# How Privacy Concerns Impact Swedish Citizens' Willingness to Report Crimes

Gunnar Lindqvist, Joakim Kävrestad

► To cite this version:

Gunnar Lindqvist, Joakim Kävrestad. How Privacy Concerns Impact Swedish Citizens' Willingness to Report Crimes. 16th International Symposium on Human Aspects of Information Security and Assurance (HAISA), Jul 2022, Mytilene, Lesbos, Greece. pp.209-217, 10.1007/978-3-031-12172-2_16 . hal-05324931

HAL Id: hal-05324931

https://inria.hal.science/hal-05324931v1

Submitted on 21 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ifip

International Federation for Information Processing

This document is the original author manuscript of a paper submitted to an IFIP
conference proceedings or other IFIP publication by Springer Nature. As such, there
may be some differences in the official published version of the paper. Such
differences, if any, are usually due to reformatting during preparation for publication or
minor corrections made by the author(s) during final proofreading of the publication
manuscript.
# How Privacy Concerns Impact Swedish Citizens' Willingness to Report Crimes

Gunnar Lindqvist and Joakim Kävrestad

University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden
{gunnar.lindqvist, joakim.kavrestad}@his.se

**Abstract.** In today's information technology-driven world, most criminal acts leave digital evidence. In such cases, cooperation through the handover of digital devices such as mobile phones from victims is a success factor that enables evidence-seeking through digital forensics. Unfortunately, forensic examinations of devices can become an additional negative consequence due to privacy invasion. Privacy invasion can make crime victims less cooperative and less willing to report crimes. To address this problem, we surveyed 400 Swedish adults to identify their hypothetical willingness to report certain crimes. The survey examined the impact a mobile phone handover made on the willingness to report a crime. Our findings demonstrate that mobile phone handover resulted in a significantly lower willingness to report crimes. However, the data could not show privacy as a common tendency cause. The presented results can be used as a reference for further research on attitudes and behaviours regarding the subject.

**Keywords:** Crime · Digital forensics · Mobile phone

## 1 Introduction

From the traditional criminal process, where only physical traces of crime have been vital evidence, digital evidence has also become a prominent part of criminal prosecutions. It is challenging to commit a crime without leaving digital evidence in today's technology-driven society [1]. Consequently, most crimes are committed connected to information technology (IT), making them IT-related [2]. Digital forensics (DF) is a well-used process to collect pieces of evidence from digital devices in IT-related crime investigations [3–5]. The information-packed mobile phone is a prominent source of such evidence, arguably the most personal device [6]. Fundamentally, crime reports are essential for criminals to take responsibility for their actions and not expose more people to crimes. Crime victims can facilitate investigations and increase the probability of prosecution through cooperation by deposing their mobile phones to the police's forensic unit. However, an additional negative consequence for those exposed to crime is the invasion of privacy, a severe challenge in digital investigations [7]. The potentially harmful effect of privacy violations can influence people's willingness to report crimes to the police [8]. Such violations can impact people's “privacy attitudes”, referring to their stance on privacy
[9]. A reduced number of crime reports leads to a “dark figure” of crime, making it challenging to determine the extent to which crime occurs. Lack of crime reports results in criminals not being held accountable for their actions. Allowing them to continue with their illegal activities [10].

Previous research has raised several crime investigation challenges when utilising mobile phones for identifying evidence through DF. It has been argued that DF and privacy confront one another [11]. The confrontation is primarily due to technical and legal challenges such as encryption and preserving crime victims' privacy in criminal investigations [11–13]. Researchers have also examined people's privacy attitudes, which indicated that people could be divided into groups with similar attitudes regarding privacy [9, 14]. Furthermore, research has shown that IT-related crimes are reported to a lesser extent. The reason is a lower belief in the likelihood that the police will succeed in arresting the criminal who committed the crime [15]. Lastly, research authors have argued that it is crucial to conduct criminal investigations properly. The held argument is that IT-related crimes' severe impact on the victims goes further than the monetary loss [16]. Therefore, the approach of criminal investigations must be considered where privacy is one of the aspects.

