Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices

Consumer privacy decision making is often layered: different interrelated decisions determine, together, a final privacy outcome and its associated benefits and costs. Layered privacy choices are particularly common online, where consumers are frequently tasked with multiple, sequential choices (such as first selecting a service’s privacy settings, and then engaging in privacy-sensitive behaviors) that will ultimately impact their privacy trade-offs. The layered nature of online privacy choices has important implications for models of privacy decision making and for consumers’ assumption of privacy risks. In this manuscript, we investigate how changes in the architecture of privacy choices affect an initial layer of privacy choice, and how that effect percolates through subsequent layers of privacy choices. Specifically, in a series of experiments, we investigate the impact of framing on participants’ initial privacy choices, and whether participants’ subsequent behaviors take account of, and neutralize, that impact. We find that various manipulations of decision frames, common to privacy contexts, can significantly alter individual choice of privacy protective options. Further, and importantly, we find that participants’ subsequent disclosure behavior stays constant despite the shifts in chosen privacy protections induced by choice framing. Implications for privacy decision research as well as policy makers are discussed.

[1]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[2]  Alessandro Acquisti,et al.  When 25 Cents is Too Much: An Experiment on Willingness-To-Sell and Willingness-To-Protect Personal Information , 2007, WEIS.

[3]  Tamara Dinev,et al.  An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[4]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  What Is Privacy Worth? , 2013, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[5]  V. Smith,et al.  Friend-or-foe intentionality priming in an extensive form trust game , 2000 .

[6]  R. Shay,et al.  Measuring the Effectiveness of Privacy Tools for Limiting Behavioral Advertising , 2012 .

[7]  Alessandro Acquisti,et al.  Silent Listeners: The Evolution of Privacy and Disclosure on Facebook , 2013, J. Priv. Confidentiality.

[8]  Dan J. Kim,et al.  A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents , 2019 .

[9]  Ftc Staff,et al.  Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change–A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers , 2011 .

[10]  Amar Cheema,et al.  Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of mechanical turk samples , 2013 .

[11]  Lorrie Faith Cranor,et al.  Your Location has been Shared 5,398 Times!: A Field Study on Mobile App Privacy Nudging , 2015, CHI.

[12]  Alessandro Acquisti,et al.  Gone in 15 Seconds: The Limits of Privacy Transparency and Control , 2013, IEEE Security & Privacy.

[13]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Privacy and human behavior in the age of information , 2015, Science.

[14]  Hock-Hai Teo,et al.  Research Note - Effects of Individual Self-Protection, Industry Self-Regulation, and Government Regulation on Privacy Concerns: A Study of Location-Based Services , 2012, Inf. Syst. Res..

[15]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  Defaults, Framing and Privacy: Why Opting In-Opting Out1 , 2002 .

[16]  George Loewenstein,et al.  Enhanced active choice: A new method to motivate behavior change , 2011 .

[17]  Gerald J.S. Wilde,et al.  The Theory of Risk Homeostasis: Implications for Safety and Health , 1982 .

[18]  Kazuhisa Takemura,et al.  Influence of Elaboration on the Framing of Decision , 1994 .

[19]  Rema Padman,et al.  The Impact of Privacy Regulation and Technology Incentives: The Case of Health Information Exchanges , 2016, Manag. Sci..

[20]  Avi Goldfarb,et al.  Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness , 2011, Mark. Sci..

[21]  Roger C. Mayer,et al.  Escalation of Commitment and the Framing Effect: An Empirical Investigation , 1994 .

[22]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The Construction of Preference: Do Defaults Save Lives? , 2006 .

[23]  Simone Fischer Hübner IT-Security and Privacy : Design and Use of Privacy-Enhancing Security Mechanisms , 2001 .

[24]  Moez Limayem,et al.  Data Collection in the Digital Age: Innovative Alterantives to Student Samples , 2014, MIS Q..

[25]  Michael Hennessy,et al.  Internet privacy and institutional trust , 2007, New Media Soc..

