Search

Privacy concerns surrounding Internet and technology use are higher now than ever, yet, people continue to use the Internet and Internet-connected technologies to share information without coercion and often with recipients they do not have a relationship with. Our research addresses how people’s personality, particularly two personality dimensions (anxiety and avoidance) together known as attachment style, affects their self-reported willingness to share and their actual sharing behavior. We conducted two studies on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (N=984). Study 1 surveyed 500 participants (193 women, 304 men, 3 transgender) aged 20-79 (Mdn = 35, SD = 11.65); and Study 2 surveyed 484 participants (223 women, 260 men, 1 transgender) aged 19-78 (Mdn = 35; SD = 11.69). Multiple regression analyses controlling for demographics and the personality factors neuroticism and extraversion show that anxiously attached individuals are more concerned (ßs = .24 and .33) than less anxiously attached individuals about their private data being disclosed, yet paradoxically, they report more trust in the security of digital communications (ßs = .21 and .34), making them more likely to share personal information on the Internet (ßs = .26 and .22). This research bears theoretical implications (e.g., understanding the psychology of sharing behavior), as well as practical ones (e.g., for tailoring existing privacy and sharing controls to individuals based on their personality characteristics).

Background Health-focused research funders increasingly support multi-country research partnerships that study health, urban development and equity in global settings. To develop new knowledge that benefits society, these grants require researchers to integrate diverse knowledges and data, and to manage research-related aspects of coloniality, such as power imbalances and epistemic injustices. We conducted research to develop a transdisciplinary study proposal with partners in multiple middle and high income countries, aiming to embed equity into the methodology and funding model. Methods Parallel to literature review, we used participatory and social research methods to identify case study cities for our primary study and to inform our study design. We conducted semi-structured interviews with informed and consented sustainable urban development experts in the USA (n=23). We co-developed our research approach with our global advisory group (n=14) and conducted a participatory workshop (n=30) to identify case study sites, also informed by conversations with international academic experts in sustainable development (n=27). Results Through literature review we found that there is a need to study the contextual pre-conditions of urban transformation, the influence of coloniality on understandings of how cities can change and the failure of standard development practices to meet the needs of all residents and the planet. Through expert input and literature we found that decolonial and storytelling methods may help us show the complexities behind stories of urban transformation, particularly the role of marginalized populations in creating long-term change. Conclusions There are multiple benefits of conducting research to develop an equitably designed multi-country research collaboration. We built new partnerships and co-developed our research approach, creating new understanding of diverse collaborators’ disciplinary perspectives and institutional requirements. By investigating the informational needs of U.S. sustainable development actors and designing our study to meet these needs, we have increased the likelihood that our research will create impact.

This paper describes a global research programme on the complex systemic connections between urban development and health. Through transdisciplinary methods the Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health (CUSSH) project will develop critical evidence on how to achieve the far-reaching transformation of cities needed to address vital environmental imperatives for planetary health in the 21st Century. CUSSH’s core components include: (i) a review of evidence on the effects of climate actions (both mitigation and adaptation) and factors influencing their implementation in urban settings; (ii) the development and application of methods for tracking the progress of cities towards sustainability and health goals; (iii) the development and application of models to assess the impact on population health, health inequalities, socio-economic development and environmental parameters of urban development strategies, in order to support policy decisions; (iv) iterative in-depth engagements with stakeholders in partner cities in low-, middle- and high-income settings, using systems-based participatory methods, to test and support the implementation of the transformative changes needed to meet local and global health and sustainability objectives; (v) a programme of public engagement and capacity building. Through these steps, the programme will provide transferable evidence on how to accelerate actions essential to achieving population-level health and global climate goals through, amongst others, changing cities’ energy provision, transport infrastructure, green infrastructure, air quality, waste management and housing.

Background: Environmental improvement is a priority for urban sustainability and health and achieving it requires transformative change in cities. An approach to achieving such change is to bring together researchers, decision-makers, and public groups in the creation of research and use of scientific evidence. Methods: This article describes the development of a programme theory for Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health (CUSSH), a four-year Wellcome-funded research collaboration which aims to improve capacity to guide transformational health and environmental changes in cities. Results: Drawing on ideas about complex systems, programme evaluation, and transdisciplinary learning, we describe how the programme is understood to “work” in terms of its anticipated processes and resulting changes. The programme theory describes a chain of outputs that ultimately leads to improvement in city sustainability and health (described in an ‘action model’), and the kinds of changes that we expect CUSSH should lead to in people, processes, policies, practices, and research (described in a ‘change model’). Conclusions: Our paper adds to a growing body of research on the process of developing a comprehensive understanding of a transdisciplinary, multiagency, multi-context programme. The programme theory was developed collaboratively over two years. It involved a participatory process to ensure that a broad range of perspectives were included, to contribute to shared understanding across a multidisciplinary team. Examining our approach allowed an appreciation of the benefits and challenges of developing a programme theory for a complex, transdisciplinary research collaboration. Benefits included the development of teamworking and shared understanding and the use of programme theory in guiding evaluation. Challenges included changing membership within a large group, reaching agreement on what the theory would be ‘about’, and the inherent unpredictability of complex initiatives.

Background: Environmental improvement is a priority for urban sustainability and health and achieving it requires transformative change in cities. An approach to achieving such change is to bring together researchers, decision-makers, and public groups in the creation of research and use of scientific evidence. Methods: This article describes the development of a programme theory for Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health (CUSSH), a four-year Wellcome-funded research collaboration which aims to improve capacity to guide transformational health and environmental changes in cities. Results: Drawing on ideas about complex systems, programme evaluation, and transdisciplinary learning, we describe how the programme is understood to “work” in terms of its anticipated processes and resulting changes. The programme theory describes a chain of outputs that ultimately leads to improvement in city sustainability and health (described in an ‘action model’), and the kinds of changes that we expect CUSSH should lead to in people, processes, policies, practices, and research (described in a ‘change model’). Conclusions: Our paper adds to a growing body of research on the process of developing a comprehensive understanding of a transdisciplinary, multiagency, multi-context programme. The programme theory was developed collaboratively over two years. It involved a participatory process to ensure that a broad range of perspectives were included, to contribute to shared understanding across a multidisciplinary team. Examining our approach allowed an appreciation of the benefits and challenges of developing a programme theory for a complex, transdisciplinary research collaboration. Benefits included the development of teamworking and shared understanding and the use of programme theory in guiding evaluation. Challenges included changing membership within a large group, reaching agreement on what the theory would be ‘about’, and the inherent unpredictability of complex initiatives.