# Individual Differences in Psychological Stress Associated with Data Breach Experiences
## 4 Discussion
### Limitations and Directions for Future Research  
Recruiting a student sample and an MTurk sample was both a strength and a limitation of this study. Given that a great deal of psychological research is based on undergraduate student samples, which limits generalizability, the recruitment of an older and more demographically diverse MTurk sample undoubtedly increased the generalizability of our findings. Nevertheless, our student and community samples might not fully represent the population of individuals affected by data breaches, and the reactions of our participants might not reflect the typical experiences and reactions of individuals across various age groups, professions, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Researchers have noted that MTurk samples vary and may not be representative of the general population [42, 43]. Although recent reviews have found that MTurk samples recruited for personality studies [44], addiction research [45], and psychopathology studies [46] are comparable to those recruited by traditional methods, it would be unsurprising if MTurk participants differed in other ways that could be relevant to this research. For example, by virtue of being recruited via the MTurk website, MTurk samples may be more frequent and/or more sophisticated users of online services. They may also have higher levels of digital security expertise and digital threat awareness than the general population, which could influence their data-breach-induced stress (recall that MTurk participants had higher scores than student participants on both measures). One possible consequence is that MTurk users may be desensitized in their reactions to data breach incidents relative to less sophisticated internet users. Consistent with this possibility, the MTurk sample had a lower mean IES-R score than the student sample (Table 2). Relative to less sophisticated internet users, MTurk users may possess a different and perhaps more accurate understanding of the risks associated with various types of data breaches and may not experience the same degree of data-breach-induced stress in response to the same incidents. Complicating the situation is the fact that the MTurk sample had significantly lower levels of negative emotionality, propensity to worry, and trait anxiety relative to the student sample, which could also influence stress responses. Ultimately, the regression analyses did not indicate that the level of data-breach-induced stress reported by MTurk participants was different when demographic and psychological variables were controlled, but future studies should nevertheless focus on recruiting samples more representative of adults living and working in advanced economies. To do so, researchers could employ different recruitment strategies, such as reaching out to community organizations, workplaces, and online forums frequented by individuals of varying demographics. Collaborations with institutions and organizations that have access to a large and diverse membership could also enhance the generalizability of findings. Ideally, longitudinal designs would be used, collecting baseline psychological measures and then tracking individuals' responses to a personal data breach incident over time, thereby providing deeper insights into long-term psychological effects and coping mechanisms. Although the DBSI proved to be a useful tool for quantifying the severity of a data breach for the purposes of the regression analyses, the measure has several limitations and could no doubt be improved and refined. For one, given that the scoring of the DBSI is based on a participant's written description of their data breach, it is vulnerable to omissions and misunderstandings of respondents (i.e., quality and accuracy issues with the raw data used to create the total score).