[26]  Schneider,et al.  All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[27]  H. Raghav Rao,et al.  A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents , 2008, Decis. Support Syst..

[28]  Robert Kaestner,et al.  Health insurance and ex ante moral hazard: evidence from Medicare , 2006, International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics.

[29]  Paul M. Schwartz Privacy Inalienability and the Regulation of Spyware , 2005 .

[30]  Latanya Sweeney,et al.  Discrimination in online ad delivery , 2013, CACM.

[31]  A. Kühberger,et al.  The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[32]  Alessandro Acquisti,et al.  Misplaced Confidences , 2013, WEIS.

[33]  L. Ross,et al.  The Name of the Game: Predictive Power of Reputations versus Situational Labels in Determining Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Moves , 2004, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[34]  Sam Peltzman,et al.  The effects of automobile safety regulation: Reply , 1976 .

[35]  M. E. Gordon,et al.  Direct Mail Privacy-Efficiency Trade-offs within an Implied Social Contract Framework , 1993 .

[36]  Hock-Hai Teo,et al.  The Value of Privacy Assurance: An Exploratory Field Experiment , 2007, MIS Q..

[37]  Paulo B. Góes,et al.  Editor's comments: information systems research and behavioral economics , 2013 .

[38]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Aspects of Endowment: A Query Theory of Value Construction , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[39]  Anthony D. Miyazaki,et al.  Internet Seals of Approval: Effects on Online Privacy Policies and Consumer Perceptions , 2002 .

[40]  Hock-Hai Teo,et al.  The Role of Push-Pull Technology in Privacy Calculus: The Case of Location-Based Services , 2009, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[41]  George Loewenstein,et al.  Warning: You are about to be Nudged , 2014, Behavioral Science & Policy.

[42]  Colin Potts,et al.  Privacy practices of Internet users: Self-reports versus observed behavior , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[43]  Thomas Stratmann,et al.  Diabetes Treatments and Moral Hazard , 2007, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[44]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[45]  M. Bazerman,et al.  When perspective taking increases taking: reactive egoism in social interaction. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[46]  Michael D. Buhrmester,et al.  Amazon's Mechanical Turk , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[47]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to Increase Statistical Power , 2009 .

[48]  Joshua D. Angrist,et al.  Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion , 2008 .

[49]  Sara Markowitz,et al.  Incentives in Obesity and Health Insurance , 2007, Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing.

[50]  DAVID T. LEVYM,et al.  Review: Risk Compensation Literature — The Theory and Evidence , 2000 .

[51]  S. Schneider,et al.  Framing and conflict: aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[52]  John D. Graham,et al.  Automobile Safety Regulation and Offsetting Behavior: Some New Empirical Estimates , 1984 .

[53]  P. Klopfer,et al.  The Concept Privacy and Its Biological Basis , 1977 .

[54]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[55]  M. Culnan,et al.  Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation , 1999 .

[56]  Youngme Moon Intimate Exchanges: Using Computers to Elicit Self-Disclosure from Consumers , 2000 .

[57]  S. Fischer-Hübner IT-Security and Privacy: Design and Use of Privacy-Enhancing Security Mechanisms , 2001 .

[58]  K Y Liang,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. , 1986, Biometrics.

[59]  I. Levin,et al.  How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product , 1988 .

[60]  C. Ai,et al.  Interaction terms in logit and probit models , 2003 .

[61]  Daniel G. Goldstein,et al.  Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture , 2012 .

[62]  Daniel J. Solove,et al.  Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma , 2012 .

[63]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  The Impact of Relative Standards on the Propensity to Disclose , 2012 .

[64]  Alessandro Acquisti,et al.  Beyond the Privacy Paradox: Objective Versus Relative Risk in Privacy Decision Making , 2018, MIS Q..

[65]  Yoav Ganzach,et al.  Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment , 1995 .

[66]  David A. Wagner,et al.  Choice Architecture and Smartphone Privacy: There's a Price for That , 2012, WEIS.