How Well Do My Results Generalize? Comparing Security and Privacy Survey Results from MTurk, Web, and Telephone Samples
Elissa M. Redmiles, Sean Kross, Michelle L. Mazurek
Abstract
Security and privacy researchers often rely on data collected from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to evaluate security tools, to understand users' privacy preferences and to measure online behavior. Yet, little is known about how well Turkers' survey responses and performance on security- and privacy-related tasks generalizes to a broader population. This paper takes a first step toward understanding the generalizability of security and privacy user studies by comparing users' self-reports of their security and privacy knowledge, past experiences, advice sources, and behavior across samples collected using MTurk (n=480), a census-representative web-panel (n=428), and a probabilistic telephone sample (n=3,000) statistically weighted to be accurate within 2.7% of the true prevalence in the U.S. Surprisingly, the results suggest that: (1) MTurk responses regarding security and privacy experiences, advice sources, and knowledge are more representative of the U.S. population than are responses from the census-representative panel; (2) MTurk and general population reports of security and privacy experiences, knowledge, and advice sources are quite similar for respondents who are younger than 50 or who have some college education; and (3) respondents' answers to the survey questions we ask are stable over time and robust to relevant, broadly-reported news events. Further, differences in responses cannot be ameliorated with simple demographic weighting, possibly because MTurk and panel participants have more internet experience compared to their demographic peers. Together, these findings lend tempered support for the generalizability of prior crowdsourced security and privacy user studies; provide context to more accurately interpret the results of such studies; and suggest rich directions for future work to mitigate experience- rather than demographic-related sample biases.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 1a613e01-ec1a-438e-8de4-04d05a4c7a7bCited by top-tier papers46
- Still Creepy After All These Years: The Normalization of Affective Discomfort in App UseJohn S. Seberger, Irina Shklovski, Emily Swiatek, Sameer PatilCHI 2022 · 75 citations
- Measuring Non-Expert Comprehension of Machine Learning Fairness MetricsDebjani Saha, Candice Schumann, Duncan C. McElfresh, John P. Dickerson et al.ICML 2020 · 71 citations
- Exploring the Needs of Users for Supporting Privacy-Protective Behaviors in Smart HomesHaojian Jin, Boyuan Guo, Rituparna Roychoudhury, Yaxing Yao et al.CHI 2022 · 48 citations
- Are Privacy Dashboards Good for End Users? Evaluating User Perceptions and Reactions to Google's My ActivityFlorian M. Farke, David G. Balash, Maximilian Golla, Markus Dürmuth et al.USENIX Security 2021 · 48 citations
- "It's Stored, Hopefully, on an Encrypted Server": Mitigating Users' Misconceptions About FIDO2 Biometric WebAuthnLeona Lassak, Annika Hildebrandt, Maximilian Golla, Blase UrUSENIX Security 2021 · 48 citations
Builds on2
- How I Learned to be Secure: a Census-Representative Survey of Security Advice Sources and BehaviorElissa M. Redmiles, Sean Kross, Michelle L. MazurekCCS 2016 · 192 citations
- An Empirical Study of Textual Key-Fingerprint RepresentationsSergej Dechand, Dominik Schürmann, Karoline Busse, Yasemin Acar et al.USENIX Security 2016 · 65 citations
Related papers
- Exploring the Quality, Efficiency, and Representative Nature of Responses Across Multiple Survey PanelsFrank Bentley, Kathleen O'Neill, Katie Quehl, Danielle M. LottridgeCHI 2020 · 21 citations
- Incorporating Worker Perspectives into MTurk Annotation Practices for NLPOlivia Huang, Eve Fleisig, Dan KleinEMNLP 2023 · 1 citation
- Where to Recruit for Security Development Studies: Comparing Six Software Developer SamplesHarjot Kaur, Sabrina Amft, Daniel Votipka, Yasemin Acar et al.USENIX Security 2022
- Asking for a Friend: Evaluating Response Biases in Security User StudiesElissa M. Redmiles, Ziyun Zhu, Sean Kross, Dhruv Kuchhal et al.CCS 2018 · 65 citations
- Recruiting Participants With Programming Skills: A Comparison of Four Crowdsourcing Platforms and a CS Student Mailing ListMohammad Tahaei, Kami VanieaCHI 2022 · 45 citations
