Thesis - 2!4!2014 After Track Changes

Investigating Factors Leading to Participation in Mobile
Crowdsourcing Applications
Mustafa Habib Alsaeed
A thesis submitted for the partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Applied Science at the
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
2013
Abstract
Crowdsourcing (CS) has undergone a new and emerging shift recently it can now be
deployed on smartphones. CS is not a new technology; it has been used for years on websites
and GSM mobile phones. However, the use of CS on smartphones allows more and different
opportunities for CS technology because it combines a sense of the surrounding environment
with crowdsourcing, which has not yet been well studied. There are some challenges in using
CS on smartphones, the main one being that a number of projects do not have sufficient
participants to share sufficient data, which results in a lack of information. This research
explores, empirically, the factors that affect people's use of mobile crowdsourced
participatory sensing (CSPS) applications. We used the TobaccoFree application (TFA)
(http://tobaccofree.nzdis.org/) and NoiseTube Mobile (NTM) (http://noisetube.net/) as
cases in this study. The factors that were identified are perceived usefulness (PU), perceived
ease of use (PEOU), perceived privacy concerns (PPC) and perceived enjoyment (PE).
Results indicate that behavioural intention is mainly correlated with perceived usefulness and
perceived enjoyment.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank everyone who has helped and supported me in the completion of this
thesis. Thank you to my supervisors Associate Professor Mariusz Nowostawski and
Associate Professor Holger Regenbrecht who have continually encouraged and motivated me
during the journey of completing this work. Without their help, guidance and advice, this
thesis would never have been done.
Thanks to Professor Michael Winikoff for his advice and suggestions for the experiment.
Thanks also to my mum, dad and wife for giving me the encouragement and support to do my
best in my study.
Finally to my friends Maher Alhazmi, Simon Hoermann and Lavell Mller, thank you for
your support and help.
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................. i
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. iii
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Scope of the Study ....................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Objective of the Study .................................................................................................. 3
1.6 Importance of the Study ............................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2 Review of Literature ............................................................................................. 5
2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Related Work ............................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Crowdsourced Participatory Sensing ............................................................................ 7
2.3.1 Web 2.0 Crowdsourcing Projects vs. Mobile Crowdsourced Sensing Projects ........ 8
2.3.2 Traditional Sensor Network vs. Participatory Sensing............................................. 9
2.4 Participation ............................................................................................................... 10
2.5 Motivation Theory ..................................................................................................... 10
2.6 Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Motivation................................................................................ 10
2.7 Gamification .............................................................................................................. 11
2.8 Mobile Crowdsourcing Projects ................................................................................. 12
Chapter 3 Combined Models ............................................................................................... 13
3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 13
3.2 Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)................................................................................... 13
iii
3.3 Perceived Enjoyment (PE).......................................................................................... 14

3.4 Perceived Usefulness (PU) ......................................................................................... 14
3.5. Perceived Privacy Concerns (PPC) ............................................................................ 15
3.6 Behavioural Intention (BI) .......................................................................................... 16
Chapter 4 Applications ........................................................................................................ 17
4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 17
4.2 TobaccoFree............................................................................................................... 17
4.2.1 How TobaccoFree works: ..................................................................................... 17
4.2.2 How to Use TobaccoFree ..................................................................................... 18
4.3 NoiseTube Mobile: ..................................................................................................... 22
4.3.1 How NoiseTube Mobile works:............................................................................. 22
4.3.2 How to use NoiseTube Mobile ............................................................................. 23
4.4 Reason for selecting TobaccoFree and NoiseTube Mobile .......................................... 26
Chapter 5 Research Methodology ........................................................................................ 27
5.1 Collecting data ........................................................................................................... 27
5.2 Research Instruments ................................................................................................. 27
5.3 Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 29
5.3.1 Sampling .............................................................................................................. 29
5.3.2 Experiment and Questionnaire Pretesting and Validation ...................................... 29
5.3.3 Research Validity ................................................................................................. 30
5.3.4 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 31
Chapter 6 Data Analysis and Research Findings .................................................................. 32
6.1 Description ................................................................................................................. 32
6.2 Reliability Test ........................................................................................................... 37
6.3 Normality Test ........................................................................................................... 38
6.4 Hypotheses Test ......................................................................................................... 38
6.4.1 Correlation ........................................................................................................... 38
iv
6.4.2 T-test .................................................................................................................... 39

6.5 Possible Confounding Factors .................................................................................... 45
Chapter 7 Discussions and Conclusions............................................................................... 48
7.1 Discussion of the Study Findings................................................................................ 48
7.2 Limitations and Future Studies ................................................................................... 51
7.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 53
References .......................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix A Ethical Approval ............................................................................................. 60
A.1 Ethical Approval ....................................................................................................... 60
A.2 Participation Information ........................................................................................... 62
A.3 Participation Consent Form ....................................................................................... 63
A.4 Research Randomize Result ...................................................................................... 64
Appendixes B Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 65
B.1 Demographic Questionnaire....................................................................................... 65
B.2 TobaccoFree Questionnaire ....................................................................................... 67
B.3 NoiseTube Mobile Questionnaire .............................................................................. 69
B.4 Perceived Privacy Concerns Questionnaire ................................................................ 71
B.5 Factor Ranking Questionnaire .................................................................................... 72
Appendix C Applications Information Sheets ...................................................................... 73
C.1 TobaccoFree Application Information Sheet .............................................................. 73
C.2 NoiseTube Mobile Application Information Sheet ..................................................... 76
Appendix D Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 79
D.1 Factor Details ............................................................................................................ 79
D.2 Reliability Test .......................................................................................................... 80
D.3 Normal Distribution Test ........................................................................................... 80
D.2 Correlation Tests ....................................................................................................... 87
D.3 T-test (Paired Samples T-test).................................................................................... 91
v
D.4 T-test (One Sampled T-test)....................................................................................... 92
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 The Conceptual Framework ............................................................................... 16
Figure 4-1 TobaccoFree webpage http://tobaccofree.nzdis.org/ ........................................... 18
Figure 4-2 Index Screen ...................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4-3 Recording Screen ............................................................................................... 19
Figure 4-4 Enabling GPS Screen ......................................................................................... 19
Figure 4-5 Index Screen ...................................................................................................... 20
Figure 4-6 Stored Location Screen ...................................................................................... 20
Figure 4-7 Fixed Location Screen........................................................................................ 21
Figure 4-8 Subtract Screen .................................................................................................. 21
Figure 4-9 Noise map http://www.brussense.be/experiments/linkeroever/index.php ............ 23
Figure 4-10 Noise Meter ..................................................................................................... 24
Figure 4-11 NoiseTube Mobile Preferences ......................................................................... 24
Figure 4-12 NoiseTube Mobile Map Screen ........................................................................ 24
Figure 4-13 NoiseTube Mobile Tag Screen ......................................................................... 25
Figure 4-14 Noise Meter after Tag ...................................................................................... 25
Figure 6-1 Gender ............................................................................................................... 33
Figure 6-2 Length of Time Using Smartphone..................................................................... 33
Figure 6-3 Participants Ages .............................................................................................. 34
Figure 6-4 Smartphone Usage per Day ................................................................................ 34
Figure 6-5 Occupations and Majors ..................................................................................... 35
Figure 6-6 Mostly Used Applications .................................................................................. 36
Figure 6-7 Recommendations for Mobile Applications ........................................................ 36
Figure 6-8 Factor Means With Standard Error in Each Application ..................................... 37
Figure 6-9 Participants Perceived Behavioural Intentions in Each Application ................... 40
Figure 6-10 Perceived Usefulness for Both Applications. .................................................... 41
Figure 6-11 Behavioural Intention for Both Applications .................................................... 41
Figure 6-12 Factor Means and Standard Errors.................................................................... 44
Figure 6-13 BI for Occupations and Majors ......................................................................... 46
Figure D-1 Normal Distribution for Percived Privacy Concerns .......................................... 80
Figure D-2 Normal Distribution for Perceived Ease of Use (TobaccoFree) .......................... 81
vi
Figure D-3 Normal Distribution for Perceived Enjoyment (TobaccoFree) ........................... 81

Figure D-4 Normal Distribution for Perceived Usefulness (TobaccoFree) ........................... 82
Figure D-5 Normal Distribution for Behavioural Intention (TobaccoFree)........................... 82
Figure D-6 Normal Distribution for Perceived Ease of Use (NoiseTube Mobile) ................. 83
Figure D-7 Normal Distribution for Perceived Enjoyment (NoiseTube Mobile) .................. 83
Figure D-8 Normal Distribution for Perceived Usefulness (NoiseTube Mobile) .................. 84
Figure D-9 Normal Distribution for Behavioural Intention (NoiseTube Mobile) .................. 84
vii
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Comparison between Traditional Sensor Network and Participatory Sensing
(Kanhere, 2011) .................................................................................................................... 9
Table 5-1 Research Conceptual Framework Relationship .................................................... 28
Table 5-2 The Research Conceptual Framework Variables .................................................. 29
Table 6-1 Correlation for TobaccoFree Application ............................................................ 38
Table 6-2 Correlation for NoiseTube Mobile Application .................................................... 39
Table 6-3 Correlation between Perceived Privacy Concerns and Perceived Behavioural
Intention.............................................................................................................................. 39
Table 6-4 T-test, Pair Samples Correlation between PU and BI in Two Applications........... 40
Table 6-5 Ranked Factors Order and Mean ......................................................................... 42
Table 6-6 One Sample T-test for Factors Order ................................................................... 43
Table 6-7 Hypotheses Test Conclusion ................................................................................ 44
Table 6-8 Demographic Correlation with Perceived Behavioural Intention .......................... 45
Table 6-9 Correlation between Number of Applications with Level of using Smartphone.... 46
Table 6-10 Major One Sample T-test................................................................................... 47
Table 6-11 Correlation between Number of Cars and Smoking in Cars with Perceived
Behavioural Intention .......................................................................................................... 47
Table D-1 Factors Means with Standard Errors in Each Application .................................... 79
Table D-2 Reliability Value ................................................................................................ 80
Table D-3 Normal Distribution Test after Calculate Log10 and SQRT ................................ 84
Table D-4 Normality Test Value ......................................................................................... 85
Table D-5 Log 10 and Sqrt Value for Non-Normal Distributed Factors ............................... 86
Table D-6 TobaccoFree Correlation Factors ........................................................................ 87
Table D-7 NoiseTube Mobile Correlation Factors ............................................................... 88
Table D-8 Correlation between Demographic Smartphone Users and Behavioural Intention 89
Table D-9 Correlation between Weather Condition and Behavioural Intention .................... 90
Table D-10 Correlation between Gender and Behavioural Intention .................................... 90
Table D-11 Paired Sample Statistics for Perceived Usefulness and Behavioural Intention for
Both Applications ............................................................................................................... 91
viii
Table D-12 Paired Sample T-test for Perceived Usefulness and Behavioural Intention for
Both Applications ............................................................................................................... 91
Table D-13 Ranked Important Factors Means, Standard Deviation and Standard Errors ...... 92
Table D-14 Behavioural Intention Means, Standard Deviation and Standard Errors for Majors
........................................................................................................................................... 93
ix
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Definition of Terms
Crowdsourcing: is a "known mechanism by which to generate work from a community of
people, whether they are customers or interested parties" (Thebault-Spieker, 2012).
Crowdsourced Participatory Sensing: These are systems that enable and support
crowdsourcing of sensory data from a mobile sensor (often a smartphone) (Brabham, 2012).
Smartphone: This is "a mobile phone that offers more advanced computing ability and
connectivity than a contemporary, basic mobile phone. Smartphones allow the user to install
and run various applications based on a specific platform, as they run complete operating
system software providing a platform for application developers. These advanced mobile
devices possess powerful processors, abundant memory, larger multi-touch screen and a
virtual keyboard with e-mail, web browsing and Wi-Fi connectivity (Saag, Randlane, &
Leht, 2010).
1.2 Introduction
Crowdsourcing is the practice of obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by imploring
contributions from a large group of people. It is a mechanism to generate work from users
end. It can involve a device that is already in the hands of the users, i.e., a Smartphone.
Smartphone is a mobile phone with more advanced computing capability and connectivity
than basic feature phones. Smartphones can be carried by users anywhere and can activate
sensors to collect data about a particular location. The method of using sensors or mobile
sensors to generate work from people is known as Crowd-Sourced Participatory Sensing
(CSPS). It allows data to be collected from the different actions performed by the participants
rather than from the answers they would give in a questionnaire, i.e., automatically
measurable data.
One use of crowdsourcing is to provide users with important locations such as hospitals in the
case of medical emergencies, or meeting points during fires. For example, the AED4.US
project (http://www.aed4.us) uses user-generated data from either its website or iOS or
1
Android mobile application to locate the nearest defibrillator in the case of a cardiac
emergency. As in the AED4.US project, crowdsourcing has been used with different
technologies, including websites (Kleemann, Vo, & Rieder, 2008), basic phones using text
messaging (Eagle, 2009) and smartphones (Liu et al., 2010). CS in mobile phones is
attractive because there is no capital cost; mobile phones are resource-rich devices and offer
good economies of scale (Kanhere, 2011).
The smartphones economy of scale is because of its popularity and use globally; 491.4
million smartphones were sold in 2011 (Framingham, 2012). Because of their size they can
be carried anywhere and used for easier Internet access. As a result, a huge amount of data
can be collected globally from all these smartphone users. Smartphones can also contain
accelerometers, GPS radios, microphones and Wi-Fi radios to obtain contextual data from the
surrounding environment, physical activity in the environment and for social interaction
(Kanhere, 2011). Moreover, a variety of applications can also be installed in a smartphone,
which offers developers access to the resources. The smartphone allows users to share
information from anywhere and whenever they have access to the Internet in a coverage area.
Sharing information in this way enriches social mobile networking content and saves users
time by finding required information about particular locations. As a result, smartphones can
be used to sense the surrounding environment and collect data that a website cannot obtain
using classic crowdsourcing methods (e.g., NoiseTube Mobile, which is explained in Chapter
4).
On the other hand, as useful as crowdsourcing projects can be, they still require a significant
number of active participants to contribute the necessary data for analysis and presentation as
valuable information (Kanhere, 2011).
As a result, one of the most significant challenges facing CS projects is numbers of
participants; projects involve a lot of human work (Zambonelli, 2011). Having an
insufficient number of participants not only affects the credibility of data and lowers the
quality of information provided for users, communities, and/or governments, but also
increases the possibility that the project might be aborted. Thus, it is essential to identify
ways to increase participation in CS projects via smartphones. It seems that not many studies
have investigated the variables that may affect intention of participation in a CS project using
smartphones. It is argued that usability and quality control (Stevens & DHondt, 2010),
perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness to participants (Carvalho, Lease, & Yilmaz,
2011), enjoyment (Zheng, Li, & Hou, 2011), and perceived privacy concerns (Kanhere, 2011)
are important factors that influence participation rates among users in CS projects.
This study will explore, empirically, the association of some of these factors with
participation in mobile CS projects.
1.3 Research Questions

