS, location perms
Uninstall application
log files of the monitoring app. Based on GPS, screen
lock, apps installed and app permissions, we contextualised
the tasks. For example, a participant might grant AC-
CESS FINE LOCATION permissions to their Uber app. If
this had occurred, location challenges (in the game) would
be customised with these details. This design followed the
influential work of Harbach et al. (2014), who used a similar
approach on smartphones. Since our contextualisation was
dynamic, the game adjusted to reflect recent user behaviour.
This provided an educational feedback loop to encourage
protection (Kiili, 2005).
B. Behaviour Change Principles
The games were designed with educational techniques from
psychology (Garg & Camp, 2012), learning science (Quinn,
2005) and HCI (Richards, Thompson, & Graham, 2014). They
could be defined as ‘operative games’, since they “leverage
knowledge gained from the study of games or play to exert
control upon the world such as encouraging exercise or
learning” (Carter, Downs, Nansen, & Harrop, 2014).
Personalisation. When participants first open the app, they
assign themselves a three-digit name. Since customisation
contributes to immersion (Annetta, Murray, Laird, & Bohr,
2006), individuals should continue in a more-retentive manner.
They then personalise their character, toggling gender, hair
colour and skin colour. These avatars tend to further increase
immersion (Annetta & Holmes, 2006), and might lead to the
receptive ‘flow’ state (Kiili, 2005).
Practice. Game challenges required the configuration of a
settings menu. Through completing tasks, participants learned
directly-applicable skills. Rather than adjusting the real menu,
we implemented a simulated interface (found in Figure 3).
This allowed us to provide on-screen hints, found to offer
further education (Woolf, 2010). It also enabled users to
experiment in a safe environment, without being forced to
change their own settings. Challenges were time-pressured,
encouraging players to remember the menu layout. This sought
to trigger ‘pleasurable frustration’, where users enjoy a fun but
challenging task (Gee, 2004).
Fig. 3. Smartwatch privacy challenges. Left: DISABLE GPS challenge in
progress. Right: DISABLE GPS failure screen, describing the consequences.
Education. Since we wished to enhance privacy knowledge,
we included education within the application. When a new
game is started, individuals can watch a brief slideshow. The
presentation highlights protective approaches and the potential
consequences of inaction. In the control group game, the
slides concerned general elements of functionality. Again, by
including similar features in both apps, we sought to minimise
the influence of extraneous variables.
Contextualisation. We selected an accessible real-world
narrative: that of going to the shops. Although we considered
more exciting scenarios, we took guidance from the literature
(Maldonado et al., 2005) and selected a relatable situation.
Since understanding is enhanced by aligning physical and vir-
tual risks (Garg & Camp, 2012), we also matched challenges to
possible real-world situations. For example, the character faces
a challenge when they are near their (gameplay) house. This
task requires GPS disabling, since their home location is being
‘tracked’. In a later level, a thief and villager are adjacent to
each other. Since questions could be overheard, the challenge
concerns microphone eavesdropping. By relating risks to real
situations, participants might consider threats in the future.
Principles. To encourage protective behaviour, we imple-
mented the four learning science principles (goal-oriented,
challenging, contextual and interactive) (Quinn, 2005). We
achieved this through (1) privacy challenges, (2) difficulty
modes, (3) dynamic customisation and (4) rich interactivity.
The six principles of educational game design were also
implemented (Annetta, 2010). This was done through avatars
(unique identity), rich narrative (immersion), high responsive-
ness (interactivity), difficulties (increased complexity), chal-
lenges (informed teaching), and feedback (instructional).
Behaviour change. The above paragraphs outline our de-
sign techniques but they do not specify our behaviour change
mechanism. Primarily, we sought to a) appeal to the availabil-
ity heuristic (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973) and b) increase user
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). This heuristic describes how “a
person evaluates the ... probability of events by availability,
i.e., by the ease with which relevant instances come to mind
(Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). By increasing the salience of
privacy, we wished to enhance the perceived risk of data
infractions. Through self-efficacy, participants should gain
confidence to put new skills into action. In concert, this seeks
to increase behavioural control. In an attempt to increase
salience, we use gameplay feedback, informative questions and
interactive challenges.
Even when individuals recognise the risks, they need knowl-
edge to protect themselves. Through our educational game,
we seek to deliver information and provide an opportunity for
practice. This should increase individuals’ self-efficacy: the
confidence that they have in their own expertise. Aligning
with Protection Motivation Theory, if users possess self-
efficacy and appreciate the risks, they should be more likely
to take action (Rogers, 1983). We hope this encourages our
participants to change their behaviour to a protective state.
A. Participants and Techniques
Participants. 10 participants used smartwatches for two
months. Although four came from the UK, we also had
individuals from Ireland, Italy, Russia, Mexico, Singapore and
the US. While we suspected that concerns and behaviour
might differ by culture, this was not found. A larger sample is
required to evaluate the influence of this factor. Eight of the
users were male, while two were female. Smartwatch users
have been disproportionately male and young (NPD Connected
Intelligence, 2014), and this trend appears to continue4. Since
many also tend to be well-educated (Desarnauts, 2016), our
sample has some validity. None of our participants had ever
used or owned a smartwatch before. This inexperience should
limit the influence from prior familiarity. As mature smart-
watches are relatively recent5, an inexperienced sample should
be externally valid.
Quantitative techniques. Since our sample size was small,
we used non-parametric measures for our behavioural compar-
isons (Siegal, 1956). To significance test independent groups,
we selected the Mann-Whitney U Test (1947). If the two
samples were related, we chose the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank
Test (1945). We required p<0.05 for significance, though its
likelihood is limited by our small sample. We used Cohen’s
dfor effect sizes, with 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 representing small,
medium and large, respectively (1977). This metric is less
affected by sample size (Cohen, 1977), and gives an indication
of the game’s influence. We use ¯xfor means, as is standard
We did not undertake significance testing when comparing
concerns or opinions. Since these scores only ranged from 1/5
to 5/5, significance was unlikely in a 10-person sample. We
also chose not to apply significance testing to our rationale
proportions. As these metrics were based on thematic coding,
we preferred to use qualitative analyses.
Qualitative techniques. Through our questionnaires and
interviews, we collected a large quantity of qualitative data.
This enabled a rare exploration of the privacy rationale of
smartwatch behaviour. To ensure a robust evaluation, we
undertook best practice through inductive thematic analysis
(Ritchie, Spencer, & O’Connor, 2003).
First, all data was formatted in a consistent manner. For
our interviews, the researcher undertook verbatim transcrip-
tion. This approach provides the most detailed account of
a discussion (MacLean, Meyer, & Estable, 2004), further
enhancing our validity. We moved on to label recurring topics
and concepts. This was undertaken iteratively, seeking to
establish consistency between similar replies. Once labelling
began to converge, we divided our topics into subtopics.
Through this process, we developed conceptual frameworks.
These indices then served as our coding frames. Once coding
was completed, we selected vivid examples (Braun & Clarke,
2006) of rich participant quotes. These are excerpts which we
deemed to exemplify a qualitative theme. To select examples,
we reviewed those quotes categorised within each topic. If
an excerpt was deemed to explain a matter with clarity, it
was presented as a vivid example. Through this approach,
we aimed to include qualitative description alongside our
quantitative findings. These examples are included throughout
this section to illustrate user opinions.
Validation. To maximise our validity, we followed four
best-practice procedures. Firstly, since we explored rationale
through both questionnaires and interviews, we triangulated
our findings (Flick, 2004). Secondly, our interviews were
analysed through multiple coding (Patton, 1999). A second
researcher, not familiar with with the authors’ topic, also
coded the transcripts. We analysed consistency by compar-
ing the theme distributions through ‘proportion agreement’
(Morrissey, 1974). We selected this method over Cohen’s
kappa (Cohen, 1960) for two reasons. Firstly, there were a
large number of themes, reducing the risk that matching is due
to chance. Secondly, since responses often mentioned multiple
themes, kappa is not appropriate (Cohen, 1960). The matching
accuracy was 83.4%, suggesting that raters frequently agreed
on the categorisation.
Thirdly, we did not seek to hide deviant cases. Where
opinions could not be conveniently grouped, distinct themes
were retained. Finally, we used respondent validation to verify
our understanding (Brink, 1991). Each participant was sent
their interview transcript and their assigned codes. They were
asked to evaluate the accuracy and to suggest refinements.
Fortunately, 100% of the sample agreed with our decisions.
Therefore, we believe our findings adequately encapsulate our
participants’ rationale.
B. Pretest Findings
Our pretest concern questionnaires were completed 18 days
into the study. This ensured that the participants were familiar
with their device, but not in possession of training.
Opinions. Before addressing concerns, the questionnaire
assessed general opinions. However, we reserve discussion
of these to the posttest section. Importantly, we included
an instructional manipulation check within the questions
(Oppenheimer, Meyvis, & Davidenko, 2009). In Question
9, participants were asked to indicate their attentiveness by
replying ‘Strongly Disagree’. This query did not serve other
purposes and was not related to privacy. Since all individuals
answered correctly, the reliability of our responses was deemed
enhanced (Oppenheimer et al., 2009).
We then assessed privacy concerns, analysing reactions to
violation scenarios. In addition to our described incidents, we
included six decoy questions. Through this technique, privacy
priming should have been mitigated. The proportion of those
at least ‘concerned’ is illustrated below in Table II, while the
questions can be found in Table VII of the appendices.
