acquisti privacy behavioral economics

8/12/2019 Acquisti Privacy Behavioral Economics

1/61

:TheParadoxo Control

&OtherStudiesAlessandro

Acquisti

HeinzCollege/CyLabCarnegieMellonUniversity

FridayOctober15,2010


2/61

a are e ra eo sassoc a e w pro ec ngan s ar ng

personaldata?

Howrationallydowecalculate,andmakedecisionsabout,those

tradeoffs?

Whataretheconsequencesofthosedecisions?

anwe

(an

s ou

we)

assist

t ose

ecisions,

t roug

tec no ogy

orpolicydesign?


3/61

n e ec ua cur os y

Policyintervention,Technologydesign

Managerial&Marketingimplications


4/61

1. Fromtheeconomicsofprivacy2. tothebehavioraleconomicsofprivacy

3. Threestudies

Theinconsistencyofprivacyvaluations T epara oxo contro

Discountingpastinformation


5/61

Protectionandrevelationofpersonaldataflowsinvolvetangibleand

intangible

trade

offs

for

the

datasubjectas

well

as

the

potentialdataholdery1

TheChicagoschoolapproach(Posner1978,Stigler1980,)

Mid1 0s

ITexplosion(Varian1996,Noam1996,Laudon 1996,)

After2000

Forma microeconomicmo e s Acquisti Varian2001,Tay or2001,Calzolari &Pavan 2001,Katz&Hermalin 2003,)


6/61

Individualshavestablespreferencesoverprivacy

Basedonthosepreferences,theymentallytradeoffcostsand

benefitsofsharingandprotectingdata

Basedonthosetradeoffs,theydeciderationallywhatpersonal

informationtorevealandwhattoprotect

Therefore,noneedformarket(regulatory)intervention


7/61

Lenar an Ru in2009:T ecompetitiveon inemar etstructure

suggeststhatfirmsdohaveincentivestosatisfytheircustomersprivacy

preferencesandthatconsumersbehaviorinthemarketreflectstheir

preferences.

Schmidt:Ifyouhavesomethingthatyoudon'twantanyonetoknow,

maybeyou

shouldn't

be

doing

it

in

the

first

place.

Zuckenberg:[The]socialnorm[aboutprivacy]isjustsomethingthat

hasevolvedovertime.


8/61


9/61

Should I mentionmy sexual kinkson MySpace?


10/61

...prospects? And what if my parents happen to log on...


11/61

)1()1( itdiitdi

costsuqbenefitsup tt++

$s

WTA

WTP

Privacy


12/61

(Framingissues)

(Conflictingneeds)

1. Incompleteinformation

2. oun e ra ona y

3. Cognitive/behavioralbiases


13/61

v u y v

thetheoreticalbehavioroftherationaleconomicagent

Man ofthosedeviationshavea licationstothe rivac arena as

wellasinformationsecurity)

Applyingbehavioral,experimentaleconomicstothe

un erstan ingo privacy ecisionma ing e psus:

1. Understandhowpeoplemake(sometimesbiased)decisionsabout

their ersonalinformation

2. Informpolicyandtechnologydesign,toamelioratedecisionmaking


14/61

Controlled,randomizedex eriments(inthelab,inthefield,

surveybased,nonsurveybased,)

v w u ,

otherwiselatentandthereforeunobservable)privacyconcerns Actualbehaviorvs.Surveyresponses(selfdisclosures)

Validationstudiesvs.Comparativestudies

Manyinfluences:BEandBDR,butalso:

Surveydesign(e.g.Schwarz1999);selfdisclosure(e.g.AltmanandTaylor

1973);privacyanddisclosure(e..g,Margulis2003);privacyconcerns(e.g.,

CulnanandArmstrong1999);


15/61

Someresults 200 2010

Hyperbolicdiscountinginprivacyvaluations Overconfidence,optimismbiasinpersonaldisclosures

on en a yassurances n n orma on sc osure

Individualsmorelikelytodisclosesensitiveinformationto

unprofessionalsitesthanprofessionalsites


16/61

.

