Valuating Privacy

In several experimental auctions, participants put a dollar value on private information before revealing it to a group. An analysis of results show that a trait's desirability in relation to the group played a key role in the amount people demanded to publicize private information. Because people can easily obtain, aggregate, and disperse personal data electronically, privacy is a central concern in the information age. This concern is clear in relation to financial data and genetic information, both of which can lead to identity abuse and discrimination. However, other relatively harmless information can also be abused, including a person's gender, salary, age, marital status, or shopping preferences. What's unclear is whether it's the fear of such abuse that actually causes people's stated hesitance to reveal their data. Our hypothesis - and the motivation for our study - is that people reveal information when they feel that they're somewhat typical or positively atypical compared to the target group. To test this hypothesis, we conducted experiments that elicit the value people place on their private data. We found, with great significance (more than 95 percent statistical confidence) that a linear relationship exists between an individual's belief about a trait and the value he or she places on it. That is, the less desirable the trait, the greater the price a person demands for releasing the information. Furthermore, we found that small deviations in a socially positive direction are associated with a lower asking price.

[1]  Francis S Collins,et al.  Genetic Discrimination: Time to Act , 2003, Science.

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

[3]  R. Laufer,et al.  Privacy as a Concept and a Social Issue: A Multidimensional Developmental Theory , 1977 .

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

[5]  I. Altman,et al.  Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships , 1973 .

[6]  S. Petronio.  Balancing the Secrets of Private Disclosures , 2000 .

[7]  Jim Harper,et al.  With A Grain of Salt: What Consumer Privacy Surveys Don't Tell Us , 2002 .

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

[9]  C. Papadimitriou,et al.  On the value of private information , 2001 .

[10]  E. Goffman.  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , 1959 .

[11]  M. Allen,et al.  Sex differences in self-disclosure: a meta-analysis. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[12]  Jule B. Gassenheimer,et al.  Marketing and Exchange , 1987 .

[13]  E. Goffman.  Stigma; Notes On The Management Of Spoiled Identity , 1964 .

[14]  P. Cozby.  Self-disclosure: a literature review. , 1973, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  Bruce Schneier.  Protecting privacy and liberty , 2001, Nature.

[16]  C. Goodwin.  A Conceptualization of Motives to Seek Privacy for Nondeviant Consumption , 1992 .

[17]  J. Freedman,et al.  Conceptions of Crowding. (Book Reviews: Crowding and Behavior; The Environment and Social Behavior. Privacy, Personal Space. Territory, Crowding) , 1975 .

[18]  Avanidhar Subrahmanyam,et al.  The Value of Private Information , 2005 .

[19]  G. Simmel.  The sociology of Georg Simmel , 1950 .

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

[21]  David Cyranoski.  Dispute over data privacy halts cancer study , 2003, Nature.

[22]  A Wolfgang,et al.  Exploration of attitudes via physical interpersonal distance toward the obese, drug users, homosexuals, police and other marginal figures. , 1971, Journal of clinical psychology.