This work explores the possible problem of how privacy concerns affect the willingness to hand in mobile phones for crime investigations. The work aimed to address whether privacy concerns impact the willingness to provide a mobile phone as evidence. Additionally, expand the knowledge of human behaviour and attitudes regarding crime reports.

Our results suggest that the handover of a mobile phone reduces the willingness to report crimes which, in turn, increases the dark figure of crime. The collected data indicates a weak correlation between the influence of privacy concerns when handing in a mobile phone is necessary when reporting a crime. This research contributes to continued research to understand why the willingness to report crimes is reduced when the victim needs to provide their mobile phone for forensic analysis.

## 2 Methodology

The aim of the study was met by distributing a quantitative mobile phone survey directed to Swedish citizens over the age of 18. A pilot test was implemented before the final questionnaire was sent out to ensure the quality of the survey, as suggested by [17]. The pilot test was distributed through convenience sampling with 24 respondents. The collected data helped clarify the text and assess the time needed to complete the survey.

The data was collected in March 2022 via Pollfish, a research platform that distributes mobile phone surveys. Pollfish relies on Random Device Engagement (RDE) and uses organic non-probability sampling [18]. Pollfish allows the selection of a specific population, and the target group was specified as Swedish citizens of the age above 18. Four hundred responses were bought at a rate of 0.95$ per completed survey [19]. The survey was additionally distributed through Reddit. The intention of the second sample was to validate the results of the first sample. This data collection served as a means of triangulation, as described by [20]. As argued by [21], Reddit is a beneficial tool for inexpensive and reliable data collection. The survey had 76 respondents, and two sub-reddits were used to gather respondents. Posts were published on the survey recruitment
/r/SampleSize [22] and the dedicated Swedish survey thread for the /r/Sweddit [23]. The posts briefly described the study, its purpose and a link to the survey.

Based on previous research recommendations, the questions were designed as a 7-point Likert scale [24–26]. A non-response option was offered to avoid opinion or attitude enforcement [24]. The survey questions were based on Sweden's four most common types of reported crimes in 2021 [27] and the Swedish police description [28]. The privacy-oriented statements were based on Solove's taxonomy of four types of activities [29]. The survey had the four following questions:

- Q1: The following statements describe criminal incidents. If you were the victim of one of these crimes, how likely is it that you would make a police report?

- Q2: The following questions describe criminal incidents. If you were the victim of one of these crimes, how likely will you make a police report if you are required to submit your mobile phone as evidence? Assume that your phone will remain with the police for two days.

- Q3: If you submitted your mobile phone to the police as evidence for a crime you have reported, how would then these statements fit into you?

- Q4: How do these statements fit into you?

The likelihood of reporting a crime had the anchors 1 (*Very Unlikely*) and 7 (*Very Likely*). In contrast, the attitude towards the police and mobile phone applications was 1 (*Very Inaccurate*) and 7 (*Very Accurate*), measuring people's attitudes toward the statements of Q3 and Q4. Table 1 below shows the survey's four questions with corresponding statements that were answered through the previously referenced Likert scales. Q1 and Q2 had the same statements to indifferently measure if there was an impact on the handover of the mobile phone.