Abouthowtheendowmenteffect affectspeopleswillingnesstopayfor

2. Theparadoxofcontrol

Aboutthepropensitytorevealpersonalinformation

3. Discountingpastinformation

Abouttheimpactonothersofonespersonalinformation

JointworkswithLauraBrandimarte,JoachimVosgerau,LeslieJohn,GeorgeLoewenstein


17/61

1. e ncons stencyo pr vacyva uat ons WithLeslieJohnandGeorgeLoewenstein


. Discountin astinformation


18/61

Canmereframingchangethevaluationofpersonaldata?

Consider:

Willingnesstoaccept(WTA)moneytogiveawayinformation

vs.

Willingnesstopay(WTP)moneytoprotectinformation

H othesis:

Peopleassigndifferentvaluestotheirpersonalinformationdepending

onwhetherthe arefocusin on rotectin it orrevealin it


19/61

Aspaymentforparticipation,subjectswereofferedgiftcards Wemanipulatedtradeoffsbetweenprivacyprotectionandvalue

ofcards Subjectsendowedwitheither:

$10Anon mous iftcard.Yournamewillnotbelinkedtothetransactionscompletedwiththecard,anditsusagewillnotbetrackedbytheresearchers.

$12Trackable iftcard.Yournamewillbelinkedtothetransactionscompleted

with

the

card,

and

its

usage

will

be

tracked

by

the

researchers.

Subjectsaskedwhethertheydliketoswitchcards

From$12Trackable to$10Anonymous(WTP)


20/61

52.1

50

60

10card

.

26.730

40

on

ymous

9.710

20

choosinga

0

Endowed $10 (n=71) Choice $10 vs. $12

(n=83)

Choice $12 vs. $10

(n=57)

Endowed $12 (n=62)

%

2(3) = 30.66, p < 0.0005


21/61

, ,

primingandframing

Thisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatpeopledontcareforprivacy,orareirrational

at er, t mp est atre anceon revea e pre erences

argumentforprivacymayleadtosuboptimaloutcomesifprivacy

valuationsareinconsistent

Peoplemaymakedisclosuredecisionsthattheystandtolaterregret

Viciouscircle:ifyouhavelessprivacy,youvalueprivacy less


22/61

1. e ncons stencyo pr vacyva uat ons

2. Theparadoxofcontrol WithLauraBrandimarteandGeorgeLoewenstein

.


23/61

Privac

and(the

aradox

of)

control

Contro ::Privacy

+


24/61

Privac

and(the

aradox

of)

control

Contro ::Privacy

=


25/61

Privac

and(the

aradox

of)

control

Contro ::Privacy

-


26/61

The

aradoxof

control

h othesis

Con ecture: When decidin what to reveal about ourselves we

confound control over publication of private information withcontrol over access/use of that information by others

information by others, not merely its publication

personal information will disclose more [less] sensitive information even though they may have less [more] control over access and

use o t at in ormation

Wh ?

Saliency of act of publishing, Overconfidence

See Henslin 1967, Langer 1975


27/61

personalinformation Mediatedvs.unmediatedpublication

Experiment2:Reducing perceivedcontroloverpublicationof

personalinformation Certaintyvs.probabilityofpublication

Ex eriment :Increasin erceivedcontrolover ublicationof

personalinformation Explicitvs.implicitcontrol


28/61

personalinformation Mediatedvs.unmediatedpublication

Experiment2:Reducingperceivedcontroloverpublicationofpersonalinformation Certaintyvs.probabilityofpublication

Ex eriment :Increasin erceivedcontrolover ublicationofpersonalinformation Explicitvs.implicitcontrol


29/61

Subjects:100+CMUstudentsrecruitedoncampus

As e tocomp eteon inesurvey

Justificationforthesurvey:creationofCMUnetworkingwebsite

Questionsfocusedonstudentslifeonandoffcampus

Multiplechoice,Yes/No,Ratingandopenendquestions

Asratedby31subjectsindependentlyinaprestudy


30/61

epen en var a es

Responserate:whethersubjectansweredornot(White2004)

