Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2078827.2078847acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessoupsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Indirect content privacy surveys: measuring privacy without asking about it

Published: 20 July 2011 Publication History

Abstract

The strong emotional reaction elicited by privacy issues is well documented (e.g., [12, 8]). The emotional aspect of privacy makes it difficult to evaluate privacy concern, and directly asking about a privacy issue may result in an emotional reaction and a biased response. This effect may be partly responsible for the dramatic privacy concern ratings coming from recent surveys, ratings that often seem to be at odds with user behavior. In this paper we propose indirect techniques for measuring content privacy concerns through surveys, thus hopefully diminishing any emotional response. We present a design for indirect surveys and test the design's use as (1) a means to measure relative privacy concerns across content types, (2) a tool for predicting unwillingness to share content (a possible indicator of privacy concern), and (3) a gauge for two underlying dimensions of privacy - content importance and the willingness to share content. Our evaluation consists of 3 surveys, taken by 200 users each, in which privacy is never asked about directly, but privacy warnings are issued with increasing escalation in the instructions and individual question-wording. We demonstrate that this escalation results in statistically and practically significant differences in responses to individual questions. In addition, we compare results against a direct privacy survey and show that rankings of privacy concerns are increasingly preserved as privacy language increases in the indirect surveys, thus indicating our mapping of the indirect questions to privacy ratings is accurately reflecting privacy concerns.

References

[1]
A. Acquisti, L. John and G. Lowenstein. What is privacy worth? Workshop on Information Systems and Economics (WISE), 2009.
[2]
D. Alwin, J. Krosnick. The Measurement of Values in Surveys: A Comparison of Ratings and Rankings. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Winter, 1985), 535--552.
[3]
J. Barabas and J. Jerit. Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid? American Political Science Review 104 (May): 226--42. 2010.
[4]
Blippy. http://blippy.com/
[5]
T. Buchanan, C. Paine, A. Joinson and U-D. Reips. Development of Measures of Online Privacy Concern and Protection for Use on the Internet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2):157--165, 2007.
[6]
L. Brandimarte, A. Acquisti and G. Lowenstein. Misplaced Confidences: Privacy and the Control Paradox. WEIS 2010.
[7]
T. Buchanan, A. Paine, A. Joinson and U. Reips. Development of Meausures of Online Privacy Concern and Protection for Use on the Internet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2): 157--165, 2007.
[8]
{etc} A frustrated user lashes out at Google after being burned by the launch of Buzz and attendant loss of privacy. ArsTechnica, February 12, 2010.
[9]
M. J. Culnan and G. R. Milne. The culnan-milne survey on consumers and online privacy notices, 2001. http://intra.som.umass.edu/georgemilne/pdffiles/culnan-milne.pdf.
[10]
Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/
[11]
S. Egelman, J. King, R. Miller, N. Ragouzis and E. Shehan. Security User Studies: Methodologies and Best Practices. CHI 2007.
[12]
Facebook + Husband = grrrrrrrr!. Anonymous post at iVillage. http://forums.ivillage.com/t5/Girl-Talk/Facebook-Husband-grrrrrrrr/td-p/116924103 February 23, 2011.
[13]
R. A. Fisher. The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52: 399433. (1918).
[14]
D. Freedman, R. Pisani, R. Purves. Statistics. W. W. Norton and Company, 1997.
[15]
J. Gideon, S. Egelman, L. Cranor and A. Acquisti. Power Strips, Prophylactics and Privacy, Oh My! SOUPS 2006.
[16]
E. Goldman. The Internet Privacy Fallacy. http://eric_goldman.tripodxom/articles/privacyfallacy.htm
[17]
H. Goldstein. Multilevel Statistical Models, Second Edition, London: Edward Arnold. 1995.
[18]
Harris Interactive. Identity Theft: New Survey & Trend Report, August 2003.
[19]
A-W. Harzing. Rating Versus Ranking: What is the Best Way to Reduce Response and Language Bias in Cross-National Research. International Business Review, Volume 18, Number 4, 2009.
[20]
C. L. Hovland. Reconciling Conflicting Results Derived From Experimental and Survey Studies of Attitude Change. American Psychologist, 14: 8--17. 1959.
[21]
L. John, A. Acquisti and G. Lowenstein. Strangers on a place: Context-dependent willingness to divulge personal information. Journal of Consumer Research, 2010.
[22]
A. Joinson, C. Paine, T. Buchanan, and U-D. Reips. Measuring self-disclosure online: Blurring and non-response to sensitive items in web-based surveys. Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 24, Issue 5, September 2008, pp. 2158--2171.
[23]
M. L. Kohn. Reassessment 1977. In Kohn, Class and Conformity: A Study in Values. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[24]
J. Krosnick and D. Alwin. A Test of the Form-Resistant Correlation Hypothesis: Ratings, Rankings and the Measurement of Values. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Winter, 1988), pp. 526--538.
[25]
K. Liu and E. Terzi. A framework for computing the privacy scores of users of online social networks. ICDM 2009.
[26]
Pew Research Center. http://pewresearch.org/
[27]
J. C. Pinheiro and D. M. Bates Springer. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. ISBN 0-387-98957-9, 2000.
[28]
Ponemon Institute. http://www.ponemon.org/news-2/40
[29]
M. Prior. The Immensely Inflated News Audience: Assessing Bias in Self-Reported News Exposure. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73 (1): 130--143. 2009.
[30]
Privacilla.org. Privacy Survey Design is Often Flawed. Available at: http://www.privacilla.org/fundamentals/surveyqs.html
[31]
Privacy Check. http://www.rabidgremlin.com/fbprivacy/
[32]
Privacy Rights. http://www.privacyrights.org/
[33]
M. Rokeach. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press, 1973.
[34]
S. R. Searle, R. Casella, and C. E. McCulloch. Variance Components. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1992.
[35]
S. Spiekermann, J. Grossklags, and B. Berendt. E-Privacy in 2nd Generation E-Commerce: Privacy Preferences versus Actual Behavior. In Proceedings of EC01: Third ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 3847, Tampa, Florida, 2001. http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/jensg/research/eprivacyacm.html.
[36]
E. Shaeffer, J. Krosnick, G. Langer and D. Merkle. Comparing the Quality of content Obtained by Minimally Balanced and Fully Balanced Attitude Questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 3, Fall 2005, pp.417--428.
[37]
T. A. B. Snijders and R. J. Bosker. Multilevel Analysis An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London: Sage. 1999.
[38]
J. Turow. Americans & Online Privacy: The System is Broken. A report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. June 2003.
[39]
United Press International/Zogby. UPI Poll: Concern on health privacy. February 21, 2007. http://patientprivacyrights.org/2007/02/upi-poll-concern-on-health-privacy/