What intrinsic factors (i.e. come from the activity itself, not from "third party") motivate
mobile phone users to become involved in mobile CS projects?
To what extent do these intrinsic factors motivate the intention of mobile phone users to
participate in mobile crowdsourcing projects?
1.4 Scope of the Study

The target participants in this study will be limited to smartphone users and people in
Dunedin who have access to smartphone or similar technologies, for example, an iPad, and
the focus will be on the crowdsourced applications that use a GPS sensor (e.g. TobaccoFree),
as it is impossible to test all CS applications. Also, the study will focus only on the intrinsic
factors that come from the activity itself, not from "third party" or side issues, which will not
be mentioned. These issues include challenges relating to battery life, financial rewards,
smartphone performance, and cost and speed of the internet.
However, due to the limitation of the timeframe the study is unable to address all these
factors, but it has listed them in the literature review and factor ranking questions; this list of
intrinsic motivators is not exhaustive.
1.5 Objective of the Study

The objective of this study is to identify factors that motivate smartphone users to participate
in mobile CS projects to what extent these factors motivate the intention of mobile phone
users to participate in mobile crowdsourcing projects, and make recommendations about how
to increase participation in the cases of TobaccoFree and NoiseTube Mobile applications.
1.6 Importance of the Study

This study develops a theoretical framework that integrates several factors that have been
shown to influence intention to participate in crowdsourced participatory sensing applications
via smartphones. It is anticipated that the findings will have practical implications in
suggesting actions for application developers to increase participation in crowdsourcing
applications via smartphones. Furthermore, if developers can encourage users to take part in
mobile CS projects then researchers can gain access to the data gathered (Eagle, 2009) and
thus save money and time, compared with traditional methods (i.e. installing sensors in many
areas and collecting the records) that are difficult and time consuming (Kanhere, 2011).
Chapter 2 Review of Literature

2.1 Introduction
The idea of crowdsourcing in is to collect the desired raw data (ideas, pictures, video, etc.)
from users (the general public, researchers, professionals, etc.) and sharing their experience,
knowledge and skills with others in a project (e.g. Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org). Sharing
information is one application of crowdsourcing that involves technology (i.e. people
exchanging information through computers). However, not all CS projects involve users
actively contributing raw data. Crowdsourcing tools have been deployed to involve
participatory sensing via mobile phones as people use their smartphones sensors (e.g. GPS
radios and microphones) to sense their surrounding environments and share the information.
In this review, an overview of mobile crowdsourced participatory sensing (CSPS), a
comparison of Web 2.0 crowdsourcing with mobile CS, and an examination of the traditional
sensor network (i.e. spreading sensors to interact and observe physical space using multi-hops
network) and participatory sensing are presented. The review will also discuss Motivation
theory and the related studies investigating what motivates people to participate in
crowdsourcing projects. Mobile crowdsourcing projects will also be appraised.
2.2 Related Work

This section provides an overview of studies that have designed a methodology to test
motivation factors in Web 2.0 crowdsourcing projects and mobile crowdsourcing projects.
Most of the research reviewed has been done for Web 2.0 crowdsourcing motivation. Hars
and Ou (2001) measured the motivation factors for participants in Lunix, which is an opensource software that deals with requests from users and software developers for solving
problems that require programming skills. Hars and Ou measured internal motivation factors
(i.e. self-determination, altruism, community identification) and external motivation factors
(i.e. future rewards and personal needs). They proved that these intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation factors played an important role to motivate the participation.
Zheng, Li, and Hou (2011) used the Taskcn website to examine the intrinsic motivation (IM)
and extrinsic motivation (EM) factors. Firstly, IM factors comprise the following:
autonomy the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence,
and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the
procedures to be used in carrying it out (Hackman & Oldham, 1980);
variety the degree to which the contest requires the contest solver to apply a wide
range of skills and perform a variety of activities in the competition process;
tacitness the knowledge that is used in an innovation contest problem;
analysability knowledge accessibility about a task and the degree of complexity of

finding a procedure in performing tasks (definition adopted from Gelderman (2002)
and Chang and Chang (2003));
variability the frequency of unanticipated and novel events and emergencies that can
happen once involved in a task (defintion adopted from Perrow (1967));
trust and hobbyist a voluntary basis contributing to innovation activities without

monetary rewards.
Secondly, according to Zheng, Li, and Hou (2011), extrinsic motivation (EM) factors
comprise rewards from monetary gain and recognition that may influence the intention to
participate, in particular, factors that may influence people to participate in the Taskcn
website.
Tasckcn is a crowdsourcing contest platform in China that in 2010 had 270,000 registered
contest solvers involved in 17,026 contests provided on Tasckcn crowdsourcing project
(www.tasckcn.com).
Kaufmann, Schulze, and Veit (2011) measured the effect of IM and EM factors (i.e.
immediate payoffs, delayed payoffs, social motivation, enjoyment on participation in
Amazon Mechanical Turk (i.e. a web marketplace that programmers can get paid for
performing available human intelligence tasks that computers cannot do).
Roberts, Hann, and Slaughter (2006) measured the relation between motivation, participation
and performance in Apache (i.e. an open-source software development project, and Apache
products include developer websites, change logs, documentation, and developer
communications in the form of e-mail archives). These studies are more constrained to what
6
factors make people contribute or continue contributing to a project and their samples must
be from people who have already contributed to a project. Chapter 4 explains the factors that
have been selected and the relationship with other studies.
As for mobile crowdsourcing projects, some studies have measured their usability. For
example, Askus is a system where a persons request is transmitted to a suitable person who
will then act in accordance with the request at a remote site. It was for people chatting to get
useful information from others who were also involved in the project (Konomi et al., 2009).
The second one was for translation, a co-operative system in which people who did not speak
a particular language and did not understand the script could take a picture of the text and
send it to people who were involved in the project and anyone who understood the language
could accept the request and write the meaning in English (Liu et al., 2010). The third study
that tested usability for pothole detecting, evaluated data from taxi drivers, and showed that
potholes could be successfully detected (Eriksson et al., 2008). These studies have been done
with users testing mobile applications, but the studies did not address what motivates users to
use crowdsourcing or how to motivate them. Furthermore, not giving good results and
problems in usability is a factor that may affect the intention to use.
Another project was a vehicle for research using street sweepers to explore the landscape of
environmental community action which is "a mobile sensing platform to facilitate public
awareness of environmental conditions" that requires collecting and presenting data. This
system has been used in the major US cities (Aoki et al., 2009).
2.3 Crowdsourced Participatory Sensing

Crowdsourcing is not a new idea (e.g. The Oxford Dictionary is a crowdsourcing idea) and in
recent years has been used in websites (e.g. Amazon Mechanical Turk (Kaufmann, Schulze,
& Veit, 2011)) and with basic mobile phone functions in Africa (Eagle, 2009), but has been
extended to be used with smartphones where there are more opportunities as mobile phones
have become more advanced with computing features and a variety of sensors (e.g. GPS,
accelerometers, Wi-Fi). Mobile crowdsourcing that uses sensors is called crowdsourcing
participatory sensing (Brabham, 2012).
2.3.1 Web 2.0 Crowdsourcing Projects vs. Mobile Crowdsourced Sensing

Projects
The crowdsourcing idea in Web 2.0 started some years ago and there are several projects in
current use. Some Web 2.0 projects are very successful and people rely on them for
information (e.g. Wikipedia); however, opportunities offered by Web 2.0 are limited to
locations and times because most of them are designed to be used from computers.
The crowdsourcing idea has been extended to the mobile phone (e.g. it has been tried in
Africa using text messaging to answer survey questions (Eagle, 2009)). This provides more
opportunities than those offered by Web 2.0 and is able to reach more people, as phones are
carried everywhere. As well, because of the popularity of the smartphone, technology has
become increasingly available for smartphone users and application developers to use the
crowdsourcing sensing technique. Smartphones are outselling computers; the volume of
smartphone shipments in 2011 increased by more than 60% over that of 2010 (Framingham,
2012). As the new generation of mobile phone has sensors (e.g. GPS, camera, microphone),
so the mobile phone can sense the surrounding environment, and the data can be shared with
others more easily than with other technologies.
Table 2-1 Comparison between Web 2.0 Crowdsourcing Projects and Mobile Crowdsourced Sensing Projects
Web 2.0 Crowdsourcing Projects on Mobile Crowdsourced Sensing Projects

computer
Can only be done by active users.
Work can be automatically done by mobile

processor and sensors.
Work requires text writing.
Work requires sensing.
Work does not require sensors
Work requires devices with sensors (e.g.

iPad, mobile phone).
2.3.2 Traditional Sensor Network vs. Participatory Sensing

Crowdsourced sensing has been used in traditional sensor networks (i.e. spreading sensors to
interact and observe with physical space using multi-hop networks) with data obtained from
the sensor in a multi-hop network (i.e. more than one wireless hop to transfer the data), and
the traditional sensors are being used for several purposes (e.g. temperature measurement,
sound levels, and object movements). Also, GPS sensors have been used for tracking.
However, this type of sensor has some limitations (see Table 2.1). CSPS offers opportunities
that traditional sensors cannot (i.e. monitoring areas for specific information is costly, which
makes it expensive to collect using classic methods, such as installing sensors in areas and
collecting the data). Hence, using mobile phones in participatory sensing saves money and
time because the data sent may be the equivalent to the data that is obtained from traditional
sensor networks, but without a huge effort. The greatest advantage from using smartphones to
sense urban areas is that sensors can be deployed together using special software. For
example, a smartphone can be a deployed GPS with signal sensors to measure signal strength
around the area for a telecommunication company.
Table 2-1 Comparison between Traditional Sensor Network and Participatory Sensing (Kanhere, 2011)
Traditional Crowdsourced Sensor

