SocioEconomic Mag Personas Foundations

SocioEconomic Mag currently has three personas: Dav, Ash, and Fee. This document shows the foundations behind them.

Dav and Fee are identical in several ways: They are the same age and live in the same state, and all are equally comfortable with the technology they regularly use. Their differences are strictly derived from the socioeconomic status research on five facets: their Access to Reliable Technology, Technology Self-Efficacy, Communication Literacy/Education/Culture, Attitudes toward Technology Risks/Privacy/Security, and Perceived Control and Attitude Toward Authority towards new technologies. Fee's facet values are those most frequently seen in people with high SES, Dav's facet values are those frequently seen in people with low SES and are the most different from Fee's.

Dav(David/Davu/Davida) Persona Foundations

Dav represents a fraction of people with backgrounds similar to theirs. For SES data on people similar to and different from Dav, see the Footnotes.

Note: All gray-background portions are fundamental to Dav. In contrast, the white-background portions can be customized to match your software's target audience.

Dav
  • Age: 55 years old
  • Student at Community College A

Background Knowledge and Skills

  • Dav works a full-time job working at a grocery store. They are comfortable with the technologies they use regularly. They just moved to this employer 1 week ago, and their software systems are new to Dav .
    • Dav is good at math and is taking a cloud computing class (an elective), & other courses. This course is online, but some of their other courses are in person.
  • Access to Reliable Technology a : Dav has low access to reliable devices and reliable internet. Dav often must rely on shared devices or public devices to get work done. This affects how and when Dav uses technology. [Sources: 12, 17, 18, 19, 24, 28]
  • Technology Self-Efficacy b : Dav has lower technology self-efficacy than their peers about using unfamiliar technology features. If problems arise with technology, Dav often blames themselves for these problems. This affects whether and how they will persevere with a task. [Sources: 3, 16]
  • Communication Literacy/Education/Culture: e : Dav has received lower-quality education than their peers. This has resulted in lower reading comprehension and they struggle with complex sentence structures, cultural references (eg, specific movies/literature/music, ...), or tech-jargon. They rarely read complex text (eg, novels). They also have less education involving up-to-date technology. [Sources: 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10]
  • Technology Risks: c : Dav’s life is very busy and they rarely have spare time. So Dav is risk averse about using unfamiliar technologies that they might need to spend extra time on, even if the new features might be relevant. Dav instead performs tasks using familiar features, because they're more predictable about what Dav will get from them and how much time they will take. [Sources: 1, 15, 26, 27, 29]
  • Technology Privacy/Security: c : Dav fears losing personal information, like their location and identity, to new features or apps. Because of shared devices, their perception of technological features as risky and also due to cultural values, eg. high surveillance, authority, etc.[Sources: 1, 15, 26, 27, 29]
  • Perceived Control and Attitude toward Authority d :Dav views technology’s output as an authority that they cannot challenge or change. In addition, Dav often feels little control over the outcomes they get from technology. [Sources: 12, 17, 18, 19, 24, 28]


Ash (Ashely, Asha, Ashwin) Persona Foundations

Ash represents a fraction of people with backgrounds similar to theirs. For SES data on people similar to and different from Ash, see the Footnotes.

Note: All gray-background portions are fundamental to Ash. In contrast, the white-background portions can be customized to match your software's target audience.

Ash
  • 43 years old
  • Employed as an Accountant
  • Lives in Cardiff, Wales

Background Knowledge and Skills

  • Ash works as an accountant in a consulting firm and their software systems are new to Ash. They are not a professional programmer and have never taken any computer programming or IT systems classes. Ash has a degree in accounting so they know plenty of Math and know how to think in terms of numbers.

  • Access to Reliable Technology a : Ash has reliable access to devices and has their own smartphone and laptop. Ash usually has reliable access to broadband and WiFi. However, they sometimes experience spotty internet when they are streaming, gaming, or talking to family over video chat. [Sources:12, 17, 18, 19, 24, 28 ]
  • Technology Self-Efficacy b : Ash has medium computer self-efficacy about doing unfamiliar computing tasks. If problems arise with their technology, Ash will keep on trying to figure out how to achieve what they have set out to do for quite awhile; Ash doesn't give up right away when computers or technology present a challenge to them. They are also more likely to blame the technology rather then themselves when errors arise. [Sources: 3, 16]

