Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Mandy B. Holbrook

dblp:78/6312 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 3Security and privacy · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
1 paper
Usable security · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Collaborative and social computing · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Usable security › social engineering
phishing susceptibility
0.112010
Who falls for phish?: a demographic analysis of phishing susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions · CHI 2010
Usable security
security education
0.112010
Who falls for phish?: a demographic analysis of phishing susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions · CHI 2010
Collaborative and social computing
crowdsourcing
0.012010
Are your participants gaming the system?: screening mechanical turk workers · CHI 2010
Usable security › authentication usability
user authentication behavior
0.012010
Who falls for phish?: a demographic analysis of phishing susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions · CHI 2010

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

survey · 0.2screening questions · 0.2roleplay survey · 0.1mediation analysis · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 Are your participants gaming the system?: screening mechanical turk workers
abstract
In this paper we discuss a screening process used in conjunction with a survey administered via Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. We sought an easily implementable method to disqualify those people who participate but don't take the study tasks seriously. By using two previously pilot tested screening questions, we identified 764 of 1,962 people who did not answer conscientiously. Young men seem to be most likely to fail the qualification task. Those that are professionals, students, and non-workers seem to be more likely to take the task seriously than financial workers, hourly workers, and other workers. Men over 30 and women were more likely to answer seriously.
Julie S. Downs, Mandy B. Holbrook, Steve Sheng, Lorrie Faith Cranor
CHI2
2010 Who falls for phish?: a demographic analysis of phishing susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions
abstract
In this paper we present the results of a roleplay survey instrument administered to 1001 online survey respondents to study both the relationship between demographics and phishing susceptibility and the effectiveness of several anti-phishing educational materials. Our results suggest that women are more susceptible than men to phishing and participants between the ages of 18 and 25 are more susceptible to phishing than other age groups. We explain these demographic factors through a mediation analysis. Educational materials reduced users' tendency to enter information into phishing webpages by 40% percent; however, some of the educational materials we tested also slightly decreased participants' tendency to click on legitimate links.
Steve Sheng, Mandy B. Holbrook, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Julie S. Downs
CHI2
2006 Decision strategies and susceptibility to phishing
abstract
Phishing emails are semantic attacks that con people into divulging sensitive information using techniques to make the user believe that information is being requested by a legitimate source. In order to develop tools that will be effective in combating these schemes, we first must know how and why people fall for them. This study reports preliminary analysis of interviews with 20 non-expert computer users to reveal their strategies and understand their decisions when encountering possibly suspicious emails. One of the reasons that people may be vulnerable to phishing schemes is that awareness of the risks is not linked to perceived vulnerability or to useful strategies in identifying phishing emails. Rather, our data suggest that people can manage the risks that they are most familiar with, but don't appear to extrapolate to be wary of unfamiliar risks. We explore several strategies that people use, with varying degrees of success, in evaluating emails and in making sense of warnings offered by browsers attempting to help users navigate the web.
Julie S. Downs, Mandy B. Holbrook, Lorrie Faith Cranor
SOUPS2