Network
Crowdsourced Participatory Sensing
Mostly stationary nodes (i.e. limited by Mobile nodes (i.e. can work in many
locations)
locations)
Multi-hop network
Single-hop network (Wi-Fi, cellular)
Nodes are exclusively deployed for sensing
Sensing is a secondary function
Resource-limited nodes
Competent nodes (mobile phones)
Configured, deployed and operated by a Many organizations and individuals provide

single organization that uses the data
infrastructure and apps and use the data.
Nodes function autonomously
Node carriers (i.e. humans) can participate
2.4 Participation
Many participatory sensing projects still have a small number of downloads that means not
more than 1000 participants (e.g. TobaccoFree, Pothole Detector, Sensor Reader)1, that is,
not a sufficient number of people who are participating and sharing the information. There
are some studies (see Related Work) that have identified the factors for participation in Web
2.0 that influence people to participate in mobile CS projects. These factors depend on the
type and nature of the projects works and will measure the intention of people to participate
in the future after they try the applications. However, even with thousands of participants, the
project will sometimes have some usability issues. For example, NoiseTube Mobile a noise
level meter conflicts somewhat with the normal usage of the device. Measuring noise is
pointless when the phone is put in a pocket or purse or when a telephone call is being made
(Stevens & DHondt, 2010).
2.5 Motivation Theory

Motivation relates to the factors that drive people to do a task (Kaufmann & Schulze, 2011).
People are drawn to participate because some psychological, social, or emotional need is
being met. And when the need isnt met, they dont participate (Howe, 2008, p. 288).
However, "people have not only different amount but also different kind of motivation"
(Ryan & Deci, 2000) and participation occurs because of either intrinsic or extrinsic
incentives (Rossi, 2004). The factors that affect motivation are either intrinsic or extrinsic
factors. The relationship between extrinsic and extrinsic factors with motivation has been
studied in several aspects.
2.6 Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation is defined as the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather
than for some separable consequence. When intrinsically motivated a person is moved to act
for the fun or challenge entailed rather than because of external prods, pressures, or rewards
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation is the motivation that comes from a third party
rather than from the task itself (Johns, 1996), for example, giving people rewards for solving
problems. However, Teo et al. (1999) has defined the intrinsic motivation to be perceived
enjoyment and the extrinsic motivation to be perceived usefulness as there is difference
1
By typing the application name in Google Play and finding the number of downloads for each application in
25/9/2012
10
between the definitions there are some differences in factors categorizing. Most of the studies
mentioned that the extrinsic motivation factor are important and may affect the motivation
participation but the extrinsic motivation factors are playing the main role for people to
participate in a project (e.g. Ryan & Deci (2000)).
Despite of the categorizing and definition the study will focus on the factors that does come
from a third party and will select the most important factors that may motivate people to
participate in mobile CS applications.
Most of the studies (e.g. Ryan & Deci (2000)) does not deny that extrinsic factors may
influence user' participation, but they mentioned that the intrinsic motivation factors are more
important and have a greater effect on users' participation.
2.7 Gamification
Gamification is a form of service packaging where a core service is enhanced by a rulesbased service system that provides feedback and interaction mechanisms to the user with an
aim to facilitate and support the users overall value creation (Huotari & Hamari, 2011).
Because of "games and game technologies increasingly transcend the traditional boundaries
of their medium" (Deterding et al., 2011) as well as popularity of using smartphone the game
technology design for smartphone becomes more important for smartphone application
designers. Furthermore, some applications have not been basically designed to be a game but
they are modified to be game-like by adding game elements in these applications. The reason
behind gamification for these applications is to motivate people to use them by making the
applications more enjoyable.
Gamification of some applications uses competition tools between users to motivate user to
participate in these applications and use them more. For example, the number of points that
users can obtain from answering questions in Yahoo Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/)
may motivate users to participate more and answering more questions.
11
2.8 Mobile Crowdsourcing Projects

The nature of crowdsourcing projects is either competitive (assisting the quality of work) or
more collaborative, for example, Wikipedia (Zhao & Zhu, 2012). The number of free CS
projects that use a GPS sensor or other sensors in the market in Google Play is still small 2,
compared with the large number of project ideas (Kanhere, 2011). But the factor that is most
likely to encourage developers to create new projects is the development of projects that are
successful, especially with respect to the data they obtain.
Some mobile crowdsourced sensing project ideas have been on the market, an example of
which used different sensing techniques developed for another purpose.
Pothole Patrol
Eriksson et al. (2008) developed a crowdsourced participatory sensing system to gather data
using GPS and vibration sensors on potholes in roads. It was evaluated by installing the
software on mobile phones and putting the phones in taxis, which covered thousands of
kilometers. The Pothole Patrol system has shown that it can successfully detect a number of
real potholes in and around the Boston area. After clustering to further reduce spurious
detections, manual inspection of reported potholes shows that over 90% contain road
anomalies in need of repair.
A number of similar applications can be found in the Google Play market (e.g. ITS Suite that
monitors roads by detecting potholes and areas where sudden braking occurs using a sensor
reader to register their location and time in the system). This application may have some
usability problems as the car needs to be travelling quickly to detect the pothole. Also, the
mobile phone needs to be held in the car and most potholes are in an area familiar to drivers,
thus drivers will not be travelling quickly so not all potholes will be detected.
Chapter 5 shows the number of mobile crowdsourcing project and explains the method of searching for the
applications.
12
Chapter 3 Combined Models

3.1 Introduction
This review of the literature endeavours to answer the question of why users decide to
participate in mobile crowdsourcing applications by identifying the factors that motivate
participants. The conceptual framework of the research was developed to identify possible
factors that influence smartphone users to use mobile crowdsourcing applications (Figure
3.1). The conceptual framework is composed of four hypotheses developed to answer the
research questions.
A deductive approach was used to identify the research model factors. Perceived ease of use
and perceived usefulness were derived from the technology acceptance model (TAM) theory
and one of the main factors in adopting any technology. Perceived enjoyment and perceived
privacy concerns were identified after evaluating literature relevant to this research topic.
3.2 Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)

Perceived Ease of Use refers to "the degree to which a person believes that using a particular
system would be free of effort (Davis, 1989). Perceived ease of use (PEOU) is one of the
main factors in adopting any technology in a technology acceptance model (TAM) (Straub,
Keil, & Brenner, 1997), and TAM has been widely used to assess the acceptance or adoption
by users of new technology or systems. Furthermore, a lot of technologies and applications
have been tested using TAM to find out the relationship between PEOF and the intention to
use in the future. PEOU is an intrinsic motivation factor because it does not rely on
intervention from a third party. Perceived ease of use refers to the ease of learning how to do
a task in a project, for example, how difficult it is to learn how to perform a specific task.
Konomi et al. (2009) measured PEOU for a mobile application to find if people thought the
application was easy to use. Furthermore, the hardship of using an application may prevent
mobile users from using the application as it will be a challenge for users to understand how
to use the application to do what they want to do.
Our study operationalizes ease of use as a crowdsourcing factor and measures it on a sevenitem scale adopted from Sun and Zhang, (2006). Based on these findings, this is our
hypothesis:
13
H1: Perceived ease of use positively influences people to participate in mobile crowdsourcing
sensing projects.
3.3 Perceived Enjoyment (PE)

Perceived Enjoyment refers to the the extent to which the activity of using the computer is to
be perceived enjoyable in its own right, apart from any performance consequences that may
be anticipated (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1992, p. 1113). The emotions play a major role
in motivation. Playing a game is a stimulant for users to contribute data (Alt, Shirazi,
Schmidt, Kramer, & Nawaz, 2010); users sacrifice their time and money to enjoy playing
games. It is a challenge for a designer to design an enjoyable task (Liu, Lehdonvirta,
Alexandrova, Liu, & Nakajima, 2011), especially if the task synchronizes the contribution of
content and playing games. Fun and avoiding boredom are factors that some studies have
mentioned and tested, and at least one study has found a relationship between enjoyment and
participation (Zheng et al., 2011).
Furthermore, pastime, autonomy, identity, skill variety and direct feedback from the job are
mentioned as enjoyment factors, and the study refers to the definition as covering acts of
killing time or avoiding boredom, degree of freedom to do a task, perceived completeness of
a task, diversity of skills that are needed for solving a task and sense of achievement in
performing a task (Kaufmann & Schulze, 2011). If a task has several work activities and
procedures, it is likely to be enjoyable (Zheng et al., 2011).
Our study operationalizes intrinsic enjoyment as crowdsourcing enjoyment and measures it
using a seven-item scale adopted from Sun & Zhang, (2006).
For example, PE has been evaluated in a survey in Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT).
Enjoyment has been found to be a factor that positively influences people to participate in
crowdsourcing projects (Kaufmann, Schulze, & Veit, 2011). Based on these findings, this is
our hypothesis:
H2: PE positively influences people to participate in mobile crowdsourced sensing projects.
3.4 Perceived Usefulness (PU)

Perceived Usefulness is the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system
would enhance his or her job performance (Davis, 1989). In our research, it refers to the
benefits that users can get from participating in a project (Kanhere, 2011). PU has been used
14
in a technology acceptance model (TAM) and it has been found that there was a relationship
between it and using a technology in the future (Straub et al., 1997). PU is an extrinsic
motivation factor that comes from the application itself (e.g. an application makes participant
more efficient) not from a third party (e.g. financial rewards). Konomi et al. (2009) have
measured PU for a mobile application to see if people think an application is useful and
measure the relationship between it and using the application in the future. PU is measuring
the personal usefulness.
Our study operationalizes usefulness as a crowdsourcing factor and measures it on a sevenitem scale adopted from Sun and Zhang, (2006). Based on the literature and these findings,
this is our hypothsis:
H3: PU positively influences people to participate in mobile crowdsourced sensing projects.
3.5. Perceived Privacy Concerns (PPC)

Privacy is a concern for people who use technology (Bulusu et al., 2008), especially if they
do not know the reason information is collected about them. In designing a smartphone
application location privacy for users is a factor that should be considered (Gaonkar, Li,
Choudhury, Cox, & Schmidt, 2008) and is a serious and increasing concern for users (Alt et
al., 2010). People may be concerned about the use of personal information collected on
mobile phone networks and this could negatively affect participation. PPC may limit users
willingness to participate in a project. Some social network users are concerned about
personal information because social networks may misuse it.
Our study operationalizes privacy concern as a crowdsourcing factor and measures it on a
seven-item scale adopted from Xu and Teo (2004), who adapted the items for measuring
perceived privacy concerns from Smith, Milberg and Burke, (1996) and Dinev and Hart
(2003). Based on these findings, this is our hypothesis:
H4: PPC has a negative influence on people's willingness to participate in a mobile phone
crowdsourcing sensing project.
15
3.6 Behavioural Intention (BI)

This refers to the intention of people to participate in CSAs in the future. This study will not
measure a participants activity in a project in the future as it is time consuming to measure
the actual behaviour, because it needs to trace users to see if they would participate in the
future or not, and the theory of planned behavior Ajzen (1991) posits that an individuals
actual behavior can be predicted by the intention to perform the behaviour. This theory has
been widely applied to European Commission Research and has gained consistent support for
the strong correlation of participation intention and actual participation (Kim, Ferrin, and Rao
2008). Participation intention is also tested and found that it is positively associated with the
actual participation (Zheng et al., 2011).
Our study operationalized the intention to participate in a crowdsourcing project and
measured this on a seven-item scale adopted from Sun and Zhang (2006). Sun and Zhang
(2006) adapted the items for measuring behavioural intention concerns.
Figure 3-1 The Conceptual Framework
16
Chapter 4 Applications
4.1 Introduction
There are a large number of health applications for smartphones (e.g. for dieting and quitting
smoking), which, it is argued, can improve the health of users (Patrick, Griswold, Raab, &
Intille, 2008). Applications for gaining data need to have a number of users to upload data.
This chapter will explore the TobaccoFree and NoiseTube Mobile applications that will be
used in the experiments.
4.2 TobaccoFree
TobaccoFree is an application used to count smokers in cars; it can save the number to a
mobile phone and upload it to a database, which is available for all to use. It is an
international application used in several countries and uses GPS and users input as the main
input form to crowdsourcing. It is used by researchers to gather information on smokers in
cars. It requires a GPS to identify the location of the monitoring area and requires the Internet
to upload the data that people have recorded.
4.2.1 How TobaccoFree works:

This application obtains data from the street using GPS and users observations that are then
sent over a Wi-Fi or cellular network to the application server. The server has a database
where the observational data used to calculate the ratio of smoking in cars is saved.
The general public and researchers can see the results (i.e. the ratio of cars with smokers to
all observed cars, the exposure ratios of second-hand smoking in cars with respect to both
adults and children) related to smoking in cars in observed areas on the TobaccoFree
webpage (http://tobaccofree.nzdis.org). (Figure 4-1 shows the ratio for smoking in cars and the
difference between some countries, with standard errors).
17
Figure 4-1 TobaccoFree webpage http://tobaccofree.nzdis.org/
4.2.2 How to Use TobaccoFree

