Order Effects in Observations of Stated and Revealed Privacy Preferences

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.

[1]  Klaus Miller,et al.  How Should Consumers’ Willingness to Pay be Measured? An Empirical Comparison of State-of-the-Art Approaches , 2011 .

[2]  Keith Chrzan,et al.  Three kinds of order effects in choice-based conjoint analysis , 1994 .

[3]  Michael A. Cusumano,et al.  Platform wars come to social media , 2011, Commun. ACM.

[4]  Lana Friesen,et al.  The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation , 2008 .

[5]  M. Degroot,et al.  Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. , 1964, Behavioral science.

[6]  Mireille Hildebrandt,et al.  Privacy and Identity , 2006 .

[7]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent-valuation studies. , 1993 .

[8]  Sören Preibusch,et al.  Unwillingness to Pay for Privacy: A Field Experiment , 2011, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[9]  Franziska Voelckner,et al.  An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay , 2006 .

[10]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  Distal order effects in stated preference surveys , 2011 .

[11]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Visible choice sets and scope sensitivity: An experimental and field test of study design effects upon nested contingent values , 2001 .

[12]  André Deuker,et al.  Addressing the Privacy Paradox by Expanded Privacy Awareness - The Example of Context-Aware Services , 2009, PrimeLife.

[13]  H. Atmanspacher,et al.  Order Effects in Sequential Measurements of Non-Commuting Psychological Observables , 2012, 1201.4685.

[14]  Bettina Berendt,et al.  E-privacy in 2nd generation E-commerce: privacy preferences versus actual behavior , 2001, EC '01.

[15]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[16]  M Johannesson,et al.  Valuation of health changes with the contingent valuation method: a test of scope and question order effects. , 1996, Health economics.

[17]  Christine Bauer,et al.  On the Value of Information – What Facebook Users are Willing to Pay , 2012, ECIS.

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

[19]  Oliver Günther,et al.  Investigating the Value of Privacy in Online Social Networks: Conjoint Analysis , 2009, ICIS.

[20]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[21]  Johannes Buchmann,et al.  Internet privacy : eine multidisziplinäre Bestandsaufnahme = a multidisciplinary analysis , 2012 .

[22]  Günter Müller,et al.  Vertrauensinfrastruktur und Privatheit als Ökonomische Fragestellung , 2012 .

[23]  Daniel R. Horne,et al.  The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors , 2007 .

[24]  Joseph Gray Jackson,et al.  Privacy and Freedom , 1968 .

[25]  Mayuram S. Krishnan,et al.  The Personalization Privacy Paradox: An Empirical Evaluation of Information Transparency and the Willingness to be Profiled Online for Personalization , 2006, MIS Q..

[26]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Ordering effects in nested ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ contingent valuation designs , 2003 .

[27]  M. Engelmann.  The Philosophical Investigations , 2013 .

[28]  Günter Müller,et al.  Type Indeterminacy in Privacy Decisions: The Privacy Paradox Revisited , 2012, QI.

[29]  Alessandro Acquisti,et al.  Privacy and rationality in individual decision making , 2005, IEEE Security & Privacy.

[30]  A. Acquisti.  Losses , Gains , and Hyperbolic Discounting : An Experimental Approach to Information Security Attitudes and Behavior , 2003 .

[31]  John Leubsdorf,et al.  Privacy and Freedom , 1968 .

[32]  V. Kumar,et al.  Attribute order and product familiarity effects in decision tasks using conjoint analysis , 1991 .

[33]  Martin Schreier,et al.  Auktionen versus Lotterien: Ein empirischer Vergleich zur Messung von Zahlungsbereitschaften , 2007 .