Advertisement

Social Status and the Demand for Security and Privacy

  • Jens Grossklags
  • Nigel J. Barradale
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8555)

Abstract

High-status decision makers are often in a position to make choices with security and privacy relevance not only for themselves but also for groups, or even society at-large. For example, decisions about security technology investments, anti-terrorism activities, and domestic security, broadly shape the balance between security and privacy. However, it is unclear to what extent the mass of individuals share the same concerns as high-status individuals. In particular, it is unexplored in the academic literature whether an individual’s status position shapes one’s security and privacy concerns.

The method of investigation used is experimental, with 146 subjects interacting in high- or low-status assignments and the subsequent change in the demand for security and privacy being related to status assignment with a significant t-statistic up to 2.9, depending on the specification. We find that a high-status assignment significantly increases security concerns. This effect is observable for two predefined sub-dimensions of security (i.e., personal and societal concerns) as well as for the composite measure. We find only weak support for an increase in the demand for privacy with a low-status manipulation.

We complement these results with a second experiment on individuals’ time preferences with 120 participants. We show that the high-status manipulation is correlated with increased patience, i.e., those individuals exhibit more robust long-term appreciation of decisions. Given that many security and privacy decisions have long-term implications and delayed consequences, our results suggest that high-status decision makers are less likely to procrastinate on important security investments, and are more likely to account for future risks appropriately. The opposite applies to privacy and low-status roles.