After installing and opening the application, a screen with some options appears (see Figure
4-2) and if the record data button is pressed a message will appear. If the GPS is not turned
on it will say the GPS is required for recording the data (see Figure 4-3). After turning the
GPS on, or if the GPS is already on, a new screen will be shown to record the data. This
screen has four buttons no smoking in car, smoking in car, smoking in car with more than
one person, and smoking person and a child in car (see Figure 4-4). After recording the data,
an upload data button will be activated to store the data or send it to the TobaccoFree
database (see Figure 4-5).
18
Figure 4-2 Index Screen
Figure 4-3 Recording Screen
Figure 4-4 Enabling GPS Screen
19
Figure 4-5 Index Screen
The recorded data history can be found by pressing the stored data button (see Figure 4-6).
As this application uses a GPS, it needs time to find the location, but many users will not
notice this as they will be busy entering the data while the phone is receiving signals from the
satellites.
However, if a user wants to go back after some numbers have been entered before indicating
user location, the application does not go back (see Figure 4-7); hence, a user needs to delete
the data by holding any of the four buttons, which will subtract an observation from that
category (see Figure 4-8).
Figure 4-6 Stored Location Screen
20
Figure 4-7 Fixed Location Screen
Figure 4-8 Subtract Screen
This application has one way to set the users location and users cannot enter data without
turning on the GPS. This application also requires people who want to record data to be
standing on the street in order to monitor the data.
The goal of this application is to answer these questions: How many people smoke in cars?
How many passive smokers are affected? How many passive smokers are children? How
much do the statistics differ among countries? "Collecting data from multiple sites, globally,
many times a day, over and over again would be expensive (NZDIS, 2011-2012). So, it is
less time consuming and less expensive if crowdsourcing technology is used. Anyone can
participate and anyone can also access the data from the webpage (http://tobaccofree.nzdis.org/).
21
4.3 NoiseTube Mobile:

Stevens and D'Hondt (2010) have evaluated a system to measure environment noise. It uses
GPS to obtain the location and a microphone to measure the sound level. It then sends the
data to a server that in turn provides information that users can see on the map noise level in
the system. The NoiseTube Mobile application can be found in the Google Play market and
the application can sense data automatically.
4.3.1 How NoiseTube Mobile works:
This application obtains data from the street using the GPS and a microphone meter and
sends the location with the measurement over a Wi-Fi or cellular network to the application
server. The data can be sent automatically when the user selects and stores the data on a
mobile phone.
NTM monitors environmental noise using a microphone and GPS to draw a map of the
location noise level. This application gathers noise measurement data and makes some
calculations and advanced analyses to draw a noise map that people can understand. In Figure
4-10 colour is used to denote loudness of sounds in areas dB (A), the darker the colour, the
noisier the area. Users can go to the NoiseTube Mobile webpage NoiseTube.net to find
observations that other users have made.
22
Figure 4-9 Noise map http://www.brussense.be/experiments/linkeroever/index.php
4.3.2 How to use NoiseTube Mobile

After installing the application in a mobile phone, it will be ready to measure the noise but
not to submit the data. After opening the application the first image that will be shown is the
noise meter sound graph (see Figure 4-11).
To submit data, users need to register the application and log in from a mobile phone, then,
from Preferences, under the option of How do you want to store you measurement data
select submit to NoiseTube.net and save to local file. Otherwise, the data will be stored in a
local file by default. Although the app can work in the background, (see Figure 4-12). The
GPS is enabled in the application, but a mobile user should turn it on from the mobile settings
before making measurements.
Another choice is for users to see a map that shows the measurement area for the noise (see
Figure 4-13)
23
Figure 4-10 Noise Meter
Figure 4-11 NoiseTube Mobile Preferences
Figure 4-12 NoiseTube Mobile Map Screen
24
The cycle shown in the Figure 4-14 is for the noise level and when it is red it means the noise
level has reached 80 dB or more. The cycle colour depends on the number that shows in the
graph.
When users press Tag, they can choose a number of measurements to tag and write a tag
name (see Figure 4-14), and after tagging blue lines will be shown in the graph to determine
measurement sections (see Figure 4-15), which can be useful for comparing the level of noise
in one graph.
Figure 4-13 NoiseTube Mobile Tag Screen
Figure 4-14 Noise Meter after Tag
25
4.4 Reason for selecting TobaccoFree and NoiseTube Mobile

The TobaccoFree application has been developed by the University of Otago, and the data
that has been uploaded onto its webpage can also be accessed.
The main reason for selecting these applications is because they are crowdsourced
participatory sensing projects. These applications do not require expert or knowledgeable
users to upload the data so they can be tested by most smartphone users, and both
applications are free of charge and related to health. As it collects data about users (e.g.
locations) TobaccoFree requires ethical approval from the University of Otago to observe the
smoking in cars.
Some crowdsourced participatory sensing applications (e.g. Pothole Detector) need a car and
a time commitment neither of which I have for this masters study.
The number of downloads for NoiseTube (10005000) is 10 times more than that for
TobaccoFree (100500) in May 2013, which is also an indicator of the differences between
the applications.
26
Chapter 5 Research Methodology

To answer the research question a conceptual framework was designed, questionnaires were
developed and an experiment conducted. This chapter covers the research tools,
questionnaires, measurement, data collection and data analysis.
5.1 Collecting data

The study required participants to use two mobile sensor crowdsourcing applications for five
minutes (five minutes is sufficient time to make full contribution for these mobile
crowdsourcing applications, and the uploaded data can be converted to useful information)
each in an urban area and to make observations and upload the data, using a smartphone
(Samsung Galaxy SII), followed by completing a questionnaire.
5.2 Research Instruments

The researcher chose two applications (i.e. TobaccoFree & NoiseTube Mobile) to do the
experiment.
Research instruments comprised the following: Smartphone (GPS and Wi-Fi) with installed
applications and the Internet where users can use the mobile crowdsourcing applications and
make contributions to the application servers in an urban area (at the intersection of Clyde St
and Albany St); a digital clock to count the time of use for each application, a demographic
questionnaire (Appendix B.1), TobaccoFree questionnaire (Appendix B.2), NoiseTube
Mobile Questionnaire (Appendix B.3), privacy concerns questionnaire (Appendix B.4) and
factors ranked by importance questionnaire (Appendix B.5) to find the most important factors
that persuaded them to participate in a mobile crowdsourcing project.
TobaccoFree and NoiseTube Mobile applications have been used as example cases. These
two applications represent a large class of crowdsourcing systems, and some generalizations
can be drawn from them for the factors that encourage people to be involved in mobile
crowdsourcing applications.
27
Table 5.1 shows the relationship of four factors that may influence smartphone users to use
mobile crowdsourcing applications.
Table 5-1 Research Conceptual Framework Relationship
Independent Variables
Dependent Variable
Perceived Privacy Concerns

TobaccoFree
Perceived Ease of Use

Perceived Enjoyment
Perceived Usefulness
Behavioural
Intention
Mobile
NoiseTube

Perceived Enjoyment
The reason for doing an outdoor experiment is that mobile phones can receive satellite signals
specifying location using the GPS, as well as achieving the main goal of using TobaccoFree
and NoiseTube Mobile applications to observe the urban areas.
All of the participants in the study were required to have smartphones or similar technology
(e.g. iPod) or have access to this technology. The rationale is that people who have
smartphones are familiar with them and are likely to participate in crowdsourcing projects
based on smartphones. People without smartphones may participate in other types of
crowdsourcing but not smartphone based. These devices and handsets have sensors to operate
the study technology. People who already had experience with TobaccoFree and NoiseTube
Mobile applications were excluded.
Participants were given the same instructions for using the applications as those written in
application information sheets to avoid the issue of subjective talking. This information
28
included development details, the purpose of using the applications, how to get the
applications and how to use them. Preconfigured smartphones were provided for making the
observations. Questionnaire variables used in the research conceptual framework are shown
in Table 5.2.
Table 5-2 The Research Conceptual Framework Variables
Name
1- Perceived Ease of Use
Value
A seven-point Likert scale, rating from 1
Items
3 items
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

2- Perceived Enjoyment
3 items

3- Perceived Usefulness
3 items

4- Perceived Privacy Concerns
6 items

5- Behavioural Intention
2 items
5.3 Data Collection

5.3.1 Sampling
The study targeted Dunedin people and two criteria were used; they had to have a smartphone
or smart technology (e.g. iPad & iPod) or have access to them, as these technologies can
operate sensors and have several applications and Internet connection.
5.3.2 Experiment and Questionnaire Pretesting and Validation

Two pilot studies were conducted to see if there were any issues regarding the understanding
of the questions and also to make sure there were no issues regarding the experiment. The
fundamental reason for doing the pilot studies was to find out if participants understood the
questionnaire and the procedure and if they had any comments on the study, as well as seeing if
there were any issues with doing the outdoor experiment.
29
In the first pilot study, an issue with the outdoor experiment was the weather; sometimes it
was windy and raining. People got cold or wet standing on the street; the weather (i.e. wind,
temperature and rain) had been taken into account. Participants were also asked to fill in the
questionnaire inside the laboratory instead of on the street because of the wind and the noise,
which might have disturbed the participants.
For questionnaire validity and understanding, by giving the questionnaire to participants to
see if there were any issues with understanding the questions, it was found participants (i.e.
non-English native speakers) did not understand the word divulge in the Perceived Privacy
Concerns, and also some of the questions about privacy concerns were not clear to them. As a
consequence, some questions were rewritten to make them clearer to the participants.
Furthermore, the researcher had developed a measure of personal contribution usefulness, but
it also was removed as there were some issues in the questionnaire regarding Perceived
Altruism and it was not possible to measure the level of people's altruism in using these
mobile crowdsourcing applications (TobaccoFree and NoiseTube Mobile).
In respect of a assessing a valid length of time to use each application, we found in the pilot
study results that five minutes are sufficient to make a satisfactory contribution for each
application.
5.3.3 Research Validity

The research was conducted in the following ways to increase the strength of internal
validity. All participants were treated in the same way. They were given paper copies of the
instructions on how to use the applications, and the information sheets for both applications
were collected from their websites to reduce interaction. Also, pictures were used to
demonstrate how to use both applications (Appendix C presents the application information
sheets that have been used in the experiment). Participants were informed that the experiment
should take less than half an hour to complete, that is, using each application for 5 minutes,
read the instructions and applications information sheets (approximately 510 minutes),
answer the questionnaire (approximately 510 minutes), and, finally, measures of privacy
concerns after participants had tried the two applications to understand what the privacy
questions were about. In this study we ask about privacy concerns in general (not for these
30
projects) in an effort to discover what peoples concerns are about using geolocation
applications and apply that to crowdsourcing applications and intention to use the
applications in the future.
All participants used the applications in the same places and for the same amount of time; all
participants performed the same tasks (i.e. counting smoking in cars and measuring noise
levels). Participation information, the participation consent form and the ethical approval for
the experiment can be found in Appendix A. Use of TobaccoFree or NoiseTube Mobile as the
first application was randomized such that each application was used 16 times as the first
application and 16 times as the second application (for more details see Appendix A.4).
The weather and the number of people smoking in cars have been recorded for all
participants.
5.3.4 Data Analysis

The data was entered into an Excel file; the file has been checked to see if there are any
missing data or errors. The average, standard deviation, and standard errors were calculated
in Excel, and, also, the charts for the factors were produced to show the descriptive data.
Then, the file was exported to SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) software to test
the following: the reliability of the questionnaires using Cronbachs alpha; whether the data is
normally distributed, or not, using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; Pearson correlation among
factors to find if there is a significant relationship; t-test to compare the means of two factors
in two applications and calculate the effect to find out whether it is substantive.
The reasons for selecting these tests were because Cronbachs alpha is widely used and the
most common measure developed to test scale reliability, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is
suitable for a small sample size such as in this study, Pearsons correlation is to test
correlation of normally distributed data, and t-test is a very versatile statistic for one or paired
sample t-test (Field, 2009).
31
Chapter 6 Data Analysis and Research Findings