Q Concern Scenario Concerned (%)
16 GPS: Location tracking 50
25 GPS: Location sharing 80
19 Screen locks: Stranger access 80
21 Screen locks: Stranger app usage 70
18 Permissions: App data collection 90
23 Permissions: App data sharing 80
GPS. Our participants expressed some opposition to loca-
tion tracking, with 50% indicating their concern. However,
opinions varied, with another 30% being quite indifferent.
When assessing these scenarios, we also considered the par-
ticipants’ rationale. 16 justifications were given, and while
37.5% expressed concerns, 37.5% were dependent on the
situation. For example, 18.8% claimed their reaction depended
on whether the tracking was optional. If the tracking could be
disabled, as GPS can be, they would be less worried. However,
for location data to be protected, intentions must turn into
To directly illustrate participant opinions, we display vivid
examples below (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We also report the
participant ID of the cited individual. Users A-Ewere in the
treatment group, while F-Jwere control participants. At this
pretest stage, group membership was irrelevant.
I want to be able to decide when I can be tracked” (#C).
The second concern scenario, considering location sharing,
faced strong opposition. For this incident, 80% were concerned
and nobody expressed indifference. We then considered qual-
itative justifications, with 21 comments provided. The vast
majority expressed concern (85.7%), with most individuals
objecting to the principle (23.8%). Many also thought this
was illegal (14.3%), but it might be consented through privacy
policies. If individuals are truly opposed to this sharing, access
can be limited by disabling GPS.
I would very much feel as though my privacy was
invaded” (#A).
Whereas concerns were reported, behaviour was collected in
our smartwatch logs. At this pretest stage, all 10 users had their
GPS enabled. Indeed, not a single person had adjusted this
setting. This implies that their location was accessible for the
first 18 days. When considering RQ1, it appears that protective
actions are rarely taken. Since the public are unlikely to be
receive training, this presents a worrying baseline. We hope
that through our game, the issue will gain salience.
Screen locks. When considering unauthorised access, par-
ticipants were worried. 50% indicated their strong opposition,
while not a single respondent was indifferent. This suggests
that users generally reject this intrusion. 15 justifications were
given, with 60% of these fearing great damage. Concerns were
primarily driven by the security risk (20%) and the importance
of personal data (20%). This suggests that our participants
place value on their smartwatch. Two individuals were less
concerned, with one believing that that their password would
protect them. If protective features are enabled, the privacy
risk might be mitigated.
I don’t want a stranger to know my whereabouts” (#G).
Participants expressed similar concerns over their apps
being used. 70% were in opposition, with only one person
expressing indifference. This suggests that application access
is strongly rejected. On this occasion, 14 comments were
provided for justification. 64.3% of these feared great damage,
with data access being the most common concern (28.6%).
This is understandable, since apps can contain personal details.
Only one participant was unconcerned, and they believed their
apps were not sensitive (7.1%). However, if app usage is
feared, a screen lock might be appropriate.
They could cause issues through contact and they could
gain my details” (#E).
Fortunately, four participants had enabled a screen lock.
Since games had not yet been played, this suggests the
feature is well-known. This might be due to the prevalence
of smartphone PINs and patterns. The other six participants
had never used a lock. Despite their inaction, they still claimed
concern over the scenarios. In these situations, it is likely that
the setting was never noticed. Considering RQ1, this implies
that protective action is far from constant.
Permissions. We next gauged concern towards an app
accessing data. Respondents were strongly in opposition, with
90% disliking this situation. When considering the justifica-
tions, 16 different comments were given. While 25% depended
on particular details, 62.5% expressed strong concern. Many
objected to the access on principle (25%), whether or not it
posed a risk. Individuals might not act to prevent an issue, but
oppose it at an ideological level. In such cases, a disparity is
often found between concern and behaviour.
I would want them to respect my privacy” (#E).
When considering data sharing, 80% opposed the incident.
Our users appear to reject these practices, despite them being
commonly found (Schneier, 2015). We then considered the
qualitative justifications, with 17 comments provided. 58.8%
of these expressed concern, compared to only 17.6% with little
worries. As before, the most popular objection was purely on
principle (23.5%). These individuals found this data sharing
to be invasive. If they wish to limit the content, they could
choose to change their permissions.
I value my online privacy” (#F).
To assess empirical behaviour, we analysed the pretest logs.
Throughout this 18-day period, not a single participant had
restricted their permissions. In fact, these settings had been
loosened by 9/10 users. Furthermore, two installed additional
apps with sensitive permissions. Since the public are unlikely
to receive education, this presents a worrying baseline.
RQ1. In our first research question, we explored whether
smartwatch users protect their data. Although screen locks
were used by some, 60% neglected the feature. GPS was
used constantly by all individuals, enabling locations to be
identified. In the case of permissions, settings were loosened
rather than tightened. Based on these results, smartwatch users
rarely behave in a protective manner.
RQ2. Our second research question explored whether the
Privacy Paradox was common in this environment. To illustrate
the degree of concern, the mean scores are displayed below
in Figure 4.
Fig. 4. Pretest mean privacy concerns.
Although location tracking was not strongly opposed, shar-
ing provoked negative responses. This did not encourage
any participants to disable their GPS. Our respondents also
rejected both unauthorised access and app usage. While some
mitigated the risk through passwords, others expressed similar
concern. Finally, users appeared to strongly disagree with apps
accessing or sharing data. However, they chose to loosen their
permissions. Based on these results, concerns and behaviour
appear misaligned. Our smartwatch game seeks to mitigate
this issue.
C. Gameplay Opinions
Evaluations. At the end of the gameplay phase, participants
completed an evaluation questionnaire. This form can be found
in Table IX within the appendices. It did not concern the topic
of privacy, since we did not wish to prime posttest behaviour.
We first solicited agreement with statements through Likert
Scale questions. Users were asked whether they assessed
the games as enjoyable, usable, educational and challenging,
respectively. Across our sample, 60% expressed that they en-
joyed the games. While it is encouraging that most participants
were pleased, we would hope to increase this percentage in
future iterations. The agreement level was equal in each group
(60%), suggesting the privacy theme did not detract from
enjoyment. 70% deemed the apps to be usable; promising
since usability can encourage retention (Annetta, 2010). In
this case, 80% agreed in the control group, compared to 60%
in the treatment group. As will be outlined in Section IV-F,
some of the privacy menus were challenging to navigate. This
might have contributed to the decreased percentage.
Since we wished to inform participants, we hoped the
apps were considered educational. Fortunately, all respon-
dents agreed with the statement. However, differences existed
between our groups. Whereas 80% of control participants
were in strong agreement, this was matched by 20% of the
treatment group. Surprisingly, this suggests that the generic
game was considered more educational. This opinion might
have emerged for two reasons. Firstly, since the privacy app
only concentrated on the three protective features, its content
was narrower. Secondly, as evidenced in our final Likert-Scale
question, privacy tasks were found more challenging. Whereas
generic tasks were deemed simple (100%), nobody thought the
same of treatment challenges (0%). This suggests that privacy
is a more-complex topic, and might explain why protective
settings are frequently overlooked.
Opinions. We then proceeded to extract opinions through
qualitative questions. Their open-ended responses were coded
through the thematic analysis highlighted in Subsection IV-A.
Firstly, we asked individuals what they most liked about the
game. Usability was most praised, with this contributing to
41.2% of responses. The ease of interaction was particularly
appreciated (23.5%), suggesting our game was simple to play.
This is encouraging, since usability has been found to en-
courage retention (Annetta, 2010). When discussing dislikes,
participants mentioned 14 factors. The most-frequent com-
plaint was that the games were repetitive (28.6%). This was
partially intentional, since repetition is a standard approach
to ingrain knowledge (Franzwa, Tang, & Johnson, 2013). In
future implementations, greater randomness might make the
issue less apparent.
When we asked for suggested improvements, 19 comments
were submitted. 57.9% were in favour of extending the game,
with 26.3% requesting additional ‘challenges’. This might
suggest that users saw feasibility in our approach. While our
challenges currently concern installed programs, we could
add tasks based on app installation. Through these participant
responses, we can refine our games for future interaction.
D. Posttest Concerns
Users returned their smartwatches at the end of the posttest
phase. They then completed final surveys, identical in design
to the pretest forms. This allowed fair examination of whether
opinions had changed. Since the games had not been played
for almost three weeks, they should not prime privacy. Further-
more, our purpose should be disguised by the decoy questions.
Due to the small sample sizes, we do not include p-values in
our below discussion. For ordinal comparisons in a 10-person
sample, significance is highly unlikely. As an overview, the
pretest-posttest concern proportions (the percentage of those
at least responding ‘concerned’) are presented below in Table
III. The final columns highlight the pretest-posttest change.
Pretest (%) Posttest (%) Change (%)
Concern Scenario Tmt Cnt Tmt Cnt Tmt Cnt
Location tracking 20 80 60 60 +40 -20
Location sharing 60 100 40 100 -20 0
Stranger access 60 100 100 60 +40 -40
Stranger app usage 100 40 80 80 -20 +40
App data collection 100 100 60 100 -40 0
App data sharing 80 80 60 80 -20 0
Opinions. In this section, we explored our participants’
privacy perceptions. To assess awareness, we asked whether
personal data could be read by apps. While agreement de-
creased in the control group (from ¯x= 4.8 to 4.6), it increased
in the treatment group (from ¯x= 4.4 to 4.8). We then solicited
their confidence in their own understanding. As expected,
treatment users appeared to have greater self-efficacy than the
other group (¯x= 4.6 vs 3.8).