Recall:Validationstudiesvs.Comparisonstudies

Explanatoryvariables Experimentaltreatment

Intrusivenessofquestions

Demographics


31/61

Manipulation:Profileautomaticallypublishedvs.profilepublishedwith50%probability(lesscontrol)

Condition1

Theinformationyouprovidewillappearonaprofilethatwillbeautomaticallycreated

foryou.TheprofilewillbepublishedonanewCMUnetworkingwebsite,whichwillonly

be

accessible

by

members

of

the

CMU

community,

starting

at

the

end

of

this

semes er. e a aw no euse nanyo erway.ANANSWER.

Theinformationyouprovidewillappearonaprofilethatwillbeautomaticallycreated

foryou.Halfoftheprofilescreatedfortheparticipantswillberandomlypickedtobe,

oftheCMUcommunity,startingattheendofthissemester.Thedatawillnotbeusedinanyotherway.NOQUESTION/FIELDREQUIRESANANSWER.


32/61

answersensitivequestionsinCondition1thaninCondition2,

u nomore e y oanswernonsens veques ons

Alternativeresultsthatwouldnotsupportthecontrol

paradoxhypothesis:

Subjectsmorelikelytoanswersensitiveandnonsensitivequestionsin

Condition1than

in

Condition

2

Subjectsnomorelikelytoanswersensitiveandnonsensitivequestions

inCondition1thaninCondition2


33/61


34/61


35/61

Desi n

Subjects:100+CMUstudentsrecruitedoncampus,March2010 Completedonlinesurvey

ust cat on ort esurvey:stu yonet ca e av ors

TenYes/Noquestionsthatfocusedonsensitivebehaviors(e.g.drug

use,stealing) Included demographics +privacyintrusiveandnonintrusive questions

Asrated by 49subjects independently inaprestudy


36/61

Conditions(reduced)

Implicitcontrol

condition

Allanswersarevoluntary.Byansweringaquestion,youagreetogivetheresearcherspermissiontopublishyouranswer.

ExplicitcontrolconditionAllanswersarevoluntary.Inordertogivetheresearcherspermissiontopublishyouranswertoa

question,

you

will

be

asked

to

check

the

corresponding

box

in

the

following

page.


37/61


38/61


39/61

answerANDtoallowpublicationofsensitivequestionsinthe

exp c con ro con on an n e mp c con ro con on

Alternativeresultsthatwouldnotsupportthecontrol

paradoxhypothesis:

Subjectsmorelikelytoanswersensitiveintheexplicitcontrolcondition,

butnot

more

likely

to

allow

their

publication

Subjectsnomorelikelytoanswersensitiveintheexplicitcontrol

condition,nortoallowtheirpublication


40/61


41/61

Coefficients

andpvalues

Treatment 1.92**(.000)

**Intrusive .

(.000)

Treat_Int 1.21**

(.002)

Age .03

(.521)

Male .11

(.593)

N

Prob>265

.000

w u yformostintrusivequestions,interactionanddemographics

*indicatessignificanceat10%level;**indicatessignificanceat5%level


42/61

publication,orwhenthepublicationitselfbecomesuncertain

whichreducestheprobabilityofaccess/usebyothers

peoplerefrainfromdisclosing

Perceivedless[more]controloverpublicationreduces

[increases]revelationofprivateinformation

Eventhoughobjectiverisksofrevelationdecrease[increase]


43/61

Itisnotthepublicationofprivateinformationperse thatdisturbspeople,

u e ac a someonee sew pu s or em

ResultscallintoquestionsOSNsargumentsofprotecting

privacybyprovidingmorecontroltomembers

Givingmorecontroltousersoverinformationpublicationseemsto


44/61

1. e ncons stencyo pr vacyva uat ons


3. Discountingpastinformation


45/61

e researc ques on

Howdoesinformationaboutapersonorcompanyspast,

retrievedtoday,getdiscounted?