This chapter presents the results of the study and shows the statistical test performance, that
is, the Cronbach alpha estimate of reliability, the one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov and
Shapiro-Wilk tests for the normality, correlation and t-test to examine the study hypotheses.
6.1 Description
The sample size was 32 participants; the margin of error was 17.5% at a confidence level of
95%. The study did not involve more participants because of time limitations on the research
and every participant took about 30 minutes to read the information sheets, use both
applications and fill out the questionnaire.
The majority of participants (84%, n=27) were males with females making up 16% (n=5) of
the group (Figure 6-1). More than 40% (n=14) of all participants had used a smartphone for
one year or less, with the ratio decreasing progressively up to four years, 3.125% (n=1)
having used one for more than two years, 31% (n=10) for three years and 16% (n=5) for four
years, then for five years or more 6% (n=2) (Figure 6-2).
The majority of participants, 31.25% (n=10), were between 22 and 25 years old, 2630 years
old 28% (n=9), 1921 years 22% (n=7), 31 years old or more 9% (n=3), 18 years or less 6%
(n=2). One participant did not give his age (Figure 6-3).
In terms of time spent using a smartphone per day, the highest percentage of participants,
22% (n=7), was the same for the periods 1030 minutes and 3 hours or more, 19% (n=6) used
one for 3060 minutes, and the percentages of participants using a smartphone for 23 hours,
less than 10 minutes and 12 hours were 16% (n=5), 12.5% (n=4) and 3% (n=1), respectively
(Figure 6-4).
For 25% (n=8) of all participants, their studies related to computers (i.e. computer science,
information science and software engineering), 19% (n=6) of participants were studying
health sciences (i.e. food science, oral health, pharmacy and first year health science), and
participants who were studying engineering (i.e. mechanical engineering and civil
engineering), English, management, law and commerce, attending foundation year or
studying science (i.e. maths) comprised 16% (n=5), 9% (n=3), 6% (n=2) and 3% (n=1),
32
respectively. Six percent (n=2) of participants were employed (i.e. IT support and waitress)
and one participant said he was a student but did not give his major (Figure 6-5).
Figure 6-1 Gender
Figure 6-2 Length of Time Using Smartphone
33
Figure 6-3 Participants Ages
Figure 6-4 Smartphone Usage per Day
34
Figure 6-5 Occupations and Majors
A survey of application use showed that the most used involved communication, 93.75%
(n=30) of participants, the second most used being multimedia at 43% (n=14), with news,
games, navigation and education at 40.625% (n=13), 28.125% (n=9), 25% (n=8) and 25%
(n=8), respectively. Other applications used (i.e. office, social networks and translation
applications) accounted for 9.375% (n=3) of participants (Figure 6-6).
35
Figure 6-6 Mostly Used Applications
A majority of participants 53.125% (n=17) said recommendations to download mobile

applications came from family members and colleagues, 37.5% (n=12) said the
recommendations came through search engines (e.g. Google and Bing), and 34.375% (n=11),
15.625% (n=5) and 3.125% (n=1) received recommendations from application stores, TV,
newspapers or magazines and company websites, respectively. Other sources (e.g. blogs and
friends) influenced 9.375% (n=3) of participants (Figure 6-7).
Figure 6-7 Recommendations for Mobile Applications
36
Figure 6-8 Factor Means With Standard Error in Each Application
6.2 Reliability Test

All the factors have been tested using Cronbachs alpha to find if the scales that have been
used are reliable or not. A measure of less than 0.5 is unacceptable, between 0.5 to 0.6 is
poor, 0.6 to 0.7 is questionable, 0.7 to 0.8 means the scale is acceptable, 0.8 to 0.9 means the
scale is good and more than 0.9 means it is excellent (George & Mallery, 1999). All the
scales that we have tested are acceptable, except in the case of the Perceived Ease of Use
scale for the NoiseTube Mobile that is less than 0.7 and more than 0.6 indicating that the scale
is questionable, which may be due to the small sample size. The study used the same
questions for both applications and the order of use of applications was randomized and each
application was used 16 times first and 16 times second.
37
6.3 Normality Test

Data is normally distributed when the Asymptotic Significance is 0.5 or more in the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and if it is less than 0.5 the data is not normally distributed. Some
data was not normally distributed (Appendix D.3, Table D-4).
Many factors may affect the normality of data distribution and in this study one factor may
have been the sample size, which was small. For factors that were not normally distributed
(i.e. PPC, TF PEOU, NTM PEOF and NTM PE), further tests to investigate normal
distribution (i.e. square root (Sqrt) and log10) were performed. The results of test found there
was no substantial increase in normality (Appendix D.3, Table D-5). However, we can
assume for the sake of this study that all of the factors are normally distributed.
6.4 Hypotheses Test

6.4.1 Correlation
There is significant correlation between BI to use TobaccoFree in the future with PU and
between BI with PE. While the correlation between PEOF and BI is positive and the
correlation between the PPC and BI is negative it is not significant (Table 6-2), and it is the
same for NoiseTube Mobile (Table 6-3). There is significant correlation between PU and PE
in both applications. While the correlation between PEOF and BI is positive or the correlation
between the PPC and BI is negative it is not significant. In these study hypotheses the results
for both applications can be generalized.
Table 6-1 Correlation for TobaccoFree Application
Correlations TobaccoFree
Perceived
Perceived Perceived Perceived Perceived
Behavioural Privacy Ease of Enjoyment Usefulness
Intention
Concerns
Use
Perceived
Behavioural
Intention
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
-.237
.030
.618**
.727**
32
.191
32
.869
32
.000
32
.000
32
38
Table 6-2 Correlation for NoiseTube Mobile Application
Correlations NoiseTube Mobile

Perceived Perceived Perceived
Behavioural Privacy
Ease of
Intention Concerns
Use
Perceived
Behavioural
Intention
Pearson
Correlation
Sig.
(2tailed)
N
32
Perceived Perceived
Enjoyment Usefulness
-.085
.007
.596**
.750**
.645
.969
.000
.000
32
32
32
32
For PPC, general questions were asked about both applications and the means for each
application tested separately, and the means for BI for both applications were also calculated.
There was no significant correlation between the PPC and BI in the two tests.
Table 6-3 Correlation between Perceived Privacy Concerns and Perceived Behavioural Intention
Correlations
Perceived Privacy
Concerns
Perceived
Concerns
Perceived
Behavioural
Intention
Privacy
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1
32
-.183
.316
32
Perceived
Behavioural
Intention
-.183
.316
32
1
32
6.4.2 T-test
A t-test to compare two means has been conducted to test differences between PU and BI in
TobaccoFree and NoiseTube Mobile as these two factors are normally distributed for both
applications. The dependent t-test (paired-samples t-test) was chosen because the same
participants took part in both conditions.
Calculating the effected size:
r=
(Less than 0.5 threshold for small effect and above 0.5 threshold for large effect).
39
Table 6-4 T-test, Pair Samples Correlation between PU and BI in Two Applications
Pair 1
Pair 2
Paired Samples Correlations

N
NoiseTube Perceived Usefulness
&
TobaccoFree
Perceived
32
Usefulness
NoiseTube Behavioural Intention
&
TobaccoFree
Perceived
32
Behavioural Intention
Correlation
Sig.
.368
.038
.541
.001
Figure 6-9 Participants Perceived Behavioural Intentions in Each Application
On average, participants experienced about the same (greater but not significantly) usefulness
using the NoiseTube Mobile application (M = 5.2500, SE = 0.24041) and the TobaccoFree
application (M = 5.0417, SE = 0.26214), t (31) = 0.736, r = 0.131 (Figure 6-11), and also
experienced about the same (greater but not significantly) behavioural intention to use
40
NoiseTube Mobile (M = 4.7031, SE = 0.30771) and to use TobaccoFree (M = 4.5781, SE = 0.

.30710) in the future, t (31) = 0.425, r = 0.0761 (Figure 6-12).
From the findings there are no significant differences in correlation and the result can be
generalizable for both applications (i.e. TobaccoFree and NoiseTube Mobile). The test also
found that there is significance in the correlation between the PE and PU in both applications.
Figure 6-10 Perceived Usefulness for Both Applications.
Figure 6-11 Behavioural Intention for Both Applications
41
For the factor ranking, participants would contribute if the crowdsourcing applications had
the following characteristics (from the most important to least important).
To avoid mistakes that might occur in shifting the data, we entered the data as it was, and
then made a simple calculation. The mean has then been calculated for each factor.
The results showed that participants considered that the most important factor in using a free
mobile application was the useful impact on society followed, in descending order, by
personal usefulness, ensuring the protection of personal data, enjoyment, relating to study or
work, ease of use, social aspects, competitiveness, recommended by a family member or
friend, personal contribution highlighted as valuable, monetary offers or other tangible
rewards for participation and others (e.g. the size of application) (Table 6-6).
Table 6-5 Ranked Factors Order and Mean
Order Factor
Mean
Standard Errors
Useful for society
10.03125
0.888906
Personal usefulness (e.g. increase skills, knowledge)
8.6875
0.975162
Ensures the protection of his/her own personal data
8.25
1.222548
Enjoyable
8.0625
1.0971
Related to his/her study or work
7.9375
1.347788
Easy to use
7.90625
1.069415
Social aspects (e.g. allowed me to meet like-minded 6.78125

people)
1.330916
Competitive (e.g. game-like, offered point rewards)
6.09375
1.237233
Recommended by a family member or friend
5.90625
1.288324
10
His/her personal
valuable
11
Offers monetary or other tangible rewards for 4.84375

participation
1.182804
12
Other
1.65625
1.008615
contribution
highlighted
as 4.875
1.273172
One sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean with the test value of 6.5 (6.5 was
selected because it is the mid-point of 1 to 12 point scale, where 6 and below is unimportant
and 7 and above is important) to find if the factors show a significant difference (i.e. the
significance is less than .05) to the test value.
42
Table 6-6 One Sample T-test for Factors Order

Test Value = 6.5
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
95% Confidence Interval
Difference
of the Difference
Lower
Social Aspects
Upper
.488
31
.629
.281
-.89
1.46
Easy to Use
3.037
31
.005
1.406
.46
2.35
Competitive
-.758
31
.454
-.406
-1.50
.69
-1.064
31
.295
-.594
-1.73
.54
-3.234
31
.003
-1.656
-2.70
-.61
Enjoyable
3.289
31
.003
1.563
.59
2.53
Useful for Society
9.174
31
.000
3.531
2.75
4.32
Ensure Protection of Personal Data
3.306
31
.002
1.750
.67
2.83
Personal Usefulness
5.180
31
.000
2.188
1.33
3.05
Related to Work or Study
2.463
31
.020
1.438
.25
2.63
-2.948
31
.006
-1.625
-2.75
-.50
-11.091
31
.000
-4.844
-5.73
-3.95
Recommended by Family or
Others
Offers Money or Rewards
Valuable Personal Contribution

Others
Table 6.7 shows that the only factors that are not significantly different from the test value
are social aspect, competitive and recommended by family or others. The factors that are
significantly less than 6.5 are recommended by a family member or others, personal
contribution highlighted as valuable, monetary offers or other tangible rewards for
participation, and other (e.g. storage). The factors that are significantly greater than 6.5 are
useful to society, personal usefulness, ensure the protection of personal data, enjoyment and
related to study or work. Appendix D.4 shows more details about factors means, standard
deviation and standard errors.
43
Figure 6-12 Factor Means and Standard Errors
The correlation between PEOU and BI is positive but it is not significant and, as well, the
correlation between the PPC and BI is negative but it is not significant, which means the
hypotheses are rejected for both of them. For PU and PE the correlation with BI is significant
(see Table D.7 in Appendix D).
Table 6-7 Hypotheses Test Conclusion
Hypotheses
H1
H2
H3
H4
The context
Perceived Ease of Use is positively associated with
Perceived Enjoyment is positively associated with Perceived
Behavioural intention
Perceived Usefulness is positively associated with Perceived
Behavioural intention
Perceived Privacy Concerns is negatively associated with
Perceived Behavioural intention
44
Conclusion
Not Supported
Supported
Supported
Not Supported
6.5 Possible Confounding Factors

There is significant correlation between PEOU and PE only in NoiseTube Mobile. The
incidence of smoking and non-smoking in cars does not show that there is significance with
the Behavioural Intention to use TobaccoFree application in the future and, as well, the
condition of the weather does not associate with the Behavioural Intention for both
applications. Also, there is no significance between gender and BI.
The smartphone demographic does not show any significance between BI and length of time
using smartphone, usage per day, number of applications and levels of smartphone use, but
there is significance between levels of using smartphone and number of installed applications
on a smartphone (Table 6.9).
Table 6-8 Demographic Correlation with Perceived Behavioural Intention
Correlations
Behavioural Length of Usage per Number
Intention
Time of
day
of apps
Using
Smartphone
Behavioural
Intention
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Level
-.167
.221
-.049
-.057
32
.360
32
.224
32
.789
32
.756
32
There is no significance between BI and length of time of smartphone usage per day, number
of installed applications and experience level of using cell phone, but there is significance
between the number of installed applications and the experience level of using a smartphone
(Table 6.10).
There is also no significant correlation between a research participant's university study
major, or employment, and BI to use the applications, or with the PE. Figure 6-14 shows the
BI for occupations and majors, and it can be seen that the workers have the smallest value
and less than the average (i.e. 4.64), while art subject majors have the largest with 5.583333,
which is more than the average (for more details see Table 6-13).
45
Table 6-9 Correlation between Number of Applications with Level of using Smartphone
Correlations
Intention
Time of
day
of apps
Using
Smartphone
Pearson
Correlation
Number of apps
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
-.049
.287
.212
.789
32
.111
32
.244
32
Level
.493**
32
.004
32
Figure 6-13 BI for Occupations and Majors
Students have more BI than workers, but 29 students participated in this study and only three
workers, and the result cannot be generalized for only three workers. Table 6.11 shows that
there is no significant difference between students, as defined by the majors they are
studying, with respect to BI, or between workers and students. Appendix D.4 shows more
detail about the major and occupation means, standard deviation and standard errors.
46
Table 6-10 Major One Sample T-test