Keywords

Privacy Security Social status Time Preferences Experiment Laboratory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ackerman, M., Cranor, L., Reagle, J.: Privacy in e-commerce: Examining user scenarios and privacy preferences. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC 1999), pp. 1–8 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acquisti, A., Grossklags, J.: Privacy attitudes and privacy behavior: Losses, gains, and hyperbolic discounting. In: Camp, J., Lewis, S. (eds.) The Economics of Information Security, pp. 165–178. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Acquisti, A., Grossklags, J.: Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security & Privacy 3(1), 26–33 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anandpara, V., Dingman, A., Jakobsson, M., Liu, D., Roinestad, H.: Phishing IQ tests measure fear, not ability. In: Dietrich, S., Dhamija, R. (eds.) FC 2007 and USEC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4886, pp. 362–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson, C., Berdahl, J.: The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83, 1362–1377 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barradale, N.: Social incentives and human evolution, Available at SSRN, Paper No. 1520206 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barradale, N.: Essays in Social Status and Finance. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bilgin, P.: Individual and societal dimensions of security. International Studies Review 5(2), 203–222 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brandimarte, L., Acquisti, A.: The economics of privacy. In: Peitz, M., Waldvogel, J. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the Digital Economy, pp. 547–571. Oxford University Press (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chabris, C., Laibson, D., Morris, C., Schuldt, J., Taubinsky, D.: Individual laboratory-measured discount rates predict field behavior. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 37, 237–269 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, X., Ender, P., Mitchell, M., Wells, C.: Regression with Stata. Stata Web Books (2003), http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/webbooks/reg/default.htm
  12. 12.
    Clarke, R., Morell, M., Stone, G., Sunstein, C., Swire, P.: Liberty and security in a changing world: Report and recommendations of The Presidents Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies (December 2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davies, S.: When privacy reform gets as dirty as environmental reform, we’re all in trouble. The Privacy Surgeon (June 2013), Blog article available at http://www.privacysurgeon.org/
  14. 14.
    Dhamija, R., Tygar, J., Hearst, M.: Why phishing works. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2006), pp. 581–590 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Drakos, K., Müller, C.: Terrorism risk concern in Europe. Economics Letters 112(2), 195–197 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischbacher, U.: z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics 10(2), 171–178 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T.: Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature 40, 351–401 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ghafurian, M., Reitter, D.: Impatience, risk propensity and rationality in timing games. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., Rustichini, A.: Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(3), 1049–1074 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Good, N., Dhamija, R., Grossklags, J., Aronovitz, S., Thaw, D., Mulligan, D., Konstan, J.: Stopping spyware at the gate: A user study of privacy, notice and spyware. In: Proceedings of the Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2005), pp. 43–52 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grossklags, J.: Experimental economics and experimental computer science: A survey. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Experimental Computer Science (ExpCS 2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grossklags, J., Acquisti, A.: When 25 cents is too much: An experiment on willingness-to-sell and willingness-to-protect personal information. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hall, J., Carter, J., Horgan, T.: Status roles and recall of nonverbal cues. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 25, 79–100 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Henrich, J., Heine, S., Norenzayan, A.: The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(2-3), 61–83 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huber, P.: The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, pp. 221–233 (1967)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huberman, B., Adar, E., Fine, L.: Valuating privacy. IEEE Security & Privacy 3(5), 22–25 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hui, K., Png, I.: Economics of privacy. In: Hendershott, T. (ed.) Handbook of Information Systems and Economics, pp. 471–497. Elsevier (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jagatic, T., Johnson, N., Jakobsson, M., Menczer, F.: Social phishing. Communications of the ACM 50(10), 94–100 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Johnson, M., Bickel, W.: Within-subject comparison of real and hypothetical money rewards in delay discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 77, 129–146 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kachelmeier, S., Shehata, M.: Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: Experimental evidence from the People’s Republic of China. American Economic Review 82, 1120–1141 (1992)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kirby, K., Petry, N., Bickel, W.: Heroin addicts have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than non-drug-using controls. Journal of Experimental Psychology 128, 78–87 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kumaraguru, P., Cranor, L.: Privacy indexes: A survey of Westin’s studies, Available as ISRI Technical Report CMU-ISRI-05-138 (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Levitt, S., List, J.: What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? The Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(2), 153–174 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Madden, G., Raiff, B., Lagorio, C., Begotka, A., Mueller, A., Hehli, D., Wegener, A.: Delay discounting of potentially real and hypothetical rewards: II. Between- and within-subject comparisons. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 12, 251–261 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    NCSA/Norton (National Cyber Security Alliance and Norton by Symantec). 2010 NCSA/Norton by Symantec Online Safety Study (2010), http://www.staysafeonline.org/
  36. 36.
    Ortmann, A., Hertwig, R.: The costs of deception: Evidence from psychology. Experimental Economics 5(2), 111–131 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reimers, S., Maylor, E., Stewart, N., Chater, N.: Associations between a one-shot delay discounting measure and age, income, education and real-world impulsive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences 47(8), 973–978 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reynolds, B.: A review of delay-discounting research with humans: Relations to drug use and gambling. Behavioural Pharmacology 17, 651–667 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Robinson, N., Potoglou, D., Kim, C., Burge, P., Warnes, R.: Security, at what cost? Quantifying people’s trade-offs across liberty, privacy and security (2010)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schiff, J., Meingast, M., Mulligan, D., Sastry, S., Goldberg, K.: Respectful cameras: Detecting visual markers in real-time to address privacy concerns. In: Senior, A. (ed.) Protecting Privacy in Video Surveillance, pp. 65–89. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Smith, V.: Economics in the laboratory. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1), 154–158 (1994)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Snodgrass, S.: Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62, 154–158 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Solove, D.: “I’ve got nothing to hide” and other misunderstandings of privacy. San Diego Law Review 44, 745–772 (2007)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Solove, D.: Understanding Privacy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Solove, D.: Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff between Privacy and Security. Yale University Press, New Haven (2011)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Spiekermann, S., Grossklags, J., Berendt, B.: E-privacy in 2nd generation e-commerce: Privacy preferences versus actual behavior. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC 2001), pp. 38–47 (2001)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Thaler, R.: Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. San Diego Law Review 8, 201–207 (1981)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tsai, J., Egelman, S., Cranor, L., Acquisti, A.: The effect of online privacy information on purchasing behavior: An experimental study. Information Systems Research 22(2), 254–268 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Watts, D.: Everything is obvious: How common sense fails us. Crown Business, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Webster, M.: Working on status puzzles. In: Thye, S., Skvoretz, J. (eds.) Advances in Group Processes, pp. 173–215. Elsevier Ltd. (2003)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Westin, A.: Privacy and freedom. Atheneum, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    White, H.: A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48(4), 817–838 (1980)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    White, J., Moffitt, T., Caspi, A., Bartusch, D., Needles, D., Stouthamer-Loeber, M.: Measuring impulsivity and examining its relationship to delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 103, 192–205 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wojciszke, B., Struzynska-Kujalowicz, A.: Power influences self-esteem. Social Cognition 25, 472–494 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Youn, S., Lee, M.: The determinants of online security concerns and their influence on e-transactions. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising 5(3), 194–222 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens Grossklags
    • 1
  • Nigel J. Barradale
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Information Sciences and TechnologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of FinanceCopenhagen Business SchoolDenmark

Personalised recommendations