In our third question, participants were asked whether an
app might threaten smartwatch data. Whereas the treatment
group perceived a threat (¯x= 4.8), controls appeared to
lack this knowledge (¯x= 3.4). Although our sample size
impedes significance, the privacy game might have enhanced
understanding. All users again succeeded in the instructional
manipulation check. This implies that responses were made in
an engaged manner (Oppenheimer et al., 2009).
Location. When considering location tracking, both groups
became more worried. Concerns were now slightly less con-
tingent, and instead focused on the principle of violation (3/10
participants). Users also began to consider targeted advertising
and the way their data might be used (2/10). Treatment
individuals might have learned about specific risks from their
game. Again, representative quotes (with participant ID and
group) are shown below.
Firstly, we solicited reactions to location tracking. 60% were
now concerned at the issue (up from 50%), suggesting one
individual might have learned the risk. Although responses
are more varied than for some incidents, monitoring appears to
provoke some unease. 18 justifications were given, with 55.6%
expressing concern. Treatment reactions were now less de-
pendent, with some opposing the incident on principle (20%).
Control participants feared the leak risk (25%) but cared less
if it was optional (25%). With respondents expressing greater
concern, we hope this contributes to GPS disabling.
There still runs a risk that there might be data leakage”,
(#H, Control).
We also analysed reactions to location sharing. Concerns
appeared to have altered greatly since the pretest stage. The
control group were still opposed, with all respondents being
‘Very Concerned’. Surprisingly, only two treatment partici-
pants acted in the same manner (40%). Indeed, their concern
appeared to decrease as the study progressed. To investigate
the rationale, we analysed our 15 qualitative responses. In
the control group, individuals feared a security risk (33.3%).
One participant was also worried because they felt uninformed
(11.1%). Three responses were indifferent, with all these
coming from treatment users. Participant Ddoubted their risk
since they disabled GPS. This report was true, and it implies
that behaviour aligned with concerns.
They can only do so if I have my location turned on, and
as I only use this feature occasionally it wouldn’t bother
me too much”, (#B, Treatment).
Stranger access. When considering unauthorised access,
both groups showed strong opposition. This matched the
pretest reaction, suggesting that this incident is still rejected.
If so, more screen locks should have been enabled. While
concerns were strong, the rationale differed between our
groups. For treatment participants, the access to personal data
was most troubling (40%). They also opposed the security risk
that these details could pose (20%). In contrast, several in the
control group doubted their sensitivity (28.6%). If they had
played the privacy game, perhaps they would have knowledge
of their risk exposure.
Not sure they’d get much out of it” (#I, Control).
Both groups continued to oppose unauthorised app use.
80% expressed concern at the scenario, with the distribution
of responses being identical. This was greater than the 70%
in pretest, suggesting the risk might have gained salience.
While both groups were predominantly concerned, their qual-
itative rationale differed. Our treatment participants named
specific issues, such as impersonation (33.3%) or identity
theft (22.2%). The control group were more general, and two
individuals expressed dependent concerns. Since our privacy
game sought to highlight risk, users might have learned of
specific threats.
Identity theft is my worst fear” (#A, Treatment).
App access. Concerns differed more considerably when
discussing data collection. All the control group were wor-
ried, with 40% giving strong responses. In contrast, 40% of
treatment participants supplied a neutral reply. Through the 15
justifications, explored what encouraged these views. Control
users were worried about data selling (16.7%) and the risk of
leakage (16.7%). Treatment participants were alone in offering
mitigative views. One expressed that data could be collected
through other means (11.1%). While true, permissions provide
a rare opportunity to limit access.
Companies already have means of getting so not too
concerned” (#D, Treatment).
For the final scenario, we assessed reactions to data sharing.
As in the previous incident, the treatment group appeared to
lose concern. While 80% of control participants were worried,
the others appeared less concerned. To explore why, we anal-
ysed the 16 qualitative responses. In the control group, targeted
advertising was the main issue (37.5%). For treatment users,
reactions were dependent on other factors. Their concerns
were nuanced, based on whether data was sensitive (16.7%)
or aggregated (16.7%). Rather than scaring users, the privacy
game might support informed judgements. Hopefully, they also
learned how to adjust their permissions.
I wouldn’t mind if ... it was information that wasn’t too
specific” (#B, Treatment).
Summary. For good reason, we hesitate from judging a
small sample. However, treatment concern appeared to de-
crease in 4/6 cases. Individuals might now have a greater
recognition of how they are acting. If protection is used more
frequently, concerns and behaviour might realign.
When assessing responses critically, there might be several
reasons for this pattern. Firstly, if initial responses were strong,
posttest answers could indicate regression to the mean. This
might be due to the random responses of an unengaged sample.
We doubt randomness was the primary factor, since users were
engaged frequently within study elements. Secondly, treatment
participants might have deemed decreased concern to be a
study objective. Therefore, their answers were influenced by
a response bias. However, through decoy questions at all
stages, we sought to disguise the purpose of our study. Finally,
the ‘fear of the unknown’ might have magnified the pretest
concerns. When smartwatches then became familiar, this effect
may have decreased. We believe that this factor is most likely
to have proved influential. Whereas initial responses might
have been vague, posttest concerns were informed by be-
havioural experience. Therefore, concern-behaviour alignment
might still be an outcome.
E. Posttest Behaviour
For our third research question (RQ3), we explored whether
the game could encourage protective behaviour. To assess this,
we monitored the smartwatches for 52 days. If activity differs
between pretest and posttest, our app might be influential.
A per-participant comparison can be found in Table IV.
Increases in protection are highlighted in green, while deterio-
rations are in red. Table V illustrates the mean daily behaviour
throughout the study. The columns denote time periods, as
shown in Figure 1, while the rows denote participants’ actions.
GPS. In our treatment group, the behaviour change was
dramatic. Across the five individuals, GPS usage decreased
by an average of 40%. Our small sample impeded significance
(p= 0.157), but the ‘very large’ effect size (d= 1.461) was
promising (Sawilowsky, 2009). Based on a desired power
of 0.8, a sample of at least 14 would be required. While
Participants Band Dused the service in the pretest phase,
they ceased usage during the gameplay session. Furthermore,
they did not re-enable GPS throughout the remainder of the
study. This implies that users successfully learned protection.
This comes in contrast to the control group, where every
participant allowed the service. Usage did not adjust even
# GPS Screen Lock Permissions
A- - +1.1%
B-100% +99.9% -22%
C- - +21.5%
D-100% +13.7% +2.4%
E- +100% -
F- - -
G- - -
H- - +0.1%
I- - +1.1%
J- - +0.4
slightly between their pretest and posttest phases (p= 1.0).
Indeed, GPS was not disabled once over the 52 days. This
suggests that, without training, users will not protect them-
selves. It also implies that behaviour was not biased by our
Screen locks. For the treatment group, screen lock usage
increased by 42.7%. This change was significant (Z= -2.023,
p= 0.043, d= 0.733), with the medium effect size suggesting
the game was persuasive. Participants Band Edid not use a
password during the first 18 days. However, within 10 minutes
of playing the game, both enabled the feature.
In the control group, Participant Jcontinued to use a
password from the pretest stage. None of the other individuals
used the feature even once. As such, behaviour barely changed
as the study progressed (p= 0.317). Again, this demonstrates
that protection will be rarely used without encouragement.
Permissions. Interestingly, permission acceptance did not
differ greatly for either group. In our treatment group (p=
0.5), the acceptance rate was stable for A,Dand E.Bmight
have responded to the game, decreasing their percentage by
22%. However, Ccontinued their exploration, increasing their
rate by 21.5%. Users often spoke of balancing privacy against
functionality, and these views are explored in the next section.
In the control group (p= 0.068), behaviour remained stable
for all individuals. This suggests that their game did not
influence privacy protection. Across the 52 days, no control
participants revoked a single permission. Their permission
scores only differed based on the apps they installed. This fur-
ther implies that protective behaviour is rare on smartwatches.
RQ3. Table V illustrates protective behaviour throughout
the study. As shown, control-group actions are static before,
during and after gameplay. Indeed, actions appeared finalised
from Day 2 of the study. Throughout the other 50 days, the
shading continues to be orange. Therefore, it appears that the
generic game had no influence on behaviour. This ensures that
it served as an appropriate control to the privacy app.
For the treatment group, protection was rare in the pretest
period. Although some participants used the features, their
usage was inconsistent. However, once the gameplay phase
begins, the chart becomes predominantly green and yellow.
This shading remains throughout the rest of the study. As the
privacy game lost salience, behaviour did not appear to relapse.
This suggests that this app was successful in encouraging
protection. As concerns decreased in the treatment group,
opinions and behaviour appeared to realign.
F. Interview Findings
After the posttest questionnaires were completed, we con-
cluded the study with interviews. The questions can be found
in Table VIII of the appendices. These semi-structured discus-
sions served three purposes. Firstly, they allowed us to gauge
general opinions of the study. Secondly, we could compare the
privacy knowledge of our two groups. Finally, we explored the
behavioural rationale of each participant. As an overview, the
responses of our groups can be found below in Table VI. This
illustrates how the posttest capabilities of participants appeared
to differ after the gameplay phase. The details of the responses
are highlighted within the following paragraphs.