Test Value = 4.640625
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference
Lower
Computer
Upper
-.348
.738
-.17188
-1.3406
.9968
.337
.749
.23438
-1.5508
2.0196
-.193
.879
-.26563
-17.7367
17.2054
English
.578
.622
.19271
-1.2415
1.6269
Workers
-.949
.443
-1.39063
-7.6934
4.9122
Engineers
-.090
.933
-.04063
-1.2939
1.2126
Humanities
.665
.574
.94271
-5.1527
7.0381
Student
.563
28
.578
.14386
-.3793
.6670
Health Science
Foundation
For TobaccoFree, the number of cars and incidence of smoking in cars may have a positive
impact on people to use the application in the future, or it may affect PE. In the study,
participants counted the number of cars and incidence of smoking in cars in a five-minute
period. Correlation tests were conducted, and it was found there is no significant correlation
between number of observed cars with BI, number of observed cars with PE, incidence of
smoking in cars with BI and incidence of smoking in cars with PE (see Table 6-12).
Table 6-11 Correlation between Number of Cars and Smoking in Cars with Perceived Behavioural Intention
Correlations
TobaccoFree Perceived
TobaccoFree.
Perceived
Behavioural
Intention
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
32
47
Number of Smokers
Cars
.088
.134
.632
.464
32
32
Chapter 7 Discussions and Conclusions

This chapter discusses the findings outlined in the previous chapter and the limitations of the
study, future studies, and conclusions and recommendations.
7.1 Discussion of the Study Findings

Starting with the correlation findings of the study, Pearson correlation analysis showed that
perceived enjoyment has a direct, significant correlation with behavioural intention to use
mobile crowdsourcing applications in the future. This means that as long as the application is
enjoyable to use people will have more intention to participate in mobile crowdsourcing
projects, and this supports the findings of Kaufmann et al. (2011). This might be because
participants are curious to see the result of observations, they found the application useful and
they are enjoying doing something useful, or it is better than having nothing to do at all (i.e.
kill free time). For perceived enjoyment, the mean value was more than the mid-point value,
and that may be because of the short time they used the applications.
Perceived usefulness has significant direct correlation with behavioural intention to use
mobile crowdsourcing in the future, which means as long as applications that are developed
are useful smartphone users will be more motivated to participate and this supports the results
and the findings of the technology acceptance model (i.e. perceived usefulness is one of the
main factors that influence people to adopting new technologies). Some participants did not
see these applications as being useful or that they might make their lives more efficient and
productive, and this may have been because some participants did not see the tangible results
of their contributions and how the results would look. They may change their idea if
TobaccoFree and NoiseTube Mobile show the users tangible results on the mobile phone
after an observation rather than going to a webpage to find out their results because showing
the differentiation rate of any observation with the general result may make users curious to
see the result and difference between smokers in various areas. However, the majority of
participants did find the applications were useful after reading the information sheets
explaining the goals and purpose of using the applications.
48
Perceived ease of use did not have significant direct correlation with behavioural intention to
use mobile crowdsourcing in the future, which may suggest that the data was not strong
enough to show significant correlation. This might be due to the small sample size. All
participants found the applications easy to use; this may be due to the instructions for using
both applications were clear and there were also diagrams to explain how to use the
applications.
The diagrams and the information sheet may have caused people to think that application was
useful and diagrams and the instructions made the application easier. Using an information
sheet instead of talking to people to explain the applications would have decreased the
subjectivity of interaction.
Also, all of the participants were familiar with smartphone touch screens, thus indicating all
could contribute, and all spectrums of society were the target users.
Perceived privacy concerns did not show a significant inverse correlation with behavioural
intention to use mobile crowdsourcing in the future, and this is inconsistent with the
assumptions of Gaonkar et al. (2008) and Alt et al. (2010) who stated perceived privacy
concerns might prevent or have a negative impact on peoples intention to use mobile
crowdsourcing projects. Perceived usefulness was positively associated with behavioural
intention to participate in mobile crowdsourcing applications in the future. Participants
concerned that personal location information would be misused do not trust mobile
application providers, but that did not have a significant impact on behavioural intention to
use mobile crowdsourcing in the future. Some participants were not concerned about personal
location information misuse because they did not consider the issue, at that specific time, as
something worth being concerned about, or they simply took the view that the application
providers were trustworthy.
With respect to factor ranking, the study showed the most important factor was useful for
society and personal usefulness, followed by perceived privacy concerns (i.e. ensuring the
protection of data), perceived enjoyment and perceived ease of use. Studies (e.g. Kaufmann,
Schulze, and Veit (2011)) that have focused on the special usefulness factor (immediate
payoff and delayed payoff), enjoyment and ease of use, or that have considered privacy
49
concerns, have shown these are the most important factors motivating people to participate in
crowdsourcing projects.
As for behavioural intention with respect to using the application in the future, participants in
the study indicated they would do so because they found the applications to be useful and
enjoyable. Some participants did not find the applications to be useful or enjoyable and were
not convinced to use them. There may also have been some factors that have not been taken
into account, which discouraged people from participating (e.g. battery concerns as the GPS
is a factor that exhausts battery life in a short period of time).
However, participation self-reports may not be consistent with actual attitude (e.g. people
might report that they would use the applications in the future but they might not).
The study showed that the number of installed applications on a smartphone has a direct,
significant correlation with the level of use of the smartphone, which may be because people
who have installed many different types of applications believe they have the expertise to use
a smartphone for a variety of purposes. However, this study did not find a direct, significant
correlation with the behavioural intention to use the applications in the future.
One possible explanation is that, there may be an issue with the wording in the questionnaire,
and it would be good to do further work with an improved questionnaire.
To conclude the general findings of the study, the majority of participants were using
Android phones, with the second most used platform being iOS, while other operating
systems (i.e. Symbian and Blackberry) were least used. Android turned out to be the most
used operating system in this study because it is on a wide range of devices of varying prices
and capabilities for smartphones. Also, because of the increase of smartphone shipments, this
study found that the majority of participants have used the smartphone for one year or less.
This indicates that the popularity of using smartphones has increased significantly, as has the
number of businesses that have developed applications targeting smartphone users. The
majority of participants use their smartphones for more than 30 minutes, which indicates they
most likely use smartphones for more than just basic communications (i.e. texting and calling
network providers) but also for several other purposes.
50
7.2 Limitations and Future Studies

