Towards a Model on the Factors Influencing Social App Users’ Valuation of Interdependent Privacy

Open access

Abstract

In the context of third-party social apps, the problem of interdependency of privacy refers to users making app adoption decisions which cause the collection and utilization of personal information of users’ friends. In contrast, users’ friends have typically little or no direct influence over these decision-making processes.

We conduct a conjoint analysis study with two treatment conditions which vary the app data collection context (i.e., to which degree the functionality of the app makes it necessary for the app developer to collect friends’ information). Analyzing the data, we are able to quantify the monetary value which app users place on their friends’ and their own personal information in each context. Combining these valuations with the responses to a comprehensive survey, we apply structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis to investigate the roles of privacy concern, its antecedents, as well as app data collection context to work towards a model of interdependent privacy for the scenario of third-party social app adoption.

We find that individuals’ past experiences regarding privacy invasions are negatively associated with their trust for third-party social apps’ proper handling of their personal information, which in turn influences their concerns for their own privacy associated with third-party social apps. In addition, positive effects of users’ privacy knowledge on concerns for their own privacy and concerns for friends’ privacy regarding app adoption are partially supported. These privacy concerns are further found to affect how users value their own and their friends’ personal information. However, we are unable to support an association between users’ online social capital and their concerns for friends’ privacy. Nor do we have enough evidence to show that treatment conditions moderate the association between the concern for friends’ personal information and the value of such information in app adoption contexts.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] A. Acquisti and J. Grossklags. Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security & Privacy 3(1):26-33 2005.

  • [2] A. Acquisti and J. Grossklags. An online survey experiment on ambiguity and privacy. Communications & Strategies 88(4):19-39 2012.

  • [3] J. Arbuckle. IBM® SPSS® AMOS 22 User’s Guide. IBM 2013.

  • [4] G. Bansal F. Zahedi and D. Gefen. The impact of personal dispositions on information sensitivity privacy concern and trust in disclosing health information online. Decision Support Systems 49(2):138-150 2010.

  • [5] J. Bargh and K. McKenna. The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology 55:573-590 2004.

  • [6] P. Barrett. Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences 42(5):815-824 2007.

  • [7] R. Bender and S. Lange. Adjusting for multiple testing - When and how? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 54(4):343-349 2001.

  • [8] A. Beresford D. Kübler and S. Preibusch. Unwillingness to pay for privacy: A field experiment. Economics Letters 117(1):25-27 2012.

  • [9] A. Besmer and H. Lipford. Users’ (mis)conceptions of social applications. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface (GI) pages 63-70 2010.

  • [10] G. Biczók and P. Chia. Interdependent privacy: Let me share your data. In A.-R. Sadeghi editor Financial Cryptography and Data Security volume 7859 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science pages 338-353. Springer 2013.

  • [11] R. Böhme and J. Grossklags. Vanishing signals: Trading agent kills market information. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on the Economics of Networks Systems and Computation (NetEcon) 2011.

  • [12] R. Böhme and J. Grossklags. Trading agent kills market information: Evidence from online social lending. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE) pages 68-81 2013.

  • [13] D. Campbell and D. Fiske. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56(2):81 1959.

  • [14] E. Caudill and P. Murphy. Consumer online privacy: Legal and ethical issues. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 19(1):7-19 2000.

  • [15] F. Cespedes and J. Smith. Database marketing: New rules for policy and practice. Sloan Management Review 34(4) 1993.

  • [16] R. Chellappa and R. Sin. Personalization versus privacy: An empirical examination of the online consumer’s dilemma. Information Technology and Management 6(2-3):181-202 2005.

  • [17] M. Chessa J. Grossklags and P. Loiseau. A game-theoretic study on non-monetary incentives in data analytics projects with privacy implications. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 28th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF) pages 90-104 2015.

  • [18] P. Chia Y. Yamamoto and N. Asokan. Is this app safe?: A large scale study on application permissions and risk signals. In Proceedings of the 21st International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) pages 311-320 2012.

  • [19] J. Coleman. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94:S95-S120 1988.

  • [20] T. Cook D. Campbell and A. Day. Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings volume 351. Houghton Mifflin 1979.

  • [21] M. Culnan. ’How did they get my name?’: An exploratory investigation of consumer attitudes toward secondary information use. MIS Quarterly 17(3):341-363 1993.