Q Characteristic Treatment (%) Control (%)
10 Knew protective feature 100 40
Disable GPS 60 20
Lock screen 40 0
Restrict permissions 60 20
Would defend privacy 100 60
11 Against location tracking 100 0
12 Against app data collection 100 0
13 Against unauthorised access 100 60
Demonstrated ability 100 100
14 Disabling GPS 100 60
15 Locking screen 80 80
16 Restricting permissions 80 80
Demonstrated confidence 100 40
14 Disabling GPS 100 20
15 Restricting permissions 100 40
16 Locking screen 80 0
General. We asked users whether they felt influenced by
the background monitoring app. None of our 10 participants
believed it had any effect. While this does not ensure external
validity, it increases the reliability of our findings.
I just used it as I would normally” (#A, Treatment).
With the study requiring long-term interaction, we were
interested in why our users chose to participate. All 10 were
curious to trial a smartwatch, with two also appreciating
research. Only two mentioned the voucher compensation,
suggesting participation was primarily driven by genuine in-
terest. Since our demographics were not dissimilar to the user
population (NPD Connected Intelligence, 2014; Desarnauts,
2016), we should have external validity.
I was about to buy a new one [smartwatch] so that was
the perfect moment” (#J, Control).
Before introducing the topic of privacy, we asked partici-
pants if they learned anything as the study progressed. This
assessed gameplay retention, as the apps had not been used
for 18 days. Privacy was highlighted by 60% of the treatment
group. Since they also praised the game, it might have been
educational. The control group were similarly influenced, with
60% mentioning their app. However, to truly examine whether
users are informed, we must test their knowledge.
I think there was a couple of privacy settings that, through
the game, I picked up” (#B, Treatment).
Privacy awareness. To compare degrees of privacy aware-
ness, we asked users how they believed their data could
be accessed. All of our treatment group provided accurate
descriptions (100%). They also highlighted the risk of user
accounts (12.5%) and fraudulent apps (5.0%). Since their
game outlined privacy threats, they might have learned of
their vulnerability. In contrast, only 40% of controls knew app
practices, with the others blaming irrelevant technologies.
Through some app that you allow them to track your
location”, (#E, Treatment).
We then asked users how they could protect their privacy.
As shown in Table VI, all treatment participants knew a
beneficial action (100%). 40% named screen locks, 60% cited
permissions and 60% would disable GPS. Even if they choose
not to act, they should be able to make informed decisions. In
the control group, only 40% named a single setting. Many
justifications highlighted that they were unsure (13.3%) or
unconcerned (13.3%). If individuals lack awareness, their data
might be placed at risk.
I’d probably start by going through the list of apps and
seeing what permissions were useless”, (#A, Treatment).
To further assess knowledge, we asked participants how
they could defend against the scenarios. These comprised of:
location tracking, unauthorised access and app data collection.
If individuals know defences, they can act in response to their
concerns. In the first incident, all the treatment group knew
to disable their GPS (100%). However, none of the control
participants could list a technique (0%). When considering
unauthorised access, the former group also performed well.
All the users mentioned screen locks, whether PIN (60%) or
pattern (40%). This was compared with 60% of the controls,
with several highlighting they felt unsure. Finally, we con-
sidered defences against data collection. The treatment group
outlined permissions (100%) and app deletion (60%). No
control participants knew of permissions, even after 52 days
of interaction (0%). When comparing the groups, it appears as
if the privacy game was educational. Unfortunately, untrained
users seem not to seek out protection.
...I’m not using Google Maps right now, so I don’t need
to have the location enabled for it” (#D - TMT).
Ability. While these responses gave us confidence, we
wished to test knowledge empirically. Individuals might know
of settings but be unable to use them. Therefore, we asked
users to demonstrate the three protective features. By talking
aloud, we could ascertain both their route and their certainty.
Users were given a watch and asked to disable the GPS.
The treatment group found this simple, with all five navigating
directly (100%). In contrast, only 60% of control participants
could find the settings. Another 40% claimed to have never
checked the feature, indicating their lack of exploration. In-
dividuals were then asked to adjust their permissions. These
settings were better-understood, with 8/10 navigating straight
to the menu. However, while the treatment group were all
certain (100%), 60% of the others were learning en route.
Disable GPS you said? Go down to Connectivity, Loca-
tion, off. Done”, (#A, Treatment).
When requesting password usage, individuals had greater
difficulty. Although 7/10 followed a direct path, no control
participants expressed certainty (0%). This appeared due to
the difficulty in categorising Screen Lock in a particular menu.
After 52 days of interaction, it is concerning that privacy
settings cause such confusion. This further demonstrates the
importance of educational tools.
Another thing I haven’t done” (#I, Control).
G. What factors influence smartwatch behaviour?
RQ4. Finally, we consider the responses to our PMT
questions. Based on the frequency of themes, we outline the
factors that appear most influential. Through exploring user
rationale, we address our final research question.
PMT factors. In terms of factors, participants generally
possessed good self-efficacy. Most also believed configuration
was easy, even if some knowledge was required. And although
many in the control group doubted watch protection, settings
did not seem to be the issue.
The most influential factors appeared to be the threat com-
ponents. Firstly, most users had a balanced view of severity. If
data access was consented and rewarded, many were satisfied.
This helps explain why protection was so often ignored.
Secondly, the control group failed to perceive risk. Unlike
treatment participants, they had not learned the value of their
data. Finally, and most influentially, users received rewards
from smartwatch apps. Since settings can impede functionality,
permissions were often blindly accepted. It was only after
gameplay that participants reflected on data access.
Rationale. Based on interview responses, three issues pri-
marily influenced decisions: sensitivity, salience and conve-
nience. When individuals knew that their data was valuable,
they considered protection. However, since watch details were
often deemed innocuous, settings were not explored. Similarly,
when privacy was not visible, participants often forgot the
concept. If they felt at risk or noticed consequences, protection
regained its relevance. Most crucially, users tended to weigh
convenience against privacy. Smartwatches are obtained to
provide functionality, and settings can restrict these benefits.
Therefore, even informed users would trade some data, while
actively protecting other details.
Persuasion. Through our final questions, we asked par-
ticipants what would encourage protection. Users named a
range of scenarios, from negative media reports to apps being
hacked. A common theme was if the participant acquired a
high-profile job. This would increase the sensitivity of watch
data, and hence encourage greater protection. Individuals also
claimed they would act if abroad, especially if that country
was dangerous. However, one participant did go overseas, and
reported not increasing their protection. Privacy settings were
rarely mentioned as an impediment. As before, this suggests
that threat components have greater influence on smartwatches.
Further approaches. The largest issues appear to be per-
ceived severity, perceived vulnerability and perceived rewards.
Severity is challenging to magnify, since many participants had
a nuanced view. Individuals did not oppose all sharing, though
perceptions might change after recent privacy controversies
(Glenday, 2018). To highlight the risk from their data, we
could demonstrate inference techniques through online videos.
Our privacy game contextualised challenges around real-
life behaviour. This sought to make the issue salient to each
individual. After treatment participants learned of their vulner-
ability, many chose to adjust their settings. Since risk appears
influential, future tools could analyse user permissions. Based
on the restrictions applied to each app, a risk exposure could
be calculated. By allowing individuals to compare their scores,
protection might be incentivised.
Rewards are challenging to counter, since apps do provide
convenient features. However, this does not mean that data has
to be sacrificed. Mocking frameworks have been successful in
faking smartphone metrics (Beresford, Rice, Skehin, & Sohan,
2011). Since our watches run on an Android environment,
similar tools might be possible. When an app then requires
a location, a coarse position could be given. In this manner,
functionality could be received while protecting data.
Summary. We outline the development of the first privacy-
themed smartwatch game. It was designed through Learning
Science principles and evaluated through a 52-day longitudinal
study. Our treatment group, who played the game, began
taking greater action to protect their privacy. Indeed, their
usage of screen locks significantly increased after gameplay.
The control group, who used a generic version, continued to
do little. Indeed, 80% of these users failed to adjust a single
setting. Since treatment concerns became more nuanced after
gameplay, opinions appeared to realign with behaviour.
By dissecting interviews through Protection Motivation The-
ory, we explored smartwatch privacy rationale. Participants
appeared most influenced by three factors: sensitivity, salience
and convenience. A person will not invest effort unless their
data is deemed valuable. Even if they do desire protection,
privacy can be easily overlooked. Finally, informed users
might sacrifice data for convenience. However, they can only
make a considered choice if they understand the risks. Since
smartwatch games appear to encourage protection, they should
be considered as a complement to awareness campaigns.
Implications. Our findings are in line with existing re-
search. As highlighted above, even informed users might
trade their data for functionality. This supports the concept
of Privacy Calculus, where the benefits and risks of disclosure
are compared (Culnan & Armstrong, 1999). However, until
individuals gain an understanding of the topic, they cannot
judge the risk fairly (Slovic, 1987). Indeed, as highlighted by
Acquisti et al. (2015), the Privacy Paradox “is also affected
by misperceptions of those costs and benefits, as well as
social norms, emotions, and heuristics”. When people lack
knowledge of a matter, they tend to overestimate the advan-
tages (G´
omez-Barroso, Feij´
oo, & Mart´
ınez, 2018).
Therefore, since baseline privacy knowledge tends to be low
(Bashir, Hayes, Lambert, & Kesan, 2015), we must support
users to make informed protective decisions. We believe this
has been achieved through the use of educational games.
As suggested by Hallam and Zanella (2017), privacy issues
became more pertinent after we increased their salience.
Permanence. Although interventions might adjust be-
haviour, they can lose efficacy once their salience decreases.
As participants forget about our educational game, they might
decrease their protective behaviour. We sought to influence the
availability heuristic as a means of increasing risk perception
(Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). Therefore, we recognise that as
salience reduces, so does the perceived likelihood of threats.