Specifically:doesinformationaboutapersonspastwithnegativevalencereceivemoreweightinimpressionformationthaninformationwithpositivevalence?


46/61


47/61

ypo es s o eren a scoun ng

mpac o n orma onw nega veva ence as s onger an

impactofinfowithpositivevalence,notonlybecauseofasymmetriceffectsofvalence,butalsobecauseofdifferentweights ordiscountrates appliedtothetwotypesofinfo

Mobilizationeffects(Taylor1991)andevolutionarytheory

(Baumeister etal.2001)

egat v ty as e gman a er19 7

Negativeinfoismoreattentiongrabbing(Pratto &John1991)


48/61

es ng our ypo es s: ree exper men s

Weranthreesurveybasedrandomizedexperiments,manipulating

valence ofinformationaboutthirdpartiesprovidedtosubjectsand

thetime towhichthatinformationreferred

Subjectswereaskedtoexpressajudgmentonthepersonor

companytheyjustreadabout

Threeex eriments:

Thedictatorgame

The wallet experiment


49/61

xper men : e a e ory

Hypotheticalscenario:subjectsarepresentedbackgroundinformationaboutanotherperson,andaskedtoexpressa

judgmentabouther

Baselinecondition:onl baselineinformationis rovided Treatmentconditions:manipulationofvalenceandtime:

1. ea o e ase ne n oone e a w e erpos veor

negativevalence

2. n ,wevary e me ow c a e a re ers


50/61

. . , answerthequestionsbelowand inthenextpage.

Mr.AwasborninSanDiego,California,whereheattendedelementaryandmiddleschool.Asachild,.

Whenhewas16yearsold,hemovedtoSacramento,California,withhisfamily.Heattendedhighschoolthereandgothisdrivinglicense.

Aftergraduationhe movedtoHouston,Texas.


51/61




Justaboutgraduation,hefoundalostwoman'spursecontaining$10,000incash.Hereportedthediscoverytothepolice,andtherightfulownerretrievedhermoney.

,

months.


52/61




Justaboutgraduation,hefoundalostwoman'spursecontaining$10,000incash.Hedidnotreportthediscoverytothepolice,andtherightfulownerdidnotretrievehermoney.

,

months.


53/61




Justaboutgraduation,hefoundalostwoman'spursecontaining$10,000incash.Hereportedthediscoverytothepolice,andtherightfulownerretrievedhermoney.

,

years.


54/61




Justaboutgraduation,hefoundalostwoman'spursecontaining$10,000incash.Hedidnotreportthediscoverytothepolice,andtherightfulownerdidnotretrievehermoney.

,

years .


55/61

Onebaselinecondition

2x2treatmentconditions:

Reportedwallet, 5yearsago Reportedwallet, 12months ago

Didnot reportwallet, 5yearsago Didnotreportwallet, 12months ago


56/61

Dependentvariables:

Howmuchsubjectslikedthepersondescribed

Howmuchsubjectswouldhavelikedtoworkwithher(Interpersonal

JudgmentScale,Byrne1961)


57/61

xper men : e a e ory - esu s

.


58/61

Badisnotjuststrongerthangood...

.Itisalsodiscounteddifferentlythangood

Implications:futureimpactofinformationrevealedtoday


59/61

, ,

primingandframing

Thisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatpeopledontcareforprivacy,orareirrational,ormakewrongdecisionsaboutprivacy

at er, t mp est atre anceon revea e pre erences

argumentforprivacymayleadtosuboptimaloutcomesifprivacy

valuationsareinconsistent Peoplemaymakedisclosuredecisionsthattheystandtolaterregret

Risksgreatlymagnifiedinonlineinformationrevelation


60/61

Choice&notificationprivacymodelmaybeoutdated

Implicationsforpolicymaking&thedebateonprivacy

regulation

Consider:Chica oSchoola roachvs. rivac advocates

Nudgingprivacy?


61/61

Google:economicsprivacy

Visit:http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/economics

privacy.htm

. .

acquisti privacy behavioral economics

Documents