Abstract
In the present research we propose a methodology—to our knowledge, the first attempt in this sense—that considers information asymmetries when the degree of privacy concerning individuals is detected. Such filtering (“privacy concerns” degree as a function of “data awareness” level) allows to highlight the individuals’ desired level of privacy—and related privacy concerns—analyzing whether individuals’ data disclosure decisions are taken consciously or as the result of a “blind” (unaware) choice, considering data gathering practices—related level of consciousness. Previous works may have been biased due to the lack of such observation. Our measurement has been conducted taking into account the individuals’ awareness with respect to data collection techniques performed by mobile applications in Italy. As a matter of fact, if individuals’ privacy preferences among consumers are not distributed in a uniform way, this results in socially regressive outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Such results are in line with previous worldwide survey: see, for example, Rainie et al., 2013 – Pew Institute research – for US.
With reference to gender and age, we took into consideration 14 classes. Two classes with respect to sex (male and female) for the following age groups: 14–17; 18–24; 25–34; 35–44; 45–54; 55–64; 65–74.
Geographical macro-areas: North-west; North-east; Center; South; Islands.
Areas of residence are classified on the basis of their population size: up to 5,000 inhabitants; from 5,001 to 10,000 inhabitants; from 10,001 to 30,000 inhabitants; from 30,001 to 100,000 inhabitants; from 100,001 to 250,000 inhabitants more than 250,000 inhabitants.
“Heuristic is a simple procedure that helps find adequate, though often imperfect, answers to difficult questions” (Kahneman 2011, pg. 98). In this sense, we control if the individual makes use of technical heuristics in order to face difficult technological questions.
«According to the theory of contextual integrity protecting privacy means ensuring that personal information flows appropriately; it does not mean that no information flows, or that information flows only if the information subject allows. Whether flow is appropriate depends on whether it conforms to legitimate, contextual informational norms. These norms prescribe information flows in terms of three parameters—actors (sender, subject, recipient), information types, and transmission principles. They are shaped by entrenched informational practices and contextual ontologies and informed by contextual goals and purposes. This means that when confronted with information flows, we judge them as respecting or violating privacy according to whether— in the first approximation—they conform to expectations of flow within a given context. When this is the case, we can say that contextual integrity has been preserved» (Martin & Nissenbaum, 2016, p. 190).
References
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1465
Acquisti, A., & Grossklags, J. (2005). Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security and Privacy Magazine, 3(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2005.22
Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., & Wagman, L. (2016). The Economics of Privacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(2), 442–492. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.54.2.442
Acquisti, A. (2014). From the Economics of Privacy to the Economics of Big Data. In Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good: Frameworks for Engagement; Stefan Bender, Julia Lane, Helen Nissenbaum, and Victoria Stodden (eds), 76–95.
Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the facebook. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 4258 LNCS, 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/11957454_3
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The Market for “‘Lemons’” Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431
Ardovino, O., & Delmastro, M. (2020). An empirical analysis of the impact of structural changes in the mobile market. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-020-00177-4
Bartel Sheehan, K. (1999). An investigation of gender differences in on-line privacy concerns and resultant behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13(4), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1520-6653(199923)13:4%3c24::aid-dir3%3e3.0.co;2-o
Bartel Sheehan, K. (2002). Toward a typology of internet users and online privacy concerns. The Information Society, 18(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240252818207
Bergström, A. (2015). Online privacy concerns: A broad approach to understanding the concerns of different groups for different uses. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.025
Blank, G., Bolsover, G., & Dubois, E. (2014). A new privacy paradox: young people and privacy on social network sites. Retrieved from https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:13985a9a-d68e-40cb-98e9-e7103fb71c2e
Van den Broeck, E., Poels, K., & Walrave, M. (2015). Older and Wiser? Facebook Use, Privacy Concern, and Privacy Protection in the Life Stages of Emerging, Young, and Middle Adulthood. Social Media and Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115616149
Caverlee, J., & Webb, S. (2008). A Large-Scale Study of MySpace: Observations and Implications for Online Social Networks. Paper Presented at 2nd International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), 104–114. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/Papers/ICWSM/2008/ICWSM08-012.pdf
Delmastro, M., & Nicita, A. (2019). Big Data. Il Mulino.
Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80.
Fogel, J., & Nehmad, E. (2009). Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.006
Graeff, T. R., & Harmon, S. (2002). Collecting and using personal data: Consumers’ awareness and concerns. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(4), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760210433627
Hoy, M. G., & Milne, G. (2013). Gender differences in privacy-related measures for young adult facebook users. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2010.10722168
Jensen, C., Potts, C., & Jensen, C. (2005). Privacy practices of Internet users: Self-reports versus observed behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(1–2), 203–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.019
Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., & Christakis, N. (2008). The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01432.x
Litt, E. (2013). Understanding social network site users’ privacy tool use. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1649–1656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.049
Litt, E., & Hargittai, E. (2014). Smile, snap, and share? A nuanced approach to privacy and online photo-sharing. Poetics, 42(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2013.10.002
Martin, K., & Nissenbaum, H. (2016). Measuring privacy: An empirical test using context to expose confounding variables. Colum. Sci. & Tech. l. Rev., 18, 176.
Milne, G. R., & Culnan, M. J. (2004). Strategies for reducing online privacy risks: Why consumers read (or don’t read) online privacy notices. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/DIR.20009
Miltgen, C. L., & Peyrat-Guillard, D. (2014). Cultural and generational influences on privacy concerns: A qualitative study in seven European countries. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(2), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.17
Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., & Horne, D. A. (2007). The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x
Oomen, I., & Leenes, R. (2008). Privacy Risk Perceptions and Privacy Protection Strategies. In Policies and Research in Identity Management (pp. 121–138). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77996-6_10
O’Neil, D. (2001). Analysis of internet users’ level of online privacy concerns. Social Science Computer Review, 19(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930101900103
Park, Y. J. (2011). Digital literacy and privacy behavior online. Communication Research, 40(2), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211418338
Rainie, L., Kiesler, S., Kang, R., Madden, M., Duggan, M., Brown, S., & Dabbish, L. (2013). Anonymity, privacy, and security online. Pew Research Center, 5.
Roodman, D., (2020), CMP: Stata module to implement conditional (recursive) mixed process estimator.
Spiekermann, S., Grossklags, J., & Berendt, B. (2001). E-privacy in 2nd generation E-commerce: privacy preferences versus actual behavior. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, 38–47.
Stutzman, F., & Kramer-Duffield, J. (2010). Friends only: examining a privacy-enhancing behavior in facebook. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’10, 1553. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753559
Taddicken, M. (2014). The ‘Privacy Paradox’ in the social web: The impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance on different forms of self-disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 248–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12052
Thelwall, M. (2008). Social networks, gender, and friending: An analysis of MySpace member profiles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(8), 1321–1330. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20835
Trepte, S., & Reinecke, L. (2011). Privacy online : Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web. Springer-Verlag.
Tufekci, Z. (2008). Can you see me now? audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467607311484
Turow, J., & Hennessy, M. (2007). Internet Privacy and Institutional Trust: Insights from a National Survey. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807072219
Turow, J., King, J., Hoofnagle, C. J., Bleakley, A., & Hennessy, M. (2009). Americans reject tailored advertising and three activities that enable it. Available at SSRN 1478214.
Yao, M. Z., Rice, R. E., & Wallis, K. (2007). Predicting user concerns about online privacy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(5), 710–722. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20530
Youn, S., & Hall, K. (2008). Gender and online privacy among teens: Risk perception, privacy concerns, and protection behaviors. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(6), 763–765. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0240
Zhang, R., Chen, J. Q., & Jaejung Lee, C. A. (2013). Mobile commerce and consumer privacy concerns. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 53(4), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645648
Zukowski, T., & Brown, I. (2007). Examining the influence of demographic factors on internet users’ information privacy concerns. (October), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1145/1292491.1292514
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The authors thank Otello Ardovino, Helen Nissenbaum and Francesco Vatalaro for useful comments on an earlier version of the paper. The usual disclaimer applies. The views expressed herein by Marco Delmastro are the sole responsibility of the author and cannot be interpreted as reflecting those of the Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arpetti, J., Delmastro, M. The privacy paradox: a challenge to decision theory?. J. Ind. Bus. Econ. 48, 505–525 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-021-00192-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-021-00192-z
Keywords
- Digital markets
- Asymmetric information
- Implicit transactions
- Data regulation
- Privacy preferences
- Privacy paradox