skip to main content
research-article

Empirical Measurement of Perceived Privacy Risk

Published:13 December 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Personal data is increasingly collected and used by companies to tailor services to users, and to make financial, employment, and health-related decisions about individuals. When personal data is inappropriately collected or misused, however, individuals may experience violations of their privacy. Historically, government regulators have relied on the concept of risk in energy, aviation and medicine, among other domains, to determine the extent to which products and services may harm the public. To address privacy concerns in government-controlled information technology, government agencies are advocating to adapt similar risk management frameworks to privacy. Despite the recent shift toward a risk-managed approach for privacy, to our knowledge, there are no empirical methods to determine which personal data are most at-risk and which contextual factors increase or decrease that risk. To this end, we introduce an empirical framework in this article that consists of factorial vignette surveys that can be used to measure the effect of different factors and their levels on privacy risk. We report a series of experiments to measure perceived privacy risk using the proposed framework, which are based on expressed preferences, and which we define as an individual's willingness to share their personal data with others given the likelihood of a potential privacy harm. These experiments control for one or more of the six factors affecting an individual's willingness to share their information: data type, computer type, data purpose, privacy harm, harm likelihood, and individual demographic factors, such as age range, gender, education level, ethnicity, and household income. To measure likelihood, we introduce and evaluate a new likelihood scale based on construal level theory in psychology. The scale frames individual attitudes about risk likelihood based on social and physical distance to the privacy harm. The findings include predictions about the extent to which the above factors correspond to risk acceptance, including that perceived risk is lower for induced disclosure harms when compared to surveillance and insecurity harms as defined in Solove's Taxonomy of Privacy. We also found that participants are more willing to share their information when they perceive the benefits of sharing. In addition, we found that likelihood was not a multiplicative factor in computing privacy risk perception, which challenges conventional theories of privacy risk in the privacy and security community.