  • [22] M. Culnan. Consumer awareness of name removal procedures: Implications for direct marketing. Journal of Direct Marketing 9(2):10-19 1995.

  • [23] G. Danezis S. Lewis and R. Anderson. How much is location privacy worth? In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Economics of Privacy (WEIS) 2005.

  • [24] P. De Meo E. Ferrara G. Fiumara and A. Provetti. On Facebook most ties are weak. Communications of the ACM 57(11):78-84 2014.

  • [25] D. Dickinson and R. Oxoby. Cognitive dissonance pessimism and behavioral spillover effects. Journal of Economic Psychology 32(3):295-306 2011.

  • [26] T. Dinev and P. Hart. An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research 17(1):61-80 2006.

  • [27] Q. Do B. Martini and K. Choo. Enhancing user privacy on Android mobile devices via permissions removal. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) pages 5070-5079 2014.

  • [28] J. Downs M. Holbrook S. Sheng and L. F. Cranor. Are your participants gaming the system?: Screening Mechanical Turk workers. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) pages 2399-2402 2010.

  • [29] C. Dwyer S. Hiltz and K. Passerini. Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. In Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) 2007.

  • [30] M. Eastlick S. Lotz and P. Warrington. Understanding online b-to-c relationships: An integrated model of privacy concerns trust and commitment. Journal of Business Research 59(8):877-886 2006.

  • [31] S. Egelman. My profile is my password verify me!: The privacy/convenience tradeoff of Facebook Connect. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) pages 2369-2378 2013.

  • [32] W. Enck P. Gilbert S. Han V. Tendulkar B. Chun L. Cox J. Jung P. McDaniel and A. Sheth. TaintDroid: An information-flow tracking system for realtime privacy monitoring on smartphones. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 32(2):5:1-5:29 2014.

  • [33] A. Felt and D. Evans. Privacy protection for social networking APIs. In Proceedings of the 2008 Workshop on Web 2.0 Security and Privacy (W2SP) 2008.

  • [34] A. Felt E. Ha S. Egelman A. Haney E. Chin and D. Wagner. Android permissions: User attention comprehension and behavior. In Proceedings of the 7th Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS) pages 3:1-3:14 2012.

  • [35] J. Fogel and E. Nehmad. Internet social network communities: Risk taking trust and privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behavior 25(1):153-160 2009.

  • [36] C. Fornell and D. Larcker. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1):39-50 1981.

  • [37] D. Gefen. E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega 28(6):725-737 2000.

  • [38] J. Goodman C. Cryder and A. Cheema. Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 26(3):213-224 2013.

  • [39] M. Granovetter. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6):1360-1380 1973.

  • [40] P. Green and A. Krieger. Segmenting markets with conjoint analysis. The Journal of Marketing 55(4):20-31 1991.

  • [41] P. Green and V. Rao. Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research 8(3):355-363 1971.

  • [42] P. Green and V. Srinivasan. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research 5(2):103-123 1978.

  • [43] P. Green and V. Srinivasan. Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. The Journal of Marketing 54(4):3-19 1990.

  • [44] K. Greene. Google faces new privacy class claims over email scanning. http://www.law360.com/articles/699961 2015. Accessed: 2015-09-11.

  • [45] J. Grossklags and A. Acquisti. When 25 cents is too much: An experiment on willingness-to-sell and willingness-toprotect personal information. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS) 2007.

  • [46] J. Grossklags and N. Barradale. Social status and the demand for security and privacy. In E. De Cristofaro and S. Murdoch editors Privacy Enhancing Technologies volume 8555 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science pages 83-101. Springer 2014.

  • [47] S. Gupta and C. Mela. What is a free customer worth? Armchair calculations of nonpaying customers’ value can lead to flawed strategies. Harvard Business Review 86(11):102-9 2008.

  • [48] J. Hair W. Black B. Babin R. Anderson and R. Tatham. Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall 2006.

  • [49] K. Hampton and B. Wellman. Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet supports community and social capital in a wired suburb. City and Community 2(4):277-311 2003.

  • [50] I.-H. Hann K.-L. Hui S.-Y. T. Lee and I. Png. Overcoming online information privacy concerns: An informationprocessing theory approach. Journal of Management Information Systems 24(2):13-42 2007.