  • Communication Literacy/Education/Culture e : Ash has received an average quality education when compared to their peers. This has resulted in an average reading comprehension. They usually do not struggle with complex sentence structures and cultural references (eg, specific movies/literature/music, ...). However, they sometimes struggle with tech-jargon because they have less education involving up-to-date technology. [Sources:2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10]
  • Technology Risks: c : Ash’s life is very busy and they rarely have spare time. So Ash is risk averse about using unfamiliar technologies that they might need to spend extra time on, even if the new features might be relevant. Ash instead performs tasks using familiar features, because they're more predictable about what Ash will get from them and how much time they will take. [Sources: 1, 15, 26, 27, 29]
  • Technology Privacy/Security: c : Ash fears losing personal information, like their identity, to new features or apps and is generally not too worried about people knowing their location. Because they tend to rely on their own device, their perception of technological features as being risky is low due to their cultural values and familiarity with technology. [Sources: 1, 15, 26, 27, 29]
  • Perceived Control and Attitude towards Authority d : Ash views technologies output as an authority they can challenge. As a result, they usually feels that they have control over the output they receive when they use technology. However, they are less likely to challenge technology they are new to. [Sources: 12, 17, 18, 19, 24, 28]


Fee(Feechi/Felienne/Felix) Persona Foundations

Fee represents a fraction of people with backgrounds similar to theirs. For SES data on people similar to and different from Fee, see the Footnotes.

Note: All gray-background portions are fundamental to Fee. In contrast, the white-background portions can be customized to match your software's target audience.

Fee
  • 30 years old
  • Employed as an Accountant
  • Richmond, Virginia

Background Knowledge and Skills

  • Fee works as an accountant. They just moved to this employer 1 week ago, and their software systems are new to Fee . For Fee, technology is a useful tool that they have control over. Fee likes to make sure they have the latest version of all software with all the new features.
  • Fee has not taken any computer programming or IT classes. Fee likes Math and knows how to think in terms of numbers. Fee writes and edits spreadsheet formulas for their work.
  • Fee plays the latest video games, has the newest smart phone and a hybrid car. They download and install the latest software. d Fee is comfortable and confident with technology and they enjoy learning about it and using new technologies.
  • Access to Reliable Technology a : Fee has high access to reliable devices and to reliable internet. Fee relies on their own devices and rarely uses a shared device or a public device to get work done. This affects how and when Fee uses technology. [Sources: 12, 17, 18, 19, 24, 28]
  • Technology Self-Efficacy b : Fee has higher technology self-efficacy than their peers about doing unfamiliar computing tasks. If problems arise with technology, Fee often blames the technology for the problems. This affects whether and how they will persevere with a task. [Sources: 3, 16]
  • Technology Risks: c : Fee doesn't mind taking risks using features of technology that haven't been proven to work. When Fee is presented with challenges because they have tried a new way that doesn't work, it doesn't change their attitudes toward technology. [Sources: 1, 15, 26, 27, 29]
  • Technology Privacy/Security: c : Fee fears losing personal information, like their identity, to new features or apps and is generally not too worried about people knowing their location. Because they tend to rely on their own device, their perception of technological features as being risky is low due to their cultural values and familiarity with technology. [Sources: 1, 15, 26, 27, 29]
  • Perceived Control and Attitude toward Authority: d : Fee views technology's output as a suggestion that they can challenge or change. As a result, Fee often feels that they have control in the experiences they have when they use technology. [Sources: 12, 17, 18, 19, 24, 28]
  • Communcation Literacy/Education/Culture: e : Fee had access to high quality education growing up and was exposed to a variety of technologies. They also have more experience and struggle less with software that uses implicit assumptions, cultural references, jargon, or complex sentence structures. [Sources:2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10]


Footnotes

a Access to Reliable Technology: Research spanning over a decade has found that people with a low-SES tend to have less access to reliable devices with reliable internet. This includes low-SES people being more likely than high-SES people to rely on shared and public devices. High-SES people tend to have better access to their own devices and reliable internet. This difference can affect a person's technology self-efficacy, perceived control, and attitudes towards technology. Sources: [12, 17, 18, 19, 24, 28].

b Technology Self-Efficacy: Self-efficacy is the belief an individual has about their ability to perform an upcoming task in order to achieve a goal. Self efficacy can be applied to many contexts. Here we use technology self efficacy, an individual’s belief in their own abilities to interact with unfamiliar technology. Self-efficacy can have numerous effects on the individual’s ultimate success with the task, including whether they blame themselves for difficulties they encounter, their willingness to persevere in the face of difficulty, and try different approaches to the problem if their first attempt fails. Sources: [3, 16].