However, our game also aimed to enhance individuals’ self-
efficacy. Even if participants lack the immediate desire to
guard their data, it is valuable that they know how. Our
posttest interviews showed that even the treatment participants
who avoided protection (e.g., Participant C) could demonstrate
the usage of privacy settings. Hence, although salience might
decrease over the longer-term, protective knowledge should
be retained. This was suggested in our posttest results, where
behaviour did not revert even weeks after gameplay.
Limitations. We are transparent in the fact that our study
possesses several limitations. Firstly, we only evaluated a
sample size of 10 participants. As a result, we drew no
conclusions over whether privacy concerns vary by culture.
We were constrained, since new watches required monitoring
over a consistent period. While we would have preferred a
larger group, we supported our quantitative findings with a
rich qualitative analysis. Secondly, our longitudinal study only
spanned a period of two months. In this case, we were limited
by the term lengths of our university. However, the duration
was in excess of many two-stage studies, which impose a gap
of one week (Albayram, Khan, & Jensen, 2017; Wiedenbeck,
Waters, Birget, Brodskiy, & Memon, 2005; DeWitt & Kuljis,
2006; Kumaraguru et al., 2009). To test retention further,
we plan to monitor new participants over a longer period.
Thirdly, our gameplay questionnaire suggested that only 60%
of users enjoyed the games. Therefore, even if the privacy app
did prove beneficial, further enhancements might be required
to support intrinsic motivation. Finally, by targeting Android
devices, we neglected the Apple Watch environment. This is a
distinct ecosystem, albeit one which may be less amenable to
analysis (Tracy, 2012). In future research, we seek to compare
behaviour by developing Apple games.
Further work. We finally discuss opportunities for further
work. It would be interesting to explore smartwatch purchases.
Wearables may present risks, but it is unclear whether this
fact is ever considered. By comparing Wear OS users to other
populations, we could analyse how expectations vary. Smart-
watch games appear to be effective in encouraging protection.
However, other connected devices, such as Smart TVs, also
present privacy issues (Ghiglieri, Volkamer, & Renaud, 2017).
Our design principles are transferable, and TV games might
highlight the risk.
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015).
Privacy and human behavior in the age of information.
Science,347(6221), 509–514.
Adair, J. (1984). The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration
of the methodological artifact. Journal of Applied
Psychology,69(2), 334–345.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50(2),
Alashoor, T., Keil, M., Liu, L., & Smith, J. (2015). How
values shape concerns about privacy for self and oth-
ers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Information Systems.
Albayram, Y., Khan, M. M. H., & Fagan, M. (2017). A
study on designing video tutorials for promoting security
features: A case study in the context of Two-Factor
Authentication (2FA). International Journal of Human-
Computer Interaction, 1–16.
Albayram, Y., Khan, M. M. H., & Jensen, T. (2017). “...better
to use a lock screen than to worry about saving a few
seconds of time”: Effect of fear appeal in the context
of smartphone locking behavior. In Proceedings of the
13th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (pp.
Al-Sharrah, M., Salman, A., & Ahmad, I. (2018). Watch your
smartwatch. In Proceedings of the 2018 International
Conference on Computing Sciences and Engineering
(pp. 1–5).
Annetta, L. A. (2010). The “I’s” have it: A framework for
serious educational game design. Review of General
Psychology,14(2), 105–112.
Annetta, L. A., & Holmes, S. (2006). Creating pres-
ence and community in a synchronous virtual learning
environment using avatars. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning,3(8),
Annetta, L. A., Murray, M. R., Laird, S. G., & Bohr, S. C.
(2006). Serious games: Incorporating video games in
the classroom. Educause Quarterly,29(3), 16–22.
Ashbrook, D., & Starner, T. (2003). Using GPS to learn
significant locations and predict movement across mul-
tiple users. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing,7(5),
Bada, M., Sasse, A., & Nurse, J. R. C. (2015). Cyber
security awareness campaigns: Why do they fail to
change behaviour? In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Cyber Security for Sustainable Society
(pp. 118–131).
Baek, Y. M. (2014). Solving the privacy paradox: A counter-
argument experimental approach. Computers in Human
Behavior,38, 33–42.
Baggili, I., Oduro, J., Anthony, K., Breitinger, F., & McGee,
G. (2015). Watch what you wear: Preliminary forensic
analysis of smart watches. In Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference on Availability, Reliability and
Security (pp. 303–311).
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychological Review,84(2), 191–
Barth, S., & de Jong, M. (2017). The privacy paradox -
Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy
concerns and actual online behavior - A systematic
literature review. Telematics and Informatics,34(7),
Bartsch, M., & Dienlin, T. (2016). Control your Facebook:
An analysis of online privacy literacy. Computers in
Human Behavior,56, 147–154.
Bashir, M., Hayes, C., Lambert, A. D., & Kesan, J. P. (2015).
Online privacy and informed consent: The dilemma of
information asymmetry. In Proceedings of the 78th
ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Information Science with Im-
pact: Research in and for the Community.
Benbunan-Fich, R. (2017). Usability of wearables without
affordances. In Proceedings of the 2017 Americas
Conference on Information Systems.
Beresford, A. R., K¨
ubler, D., & Preibusch, S. (2012).
Unwillingness to pay for privacy: A field experiment.
Economics Letters,117(1), 25–27.
Beresford, A. R., Rice, A., Skehin, N., & Sohan, R. (2011).
MockDroid: Trading privacy for application functional-
ity on smartphones. In Proceedings of the 12th Work-
shop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications
(pp. 49–54).
Bonneau, J., & Preibusch, S. (2010). The privacy jungle:
On the market for data protection in social networks.
Economics of Information Security and Privacy, 121–
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3(2),
Briggs, P., Jeske, D., & Coventry, L. (2017). Behavior change
interventions for cybersecurity. In Behavior Change
Research and Theory (pp. 115–136).
Brink, P. J. (1991). Issues of reliability and validity. In
Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue
(pp. 164–186).
Bruyneel, S., & Dewitte, S. (2016). Health nudges: How
behavioural engineering can reduce chocolate consump-
tion. In The economics of chocolate (pp. 157–170).
Carifio, J., & Perla, R. (2008). Resolving the 50-year
debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Medical
Education,42(12), 1150–1152.
Carter, M., Downs, J., Nansen, B., & Harrop, M. (2014).
Paradigms of games research in HCI: A review of 10
years of research at CHI. In Proceedings of the 1st
ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-Human
Interaction in Play (pp. 27–36).
Casano, J., Tee, H., Agapito, J., Arroyo, I., & Rodrigo,
M. M. T. (2016). Migration and evaluation of a
framework for developing embodied cognition learning
games. In Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Europe Sympo-
sium on Simulation & Serious Gaming (pp. 199–203).
Chang, M. K. (1998). Predicting unethical behavior: A
comparison of the Theory of Reasoned Action and the
Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics,
17(16), 1825–1834.
Clarke, R. (1999). Introduction to dataveillance and infor-
mation privacy, and definitions of terms (Tech. Rep.).
Retrieved from
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal
scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
20(1), 37–46.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Collins English Dictionary. (2017). Smartwatch
definition and meaning. Retrieved from
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., & Hainey,
T. (2012). A systematic literature review of empir-
ical evidence on computer games and serious games.
Computers & Education,59(2), 661–686.
Consumer Reports. (2014). 5 steps to protect your smart
phone from theft or loss. Retrieved from https://
Creese, S., Goldsmith, M., Nurse, J. R. C., & Phillips, E.
(2012). A data-reachability model for elucidating pri-
vacy and security risks related to the use of online
social networks. In Proceedings of the 11th international
conference on trust, security and privacy in computing
and communications (pp. 1124–1131).
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests. Psychometrika,16(3), 297–334.
Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999). Information
privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal
trust: An empirical investigation. Organization Science,
10(1), 104–115.
Desarnauts, B. (2016). Wristly Insider’s report
#45. Retrieved from
Deuker, A. (2009). Addressing the privacy paradox by
expanded privacy awareness - The example of context-
aware services. IFIP Advances in Information and
Communication Technology,320, 275–283.
DeWitt, A. J., & Kuljis, J. (2006). Aligning usability and
security: A usability study of Polaris. In Proceedings
of the 2nd Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security
(pp. 1–7).
Do, Q., Martini, B., & Choo, K.-K. R. (2017). Is the data on
your wearable device secure? An Android Wear smart-
watch case study. Software: Practice and Experience,
47(3), 391–403.
Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., & Vlaev, I.
(2010). MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour for public
policy (Tech. Rep.). Institute of Government, London
School of Economics and Political Science.
Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (1999).
How people learn: Bridging research and practice.
National Academies Press.
Felt, A. P., Ha, E., Egelman, S., Haney, A., Chin, E., &
Wagner, D. (2012). Android permissions: User attention,
comprehension, and behavior. In Proceedings of the 8th
Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security.
Fielding, N. G. (2006). Self-report study. In The SAGE
Dictionary of Social Research Methods (pp. 276–277).
Fishbein, M. (1979). A theory of reasoned action: Some
applications and implications. Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation,27, 65–116.
Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. In A
companion to qualitative research (pp. 178–183). Sage.
Franzwa, C., Tang, Y., & Johnson, A. (2013). Serious game
design: Motivating students through a balance of fun
and learning. In Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious
Applications (pp. 1–7).
Garg, V., & Camp, J. (2012). End user perception of online
risk under uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 45th
Hawaii International Conference on System Science (pp.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique
of traditional schooling. Psychology Press.