  • [51] I.-H. Hann K.-L. Hui T. Lee and I. Png. Online information privacy: Measuring the cost-benefit trade-off. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2002.

  • [52] J. Helliwell and R. Putnam. The social context of wellbeing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B - Biological Sciences 359(1449):1435-1446 Sept. 2004.

  • [53] D. Hoffman T. Novak and M. Peralta. Building consumer trust online. Communications of the ACM 42(4):80-85 1999.

  • [54] D. Hooper J. Coughlan and M. Mullen. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6(1):53-60 2008.

  • [55] R. Hoyle. Structural equation modeling: Concepts issues and applications. Sage Publications 1995.

  • [56] R. Hoyle. Confirmatory factor analysis. Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling pages 465-497 2000.

  • [57] L. Hu and P. Bentler. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1):1-55 1999.

  • [58] B. Huberman E. Adar and L. Fine. Valuating privacy. IEEE Security & Privacy 3(5):22-25 2005.

  • [59] K.-L. Hui B. Tan and C.-Y. Goh. Online information disclosure: Motivators and measurements. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 6(4):415-441 2006.

  • [60] M. Humbert E. Ayday J.-P. Hubaux and A. Telenti. On non-cooperative genomic privacy. In R. Böhme and T. Okamoto editors Financial Cryptography and Data Security volume 8975 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science pages 407-426. Springer 2015.

  • [61] P. Ipeirotis. Demographics of Mechanical Turk. Technical report Social Science Research Network Technical Report No. 1585030 2010.

  • [62] N. Jentzsch S. Preibusch and A. Harasser. Study on monetising privacy: An economic model for pricing personal information. ENISA Feb 2012.

  • [63] L. John A. Acquisti and G. Loewenstein. Strangers on a plane: Context-dependent willingness to divulge sensitive information. Journal of Consumer Research 37(5):858-873 2011.

  • [64] C. Kam J. Wilking and E. Zechmeister. Beyond the “narrow data base”: Another convenience sample for experimental research. Political Behavior 29(4):415-440 Dec. 2007.

  • [65] A. Kavanaugh J. Carroll M. Rosson T. Zin and D. Reese. Community networks: Where offline communities meet online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(4) 2005.

  • [66] P. Kelley L. F. Cranor and N. Sadeh. Privacy as part of the app decision-making process. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) pages 3393-3402 2013.

  • [67] R. Kline. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press 2010.

  • [68] P. Klopfer and D. Rubenstein. The concept privacy and its biological basis. Journal of Social Issues 33(3):52-65 1977.

  • [69] H. Krasnova N. Eling O. Abramova and P. Buxmann. Dangers of ’Facebook login’ for mobile apps: Is there a price tag for social information? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2014.

  • [70] H. Krasnova N. Eling O. Schneider H. Wenninger and T. Widjaja. Does this app ask for too much data? The role of privacy perceptions in user behavior towards Facebook applications and permission dialogs. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) 2013.

  • [71] H. Krasnova T. Hildebrand and O. Guenther. Investigating the value of privacy in online social networks: Conjoint analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2009.

  • [72] H. Krasnova and N. Veltri. Privacy calculus on social networking sites: Explorative evidence from Germany and USA. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) 2010.

  • [73] Y. Lu B. Tan and K.-L. Hui. Inducing customers to disclose personal information to Internet businesses with social adjustment benefits. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2004.

  • [74] N. Malhotra S. Kim and J. Agarwal. Internet users’ information privacy concerns (iuipc): The construct the scale and a causal model. Information Systems Research 15(4):336-355 2004.

  • [75] G. Marcoulides C. Emrich and L. Marcoulides. Testing for multigroup invariance of the computer anxiety scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement 68(2):325-334 2008.

  • [76] G. Marcoulides and R. Heck. Organizational culture and performance: Proposing and testing a model. Organization Science 4(2):209-225 1993.

  • [77] W. Mason and S. Suri. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods 44(1):1-23 Mar. 2012.

  • [78] R. Mayer J. Davis and D. Schoorman. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20(3):709-734 1995.

  • [79] M. Metzger. Privacy trust and disclosure: Exploring barriers to electronic commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 9(4) 2004.

  • [80] H. Nissenbaum. Privacy in context: Technology policy and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press 2009.