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)The Impact of Data Privacy on Users' Smartphone App Adoption DecisionsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36765258:MHCI(1-23)Online publication date: 24-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Manual, Hybrid, and Automatic Privacy Covers for Smart Home CamerasProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3661569(3453-3470)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • (2024)"I know what you did last semester": Understanding Privacy Expectations and Preferences in the Smart CampusProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642174(1-15)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
SOUPS '11: Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security
July 2011
253 pages
ISBN:9781450309110
DOI:10.1145/2078827
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]

Sponsors

  • Carnegie Mellon CyLab

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 20 July 2011

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. privacy
  2. survey techniques

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

SOUPS '11
Sponsor:
SOUPS '11: Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security
July 20 - 22, 2011
Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 15 of 49 submissions, 31%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)98
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8
Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)The Impact of Data Privacy on Users' Smartphone App Adoption DecisionsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36765258:MHCI(1-23)Online publication date: 24-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Manual, Hybrid, and Automatic Privacy Covers for Smart Home CamerasProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3661569(3453-3470)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • (2024)"I know what you did last semester": Understanding Privacy Expectations and Preferences in the Smart CampusProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642174(1-15)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)Employee Perceptions of Privacy and Data Control in Workplace Wellness e- Health Programs2024 IEEE 48th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC)10.1109/COMPSAC61105.2024.00323(2020-2025)Online publication date: 2-Jul-2024
  • (2024)A measurement model of online privacy cognitions in a sample of U.S. adolescentsBehaviour & Information Technology10.1080/0144929X.2024.230528643:16(4150-4171)Online publication date: 22-Jan-2024
  • (2023)Privacy concerns and social desirability biasInternational Journal of Market Research10.1177/1470785323122281066:4(428-450)Online publication date: 20-Dec-2023
  • (2023)Privacy Scoring over OSNs: Shared Data Granularity as a Latent DimensionACM Transactions on the Web10.1145/360490917:4(1-28)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2023
  • (2023)Robin Hood to the Rescue: Sustainable Revenue‐Allocation Schemes for Data CooperativesProduction and Operations Management10.1111/poms.1399532:8(2560-2577)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2023
  • (2023)On the transparency of the credit reporting system in ChinaHumanities and Social Sciences Communications10.1057/s41599-023-02081-310:1Online publication date: 10-Oct-2023
  • (2023)Privacy Awareness Among Users of Digital Healthcare Services in Saudi ArabiaHCI for Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust10.1007/978-3-031-35822-7_17(247-261)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2023
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media