Ghiglieri, M., Volkamer, M., & Renaud, K. (2017). Exploring
consumers’ attitudes of smart TV related privacy risks.
Human Aspects of Information Security, Privacy and
Trust in Lecture Notes in Computer Science,10292,
Glanville, B. (2018). 72% of Brits haven’t
heard about GDPR. Retrieved from
Glenday, J. (2018). #DeleteFacebook movement
builds up steam. The Drum. Retrieved from
omez-Barroso, J.-L., Feij´
oo, C., & Mart´
ınez, I. J.
(2018). Privacy calculus: Factors that influence the
perception of benefit. El Profesional de la Informaci´
(EPI),27(2), 341–348.
Hallam, C., & Zanella, G. (2017). Online self-disclosure: The
privacy paradox explained as a temporally discounted
balance between concerns and rewards. Computers in
Human Behavior,68, 217–227.
Harbach, M., Hettig, M., Weber, S., & Smith, M. (2014).
Using personal examples to improve risk communica-
tion for security & privacy decisions. In Proceedings of
the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 2647–2656).
Hardeman, W., Johnston, M., Johnston, D., Bonetti, D., Ware-
ham, N., & Kinmonth, A. L. (2002). Application of
the Theory of Planned Behaviour in behaviour change
interventions: A systematic review. Psychology and
Health,17(2), 123–158.
elou, C., Guandouz, A., & A¨
ımeur, E. (2012). A privacy
awareness system for Facebook users. Journal of Infor-
mation Security,3(1), 15–29.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise. (2014). Internet of
Things security study: Smartwatches (Tech. Rep.).
Retrieved from
Horcher, A. M. (2015). A tap on the wrist: Security usability
for wearables. In Proceedings of the Workshop on
Inclusive Privacy and Security.
Huang, H. Y., & Bashir, M. (2016). Privacy by region: Evalu-
ation online users’ privacy perceptions by geographical
region. In Proceedings of the 2016 Future Technologies
Hughes-Roberts, T., & Furnell, S. (2015). Privacy as
a secondary goal problem: An experiment examining
control. Information & Computer Security,23(4), 382
– 393.
Irvine, C. E., Thompson, M. F., & Allen, K. (2005). Cy-
berCIEGE: Gaming for information assurance. IEEE
Security & Privacy,3(3), 61–64.
Jackson, C. B., & Wang, Y. (2018). Addressing the Privacy
Paradox through personalized privacy notifications. Pro-
ceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable
and Ubiquitous Technologies,2(2).
Jeong, H., Kim, H., Kim, R., Lee, U., & Jeong, Y. (2017).
Smartwatch wearing behavior analysis: A longitudinal
study. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile,
Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies,1(3), 60.
enez Vargas, A. C. (2016). Android Wear: Usability
guidelines, features and development of a prototype
(Master’s Thesis). Polytechnic of Turin.
Kelley, P. G., Bresee, J., Cranor, L. F., & Reeder, R. W. (2009).
A nutrition label for privacy. In Proceedings of the 5th
Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security.
Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an
experiential gaming model. The Internet and Higher
Education,8(1), 13–24.
Kumar, J. (2013). Gamification at work: Designing engag-
ing business software. Design, User Experience and
Usability in Lecture Notes in Computer Science,8013,
Kumaraguru, P., Cranshaw, J., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L. F.,
Hong, J., Blair, M. A., & Pham, T. (2009). School of
phish: A real-world evaluation of anti-phishing training.
In Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy
and Security.
Lee, L., Lee, J. H., Egelman, S., & Wagner, D. (2016).
Information disclosure concerns in the age of wearable
computing. In Proceedings of the 2016 Workshop on
Usable Security.
Li, H. (2017). User experience design for smartwatch games
(Master’s Thesis). Auckland University of Technology.
Liska, A. E. (1984). A critical examination of the causal
structure of the Fishbein/Ajzen attitude-behavior model.
Social Psychology Quarterly,47(1), 61–74.
MacLean, L. M., Meyer, M., & Estable, A. (2004). Improving
accuracy of transcripts in qualitative research. Qualita-
tive Health Research,14(1), 113–123.
Maldonado, H., Lee, J. R. L., Brave, S., Nass, C., Nakajima,
H., Yamada, R., . . . Morishima, Y. (2005). We learn
better together: Enhancing eLearning with emotional
characters. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on
Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 408–
Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether
one of two random variables is stochastically larger than
the other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics,18(1),
Matthews, S. (2016). Smartwatch dangers - Are you the
target? War on Identity Theft. Retrieved from http://
Mayer, R. E., Mathias, A., & Wetzell, K. (2002). Fostering
understanding of multimedia messages through pre-
training: Evidence for a two-stage theory of mental
model construction. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: Applied,8(3), 147–154.
Miorandi, D., Sicari, S., Pellegrini, F. D., & Chlamtac, I.
(2012). Internet of Things: Vision, applications and
research challenges. Ad Hoc Networks,10(7), 1497–
Morar Consulting. (2016). The dangers of
our digital lives (Tech. Rep.). Retrieved
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C.
(2001). The case for social agency in computer-based
teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they
interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition
and Instruction,19(2), 177–213.
Morrissey, E. R. (1974). Sources of error in the coding of
questionnaire data. Sociological Methods & Research,
3(2), 209–232.
Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Privacy in context: Technology, pol-
icy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University
Norberg, P., Horne, D., & Horne, D. (2007). The privacy
paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions ver-
sus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs,41(1), 100–
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and
the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences
Education,15(5), 625–632.
Norman, P., & Conner, M. (1996). The role of social
cognition models in predicting health behaviours: Future
directions. In Predicting health behaviour: Research and
practice with social cognition models (pp. 197–225).
Open University Press.
NPD Connected Intelligence. (2014). Consumers
and wearables report (Tech. Rep.). Retrieved
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009).
Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing
to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology,45(4), 867–872.
Paine, C., Reips, U. D., Stieger, S., Joinson, A., & Buchanan,
T. (2007). Internet users’ perceptions of ‘privacy
concerns’ and ‘privacy actions’. International Journal
of Human-Computer Studies,65(6), 526–536.
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility
of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research,34(5),
Pike, S., Kelledy, M., & Gelnaw, A. (2017). Measuring U.S.
privacy sentiment: An IDC special report (Tech. Rep.).
Pizza, S., Brown, B., McMillan, D., & Lampinen, A. (2016).
Smartwatch in vivo. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(pp. 5456–5469).
otzsch, S. (2009). Privacy awareness: A means to solve the
privacy paradox? In IFIP Advances in Information and
Communication Technology (Vol. 298, pp. 226–236).
Quinn, C. N. (2005). Engaging learning: Designing e-learning
simulation games. John Wiley & Sons.
Richards, C., Thompson, C. W., & Graham, N. (2014). Beyond
designing for motivation: The importance of context in
gamification. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI
Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in
Play (pp. 217–226).
Ritchie, J., Spencer, L., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Carrying out
qualitative analysis. In Qualitative research practice: A
guide for social science students and researchers (pp.
219–262). Sage Publications.
Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., & Vorderer, P. (2009). Serious games:
Mechanisms and effects. Routledge.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). Comparing
instructional strategies for integrating conceptual and
procedural knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2002
Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (pp. 969–978).
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear
appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology,
91(1), 93–114.
Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and psychological processes
in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory
of protection motivation. In Social psychophysiology: A
sourcebook (pp. 153–176). Guilford Publications.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrin-
sic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology,25(1), 54–67.
Sasse, M. A., Ashenden, D., Lawrence, D., Coles-
Kemp, L., Fl´
echais, I., & Kearney, P. (2007).
Human vulnerabilities in security systems
(Tech. Rep.). Retrieved from https://
Sawilowsky, S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb.
Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods,8(2),
Schneier, B. (2015). Data and Goliath. W. W. Norton.
Sheng, S., Magnien, B., & Kumaraguru, P. (2007). Anti-
phishing Phil: The design and evaluation of a game that
teaches people not to fall for phish. In Proceedings of
the 3rd Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (pp.
Siegal, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral
sciences. McGraw-Hill.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science,236(4799),
Solove, D. J. (2008). Understanding privacy. Harvard
University Press.
Suknot, A., Chavez, T., Rackley, N., & Kelley, P. G. (2014).
Immaculacy: A game of privacy. In Proceedings of
the 1st ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-
Human Interaction in Play (pp. 383–386).
Tracy, K. W. (2012). Mobile application development
experiences on Apple’s iOS and Android OS. IEEE
Potentials,31(4), 30–34.
Trepte, S., Dienlin, T., & Reinecke, L. (2014). Risky
behaviors: How online experiences influence privacy
behaviors. In From the Gutenberg Galaxy to the Google
Galaxy. Surveying Old and New Frontiers after 50 Years
of DGPuK (pp. 225–244).
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of
psychological distance. Psychological Review,117(2),
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic
for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psy-
chology,5(2), 207–232.
Udoh, E. S., & Alkharashi, A. (2016). Privacy risk awareness
and the behavior of smartwatch users: A case study of
Indiana University students. In Proceedings of the 2016
Future Technologies Conference (pp. 926–931).
Vaidya, J., Lorenzi, D., Shafiq, B., Chun, S., & Badar, N.
(2014). Teaching privacy in an interactive fashion. In
Proceedings of the 2014 Information Security Curricu-
lum Development Conference.
Veltri, G. A., & Ivchenko, A. (2017). The impact of different
forms of cognitive scarcity on online privacy disclosure.