e Communication Literacy/Education/Culture: Research from both the US and Europe shows that the lower an individual's SES the lower their language literacy is likely to be. Even in their native language. Mastery of a language goes beyond grammar and standard vocabulary. It also can include the idioms, specialized vocabulary, cultural references, and sentence structring that some particular technology requires for communicating with it. Research has also pointed to more educated individuals having higher literacy than less educationed individuals across all age groups and across over 40 countries. Also, low-SES individuals tend to receive lower technology-related education than higher-SES individuals. Sources: [2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10].

c Technology Risk/Privacy/Security: Studies have shown that there are some privacy and security risks that are common across the SES strata. For example, the risk of identity theft, online financial fraud, and of hackers who might steal or take over information such as passwords. However, research also reveals that some demographic groups that are disproportionately in the low-SES strata worry even more about such risks. Some examples include, Black adults are three times as likely as white adults to have someone take over their social media or email account. Black and Hispanic Americans are more likely than White Americans to be concered about what law enforcement officals, employers, and family and friends know about them. Low-SES individuals experience other technology-related risks at a disproportionately high rate. For example, a risk particularly prevalent for low-SES individuals is that of unreliability since low-SES individuals tend to use older, less reliable devices, and less stable internet connectivity, the risk here is that technology will fail them before they can succeed at what they are trying to do with it Sources: [1, 15, 26, 27, 29]

d Perceived Control and Attitude towards Authority: Perceived Control refers to an individual’s belief that they can exert influence over future events. Research has shown that low-SES populations often feel a lack of agency or control over their lives. An individual’s perception of control over their lives interacts with their attitudes toward and behaviors with authority figures. These too vary by SES. For example, many low-SES individuals are not in positions of power. This not only decreases their perceptions of control, but also comes with a requirement to comply with the dictates of authority figures. Consistent with this reality, decades of research have strongly correlated low-SES individuals' perceived lack of control with a tendency to be accommodating to authority figures. Further, low-SES individuals lack experiences, practice, and the cultural capital to interact with authority figures as their equals and are also less likely than higher-SES individuals to be overtly critical of authority figures. Sources: [12, 17, 18, 19, 24, 28].



References

[1] Brooke Auxier, Lee Rainie, Monica Anderson, Andrew Perrin, Madhu Kumar, and Erica Turner. 2019. Americans and Privacy: Concerned, Confused and Feeling Lack of Control Over Their Personal Information. Pew Research Center. Retrieved September 2, 2020 from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal- information/

[2] Kham Sila Ahmad, Jocelyn Armarego, and Fay Sudweeks. 2013. Literature Review on the Feasibility of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) in Developing Vocabulary Skills Among Non-English Speaking Migrant and Refugee Women. In Proceedings of the International Con- ference Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS ‘13). IEEE, Washington, D.C., 335- 341.

[3] Albert Bandura. 1993. Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning. Educational Psychologist, Vol. 28, No. 2 (1993), 117-148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3

[4] Dacian Doleana, Monica Melby-Lervåg, Ioana Tincasd, Crina Dams, Arne Lervåg. 2019. Achievement gap: Socioeconomic status affects reading development beyond language and cognition in children facing poverty, Learning and Instruction 63(101218), Elsevier.

[5] Mark Kutner, Elizabeth Greenberg, Ying Jin, Bridget Boyle, Yung-chen Hsu, Eric Dunleavy. 2007. Literacy in Everyday Life: Results from 26 the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. NCES 2007-490. National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., USA.

[6] Mehret S. Birru and Richard A. Steinman. 2004. Online Health Information and Low-Literacy African Americans. Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 6, No. 3.

[7] Beenish M. Chaudhry, Christopher Schaefbauer, Ben Jelen, Katie Siek, and Kay Connelly. 2016. Evaluation of a Food Portion Size Esti- mation Interface for a Varying Literacy Population. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5645-5657. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858554

[8] Ming Ming Chiu, Bonnie Wing-Yin Chow, and Sung Wook Joh. 2017. How to assign students into sections to raise learning. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (LAK '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 95-104.

[9] Amy Pace, Rufan Luo, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, and Roberta Michnick Golinkoff. 2017. Identifying Pathways Between Socioeconomic Status and Language Development, Annu. Rev. Linguist. (3), 285–308.

[10] Grant Cooper, Amanda Berry. 2020. Demographic predictors of senior secondary participation in biology, physics, chemistry and earth/space sciences: students’ access to cultural, social and science capital. International Journal of Science Education, 42 (1): 151.