  • [81] G. Nowak and J. Phelps. Understanding privacy concerns: An assessment of consumers’ information-related knowledge and beliefs. Journal of Direct Marketing 6(4):28-39 1992.

  • [82] J. Nunnally. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill 1967.

  • [83] Y. Park S. Campbell and N. Kwak. Affect cognition and reward: Predictors of privacy protection online. Computers in Human Behavior 28(3):1019-1027 2012.

  • [84] P. Pavlou. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 7(3):101-134 2003.

  • [85] P. Pavlou and D. Gefen. Psychological contract violation in online marketplaces: Antecedents consequences and moderating role. Information Systems Research 16(4):372-399 2005.

  • [86] P. Paxton. Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology 105(1):88-127 1999.

  • [87] J. Phelps G. Nowak and E. Ferrell. Privacy concerns and consumer willingness to provide personal information. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 19(1):27-41 2000.

  • [88] D. Potoglou S. Patil C. Gijón J. F. Palacios and C. Feijóo. The value of personal information online: Results from three stated preference discrete choice experiments in the UK. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) 2013.

  • [89] Y. Pu and J. Grossklags. An economic model and simulation results of app adoption decisions on networks with interdependent privacy consequences. In R. Poovendran and W. Saad editors Decision and Game Theory for Security pages 246-265. Springer 2014.

  • [90] Y. Pu and J. Grossklags. Using conjoint analysis to investigate the value of interdependent privacy in social app adoption scenarios. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2015.

  • [91] R. Putnam. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster 2001.

  • [92] T. Raykov and G. Marcoulides. A first course in structural equation modeling. Routledge 2012.

  • [93] A. Savikhin and R. Sheremeta. Simultaneous decisionmaking in competitive and cooperative environments. Economic Inquiry 51(2):1311-1323 2013.

  • [94] R. Schumacker and G. Marcoulides. Interaction and nonlinear effects in structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers 1998.

  • [95] P. Shi H. Xu and Y. Chen. Using contextual integrity to examine interpersonal information boundary on social network sites. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) pages 35-38 2013.

  • [96] A. Smith. 6 new facts about Facebook. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/6-new-factsabout-facebook/ 2014. Accessed: 2015-09-09.

  • [97] J. Smith T. Dinev and H. Xu. Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly 35(4):989-1016 2011.

  • [98] J. Smith S. Milberg and S. Burke. Information privacy: Measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quarterly 20(2):167-196 1996.

  • [99] S. Spiekermann J. Grossklags and B. Berendt. E-privacy in 2nd generation e-commerce: Privacy preferences versus actual behavior. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce pages 38-47 2001.

  • [100] E. Steel and G. Fowler. Facebook in privacy breach. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304772804575558484075236968 2010. Accessed: 2015-09-13.

  • [101] D. Suhr. The basics of structural equation modeling. University of North Colorado 2006.

  • [102] J. Tsai S. Egelman L. Cranor and A. Acquisti. The effect of online privacy information on purchasing behavior: An experimental study. Information Systems Research 22(2):254-268 2011.

  • [103] J. Turow C. Hoofnagle D. Mulligan N. Good and J. Grossklags. The FTC and consumer privacy in the coming decade. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 3(3):723-749 2007.

  • [104] N. Wang J. Grossklags and H. Xu. An online experiment of privacy authorization dialogues for social applications. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) pages 261-272 2013.

  • [105] N. Wang P. Wisniewski H. Xu and J. Grossklags. Designing the default privacy settings for Facebook applications. In Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing pages 249-252 2014.

  • [106] N. Wang H. Xu and J. Grossklags. Third-party apps on Facebook: Privacy and the illusion of control. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Symposium on Computer Human Interaction for Management of Information Technology (CHIMIT) pages 4:1-4:10 2011.

  • [107] L. Wathieu and A. Friedman. An empirical approach to understanding privacy valuation. HBS Marketing Research Paper (07-075) 2007.

  • [108] D. Williams. On and off the ’net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11(2):593-628 2006.

  • [109] H. Xu H.-H. Teo and B. Tan. Predicting the adoption of location-based services: The role of trust and perceived privacy risk. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2005.

Search
Journal information
Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 605 349 15
PDF Downloads 305 174 3