Computers in Human Behavior,73, 238–246.
Wang, Y., Leon, P. G., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L. F., Forget, A.,
& Sadeh, N. (2014). A field trial of privacy nudges
for Facebook. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(pp. 2367–2376).
Wiedenbeck, S., Waters, J., Birget, J. C., Brodskiy, A., &
Memon, N. (2005). Authentication using graphical
passwords: Effects of tolerance and image choice. In
Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Usable Privacy
and Security (pp. 1–12).
Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking
methods. Biometrics Bulletin,1(6), 80–83.
Williams, M., Nurse, J. R. C., & Creese, S. (2016). The perfect
storm: The privacy paradox and the Internet-of-Things.
In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Availability Reliability and Security (ARES).
Williams, M., Nurse, J. R. C., & Creese, S. (2017). “Privacy
is the boring bit”: User perceptions and behaviour in
the Internet-of-Things. In Proceedings of the 15th
International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust
Wisniewski, P. J., Knijnenburg, B. P., & Lipford, H. R. (2016).
Making privacy personal: Profiling social network users
to inform privacy education and nudging. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies,98, 95–108.
Woolf, B. P. (2010). Building intelligent interactive tu-
tors: Student-centered strategies for revolutionizing e-
learning. Morgan Kaufmann.
Wouters, P., Van Nimwegen, C., Van Oostendorp, H., & Van
Der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive
and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of
Educational Psychology,105(2), 249–265.
#Indicate your agreement or disagreement with the statements.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree.
1“I find the smartwatch useful.”
2“I use a wide range of features on the smartwatch.”
3“I would experience inconvenience if I didn’t use the
4“It is possible for smartwatch apps to simplify common tasks.”
5“It is possible for smartwatch apps to access personal data.”
6“It is possible for smartwatch apps to drain the battery.
7“I have a strong understanding of smartwatch notification
8“I have a strong understanding of smartwatch privacy
9It is important you remain attentive. Indicate that you are by
marking X in the Strongly Disagree box.
10 “I have a strong understanding of smartwatch display features.
11 “There is a realistic chance of smartwatches being lost or
12 “If I didn’t configure my settings, my apps might drain my
13 “If I didn’t configure my settings, my apps might place my
data at risk.”
14 “If I didn’t configure my settings, my apps might slow down
my watch.”
#Indicate your responses from Indifferent to Very Concerned.
Also provide your qualitative rationale.
15 How would you feel if Google (the developer of Android)
changed your smartwatch’s default font size?
16 How would you feel if app companies could track your
precise current location?
17 Imagine a software update changed your smartwatch’s font size.
How would you feel if the text was made much smaller than it
was before?
18 How would you feel if app companies could read your
personal data from your smartwatch?
19 Imagine your smartwatch was lost or stolen. How would you
feel if a random stranger could read your data?
20 How would you feel if Google (the developer of Android)
changed your smartwatch’s default alarm volume?
21 Imagine your smartwatch was lost or stolen. How would you
feel if a random stranger could use your apps as you?
22 Imagine a software update changed your smartwatch’s alarm
volume. How would you feel if the alarm volume was set much
quieter than it was before?
23 How would you feel if app companies could share your
personal data with other companies?
24 How would you feel if Google (the developer of Android)
changed your smartwatch’s default screen brightness?
25 How would you feel if app companies could share your
precise movements with other companies?
26 Imagine a software update changed your smartwatch’s screen
brightness. How would you feel if the brightness was set much
lower than it was before?
#Introductory Questions
1What was your experience in wearing the smartwatch?
2Why did you choose to participate in the study?
3Do you feel the background StudyService app affected your
behaviour? Why?
4Would you purchase your own smartwatch? Why?
5Do you feel you learned anything new as the study progressed?
If so, what?
#Privacy Awareness and Knowledge Questions
6How likely do you believe the chance of companies accessing
your watch’s data? Why?
7How likely do you believe the chance of someone’s smartwatch
being lost or stolen? Why?
8How privacy-conscious do you generally consider yourself to
be? Why?
9How do you think your smartwatch’s data could be accessed by
companies or other people?
10 Imagine your smartwatch settings were changed back to their
defaults. If you wanted to, what could you do to protect your
smartwatch’s data? Why?
11 Imagine your smartwatch settings were changed back to their
defaults. If you wanted to prevent apps from tracking your
location, what could you do? Why?
12 Imagine your smartwatch settings were changed back to their
defaults. If you wanted to stop apps from reading your personal
data, what could you do? Why?
13 Imagine your smartwatch settings were changed back to their
defaults. If you wanted to limit watch access in case of loss or
theft, what could you do? Why?
14 Could you please show me, and explain aloud, how to disable
GPS on your smartwatch?
15 Could you please show me, and explain aloud, how to change
the permissions for a smartwatch app?
16 Could you please show me, and explain aloud, how to enable a
screen lock on your smartwatch?
#Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) Questions
17 On a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high), how serious do you feel
the action of your smartwatch data being accessed by a company
is? Why?
18 How effective do you think smartwatch settings can be in
protecting your device’s data? Why?
19 How able do you feel you are to protect your smartwatch’s data?
20 Do you feel you receive benefits from using data-accessing
apps? If so, what?
21 How much effort do you feel it is to protect your smartwatch’s
data? Why?
#Privacy Paradox Questions
22 We have discussed the use of tools which protect your smart-
watch’s privacy. Can you think of any techniques or circum-
stances that would lead you to use these tools more often?
23 Most of us claim to be concerned about our privacy. However,
most of us also fail to fully protect ourselves. This contrast is
known as the Privacy Paradox. Why do you think this situation
might occur?
24 You have indicated that you are concerned about your smart-
watch’s data being accessed. However, on occasions, you didn’t
use settings to protect that data. Why do you feel this was the
#Indicate your agreement or disagreement with the statements.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree.
1“I found the smartwatch game to be enjoyable.
2“I found the smartwatch game to be usable.”
3“I found the smartwatch game to be educational.”
4“I found the challenges in the smartwatch game to be easy.
#Qualitative Opinions
1What did you like most about the smartwatch game? Why?
2What did you like least about the smartwatch game? Why?
3What about the game would you like to see improved? Why?
... Smartwatches are likely the most commonly-known and most commonly-used wearables in the workplace today. Although wearables have existed for decades, smartwatches have gained recent popularity [11]. They can be defined as "an electronic wristwatch that is able to perform many of the functions of a smartphone" [11]. ...
... Although wearables have existed for decades, smartwatches have gained recent popularity [11]. They can be defined as "an electronic wristwatch that is able to perform many of the functions of a smartphone" [11]. Connecting a smartwatch to a smartphone enables the wearer to read and send new messages from their watch, eliminating the need to hold and view one's phone. ...
Research Proposal
Full-text available
This paper talks about wearable technology in computer game. This paper will look at the presence of a wearable technology that has been famous and available everywhere. Wearable computers are almost everywhere. As the name suggests, wearable computers are the devices you wear somewhere on your body for varied functionality from medical monitoring or for computer games. The wearable industry is dominated by fitness trackers, smartwatches and smartclothes, but there is also a strong demand for gaming wearables.
... Finally, educating consumers on the benefits and potential downfalls of technology, how data is collected and shared, and by whom, is an essential step in increasing privacy-enhancing behavior. There is some recent evidence, showing that smartwatch privacy-enhancing games can increase privacy-protective actions with longer-lasting effects, influenced primarily by convenience, privacy salience, and data sensitivity (Williams, Nurse & Creese, 2019). ...
Wearable and mobile technology has advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade with technological advances creating a role from enhancing healthy living to monitoring and treating disease. However, the discussion about the ethical use of such commercial technology in the community, especially in minors, is lacking behind. In this paper, we first summarize the major ethical concerns that arise from the usage of commercially available wearable technology in children, with a focus on smart watches, highlighting issues around the consent process, mitigation of risk and potential confidentiality and privacy issues, as well as the potential for therapeutic misconceptions when used without medical advice. Then through a relevant thought experiment we move on to outline some further ethical concerns that are connected to the use of wearables by minors, to wit the issue of informed consent in the case of minors, forcing them to live in the spotlight, and compromising their right to an open future. We conclude with the view that mitigating potential pitfalls and enhancing the benefits of wearable technology especially for minors requires brave and comprehensive moral debates.
... Conversational assistant devices such as chatbots require a substantial degree of personal information to tailor their responses to users and provide adequate customer service (Przegalinska et al. 2019;Aguirre et al. 2015;Alashoor et al. 2017;Zumstein and Hundertmark 2017). However, personalisation has come at the cost of privacy, as the more information provided, the more personalised the chatbot experience (Williams et al. 2019;Alashoor et al. 2017;Aguirre et al. 2015). The impact of privacy concerns means that trust is therefore significant in affecting the user's level of engagement (Chellappa and Sin 2005;Burden et al. 2013;Aguirre et al. 2015;Vance et al. 2008). ...