References

  1. A. Acquisti and J. Grossklags. 2005. Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security and Privacy 3, 1 (2005), 26--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Acquisti and J. Grossklags. 2013. An online survey experiment on ambiguity and privacy. Communications 8 Strategies 88, 4 (2013), 19--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. A. Acquisti, L. K. John, and G. Lowestein. 2013. What is the price of privacy. Journal of Legal Studies 42, 2, Article 1 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. A. Acquisti, I. Adjerid, R. Balebako, L. Brandimarte, L. Cranor, S. Komanduri, P. Leon, N. Sadeh, F. Schaub, M. Sleeper, Y. Wang, and S. Wilson. 2017. Nudges for privacy and security: Understanding and assisting users’ choices online. ACM Computing Surveys 50, 3, Article 44 (2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2859227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. K. Auspurg and T. Hinz. 2014. Factorial Survey Experiments, vol. 175. SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. K. Barton. 2014. MuMIn: Multi-model Inference, R Package, 1.10.2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. D. Bates, M. Maechler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1 (2015), 1--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. R. A. Bauer. 1960. Consumer behavior as risk-taking. In Dynamic Marketing for Changing World. American Marketing Association, Chicago, 389.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. B. Berendt, O. Günther, and S. Spiekermann. 2005. Privacy in e-commerce: Stated preferences vs. actual behavior. Communications of the ACM 48, 4 (2005), 101--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. J. Bhatia, T. D. Breaux, J. R. Reidenberg, and T. B. Norton. 2016a. A Theory of vagueness and privacy risk perception. In Proceedings of the IEEE 24th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE’16).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J. Bhatia, T. D. Breaux, L. Friedberg, H. Hibshi, and D. Smullen. 2016b. Privacy risk in cybersecurity data sharing. In Proceedings of ACM 3rd International Workshop on Information Sharing and Collaborative Security (WISCS). Vienna, Austria, 57--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Brooks, M. Garcia, N. Lefkovitz, S. Lightman, and E. Nadeau. 2017. An Introduction to Privacy Engineering and Risk Management in Federal Systems. Internal Report 8062, National Institute of Standards and Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. M. D. Buhrmester, T. Kwang, and S. D. Gosling. 2011. Amazon's mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 3, 6 (2011), 13--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. G. Charness, U. Gneezy, and M. A. Kuhn. 2012. Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior 8 Organization 81, 1 (2012), 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. P. Cichonski, T. Millar, T. Grance, and K. Scarfone. 2012. Computer Security Incident Handling Guide. Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 800-61. Revision 2. NIST Special Publication, 79.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. L. A. Clark and D. Watson. 1995. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment 7, 3 (1995), 309--319.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. J. Cortina and H. Nouri. 2000. Effect Size for ANOVA Designs. Sage Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. J. Creswell. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Tamara Dinev, Allen R. McConnell, and H. Jeff Smith. 2015. Research commentary—Informing privacy research through information systems, psychology, and behavioral economics: Thinking outside the “APCO” box. Information Systems Research 26, 4 (2015), 639--655. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Daniel Ellsberg. 1961. Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, 4 (1961), 643--669.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. W. J. Everton, P. M. Mastrangelo, and J. A. Jolton. 2005. Personality correlates of employee's use of work computers. Cyber Psychology and Behavior 8 (2005), 143--153.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. F. Faul, E. Erdfelder, A.-G. Lang, and A. Buchner. 2007. G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39, 2 (2007), 175--191.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, B. Combs. 1978. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Science 9 (1978), 127--152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. M. Furr. 2011. Scale Construction and Psychometrics for Social and Personality Psychology. SAGE Publications Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. A. Gelman and J. Hill. 2006. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. H. Hibshi, T. D. Breaux, and S. B. Broomell. 2015. Assessment of risk perception in security requirements composition. In Proceedings of IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE’15). 146--155.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. L. M. Hilty, C. Som, and A. Köhler. 2004. Assessing the human, social and environmental risks of pervasive computing. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 10 (2004), 853--874.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. J. I. Hong, J. D. Ng, S. Lederer, and J. A. Landay. 2004. Privacy risk models for designing privacy-sensitive ubiquitous computing systems. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (DIS'04). ACM, New York, NY, 91--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. C. Hoofnagle, J. King, S. Li, and J. Turow. 2010. How different are young adults from older adults when it comes to information privacy attitudes and policies. SSRN Working Paper Series 4, 19 (2010), 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. J. J Horton, D. G. Rand, and R. J. Zeckhauser. 2011. The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics 14, 3 (2011), 399--425.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Peter Hustinx. 2010. Privacy by design: Delivering the promises. Identity in the Information Society 3, 2 (2010), 253--255.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Giovanni Iachello and Jason Hong. 2007. End-user privacy in human-computer interaction. Trends Human-Computer Interaction 1, 1 (2007), 1--137. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. S. Kaplan and B. J. Garrick. 1981. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis 1, 1 (1981), 11--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. M. G. Kendall. 1948. Rank Correlation Methods. Charles Griffin and Company Limited.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. F. H. Knight. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Houghton Mifflin Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. B. Knijnenburg and A. Kobsa. 2014. Increasing sharing tendency without reducing satisfaction: finding the best privacy-settings user interface for social networks. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Information Systems. 