The main limitation in this study is that the factors looked at may not be the only ones that
encourage users to participate in mobile crowdsourcing applications, and there are factors
that are not mentioned, for example, the way people are told how to use an application, the
way people are told about participation and why they should participate in our study (i.e.
using TobaccoFree and NoiseTube Mobile). These factors may, in fact, be the main factors
that persuade people to become involved in a mobile crowdsourcing project. In other words,
the factors studied PEOU, PE, PU and PPC are not the only factors and there are others
that might persuade people to be involved in mobile crowdsourcing applications.
Another limitation was the short period of time using the applications, which might not have
given an accurate representation of behavioural intention.
This study has investigated intrinsic motivational factors only, and extrinsic motivational
factors (e.g. money rewards, battery concerns, and access to internet) have not been
investigated.
The sample size was small, 32 participants, the time was limited to a one-year project, and it
was applied only to the Dunedin area where a large number of the population are students and
most of the participants were computer students. To strengthen the validity of the research
another study should be done with a different population, larger sample size, and more time
using the applications. This study was conducted with residents in Dunedin and the
applications were used outdoors in order to do the observation; no similar previous study
could be found to make comparisons with the findings of the current study. Further studies
are needed to strengthen and generalize the result in different target populations, and also to
find out whether or not the result can be generalized.
The study used an information sheet for each application instead of presenting the respective
websites to the participants and the information for the applications was collected from their
websites. Furthermore, normally people do not go to the applications webpage to find more
information but instead have to rely on the information in Google Play or iTunes.
This study focused only on intrinsic factors and let people use the applications for a short
time only, which was not enough time to explore other matters, such as battery consumption
51
concerns: using GPS, internet connections and high brightness can exhaust battery power in a
short period of time. In addition, the study could not make calculations based on the average
time spent on observation for each application as this information has not been provided on
either applications website. This study is limited to the crowdsourcing applications that use
sensors (e.g. GPS).
Participants were asked to read the information about each application, so it may make them
biased to think that the applications should be useful and enjoyable.
There may be an issue with the wording used in the questionnaire and it would be good to do
further work with an improved questionnaire (i.e. this study asked participants about whether
using the application makes them more efficient or more productive. It is good to see that
if someone founds TobaccoFree or NoiseTube Mobile as extremely useful, but provided
wording of the question may not see that the application is making them more efficient or
more
productive.
This
could
have
made
the
data
collected
for Perceived
Usefulness inaccurate).
It would be useful to conduct a web survey or ask people to download a crowdsourcing
application and use it for one to three months and then ask questions about other matters (e.g.
battery concerns, cost of using the Internet and memory storage), and if they intended to
contribute in the future to investigations into other factors that have an effect on participating
in these types of projects and thus strengthen the understanding of why people participate.
Further, factors can be investigated that cause users to be inactive in their use of the
application, inactivity that is the main problem that application developers face: some
projects have a good number of registered users but the number of people who are active is
less than 20% of that number (M. Stevens, personal communication, September 27, 2012).
52
7.3 Conclusions
This study has reviewed some mobile crowdsourcing applications in Google Play market and
selected two applications to generalize the result by doing some data analysis, empirically
identified some factors that are associated with behavioural intention to use mobile
crowdsourcing applications in the future, and tested four factors (i.e. perceived ease of use,
perceived useful, perceived enjoyment and perceived privacy concerns), and ranked the most
important factors that may affect participants' intentions to use mobile crowdsourcing
applications.
The test was conducted in an outdoor environment successfully avoiding all of the problems
that might have thus arisen, weather conditions were recorded, as were the number of nonsmokers and smokers in cars, the time of use of each application was controlled, the location
where the participants made their observations was set, and the time for using the application
was during the day to avoid unclear vision of smoking in cars
By using TobaccoFree and NoiseTube Mobile there are no significant differences in the
meanings, which can generalize the result.
Having used once, the intention to use the applications again is associated with participants
enjoyment and sense of usefulness. As a result it can be concluded that people will probably
use mobile crowdsourcing applications once they find them to be useful and enjoyable.
However, perceived privacy concerns are not negatively nor perceived ease of use positively
associated with behavioural intention to use mobile crowdsourcing applications in the future.
This indicates that people might participate even if they do have concerns about ensuring
protection of their personal information (i.e. locations in this study). Moreover, it appears
ease of use is not sufficient to persuade users to use mobile crowdsourcing applications in the
future, as the results of this study showed that perceived ease of use was not associated with
behavioural intention and perceived privacy concern was not negatively associated with
behavioural intention due to small sample size. The report also shows that perceived
usefulness and perceived enjoyment are associated but not with perceived ease of use and
perceived privacy concerns.
53
This study ranks the factors that determine the participation of people in free mobile
crowdsourcing projects (i.e. free to install and use) from most to least important, and found
that useful for society, personal usefulness, enjoyable, related to his/her study or work and
easy to use are the most important factors for participants, respectively, and offers monetary
or other tangible rewards, his/her personal contribution highlighted as valuable,
recommended by a family member or friend, competitive (e.g. game-like, offered point
rewards) and social aspects are least important factors, respectively.
However, there are some important factors the study has not examined and one of them is the
most important factor (i.e.usefulness to society).
For developers, in order to produce mobile crowdsourcing applications that appeal to users,
the most significant factors to consider are the usefulness of the applications to society and
individual users, while paying attention to protecting users personal data as well as making
the applications more enjoyable and easy to use. Illustrating how a crowdsourcing project is
useful was very important to peoples understanding of why they should participate in this
project. Explaining the aim of the project and the effect of each persons participation is also
an important consideration. Making the applications enjoyable is also important for
participants to encourage them to use them in their free time.
The study show that paying attention to protecting users personal data is important for
participants while it is not negatively associated with behavioral intention, which mean it may
encourage participants but not prevent them from participating in mobile crowdsourcing
applications.
In general, for increasing the number of participants in crowdsourced participatory sensing
projects, the recommendations to developers are these; to make the applications useful by
introducing the applications and the purposes for using them, to make them enjoyable by
using design game elements in the applications (i.e. gamification) and by making them easy
to use.
54
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Alt, F., Shirazi, A. S., Schmidt, A., Kramer, U., & Nawaz, Z. (2010). Location-based
Crowdsourcing: Extending Crowdsourcing to the real world. ACM Nordic Conference
on Human Computer Interactions, Reykjavik (IC).
Aoki, P, et al. (2009). A vehicle for research: using street sweepers to explore the landscape
of environmental community action. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM.
Brabham, D. C. (2012). Motivations for participation in a Crowdsourcing application to
improve public engagement in transit planning. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 40(3), 307-328
Bulusu, N., Chou, C. T., Kanhere, S., Dong, Y., Sehgal, S., Sullivan, D., & Blazeski, L.
(2008). Participatory sensing in commerce: Using mobile camera phones to track
market price dispersion. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Urban,
Community, and Social Applications of Networked Sensing Systems (UrbanSense08).
Carvalho, V. R., Lease, M., & Yilmaz, E. (2011). Crowdsourcing for search evaluation. ACM
SIGIR Forum, 44(2),1722.
Chang, R. D., & Chang, Y. W. (2003). The effect of task uncertainty, decentralization and
AIS characteristics on the performance of AIS: an empirical case in Taiwan.
Information & Management, 40(7), 691-703.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/249008.pdf? acceptTC=true (accessed October
2012)
Davis, F. D. Bagozzi, R. P. Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 11111132.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the etfects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 627-668.
55
Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O'Hara, K., Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification. using gamedesign elements in non-gaming contexts. Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference
extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 2425-2428.
Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2003). Privacy concerns and Internet use? A model of trade-off factors.
In Best Paper Proceedings of Annual Academy of Management Meeting. Briarcliff
Manor, NY: Academy of Management, 131-137.
Eagle, N. (2009). txteagle: Mobile Crowdsourcing. In Internationalization, Design and
Global Development. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Internationalization, Design and Global Development: Held as Part of HCI
International 2009, IDGD (09), 447456.
Eriksson, J., Girod, L., Hull, B., Newton, R., Madden, S., & Balakrishnan, H. (2008). The
pothole patrol: using a mobile sensor network for road surface monitoring. In
MobiSys (08). 29.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: WHERE PUBLISHED: Sage
Publications Limited.
Framingham, M. (2012). Smartphone market hits all-time quarterly high due to seasonal
strength and wider variety of offerings. USA: IDC.
Gaonkar, S., Li, J., Choudhury, R. R., Cox, L., & Schmidt, A. (2008). Micro-Blog: Sharing
and Querying Content Through Mobile Phones and Social Participation. In
Proceeding of MobiSys 08, Breckenridge, CO, USA.
Gelderman, M. (2002). Task difficulty, task variability and satisfaction with management
support systems. Information & Management, 39(7), 593-604.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (1999). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign (Vol. 72): Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Harrison, J. S., Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland, R. D. (2001). Resource
complementarity in business combinations: Extending the logic to organizational
alliances. Journal of Management, 27(6), 679-690.
Hars, A., Ou, S. (2002). Working for free? Motivations for participating in Open-Source
projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, VOLUME MISSING(6), 25
39.
56
Hidi, S. (2000). An interest researcher's perspective: The effects of extrinsic and intrinsic
factors on motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. ?-?).
NY: Academic Press.
Howe, J. (2008) Crowdsourcing: Why the power of the crowd is driving the future of
business. New York: Crown Business.
Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2011). "Gamification" from the perspective of service marketing.
AMCIS 2011 Proceedings. Conference Proceedings.
Johns, G. (1996). Organizational behavior: Understanding and managing life at work (4th
ed.). New York: Harper Collins
Kanhere, S.S. (2011). Participatory sensing: Crowdsourcing data from mobile smartphones in
urban Spaces. Proceedings of 2011 12th IEEE International Conference on Mobile
Data Management (MDM): 6-9 June 2011; Lule, Sweden
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MDM.2011.16].
Kaufmann, N., Schulze, T., & Veit, D. (2011). More than fun and money. Worker Motivation
in Crowdsourcing A Study on Mechanical Turk. AMCIS 2011 Proceedings.
Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer decision-making
model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents.
Decision support systems, 44(2), 544-564.
Kleemann, F., Vo, G. G., & Rieder, K. (2008). Un (der) paid Innovators: The Commercial
Utilization of Consumer Work through Crowdsourcing. Science, Technology &
Innovation Studies, 4(1), 5-26. Retrieved from http://www.stistudies.de/ojs/index.php/sti/article/viewFile/81/62 (accessed December 2012)
Konomi, S., Thepvilojana, N., Suzuki, R., Pirttikangas, S., Sezaki, K., Tobe, Y. Askus
(2009). Amplifying mobile actions. Proc. Pervasive 2009, Springer, 202-219.
Liu, Y., Lehdonvirta, V., Alexandrova, T., Liu, M., & Nakajima, T. (2011). Engaging social
medias: Case Mmobile Ccrowdsourcing. SoME 11 Hyderabad, India.
Liu, Y., Lehdonvirta, V., Kleppe, M., Alexandrova, T., Kimura, H., & Nakajima, T. (2010).
A crowdsourcing based mobile image translation and knowledge sharing service. In
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous
Multimedia, MUM 10. PG NOS
57
NZDIS. (2011-2012). Tobacco free. Retrieved Januaru 24, 2013, from

http://tobaccofree.nzdis.org/
Patrick, K., Griswold, W. G., Raab, F., & Intille, S. S. (2008). Health and the mobile phone.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), 177-181. doi:
10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.001
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations,. American
Sociological Review, 32, 194-208.
Roberts, J, Hann, I., & Slaughter, S. (2006). Understanding the Motivations, Participation,
and Performance of Open Source Software Developers: A Longitudinal Study of the
Apache Projects, management science.
Rossi, M. (2004). Decoding the Free/Open Source (F/OSS) Software Puzzlea survey of
theoretical and empirical contributions, [http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/rossi.pdf]
(accessed August 2012)
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
Saag, A., Randlane, T., & Leht, M. (2010). Keys to plants and lichens on smartphones:
Estonian examples. In P.L. Nimis & R. Vignes Lebbe (Eds.). Tools for identifying
biodiversity: Progress and problems (pp. 195-199). Trieste: EUT Edizioni Universita`
di Trieste.
Sharma, A. (2010). Crowdsourcing Critical Success Factor Model.Strategies to harness the
collective intelligence of the crowd. Working Paper, 2010. Retrieved [date] from
http://irevolution.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/working-paper1.pdf (accessed July
2012).
Smith, H. J., S. J. Milberg, S. J. Burke. (1996). Information privacy: Measuring individuals
concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quart. 20. 167196.
Stevens, M., & D'Hondt, E. (2010). Crowdsourcing of pollution data using smartphones. In
Workshop on Ubiquitous Crowdsourcing at UbiComp.
Straub, D., Keil, M., & Brenner, W. (1997). Testing the technology acceptance model across
cultures: A three country study. Information & Management, 33(1), 1-11.
Sun, H., & Zhang, P. (2006). Causal relationships between perceived enjoyment and
perceived ease of use: An alternative approach. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 7(9), 618-645.
58
Teo, E. S., Lim, V. K., Lia, R. Y. (1999). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in internet usage.
In Proceedings of the Omega international journal of management science, Singapore
119260.
Thebault-Spieker, J. (2012). Crowdsourced participatory sensing: applications and motivation
of work. Retrieved from http://www-users.cselabs.umn.edu/classes/Spring2012/csci8002/PAPERS/jacob.pdf (accessed May 2014)
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic
motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems
Research, 11(4), 342-365.
Xu, H., & Teo, H. (2004). Alleviating consumers privacy concern in location-based services:
A psychological control perspective. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International
Conference on Information Systems, 793-806.
Zambonelli, F. (2011), Pervasive urban crowdsourcing: visions and challenges, 5th
International PerCom Workshop on Pervasive Life, Learning, and Leisure, IEEE CS
Press, Washington, DC, March, 5, 78-83.
Zhao, Yuziang, and Qinghua, Zhu. (2012). Evaluation on CrowdsourcingResearch: Current
Status and Future Direction. Information Systems Frontiers, Online First. Accessed
January 17, 2013. http://www.springerlink.com/content/h37108743024vwp5/
fulltext.pdf.
Zheng, H., Li, D., & Hou, W. (2011). Task design, motivation, and participation in
crowdsourcing contests. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(4), 57-88
59
Appendix A Ethical Approval

A.1 Ethical Approval
Reporting Sheet for use ONLY for proposals considered at departmental level
______________________________________________________________________________________
Form devised May 1995; updated May 1997; June 1998; May 1999, Dec 2000, June 2002
ETHICAL APPROVAL AT DEPARTMENTAL LEVEL OF A

PROPOSAL INVOLVING HUMAN PARTICIPANTS (CATEGORY B)
NAME OF DEPARTMENT: Information Science
TITLE OF PROJECT: Investigating factors leading to participation in mobile crowdsourcing
applications
PROJECTED START DATE OF PROJECT: ASAP.
STAFF MEMBER RESPONSIBLE FOR PROJECT: Mariusz Nowostawski & Holger
Regenbrecht.
NAMES OF OTHER INVESTIGATORS OR INSTRUCTORS: (Please specify whether staff
or student. If student, please give the name of the qualification for which the student is enrolled)
Mustafa Alsaeed (Student / Information Science. Enrolled in Master of Applied Science).
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Please give a brief summary (approx. 200
words) of the nature of the proposal:The aim of the project is to investigate the factors that influence smartphone users to participate
in mobile crowdsourcing applications, by letting people use two mobile applications (i.e.
Reporting Sheet for use ONLY for proposals considered at departmental level
______________________________________________________________________________
60
TobaccoFree and NoiseTube Mobile), and fill out a questionnaire that measures the factors and
the intention to use certain applications in the future. The target sample size is 32 participants.
The projects research question is: Do perceived Ease of Use, Usefulness, Enjoyment and Privacy
Concerns influence smartphone users to participate in crowdsourcing projects? Is one more
effective than the other, or do they equally contribute to the intention to use?
DETAILS OF ETHICAL ISSUES INVOLVED: Please give details of any ethical issues which
were identified during the consideration of the proposal and the way in which these issues
were dealt with or resolved:Generally, we do not anticipate any problems arising out of this study. The experiment will
be operated at the MSRL and intersection of Clyde Street and Albany Street. Participants will
be informed through an information sheet and a consent form to read before starting the
survey. Participants will be informed that the participation in this study is voluntary, and that
the entire participants details will be kept confidential and anonymous. Only the research
team will have access to non-anonymous data.
Please find attached the questionnaires to be used in the study as well as a task description for
the experiment. All necessary information will be given to the participants.
Attachments:
1. Participant Information Sheet
2. Consent Form
3. Survey Questionnaire.
4. Task Descriptions.
ACTION TAKEN
? Approved by Head of Department
? Approved by Departmental Committee
? Referred to University of Otago Human Ethics Committee
? Referred to another Ethics Committee

Please specify:
....................................................
DATE OF CONSIDERATION: ..................................