Full-text available
This study explored digital privacy concerns in the use of chatbots as a digital banking service. Three dimensions of trust were tested in relation to user self-disclosure in order to better understand the consumer-chatbot experience in banking. The methodology selected for this research study followed a conclusive, pre-experimental, two-group one-shot case study research design which made use of a non-probability snowballing sampling technique. Privacy concerns were found to have a significantly negative relationship with user self-disclosure in both treatment groups. Respondents exposed to their preferred banking brand experienced lower user self-disclosure and brand trust than those exposed to a fictitious banking brand within the South African context. It is recommended that companies using chatbots focus on easing privacy concerns and build foundations of trust. The gains that chatbots have made in the form of increased productivity and quality of customer service rely on relationships with users who need to disclose personal information. Through this study, we concluded that, despite its power to influence decision-making, the power of a brand is not enough for consumers to considerably increase self-disclosure. Rather, a bridge of trust (through education, communication and product development) is needed that encompasses all three elements of trust, which are brand trust, cognitive trust and emotional trust. Limited research exists on the relationship between financial services marketing and chatbot adoption. Thus, this study addressed a theoretical gap, by adding brand trust to existing studies on cognitive and emotional trust regarding user self-disclosure.
... Only a few studies considered other types of technologies to present the digital nudge. Three studies investigated wearable devicestwo papers used smartwatch game app to digitally nudge users to protect their privacy on the Web [50,51] and the third study investigated digital nudges to support cardiac rehabilitation [52]. While the study focuses mostly on smartphone-enabled nudging, it discusses the enhancement of the nudge by the data coming from wearable health devices. ...
... Families struggle not only to manage device use appropriately, but also to speak and discuss cyber security in meaningful ways, or even use the same language [15]. While researchers study home IoT devices in a professional capacity [33], many of them also use home IoT devices as a user in a personal capacity. Could an autoethnographic diary study, intentionally applying the research lens to the home life of a researcher, help to pick out the specific issues of engagement with the topic? ...
This study considers how well an autoethnographic diary study helps as a method to explore why families might struggle in the application of strong and cohesive cyber security measures within the smart home. Combining two human-computer interaction (HCI) research methods - the relatively unstructured process of autoethnography and the more structured diary study - allowed the first author to reflect on the differences between researchers or experts, and everyday users. Having a physical set of structured diary prompts allowed for a period of 'thinking as writing', enabling reflection upon how having expert knowledge may or may not translate into useful knowledge when dealing with everyday life. This is particularly beneficial in the context of home cyber security use, where first-person narratives have not made up part of the research corpus to date, despite a consistent recognition that users struggle to apply strong cyber security methods in personal contexts. The framing of the autoethnographic diary study contributes a very simple, but extremely powerful, tool for anyone with more knowledge than the average user of any technology, enabling the expert to reflect upon how they themselves have fared when using, understanding and discussing the technology in daily life.
Full-text available
The advancement in technology has fostered the prevalence of the Internet of Things (IoT), which enhances healthcare business quality, offers a seamless customer experience, and maximizes turnovers and profits. Consequently, omnichannel services have emerged by integrating online and offline channels and providing customers with more real-time information and services to increase their engagement. Healthcare wearable devices appear as a salient tool to connect healthcare providers and patients and thus become an essential part of the omnichannel environment. Along with this trend, the ethical concerns while using these devices have increasingly intensified and are significant barriers to market expansion. Nevertheless, there is a lack of studies discussing the role of wearables in omnichannel hospital supply chain management and examining the influence of those above concerns on healthcare wearables adoption. Therefore, this study explores these gaps through an integrated approach. Furthermore, we proposed a framework integrating the traditional statistical and machine learning-based approach to analyze a large amount of data; and thereby facilitate a data-driven analytic model to manage omnichannel healthcare supply chain businesses.
Full-text available
With approximately 40 billions active users as of early 2022, Facebook is the largest social media platform in the world. Facebook collects roughly one million data points of sensitive information every minute and utilizes this personal data for targeted advertisements. The majority of users are unaware, or simply unconcerned, about the infringement of their privacy rights. And the majority of governments in the world have no comprehensive legislation protecting data privacy. This article first discusses the potential dangers of Facebook`s collection of its users` data, including data breaches. Then, it analyzes data privacy standards in the United States and compares those standards to privacy legislation in other countries to make a well-informed suggestion about how the nation might protect personal data. Although the imposition of legal restraints for Facebook and others is necessary to protect individual data privacy, industry indicators reveal that placing burdensome limits on data collection capabilities could have significant repercussions for companies that provide free social media platforms, which could potentially force them to become paid services. Key Terms: Facebook, data, privacy rights, targeted advertisements, legal policy
App usage data provide some of the most psychologically rich information one can collect using mobile sensing methods. Here, we discuss how data from the applications ( “apps”) people use to enhance the functionality of their mobile devices can advance research in all subdisciplines of psychology. First, we describe prior psychological work on app usage behavior. Next, we provide a detailed guide for researchers interested in working with app usage data. Specifically, we discuss different ways to 1) collect app usage data (e.g., usage logs, screenshots), 2) categorize individual apps and app categories, 3) analyze app usage data (e.g., considering app adoption, usage quantities, sequences, within-app behavior), and 4) enrich app usage data (e.g., using web APIs, experience sampling). We conclude by discussing technical and ethical challenges posed by app usage research, as well as an outlook on the future of app usage on new kinds of mobile devices.
The smartwatch, which is considered as the most complex gadget among the wearables, is becoming ubiquitous with increasing market penetration. High-tech smartwatches are revolutionising the health and fitness industry segment in a myriad ways ranging from meeting individual needs to supporting institutional imperatives. Despite their growing popularity, the diffusion of smartwatches is relatively slow, and little is known about the brand variants offered by the manufacturers. We examined the technical and functional attributes of smartwatch models using the Multiple Discriminant Analysis (MDA) to gain insights into the market positioning of the brand variants. Our results not only confirmed the presence of brand variants among the leading smartwatch manufacturers but also examined the unique positioning of the same. Our analysis identified and differentiated the branded variants using two dimensions: activity tracking and device morphology. The study findings are expected to augment product strategy exercise undertaken by smartwatch manufacturers who might be interested in exploring the right combination of the technical or functional features.
Full-text available
In many cases, users of online applications and services consciously and willingly hand over personal data to obtain a better service or a price reduction. This action assumes -nominally - that they behaved rationally, estimating and comparing benefits and costs (the potential use of their data and to whom it might be given). People have different perceptions about the benefits that result from handing over personal data. This article investigates the factors that influence this differing perception and concludes that those who are addicted to the internet, whose confidence has not been damaged in the past, with less knowledge, and who are more active on the internet are prone to perceive a greater benefit.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In opinion polls, the public frequently claim to value their privacy. However, individuals often seem to overlook the principle, contributing to a disparity labelled the `Privacy Paradox'. The growth of the Internet-of-Things (IoT) is frequently claimed to place privacy at risk. However, the Paradox remains underexplored in the IoT. In addressing this, we first conduct an online survey (N = 170) to compare public opinions of IoT and less-novel devices. Although we find users perceive privacy risks, many decide to purchase smart devices. With the IoT rated less usable/familiar, we assert that it constrains protective behaviour. To explore this hypothesis, we perform contextualised interviews (N = 40) with the general public. In these dialogues, owners discuss their opinions and actions with a personal device. We find the Paradox is significantly more prevalent in the IoT, frequently justified by a lack of awareness. We finish by highlighting the qualitative comments of users, and suggesting practical solutions to their issues. This is the first work, to our knowledge, to evaluate the Privacy Paradox over a broad range of technologies.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Mobile wearable devices provide a different type of security usability challenge, due to the constraints of the device in power and form factor. Compensating for these constraints by demanding a level of sensory capability beyond the capability of large portions of human norm effectively excludes those individuals as a class from the benefits of these devices. Tragically, these individuals are those in most need of technology to augment and compensate for their diminished capabilities [15]. Simply transferring common security design practices from the workstation to smartphones has had limited success [17], resulting in large portions of smartphone users turning off security in favor of functionality [12]. A similar problem exists in moving these same security design practices to an even more constrained platform in a wearable. Using the non-traditional output and input methods of smartphones and wearables as the framework for delivering the security interface can either increase or decrease the usability. This study uses a metric for security usability based on the energy or effort required from the user successfully navigate the security interface of wearable devices. Understanding and measuring the demands on the user from both a cognitive and physical perspective is key to establishing and retaining security usability for the largest number of target users.
This book talks about why, and how, to design 'serious games'.
Smartwaches are the representative wearable or body-worn devices that provide convenient and easy information access. There is a growing body of research work on enabling novel interaction techniques and understanding user experiences of smartwatches. However, there is still lack of user experience research on wearing behaviors of smartwatches, which is critical for wearable device and service design. In this work, we investigate how college students wear smartwatches and what factors affect wearing behaviors by analyzing a longitudinal activity dataset collected from 50 smartwatch users for 203 days. Our results show that there are several temporal usage patterns and distinct groups of usage patterns. The factors affecting wearing behaviors are contextual, nuanced, and multifaceted. Our findings provide diverse design implications for improving wearability of smartwatches and leveraging smartwatches for behavioral changes.
Presents an integrative theoretical framework to explain and to predict psychological changes achieved by different modes of treatment. This theory states that psychological procedures, whatever their form, alter the level and strength of self-efficacy. It is hypothesized that expectations of personal efficacy determine whether coping behavior will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences. Persistence in activities that are subjectively threatening but in fact relatively safe produces, through experiences of mastery, further enhancement of self-efficacy and corresponding reductions in defensive behavior. In the proposed model, expectations of personal efficacy are derived from 4 principal sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. Factors influencing the cognitive processing of efficacy information arise from enactive, vicarious, exhortative, and emotive sources. The differential power of diverse therapeutic procedures is analyzed in terms of the postulated cognitive mechanism of operation. Findings are reported from microanalyses of enactive, vicarious, and emotive modes of treatment that support the hypothesized relationship between perceived self-efficacy and behavioral changes. (21/2 p ref)