## 4 Results
### Impact of Design Cues on Sextortion Susceptibility  
#### 4.3.1 Parametric Testing  
Susceptibility scores for the email design cue conditions were analyzed using a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Although the assumption of normality was not met for the distribution of scores for any of the email design cue conditions, the ANOVA family of statistical tests is considered to be robust with regard to normality when the sample size is greater than 30, the sample sizes between groups are relatively similar, there are no outliers, and when the error variance in the ANOVA test is 20 degrees of freedom or greater [28; 29]. All these characteristics were met in the current analysis. In addition to the assumption of normality, a second assumption of sphericity was also not met for the current analysis using [PERSON]'s test of sphericity; therefore, a Greenhouse-Geisser correction was made to the degrees of freedom (see Table 3). With alpha set to 0.05, the result, \(F\)(3.52, 298.75) = 4.24, \(p\) = 0.004, \({\rm{np}}^{2}\) = 0.05, showed a statistically significant difference for susceptibility scores amongst the email design cue conditions (see Table 3). Post hoc comparison tests were conducted between the email design cue conditions most relevant for the current study's hypotheses; that is, the condition in which no email design cue was specified compared to each of the other email design cue conditions. As four post hoc comparison tests were conducted, a Bonferroni adjusted alpha of 0.0125 was made to maintain the familywise error rate at 0.05. Results showed that when participants focused attention on the email source, they were more susceptible to cyber sextortion attacks than when attention to email source was not specified (\(M_{\rm Diff}\) = 0.08, \(p\) = 0.011, 95% CI [0.021, 0.156]). Similarly, when participants focused attention on the title/subject line, they were more susceptible to cyber sextortion attacks than when attention to title/subject line was not specified (\(M_{\rm Diff}\) = 0.131, \(p\) = 0.001, 95% CI [0.052, 0.210]). However, there was no significant difference when participants focused attention on grammar and spelling compared to when attention to grammar and spelling was not specified (\(M_{\rm Diff}\) = 0.073, \(p\) = 0.028, 95% CI [0.008, 0.138]), nor when participants focused attention on urgency cues compared to when attention to urgency cues was not specified (\(M_{\rm Diff}\) = 0.096, \(p\) = 0.018, 95% CI [0.017, 0.175]). See Table 4 for ANOVA post hoc comparison test results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **M** & **SD** \\ \hline Design cue & & & \\ \hline Email source & 1.314 & 0.625 \\ \hline Grammar and spelling & 1.299 & 0.556 \\ \hline Urgency cues & 1.322 & 0.587 \\ \hline Title/subject line & 1.357 & 0.631 \\ \hline Control & 1.226 & 0.474 \\ \hline Email habits & & \\ \hline General & 19.15 & 4.112 \\ \hline Security & 33.74 & 4.703 \\ \hline Attentional & 7.42 & 2.437 \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Note. N = 86.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of susceptibility scores for each design cue condition and scores for each email habits category.