Privacy and rationality in individual decision making

By Alessandro Acquisti, Jens Grossklags. 2005

1,208 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Traditional theory suggests consumers should be able to manage their privacy. Yet, empirical and theoretical research suggests that consumers often lack enough information to make privacy-sensitive decisions and, even with sufficient information, are likely to trade off long-term privacy for short-term benefits

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Marketing, Sociology and Political Science

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Marketing

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

BLENDER: Enabling Local Search with a Hybrid Differential Privacy Model (2017, background): “As others have observed [2, 1, 7], people’s attitudes toward privacy vary widely.”
The Economics of Personal Data and the Economics of Privacy (2010, result): “Similar findings were obtained in different settings by Acquisti and Grossklags (2005) and Acquisti and Gross (2006).”
The Willingness to Sell Personal Data (2018, methodology): “Moreover, those participants who do agree to share information in exchange for a compensation make high demands (Acquisti and Grossklags, 2005a) that do not correspond to the market value of such data.4 By contrast, some field studies indicate that very few participants are willing to pay even a…”
A survey on privacy in mobile participatory sensing applications (2011, background): “They may underestimate the risks related to their privacy [51], and pay little attention to policies and end user licensing agreement, both of which are often laid out in technical terms and thus hard to understand [52].”
The role of affect and cognition on online consumers' decision to disclose personal information to unfamiliar online vendors (2011, background): “Several surveys have found that less than 50% of online consumers actually read privacy policies [1,47].”
Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon (2017, background): “Behavioural economics have contributed the concepts of bounded rationality and incomplete information that have been used to explain privacy decisions (Acquisti and Grossklags, 2005).”
Nudges for Privacy and Security (2017, background): “…early 2000s, behavioral economics and behavioral decision research started highlighting the role of biases and heuristics in affecting privacy and security behaviors [Acquisti 2004; Acquisti and Grossklags 2005] and the role of emotions and cognition in disclosure decisions [Li et al. 2008, 2011].”
Leakiness and creepiness in app space: perceptions of privacy and mobile app use (2014, background): “This is typically seen as an expression of the “privacy paradox” where intentions and behaviors around information disclosure often radically differ [2,32,40].”
Secure or insure?: a game-theoretic analysis of information security games (2008, background): “When asked in surveys, network users say they are interested in preventing attacks and mitigating the damages from computer and information security breaches [1] [40].”
Opt out of privacy or "go home": understanding reluctant privacy behaviours through the FoMO-centric design paradigm (2019, background): “Time-inconsistent discounting says that people tend to overrate the present compared to the future [3].”
Blissfully ignorant: the effects of general privacy concerns, general institutional trust, and affect in the privacy calculus (2015, background): “…privacy calculus may be bounded by psychological limitations, such as the inability to process all information relevant to the cost-bene ﬁ t-ratio (Acquisti & Grossklags, 2005; Acquisti et al ., 2009), intertemporal choice (Keith et al ., 2012) or the attempt for immediate grati ﬁ cation…”
The Debate on the Moral Responsibilities of Online Service Providers (2015, background): “…recently, however, both academics and policy makers have criticised the effectiveness of focusing exclusively on users’ rights when assessing data management (Acquisti and Grossklags 2005; Jolls and Sunstein 2005; World Economic Forum 2012; Cavoukian 2014; Cate et al. 2014; Kiss and Sz } oke 2015).”
Engineering Information Disclosure: Norm Shaping Designs (2016, background): “A subset of these studies highlight the dichotomy between professed privacy attitudes and actual self-revelatory behavior [3, 5, 27, 31].”
The privacy paradox - Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior - A systematic literature review (2017, background): “This implies that users are lacking in privacy protection knowledge, at both the technological and legal levels; leading to misinterpretation of the likelihood of actual privacy violations and to inaccurate predictions of future hazards (Acquisti and Grossklags, 2005).”
Information Privacy Research: An Interdisciplinary Review (2011, background): “A plausible explanation provided by Acquisti’s work for such a privacy attitude/behavior dichotomy is that users’ privacy decision processes are affected by bounded rationality (Acquisti 2004; Acquisti and Grossklags 2005b).”
Engineering Privacy (2009, background): “While there is evidence that consumers may not always act on their privacy concerns [12], [13], there is convincing data to suggest that these concerns have some impact on consumer behavior and the acceptability and adoption of new technologies.”