1--21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. J. T. Kulas and A. A. Stachowski. 2013. Respondent rationale for neither agreeing nor disagreeing: Person and item contributors to middle category endorsement intent on Likert personality indicators. Journal of Research in Personality 47, 4 (2013), 254--262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. S. Lederer, J. Mankoff, and A. K. Dey. 2003. Towards a deconstruction of the privacy space. In Proceedings of Workshop on Privacy in Ubicomp 2003: Ubicomp Communities: Privacy as Boundary Negotiation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. S. Lederer, J. I. Hong, A. K. Dey, and J. A. Landay. 2004. Personal privacy through understanding and action: five pitfalls for designers. Personal Ubiquitous Computing 8, 6 (2004), 440--454. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. J. H. Moor. 1997. Towards a theory of privacy in the information age. Computers and Society 27, 3 (1997), 27--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. J. Mugan, T. Sharma, and N. Sadeh. 2011. Understandable Learning of Privacy Preferences Through Default Personas and Suggestions. Technical Report CMU-ISR-11-112, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved from http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/isr2011/CMU-ISR-11-112.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. R. S. Murphy. 1996. Property rights in personal information: An economic defense of privacy. Georgetown Law Journal 84 (1996), 2381.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. P. M. Mastrangel, W. Everto, and J. A. Jolton. 2006. Personal use of work computers: distraction versus destruction. Cyber Psychology 8 Behavior 9 (2006), 730--41.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. S. Nakagawa and H. Schielzet. 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4, 2 (2013), 133--142.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. H. Nissenbaum. 2004. Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review 79, 2004 (2007), 119--157.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. H. Nissenbaum. 2009. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford Law Books. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. J. S. Olson, J. Grudin, and E. Horvitz. 2005. A study of preferences for sharing and privacy. In Proceedings of CHI'05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA'05). ACM, New York, NY, 1985--1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Leysia Palen and Paul Dourish. 2003. Unpacking "privacy" for a networked world. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'03). ACM, New York, NY, 129--136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. A. Perrin and M. Duggan. 2015. Americans’ Internet Access: 2000--2015. PEW Internet and American Life Project, June 26, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/19/americans-feel-the-tensions-between-privacy-and-security-concerns/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. G. Paolacci, J. Chandler, and P. G. Ipeirotis. 2010. Running experiments on amazon mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5 (2010), 411--419.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. PwC. 2016. The Global State of Information Security Survey. Turnaround and Transformation in Cybersecurity. PwC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. R. Core Team. 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. L. Rainie and S. Maniam. 2016. Americans Feel the Tensions Between Privacy and Security Concerns. PEW Internet and American Life Project, February 19, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. D. G. Rand. 2012. The promise of mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology 299 (2012), 172--179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. J. H. Saltzer and M. D. Schroeder. 1975. The protection of information in computer systems. Proceedings of the IEEE 63, 9 (1975), 1278--1308.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. W. R. Shadish, T. D. Cook, and D. T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton, Mifflin and Company, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. C. Spearman. 1904. The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American Journal of Psychology 15, 1 (1904), 72--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. C. Starr. 1969. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 165 (1969), 1232--1238.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. P. Slovic. 2000. The Perception of Risk. Earthscan Publication.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. H. J. Smith, Tamara Dinev, and Heng Xu. 2011. Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly 35, 4 (2011), 989--1015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. D. J. Solove. 2006. A taxonomy of privacy. University of Pennyslavania Law Review 154, 3 (2006), 477.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Daniel J. Solove. 2008. Understanding Privacy. Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Gary Stoneburner, Alice Y. Goguen, and Alexis Feringa. 2002. Risk Management Guide for Information Technology Systems. SP 800-30, Technical Report, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185 (1974), 1124--1131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. C. Wakslak and Y. Trope. 2009. The effect of construal level on subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science 20, 1 (2009), 52--58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Lisa Wallander. 2009. 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review. Social Science Research 38, 3 (2009), 505--520.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Y. Wang, G. Norice, and L. F. Cranor. 2011. Who is concerned about what? A study of American, Chinese and Indian users’ privacy concerns on social network sites. In Proceedings of International Conference on Trust and Trustworthy Computing Trust 2011: Trust and Trustworthy Computing (2011), 146--153. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Yang Wang, Pedro Giovanni Leon, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Alain Forget, and Norman Sadeh. 2014. A field trial of privacy nudges for Facebook. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'14). ACM, New York, NY, 2367--2376. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. A. F. Westin. 1967. Privacy and Freedom. Atheneum, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Empirical Measurement of Perceived Privacy Risk

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
      ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction  Volume 25, Issue 6
      December 2018
      236 pages
      ISSN:1073-0516
      EISSN:1557-7325
      DOI:10.1145/3300063
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 13 December 2018
      • Accepted: 1 August 2018
      • Revised: 1 July 2018
      • Received: 1 August 2017
      Published in tochi Volume 25, Issue 6

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader