Skip to main content

The choice architecture of privacy decision-making

Health and Technology volume 7, pages 415–422 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

‘Choice architects’ are responsible for designing environments that guide decision-making, and thus must consider the inherent tradeoffs that accompany every choice. This examination of privacy decision-making places privacy considerations into context, and accordingly recommends a method (signal detection theory) for choice architects to define and weigh the tradeoffs ingrained in private and public situations in order to design decision environments that are reflective of their respective costs and benefits.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Moore B. Privacy: studies in social and cultural history. Armonk: E. Sharpe; New York: Distributed by Pantheon Books; 1984.

  2. Zhou YR. Changing behaviours and continuing silence: sex in the post-immigration lives of mainland chinese immigrants in Canada. Cult Health Sex. 2012;14(1):87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wells Fargo. Financial health. 2014 Retrieved from https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/press/2014/20140220_financial-health/.

  4. Iachello G, Hong J. Understanding users' privacy preferences. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction. 2007;1(1):1–137.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. John LK. The consumer psychology of online privacy: insights and opportunities from behavioral decision theory. In: Norton MI, Rucker DD, Lamberton C, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  6. John LK, Acquisti A, Loewenstein G. Strangers on a plane: context-dependent willingness to divulge sensitive information. J Consum Res. 2011;37(5):858–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brin D. The transparent society: will technology force us to choose between privacy and freedom? Cambridge: Perseus Press; 1999.

  8. Laufer RS, Wolfe M. Privacy as a concept of a social issue: a multidimensional developmental theory. J Soc Issues. 1977;33(3):22–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Blau, F., Ferber, M., & Winkler, A. (2010). Differences in occupations and earnings: the role of labor market discrimination. The Economics of Women, Men and Work. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 228-279.

  10. Darity, W., & Mason, P. (1998). Evidence of discrimination in employment: codes of color, codes of gender. The Economics of Women, Men, and Work (6th international ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

  11. Marlowe CM, Schneider SL, Nelson CE. Gender and attractiveness biases in hiring decisions: are more experienced managers less biased? J Appl Psychol. 1996;81(1):11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio FF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109(41):16474–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Donato KM, Piya B, Jacobs A. The double disadvantage reconsidered: gender, immigration, marital status, and global labor force participation in the 21st century. Int Migr Rev. 2014;48:S335–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. John LK, Barasz K, Norton MI. Hiding personal information reveals the worst. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(4):954–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tanner WP Jr, Swets JA. A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psychol Rev. 1954;61(6):401–9.

  16. Pew Research Center. Americans’ views on government surveillance programs. 2015 Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/03/16/americans-views-on-government-surveillance-programs/

  17. Mathews R. On protecting & preserving personal privacy in interoperable global healthcare venues. Health Technol. 2016;6(1):53–73.

  18. Norberg PA, Horne DR, Horne DA. The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. J Consum Aff. 2007;41(1):100–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bennett CJ. In defence of privacy: the concept and the regime. Surveill & Society. 2011;8(4):485.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Murphy RS. Property rights in personal information: an economic defense of privacy. Geo LJ. 1995;84:2381.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Allen, RE. The republic (Vol. 5). Yale University Press. 2006.

  22. Diener E. Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1979;37(7):1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gergen K, Gergen M, Barton WH. Deviance in the dark. Psychol Today. 1973;7(5):129–31.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Johnson RD, Downing LL. Deindividuation and valence of cues: effects on prosocial and antisocial behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1979;37(9):1532–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kieseler S, Sproull L. Group decision making and communication technology. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1992;52:96–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nadler A, Goldberg M, Jaffe Y. Effect of self-differentiation and anonymity in group on deindividuation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1982;42(6):1127–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kiesler A, Siegel J, McGuire TW. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. Am Psychol. 1984;39(10):1123–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Santana AD. Virtuous or vitriolic: the effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journal Pract. 2014;8(1):18–33.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Stipek, D. J. Motivation to learn: from theory to practice. 1993.

  30. Asch, DA. Patient engagement: behavioral strategies for better health at the University of Pennsylvania, NEJM catalyst event. 2016. Retrieved from http://catalyst.nejm.org/videos/social-incentives-privacy-removing-friction/

  31. Asch DA, Muller RW, Volpp KG. Automated hovering in health care—watching over the 5000 hours. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(1):1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:591–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Turner JC. Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press; 1991.

  34. Smedley BD, Syme SL. Promoting health: intervention strategies from social and behavioral research. Am J Health Promot. 2001;15(3):149–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cialdini RB. Basic social influence is underestimated. Psychol Inq. 2005;16(4):158–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Aknin LB, Dunn EW, Norton MI. Happiness runs in a circular motion: Evidence for a positive feedback loop between prosocial spending and happiness. J Happiness Stud. 2012;13(2):347–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Estlund, CL. Just the facts: the case for workplace transparency. 2009.

  38. Irlenbusch B, Sliwka D. Transparency and reciprocal behavior in employment relations. J Econ Behav Organ. 2005;56(3):383–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Estlund C. Extending the case for workplace transparency to information about pay. UC Irvine Law Rev. 2014;4:781.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gelos, R. G., & Wei, S. J. Transparency and international investor behavior (No. w9260). National Bureau of Economic Research. 2002.

  41. Binswanger HP, McIntire J. Behavioral and material determinants of production relations in land-abundant tropical agriculture. Econ Dev Cult Chang. 1987;36(1):73–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Herskovits MJ. The cattle complex of East Africa. Am Anthropol. 1926;28(3):494–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bertrand M, Morse A. Trickle-down consumption. Rev Econ Stat. 2013;98(5):863–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Georgarakos D, Haliassos M, Giacomo P. Household debt and social interactions. Rev Financ Stud. 2014;27(5):1404–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Agarwal S, Mikhed V, Scholnick B. “Does inequality cause financial distress? Evidence from lottery winners and neighboring bankruptcies.” Working Paper; 2016.

  46. Veblen T. The theory of the leisure class. New York: The New American Library; 1899.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Bernoulli D. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica. 1954;22:23–36.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Diener E, Biswas-Diener R. Will money increase subjective well-being? Soc Indic Res. 2002;57(2):119–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Frey BS, Stutzer A. What can economists learn from happiness research? J Econ Lit. 2002;40(2):402–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Veenhoven R. Is happiness relative? Soc Indic Res. 1991;24(1):1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Duncan OD. Does money buy satisfaction? Soc Indic Res. 1975;2:267–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Boyce CJ, Brown GD, Moore SC. Money and happiness: rank of income, not income, affects life satisfaction. Psychol Sci. 2010;21(4):471–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Clark A, Friiters P, Shields M. Relative income, happiness, and the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles. J Econ Lit. 2008;46(1):95–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Easterlin R. Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? J Econ Behav Organ. 1995;27:35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Buunk BP, Gibbons FX. Health, coping, and well-being: perspectives from social comparison theory. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Buunk BP, Collins RL, Taylor SE, Van Yperen NW, Dakof GA. The affective consequences of social comparison: either direction has its ups and downs. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;59:1238–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Suls JM, Wills TA. Social comparison: contemporary theory and research. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Salovey P, Rodin J. Some antecedents and consequences of social-comparison jealousy. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1984;47:780–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wills TA. Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychol Bull. 1981;90:245–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Frank, R.H. (1985). Choosing the right pond: human behavior and the quest for status. Oxford University Press.

  61. Frank, RH. (2012). The Darwin economy: liberty, competition, and the common good. Princeton University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Dan Ariely & Aline Holzwarth

Authors
  1. Dan Ariely
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aline Holzwarth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan Ariely.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical collection on Privacy and Security of Medical Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ariely, D., Holzwarth, A. The choice architecture of privacy decision-making. Health Technol. 7, 415–422 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-017-0193-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-017-0193-3

Keywords

  • Privacy
  • Transparency
  • Behavioral economics
  • Choice architecture
  • Decision-making
  • Signal detection theory
  • Tradeoffs