Signed (Head of Department): ...................................................
61
A.2 Participation Information
62
A.3 Participation Consent Form
63
A.4 Research Randomize Result
Set #1: NoiseTube Mobile, TobaccoFree

Set #2: TobaccoFree, NoiseTube Mobile
(Generated with Social Psychology Network at socialpsychology.org [1]; Timestamp:

20/11/2012 11:28:26 p.m.)
[1]
S.
Plous,
Social
Psychology
Network,
2012.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.socialpsychology.org/randomizer.htm?randbox=lg-blue. [Accessed: 23-Oct-2012]
64
Appendixes B Questionnaire
B.1 Demographic Questionnaire
65
66
B.2 TobaccoFree Questionnaire
67
68
B.3 NoiseTube Mobile Questionnaire
69
70
B.4 Perceived Privacy Concerns Questionnaire
71
B.5 Factor Ranking Questionnaire
72
Appendix C Applications Information Sheets

C.1 TobaccoFree Application Information Sheet
73
74
75
C.2 NoiseTube Mobile Application Information Sheet
76
77
78
Appendix D Data Analysis

D.1 Factor Details
Table D-1 Factors Means with Standard Errors in Each Application
TobaccoFree
Standard
Standard
Deviation
Errors
6.0416667
0.437972
0.252863
5.28125
0.70761
5.0416667
4.578125
Mean
Perceived
NoiseTube Mobile
Standard
Standard
Deviation
Errors
6.3125
0.637993
0.368345
0.408539
5.2916667
0.784613
0.57735
1.052093
0.607426
5.25
1.041738
0.601447
0.37565
0.265625
4.703125
0.419845
0.296875
Mean
Ease of Use
Perceived
Usefulness
Perceived
Enjoyment
Behavioural
Intention
79
D.2 Reliability Test

Table D-2 Reliability Value
Cronbachs Alpha
Reliability
0.901
Excellent
0.910
Excellent
Perceived Enjoyment
0.872
Good
0.810
Good
0.934
Excellent
0.661
Questionable
Perceived Enjoyment
0.835
Good
0.830
Good
0.918
Excellent
NoiseTube
Mobile
TobaccoFree
The name of the scale
D.3 Normal Distribution Test
Figure D-1 Normal Distribution for Percived Privacy Concerns
80
Figure D-2 Normal Distribution for Perceived Ease of Use (TobaccoFree)
Figure D-3 Normal Distribution for Perceived Enjoyment (TobaccoFree)
81
Figure D-4 Normal Distribution for Perceived Usefulness (TobaccoFree)
Figure D-5 Normal Distribution for Behavioural Intention (TobaccoFree)
82
Figure D-6 Normal Distribution for Perceived Ease of Use (NoiseTube Mobile)
Figure D-7 Normal Distribution for Perceived Enjoyment (NoiseTube Mobile)
83
Figure D-8 Normal Distribution for Perceived Usefulness (NoiseTube Mobile)
Figure D-9 Normal Distribution for Behavioural Intention (NoiseTube Mobile)

Table D-3 Normal Distribution Test after Calculate Log10 and SQRT
Tests of Normality
84
LOG10 Perceived Privacy Concerns

LOG10 TobaccoFree Perceived Ease of Use
LOG10 NoiseTube Perceived Ease of Use
LOG10
NoiseTube
Mobile
Perceived
Enjoyment
SQRT Perceived Privacy Concerns
SQRT TobaccoFree Perceived Ease of Use
SQRT NoiseTube Mobile Perceived Ease of
Use
SQRT NoiseTube Mobil Perceived Enjoyment
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
KolmogorovShapiro-Wilk
a
Smirnov
Statistic
df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
.272 32 .000
.751 32 .000
.301 32 .000
.547 32 .000
.253 32 .000
.785 32 .000
.218 32 .000
.717 32
.000
.216 32 .001
.267 32 .000
.849 32
.658 32
.000
.000
.241 32 .000
.802 32
.000
.195 32 .003
.842 32
.000
Table D-4 Normality Test Value
The Variables
NoiseTube
Mobile
TobaccoFree
Type of the
Variable
one-sample
KolmogorovSmirnov test
Asymp. Sig.
(2-tailed)
Normally
Distributed
Independent Variable
0.028
Not
0.000
Not
Perceived Enjoyment
0.078
Normally
0.110
Normally
Perceived Behavioural
intention
Dependent Variable
0.124
Normally
0.000
Not
Perceived Enjoyment
0.021
Not
0.077
Normally
Perceived Behavioural
intention
Dependent Variable
0.73
Normally
85
Table D-5 Log 10 and Sqrt Value for Non-Normal Distributed Factors
one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
The Variables
Log 10
Sqrt
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Perceived Enjoyment
0.000
0.003

TobaccoFree
NoiseTube Mobile
86
D.2 Correlation Tests

TobaccoFree
Table 0-6 TobaccoFree Correlation Factors
Correlations
Perceived Perceived Perceived Perceived Perceived
Behavioural Privacy Ease of Enjoyment Usefulness
Intention Concerns
Use
Perceived
Behavioural
Intention
Perceived
Privacy
Concerns
Perceived
Ease of Use
Perceived
Enjoyment
Perceived
Usefulness
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
-.237
.030
.618**
.727**
32
.191
32
.869
32
.000
32
.000
32
-.237
.015
-.193
-.043
.191
32
32
.936
32
.291
32
.815
32
.030
.015
.297
-.019
.869
32
.936
32
32
.098
32
.919
32
.618**
-.193
.297
.552**
.000
32
.291
32
.098
32
32
.001
32
.727**
-.043
-.019
.552**
.000
.815
.919
.001
32
32
32
32
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
87
32
NoiseTube Mobile
Table 0-7 NoiseTube Mobile Correlation Factors
Correlations
Perceived Perceived
Behavioural Privacy
Intention
Concerns
Pearson
1
-.085
Correlation
Perceived
Behavioural Sig.
(2.645
Intention
tailed)
N
32
32
Perceived
Pearson
-.085
1
Privacy
Correlation
Concerns
Sig.
(2.645
tailed)
N
32
32
Perceived
Pearson
.007
-.034
Ease of Use Correlation
Sig.
(2.969
.855
tailed)
N
32
32
Perceived
Pearson
.596**
.006
Enjoyment Correlation
Sig.
(2.000
.974
tailed)
N
32
32
Perceived
Pearson
.750**
.056
Usefulness Correlation
Sig.
(2.000
.760
tailed)
N
32
32
88
Perceived
Ease of
Use
Perceived Perceived
Enjoyment Usefulness
.007
.596**
.750**
.969
.000
.000
32
32
32
-.034
.006
.056
.855
.974
.760
32
32
32
.452**
-.032
.009
.861
32
32
32
.452**
.598**
.009
.000
32
32
32
-.032
.598**
.861
.000
32
32
32
Table D-8 Correlation between Demographic Smartphone Users and Behavioural Intention
Correlations
Intention
Time of
day
of apps
Using
Smartphone
Behavioural
Intention
Pearson
1
-.167
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.360
N
32
32
Pearson
-.167
1
Length of Time
Correlation
of
Using
Sig. (2-tailed)
.360
Smartphone
N
32
32
Pearson
.221
-.021
Correlation
Usage per day
Sig. (2-tailed)
.224
.908
N
32
32
Pearson
-.049
.287
Correlation
Number of apps
Sig. (2-tailed)
.789
.111
N
32
32
Pearson
-.057
.278
Correlation
Level
Sig. (2-tailed)
.756
.124
N
32
32
89
Level
.221
-.049
-.057
.224
32
.789
32
.756
32
-.021
.287
.278
.908
32
.111
32
.124
32
.212
.242
32
.244
32
.182
32
.212
.493**
.244
32
32
.004
32
.242
.493**
.182
32
.004
32
32
Table 0-9 Correlation between Weather Condition and Behavioural Intention
Correlations
Condition
Condition
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.255
32
.159
32
.255
.159
32
32
Table 0-10 Correlation between Gender and Behavioural Intention
Correlations
Gender
Gender
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
90
-.126
32
.491
32
-.126
.491
32
32
D.3 T-test (Paired Samples T-test)

Table D-11 Paired Sample Statistics for Perceived Usefulness and Behavioural Intention for Both Applications
Paired Samples Statistics

Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Pair 1
Pair 2
NoiseTube Perceived
Usefulness
Usefulness
NoiseTube Perceived
Std. Error
Mean
5.2500
32
1.35995
.24041
5.0417
32
1.48288
.26214
4.7031
32
1.74069
.30771
4.5781
32
1.73721
.30710
Table D-12 Paired Sample T-test for Perceived Usefulness and Behavioural Intention for Both Applications
Mean
NoiseTube
Perceived
Usefulness
Pair 1
.20833
TobaccoFree
Perceived
Usefulness
NoiseTube
Behavioural
Intention
Pair 2 TobaccoFree .12500
Perceived
Behavioural
Intention
Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences
Std.
Std.
95% Confidence
Deviation Error
Interval of the
Mean
Difference
Lower
Upper
df
Sig. (2tailed)
1.60141 .28309 -.36904
.78570 .736
31
.467
1.66559 .29444 -.47551
.72551 .425
31
.674
91
D.4 T-test (One Sampled T-test)
Table D-13 Ranked Important Factors Means, Standard Deviation and Standard Errors
One-Sample Statistics
N
Mean Std. Deviation
Social Aspects
32
6.78
3.260
Easy to Use
32
7.91
2.620
Competitive
32
6.09
3.031
Recommended by Family or Others
32
5.91
3.156
Offers Money or Rewards
32
4.84
2.897
Enjoyable
32
8.06
2.687
Useful for Society
32
10.03
2.177
Ensure Protection of Personal Data
32
8.25
2.995
Personal Usefulness
32
8.69
2.389
Related to Work or Study
32
7.94
3.301
Valuable Personal Contribution
32
4.88
3.119
Others
32
1.66
2.471
92
Std. Error Mean

.576
.463
.536
.558
.512
.475
.385
.529
.422
.584
.551
.437
Table D-14 Behavioural Intention Means, Standard Deviation and Standard Errors for Majors
One-Sample Statistics
N
Computer
Health Science
Foundation
English
Workers
Engineers
Art
Science
Not Say
Student
Mean
8
6
2
3
3
5
3
1a
1a
29
4.4688
4.8750
4.3750
4.8333
3.2500
4.6000
5.5833
5.0000
5.7500
4.7845
93
Std. Deviation
1.39794
1.70110
1.94454
.57735
2.53722
1.00933
2.45374
.
.
1.37536
Std. Error Mean

.49425
.69447
1.37500
.33333
1.46487
.45139
1.41667
.
.
.25540

Thesis - 2!4!2014 After Track Changes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis - 2!4!2014 After Track Changes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigating Factors Leading to Participation in Mobile

Mustafa Habib Alsaeed

A thesis submitted for the partial fulfilment of the requirements

University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

3.3 Perceived Enjoyment (PE).......................................................................................... 14

6.4.2 T-test .................................................................................................................... 39

D.4 T-test (One Sampled T-test)....................................................................................... 92

Figure D-3 Normal Distribution for Perceived Enjoyment (TobaccoFree) ........................... 81

1.3 Research Questions

1.4 Scope of the Study

1.5 Objective of the Study

1.6 Importance of the Study

Chapter 2 Review of Literature

2.2 Related Work

tacitness the knowledge that is used in an innovation contest problem;

analysability knowledge accessibility about a task and the degree of complexity of

trust and hobbyist a voluntary basis contributing to innovation activities without

2.3 Crowdsourced Participatory Sensing

2.3.1 Web 2.0 Crowdsourcing Projects vs. Mobile Crowdsourced Sensing

Web 2.0 Crowdsourcing Projects on Mobile Crowdsourced Sensing Projects

Work can be automatically done by mobile

Work requires text writing.

Work requires sensing.

Work does not require sensors

Work requires devices with sensors (e.g.

2.3.2 Traditional Sensor Network vs. Participatory Sensing

Traditional Crowdsourced Sensor

Crowdsourced Participatory Sensing

Single-hop network (Wi-Fi, cellular)

Nodes are exclusively deployed for sensing

Sensing is a secondary function

Competent nodes (mobile phones)

Configured, deployed and operated by a Many organizations and individuals provide

infrastructure and apps and use the data.

Nodes function autonomously

Node carriers (i.e. humans) can participate

2.5 Motivation Theory

2.6 Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Motivation

2.8 Mobile Crowdsourcing Projects

Chapter 3 Combined Models

3.2 Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)

3.3 Perceived Enjoyment (PE)

3.4 Perceived Usefulness (PU)

3.5. Perceived Privacy Concerns (PPC)

3.6 Behavioural Intention (BI)

Figure 3-1 The Conceptual Framework

4.2.1 How TobaccoFree works:

Figure 4-1 TobaccoFree webpage http://tobaccofree.nzdis.org/

4.2.2 How to Use TobaccoFree

Figure 4-2 Index Screen

Figure 4-3 Recording Screen

Figure 4-4 Enabling GPS Screen

Figure 4-5 Index Screen

Figure 4-6 Stored Location Screen

Figure 4-7 Fixed Location Screen

Figure 4-8 Subtract Screen

4.3 NoiseTube Mobile:

Figure 4-9 Noise map http://www.brussense.be/experiments/linkeroever/index.php

4.3.2 How to use NoiseTube Mobile

Figure 4-10 Noise Meter

Figure 4-11 NoiseTube Mobile Preferences

Figure 4-12 NoiseTube Mobile Map Screen

Figure 4-13 NoiseTube Mobile Tag Screen