Data analysis was conducted using inferential statistics to answer the hypothesis of whether privacy correlates to handing in mobile phones as evidence to the police [30, 31]. Cronbach's Alpha was used to measure the internal consistency of each scale, and the statements in each scale were used to compute an index value [32]. The index value was calculated as the mean answer value ((statement1 + statement2 + ... statement 8)/8). We analysed if handing over a mobile phone impacted significantly using a paired t-test. The privacy magnitude was calculated using Pearson correlation using each question's mean [30]. Due to the unequal sample size, Welch's t-test was conducted to test the data quality [33]. The analysis allowed conclusions from the sample data to be generalised to the population on a probabilistic basis [34]. The non-response answers were excluded from the data analysis. The conventional significance level of 95% was used in this research.
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Set of questions with corresponding statements. 1 EUR = ~10 SEK at the time of writing</caption><thead><tr><th>Q1 and Q2</th><th>Q3</th><th>Q4</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Someone steals your wallet at an ATM</td><td>I would be worried that things would disappear on my cell phone</td><td>I would allow mobile applications to collect my contacts for backup so that they can be restored</td></tr><tr><td>Someone steals your motor vehicle</td><td>I would be worried that my personal information would be spread outside the police</td><td>I would allow mobile applications to collect my location, to let me see my site history</td></tr><tr><td>Someone sends you an unwanted nude photo via social media</td><td>I would be worried about damage to my mobile phone</td><td>I would allow personalised advertising based on my mobile purchases for the grocery store I shop at</td></tr><tr><td>Someone sexually abuses you</td><td>I would be worried because I do not know what the police would do with my mobile phone</td><td>I would allow my site history to be used to get restaurant suggestions</td></tr><tr><td>Someone writes graffiti on your motor vehicle</td><td>I would be worried because I do not trust the police</td><td>I would allow my information, such as my customer information, to be shared between telephone operators for a more effortless number transfer</td></tr><tr><td>Someone writes graffiti on your home</td><td>I would be worried about being without my mobile phone because I need it</td><td>I would allow you to get personalised offers based on my mobile purchases for the clothing stores I shop at</td></tr><tr><td>Someone defrauds you with a scam invoice of 500 SEK</td><td>I would be worried that the police would lose my mobile phone</td><td>I would allow receiving emails with surveys and competitions</td></tr><tr><td>Someone defrauds you with a scam invoice of 5.000 SEK</td><td>I would be worried that the police would see my messages, pictures or contacts</td><td>I would allow telemarketers to call me for offers</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3 Results

The survey was conducted in March 2022 and resulted in 400 people responding, of whom 42% were females, and 58% were males. The four survey scales resulted in acceptable consistency, Q1 ($α = .913$), Q2 ($α = .921$), Q3 ($α = .891$) and Q4 ($α = .823$) [35]. Thus, all statements were included in the indexes and were used for the remainder of the analysis. The index value for each scale were, Q1 ($M = 4.81$), Q2 ($M = 4.57$), Q3 ($M = 3.88$) and Q4 ($M = 3.93$),
The paired *t*-test between Q1 and Q2 resulted in a significant difference *t*(343) = 4.01, *p* < .001 [30]. As such, the identified difference between Q1 and Q2 is statistically significant. In other words, participants are less likely to report crimes if they have to submit their cellphone for forensic analysis.

Correlation analysis was used to analyze if privacy concerns or attitudes towards the police correlate with willingness to report crimes. The correlation coefficients of willingness to report when handing in a mobile phone against mobile privacy and police worry attitudes are illustrated in Table 2. While the correlation tests are significant, the coefficients are too low to be considered meaningful [30].

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Correlation coefficients of question indexes</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Q3</th><th>Q4</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Q2</th><td>-.055</td><td>+.157</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3.1 Analysis of the Results

Contrary to our expectations, the data did not support the hypothesis that privacy concerns affect handing a mobile phone to the police's DF in combination with a crime report. The result was unexpected because the idea that the mobile phone containing a considerable amount of personal information would impact the willingness to report and show a correlation that privacy concerns influence. The concern of privacy intrusion indicates no common correlation that creates a lower willingness to cooperate with mobile phones. However, the result may indicate a diverse perception of privacy. As shown by [9, 14], people perceive privacy differently; thus, the relationship between privacy and evidence provided by mobile phones may vary. A possible explanation of this finding is the high variation in the relationship between crime report intents, mobile phone privacy attitudes, and people's attitudes towards the police.

The results further indicate that people's attitudes and behaviour regarding integrity, on average, are not so strong-willed. The reason is that the data from the survey questions tended to be close to the midpoint value. As long as the reason to share personal information with companies and authorities is for self-gain, information sharing may seem reasonable. The statements presented possible benefits to gain by sharing personal information. Furthermore, the company that collected information could have given a more targeted result as there are general attitudes towards varying companies. No specific company was therefore mentioned. The result does not automatically indicate that privacy and police attitudes are generally low. As explained above, people arguably differ in perceiving privacy. The mean value is close to the median value for the Likert scale and may result from polarized opinions. Possibly people can either be opinionated or careless regarding privacy.

Although the willingness to report a crime was significantly lower when the mobile phone was involved, the meaning of handing over the mobile phone can influence it. For example, data in the survey showed a higher willingness to report crimes when IT
was the means. The finding could be that people perceive benefit from handing over their mobile phones for such crimes. The description of the crime was “Someone sends you an unwanted nude photo via social media”, and it resulted in (M = 3.48) and (M = 3.81). Similar to how people may surrender parts of their integrity in trade for other benefits, similar reasoning can be given for evidence.

Our findings can be compared to the results of earlier studies that reporting intentions increase with the severity of the crime [15], both for regular crime reports and crime reports with mobile phones as a requirement for evidence. The most apparent evidence of this claim is the significant difference in the monetary value of a scam invoice. A paired t-test between the loss of 500 and 5.000 Swedish kronor resulted in Q1 t(392) = -5.9, p < .001, and for Q2 t(382) = -7.26, p < .001, which provides strong evidence that the severity of the crime impact significantly. As seen in Table 1, the likelihood of reporting a crime was relatively low (M = 4.81), where 5 = “quite likely”. Similarly, Q2 was close to “quite likely” (M = 4.57). Nonetheless, we find a significant difference in the likelihood of reporting a crime, concluding that handing in a mobile phone impacts.

## 3.2 Discussion of the Results

This paper reports whether privacy concerns influence the willingness to report a crime when handing in a mobile phone for evidence to Swedish DF is necessary. The study surveyed 400 Swedish adults as the primary data source through a mobile phone survey. In order to test the data quality of the collected responses, the survey was also distributed through Reddit, an Internet website for social forums. As shown below in Table 3, the two samples did not significantly differ regarding willingness to report crime when handing over the mobile phone to the police (Q2) t(111.23) = 1.19, p = .24, or privacy attitudes regarding the mobile phone (Q3) t(92.15) = 1.71, p = .09. A significant difference was shown between willingness to report crimes (Q1) t(198.09) = -4.28, p < .001, and worry concerning handing over the mobile phone to the police (Q4) t(111.77) = 4.64, p < .001. A possible explanation for this finding could be that Reddit mainly consists of young male users [36]. It is, therefore, not fully equal to the Pollfish sample.

The sample from Reddit indicated a similar correlational coefficient between Q2 and Q3 (-.176). The data from the study indicate that different groups may differ in attitudes and behaviours regarding privacy and the police, as argued in the analysis. However, it was beyond the scope of this article to explore groupings of people regarding privacy and police attitudes.

Research ethics unavoidably play a role when involving humans as subjects, enforcing the obligation to consider ethical treatment [17, 37]. The involvement may inadvertently harm them, not solely physically, by embarrassing them, violating their privacy and other undesirable harmful effects. Those undesirable effects are essential to keep in mind when conducting research. However, implementing an adequate quantitative survey when a platform is used as a distribution method is cumbersome because it is beyond the control of how the company operates. Pollfish complies with applicable GDPR and allows respondents to opt out [38]. The respondents received compensation for their time in carrying out the study, and the purpose of the study was to benefit the judiciary.

As for the limitations, it can be assumed that most respondents have never been in a position where they had to decide whether to submit their mobile phones for a
<table><caption>**Table 3.** Descriptive statistics and Welch's t-test</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">Pollfish</th><th colspan="3">Reddit</th><th colspan="3">Welch's t-test</th></tr><tr><th>N</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>N</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>t</th><th>df</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Q1</td><td>367</td><td>4.81</td><td>1.69</td><td>73</td><td>5.39</td><td>0.87</td><td>-4.28</td><td>198.09</td><td>&lt; .001</td></tr><tr><td>Q2</td><td>359</td><td>4.57</td><td>1.76</td><td>71</td><td>4.33</td><td>1.51</td><td>1.19</td><td>111.23</td><td>.24</td></tr><tr><td>Q3</td><td>363</td><td>3.88</td><td>1.54</td><td>76</td><td>3.59</td><td>1.69</td><td>1.71</td><td>92.15</td><td>.09</td></tr><tr><td>Q4</td><td>361</td><td>3.93</td><td>1.21</td><td>73</td><td>3.10</td><td>1.27</td><td>4.64</td><td>111.77</td><td>&lt; .001</td></tr></tbody></table>