[11] GenderMag Design Catalog. Retrieved September 26, 2020 from http://gendermag.org/dc/

[12] Victoria Rideout and Vikki Katz. 2016. Opportunity For All? Technology and Learning in Lower-Income Families. A Report of the Families and Media Project. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop (Winter 2016). Retrieved September 12, 2020 from https://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/jgcc_opportunityforall.pdf

[13] Francesco Pagnini, Katherine Bercovitz, and Ellen Langer. 2016. Perceived Control and Mindfulness: Implications for Clinical Practice. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, Vol. 26, No. 2, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/int0000035

[14] Gwen Petro, Amy Gonzales, and Jessica Calarco. 2020. “Out of Luck”: Socio-Economic Differences in Student Coping Responses to Technology Problems. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376156

[15] Nithya Sambasian, Garen Checkley, Amna Batool, Nova Ahmed, David Nemer, Laura Sanely Gaytán-Lugo, Tara Matthews, Sunny Consolvo, and Elizabeth Churchill. “Privacy is not for me, it’s for those rich women”: Performative Privacy Practices on Mobile Phones by Women in South Asia. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS ‘18). USENIX, Berkeley, CA, USA.

[16] Simone Stumpf, Anicia Peters, Shaowen Bardzell, Margaret Burnett, Daniela Busse, Jessica Cauchard, and Elizabeth Churchill. 2020. Gender-Inclusive HCI Research and Design: A Conceptual Review. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 13, No. 1 (March 2020), 1–69. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000056

[17] Eleni Sianou-Kyrgiou and Iakovos Tsiplakides. 2012. Digital Divide: Students’ Use of the Internet and Emerging Forms of Social Inequal- ities. In A. Jimoyiannis A. (Eds.) Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614- 1083-6_5

[18] Thom File and Camille Ryan. 2014. Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2013. American Community Survey Reports, ACS- 28.

[19] Jane Margolis, Rachel Estrella, Joanna Goode, Jennifer J. Holme, and Kimberly Nao. 2017. Stuck in the Shallow End, updated edition: Education, Race, and Computing. The MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.

[20] Megan Thiele. 2016. Resource or Obstacle?: Classed Reports of Student–Faculty Relations, The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 2, 333-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/tsq.12117

[21] E. Tuma, and N. Livson. 1960. Family Socioeconomic Status and Adolescent Attitudes to Authority. Child Development, Vol. 31, No. 2 (June 1960), 387-399. https://doi.org/10.2307/1125912

[22] Jojanneke van der Toorn, Matthew Feinberg, John T. Jost, Aaron C. Kay, Tom R. Tyler, Robb Willer, and Caroline Wilmuth. 2014. A Sense of Powerlessness Fosters System Justification: Implications for the Legitimation of Authority, Hierarchy, and Government. Political Psy- chology, Vol. 36, No. 1 (May 2014), 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12183

[23] Justin P. Friesen, Aaron C. Kay, Richard P. Eibach, and Adam D. Galinsky. 2014. Seeking Structure in Social Organization: Compensatory Control and the Psychological Advantages of Hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 106, Issue 4 (April 2014), 590-609. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035620

[24]Nicole Gardner-Neblett, Elizabeth P. Pungello, and Iheoma U. Iruka. 2011. Oral Narrative Skills: Implications for the Reading Development of African American Children. Child Development Perspectives, Vol. 6, Issue 3, 218-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00225.

[25] Elizabeth L. Haines, and John T. Jost. 2000. Placating the Powerless: Effects of Legitimate and Illegitimate Explanation on Affect, Memory, and Stereotyping. Social Justice Research, Vol. 13, Issue 3 (September 2000). 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026481205719

[26] Tamy Guberek, Allison McDonald, Sylvia Simioni, Abraham H. Mhaidli, Kentaro Toyama, and Florian Schaub. 2018. Keeping a Low Profile?: Technology, Risk and Privacy Among Undocumented Immigrants. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Paper 114, 1-15.

[27] John Vines, Paul Dunphy, and Andrew Monk. 2014. Pay or Delay: The Role of Technology When Managing a Low Income. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 501–510.

[28] Aditya Vashistha, Neha Kumar, Anil Mishra, and Richard Anderson. 2017. Examining Localization Approaches for Community Health. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064754

[29] Sarita Yardi and Amy Bruckman. 2012. Income, Race, and Class: Exploring Socioeconomic Differences in Family Technology Use. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3041-3050.


Date of last update: May 3, 2021
Contact Information
Email: gendermag.method@gmail.com