Abstract
Many Internet services rely on consumers disclosing their personal data. Despite heavy usage and wide acceptance of services like Online Social Networks, doubts about sustainability of trusted relationships remain. Surveying consumers about their preferences reveals severe concerns about the fate of their personal data. In stark contrast to privacy concerns (stated preferences), however, consumers generously disclose personal data in exchange for free Internet services (revealed preferences). It has been argued that individuals experience dissonant states in privacy decision making. The tension between stated and revealed preferences is eliminated with the decision made in order to reduce discomfort. This paper proposes a survey design to determine 1) order effects as indicators for dissonant states in privacy decision making, and 2) the degree of experienced tension between stated and revealed preferences. Observations of data valuation and disclosure behavior are dissonant if they do not commute, i.e. disclosing data prior to valuating privacy does not equal privacy valuation before data disclosure. Determining the degree of dissonance in privacy decision making is expected to inform the design of transparency mechanisms to influence experienced dissonance between stated and revealed privacy preferences.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acquisti, A., Grossklags, J.: Privacy and Rationality in Individual Decision Making. IEEE Security & Privacy 3, 26–33 (2005)
Acquisti, A., Grossklags, J.: Losses, Gains, and Hyperbolic Discounting: An Experimental Approach to Information Security Attitudes and Behavior. In: 2nd Annual Workshop on Economics and Information Security, WEIS, vol. 3 (2003)
Cusumano, M.A.: Platform wars come to social media. Commun. ACM 54, 31–33 (2011)
Müller, G., Flender, C., Peters, M.: Vertrauensinfrastruktur und Privatheit als ökonomische Fragestellung. In: Buchmann, J. (ed.) Internet Privacy - Eine multidisziplinäre Bestandsaufnahme/ A Multidisciplinary Analysis. Springer (2012)
Flender, C., Müller, G.: Type Indeterminacy in Privacy Decisions: The Privacy Paradox Revisited. In: Busemeyer, J.R., Dubois, F., Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., Melucci, M. (eds.) QI 2012. LNCS, vol. 7620, pp. 148–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Festinger, L.: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press (1957)
Westin, A.: Privacy and Freedom. Atheneum, New York (1967)
Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28, 75–105 (2004)
Deuker, A.: Addressing the privacy paradox by expanded privacy awareness – the example of context-aware services. In: Bezzi, M., Duquenoy, P., Fischer-Hübner, S., Hansen, M., Zhang, G. (eds.) Privacy and Identity. IFIP AICT, vol. 320, pp. 275–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Spiekermann, S., Grossklags, J., Berendt, B.: E-privacy in 2nd generation e-commerce: privacy preferences versus actual behavior. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 38–47. ACM (2001)
Awad, N., Krishnan, M.: The personalization privacy paradox: An empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Quarterly, 13–28 (2006)
Norberg, P., Horne, D., Horne, D.: The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs 41, 100–126 (2007)
Völckner, F.: An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay. Marketing Letters 17(2), 137–149 (2006)
Miller, K., Hofstetter, R., Krohmer, H., Zhang, J.: How should consumers’ willingness to pay be measured? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. Journal of Marketing Research 48(1), 172–184 (2011)
Krasnova, H., Hildebrand, T., Guenther, O.: Investigating the value of privacy in online social networks: Conjoint analysis. In: Proceeding of ICIS 2009 (2009)
Beresford, A., Kübler, D., Preibusch, S.: Unwillingness to pay for privacy: A field experiment. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (2010)
Bauer, C., Korunovska, J., Spiekermann, S.: On the value of information – What Facebook users are willing to pay. In: Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2012 (2012)
Becker, G., DeGroot, M., Marschak, J.: Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioural Sciences 9(3), 226–232 (1964)
Acquisti, A., John, L., Loewenstein, G.: What is privacy worth? In: 21st Workshop on Information Systems and Economics, WISE (2009)
Schreier, M., Werfer, J.: Auktionen versus Lotterien: Ein empirischer Vergleich zur Messung von Zahlungsbereitschaften. Die Betriebswirtschaft 67, 22–40 (2007)
Wittgenstein, L.: Philosophical Investigations (1953)
Bateman, I., Powe, N.: Ordering effects in nested ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ contingent valuation designs. Ecological Economics 45(2), 255–270 (2003)
Atmanpacher, H., Römer, H.: Order effects in sequential measurements of noncommuting psychological observables. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 56(4), 274–280 (2012)
Cai, B., Cameron, T., Gerdes, G.: Distal order effects in stated preference surveys. Ecological Economics 70(6), 1101–1108 (2011)
Bateman, I., Cooper, P., Georgiou, S., Poe, G.: Visible choice sets and scope sensitivity: an experiment and field test of study design effects upon contingent values. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economics (2001)
Clark, J., Friesen, L.: The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 56(2), 195–206 (2008)
Boyle, K., Welsh, M., Bishop, R.: The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent-valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25(1), 80–99 (1993)
Kartman, B., Stalhammar, N., Johannesson, M.: Valuation of Health Changes with the Contingent Valuation Method: A Test of Scope and Question Order Effects. Health Economics 5(6), 531–541 (1996)
Kumar, V., Gaeth, G.: Attribute order and product familiarity effects in decision tasks using conjoint analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing 8(2), 113–124 (1991)
Chrzan, K.: Three kinds of order effects in choice-based conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters 5(2), 165–172 (1994)
Celko, M.: Die Echokammer. Abstrakt: Die grosse Gemeinschaft. W.I.R.E. Collegium Helveticum 9, 25–31 (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Flender, C. (2013). Order Effects in Observations of Stated and Revealed Privacy Preferences. In: Douligeris, C., Polemi, N., Karantjias, A., Lamersdorf, W. (eds) Collaborative, Trusted and Privacy-Aware e/m-Services. I3E 2013. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 399. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37437-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37437-1_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-37436-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-37437-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)