crime report or not. Most participants would likely give an opinion without having complete insight into the scenario and thus affect the non-generalisable situation. Another limitation was that users registered with Pollfish only had the opportunity to participate in the study, excluding people without the service. However, the use of Pollfish verified that respondents owned a mobile phone. Additionally, participants that are particularly interested in the topic take the time and trouble to respond. In contrast, uninterested may avoid the trouble of conducting the survey and thus, it is challenging to understand respondent bias [39].

The result of not proving that privacy is a prominent factor that influences attitudes and behaviour regarding the handover of evidence suggests not automatically an absent contribution. On the contrary, the study indicates that further research is needed. As a result, it shows a lower willingness to report crimes when handing over a personal mobile phone, revealing a real negatively impacting problem.

## 4 Conclusions

This paper aimed to see if there was a difference in the tendency to report a crime when the handover of a mobile phone was necessary as evidence. If that was the case, the paper further aimed to investigate if privacy concerns caused that difference. By distributing a mobile phone survey to Swedish adults, attitudes and behaviours were measured through Likert scales. The results were then analysed using inferential statistics, which identified a significantly lower willingness to report crime when the handover of a mobile phone is necessary. However, the statistical analysis identified no meaningful correlation between privacy attitudes and willingness to report crime when the handover of a mobile phone is necessary. Furthermore, the study found no direct correlation between several reasons for concern if the police obtained the mobile phone.

This paper's contribution explores attitudes and behaviours regarding the combination of privacy, DF, mobile phones and crime reportage. The research addresses that the willingness to report crimes contributes to a dark figure in statistics and explores possible reasons for the phenomenon. The results and methodology can support future studies by providing an insight into what the results can yield and how research can be done. Subsequently, this paper can help create new ways and ideas for conducting research in this field of research within different demographics or aims.
Future studies will have to investigate further how privacy influences behaviour and attitudes. More rigorous research can be conducted with a larger data sample to strengthen the findings of this research. Another direction for future work is investigating people's attitudes toward the provision of digital evidence to DF. Research can also assess the extent to which other digital devices and scenarios differentiate. Further, another possible direction is measuring the privacy concerns and exploring the differences between ages or other types of subgroups. Nonetheless, this paper's results indicate ambiguities that can be answered with further research.

## References

1. Marshall, A.: Digital Forensics: Digital Evidence in Criminal Investigations, 1st edn. Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey (2008)

2. Andersson, F., Nelander Hedqvist, K., Ring, J., Skarp, A.: It-inslag i brottsligheten och rättsväsendets förmåga att hantera dem. Stockholm (2016)

3. Garfinkel, S.: Digital forensics research: the next 10 years. Digit. Investig. 7, 64–73 (2010)

4. Salamh, F., Mirza, M., Hutchinson, S., Yoon, Y., Karabiyik, U.: What's on the horizon? an in-depth forensic analysis of android and iOS applications. IEEE Access 9, 99421–99454 (2021)

5. Kävrestad, J.: Fundamentals of Digital Forensics, 2nd edn. Springer, Cham (2020)

6. Tamma, R., Skulkin, O., Mahalik, H., Bommisetty, S.: Practical Mobile Forensics, 4th edn. Packt Publishing, Birmingham (2020)

7. Nickson, K., Hein, V.: Taxonomy of challenges for digital forensics. J. Forensic Sci. 60(4), 885–893 (2015)

8. Felson, R., Messner, S., Hoskin, A., Deane, G.: Reasons for reporting and not reporting domestic violence to the police. Criminology 40(3), 617–648 (2002)

9. Demertzis, N., Mandenaki, K., Tsekeris, C.: Privacy attitudes and behaviors in the age of post-privacy: an empirical approach. J. Digital Soc. Res. 3(1), 119–152 (2021)

10. Biderman, A., Reiss, A.: On exploring the “dark figure” of crime. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 374(1), 1–15 (1967)

11. Nieto, A., Rios, R., Lopez, J.: IoT-forensics meets privacy: towards cooperative digital investigations. Sensors 18(2), 492 (2018)

12. Javed, A., Jalil, Z., Zehra, W., Gadekallu, T., Suh, D., Piran, M.: A comprehensive survey on digital video forensics: taxonomy, challenges, and future directions. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 106, 104456 (2021)

13. Halboob, W., Mahmoda, R., Udzira, N., Abdullaha, M.: Privacy levels for computer forensics: toward a more efficient privacy-preserving investigation. Procedia Comput. Sci. 56, 370–375 (2015)

14. Chignell, M., Quan-Haase, A., Gwizdka, J.: The privacy attitudes questionnaire (PAQ): initial development and validation. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 47(11), 1326–1330 (2003)

15. Graham, A., Kulig, T., Cullen, F.: Willingness to report crime to the police: traditional crime, cybercrime, and procedural justice. Policing: An Int. J. 43(1), 1–16 (2020)

16. Jansen, J., Leukfeldt, R.: Coping with cybercrime victimization: an exploratory study into the impact and change. J. Qual. Crim. Justice Criminol. 6(2), 1–29 (2017)

17. Gillespie, B., Ruel, E., Wagner, W., III.: The Practice of Survey Research: Theory and Applications, 1st edn. SAGE Publications Inc, New York (2016)
18. Rothschild, D., Konitzer, T.: Random Device Engagement and Organic Sampling. https://resources.pollfish.com/market-research/random-device-engagement-and-organic-sampling/. Accessed 2020

19. Pollfish, Inc: Buy Survey Responses With a DIY Market Research Platform. https://resources.pollfish.com/market-research/buy-survey-responses-with-a-diy-market-research-platform/. Accessed 21 Feb 2022

20. Lincoln, Y., Guba, E.: Naturalistic Inquiry, 1st edn. SAGE Publications Inc, New York (1985)

21. Jamnik, M., David, J.L.: The use of reddit as an inexpensive source for high-quality data. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 22(5), 5 (2017)

22. Reddit: SampleSize (2012). https://www.reddit.com/r/SampleSize/

23. Reddit: Sweddit (2008). https://www.reddit.com/r/sweden/. Accessed 1 Apr 2022

24. Alwin, D.: Margins of Error: A Study of Reliability in Survey Measurement. Wiley, New York (2007)

25. Lavrakas, P.: Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods 1–0. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks (2008)

26. Menold, N.: Rating-scale labeling in online surveys: an experimental comparison of verbal and numeric rating scales with respect to measurement quality and respondents’ cognitive processes. Sociol. Methods Res. 49(1), 79–107 (2020)

27. Brå: Anmälda brott 2021 Prelimär statistik. Brottsförebyggande rådet, Stockholm (2022)

28. Polisen: Olika typer av brott A-Ö. https://polisen.se/utsatt-for-brott/olika-typer-av-brott/

29. Solove, D.: A Taxonomy of Privacy. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 154(3), 477–564 (2006)

30. Jackson, S.L.: Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach, 5th edn. Cengage Learning, Boston (2015)

31. Sahu, P., Pal, S., Das, A.: Estimation and Inferential Statistics, 1st edn. Springer, New Delhi (2015)

32. Cronbach, L.: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3), 297–334 (1951)

33. Welch, B.L.: The generalization of ‘student’s’ problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika 34(1/2), 28–35 (1947)

34. Robson, C.: Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey (2002)

35. Tavakol, M., Dennick, R.: Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2, 54–55 (2011)

36. Proferes, N., Jones, N., Gilbert, S., Fiesler, C., Zimmer, M.: Studying reddit: a systematic overview of disciplines, approaches, methods, and ethics. Soc. Media + Society 7(2), 1–14 (2021)

37. Fowler, F.J.: Survey Research Methods, 5th edn. SAGE Publications Inc, New York (2013)

38. Pollfish: Your Data. Your Call. https://www.pollfish.com/gdpr/. Accessed 2022

39. Andrade, C.: The limitations of online surveys. Indian J. Psychol. Med. 42(6), 575–576 (2020)