IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/snbeco/v3y2023i7d10.1007_s43546-023-00501-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How social media are collecting more of users’ data: a behavioral model of platform retention strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Anne Corcos

    (LEFMI and Université de Picardie)

  • Levana Hodara

    (Centre d’Économie de l’ENS Paris-Saclay)

Abstract

While the business models of social media are primarily data-driven (Hartmann in Int J Oper Prod Manag 36:1382, 2016), little research has focused on the strategies that platforms use to collect more and more user data. The contribution of this paper is threefold. First, it shows that time spent on social media is also, and primarily, the result of deliberate retention strategies implemented by platforms. Second, it identifies behavioral tools (Kahneman and Tversky in Econometrica 47, 1979) and develops a model that analyzes how these tools are combined to retain users: they encourage behavioral inertia and increase user enjoyment without requiring much effort. Ultimately, beyond the interest in identifying and characterizing these behavioral retention strategies, understanding how they work is a first step toward regaining control over our choices and behaviors. The article also aims to guide lawmakers in their efforts to protect consumers.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne Corcos & Levana Hodara, 2023. "How social media are collecting more of users’ data: a behavioral model of platform retention strategies," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 3(7), pages 1-18, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:snbeco:v:3:y:2023:i:7:d:10.1007_s43546-023-00501-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s43546-023-00501-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s43546-023-00501-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s43546-023-00501-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Eric Johnson & Suzanne Shu & Benedict Dellaert & Craig Fox & Daniel Goldstein & Gerald Häubl & Richard Larrick & John Payne & Ellen Peters & David Schkade & Brian Wansink & Elke Weber, 2012. "Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 487-504, June.
    3. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    4. Shahbaznezhad, Hamidreza & Dolan, Rebecca & Rashidirad, Mona, 2021. "The Role of Social Media Content Format and Platform in Users' Engagement Behavior," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 47-65.
    5. Shanahan, Tyler & Tran, Trang P. & Taylor, Erik C., 2019. "Getting to know you: Social media personalization as a means of enhancing brand loyalty and perceived quality," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 57-65.
    6. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    8. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    9. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    10. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    11. Richard H. Thaler, 2018. "From Cashews to Nudges: The Evolution of Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(6), pages 1265-1287, June.
    12. Rughinis, Razvan & Rughinis, Cosima & Vulpe, Simona Nicoleta & Rosner, Daniel, 2021. "From social netizens to data citizens: variations of GDPR awareness in 28 European countries," MPRA Paper 109117, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Best, Paul & Manktelow, Roger & Taylor, Brian, 2014. "Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 27-36.
    14. Liu, Zhenyuan & Han, Shuihua & Li, Chao & Gupta, Shivam & Sivarajah, Uthayasankar, 2022. "Leveraging customer engagement to improve the operational efficiency of social commerce start-ups," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 572-582.
    15. Kaplan, Andreas M. & Haenlein, Michael, 2010. "Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 59-68, January.
    16. Cao, Dongmei & Meadows, Maureen & Wong, Donna & Xia, Senmao, 2021. "Understanding consumers’ social media engagement behaviour: An examination of the moderation effect of social media context," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 835-846.
    17. Shawky, Sara & Kubacki, Krzysztof & Dietrich, Timo & Weaven, Scott, 2020. "A dynamic framework for managing customer engagement on social media," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 567-577.
    18. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bowman, David & Minehart, Deborah & Rabin, Matthew, 1999. "Loss aversion in a consumption-savings model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 155-178, February.
    2. Fershtman, Chaim, 1996. "On the value of incumbency managerial reference points and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 245-257, April.
    3. Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Ugarte Ontiveros, Darwin, 2021. "Cognitive bias in insurance: Evidence from a health scheme in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    4. Heribert Gierl & Hans Höser, 2002. "Der Reihenfolgeeffekt auf Präferenzen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 3-18, February.
    5. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    6. Ritika & Nawal Kishor, 2020. "Development and validation of behavioral biases scale: a SEM approach," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 237-259, November.
    7. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    8. Joyita Banerji & Kaushik Kundu & Parveen Ahmed Alam, 2023. "The Impact of Behavioral Biases on Individuals’ Financial Choices under Uncertainty: An Empirical Approach," Business Perspectives and Research, , vol. 11(3), pages 401-424, September.
    9. L. Robin Keller & Yitong Wang, 2017. "Information Presentation in Decision and Risk Analysis: Answered, Partly Answered, and Unanswered Questions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1132-1145, June.
    10. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    11. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    12. Joseph Teal & Petko Kusev & Renata Heilman & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Problem Gambling ‘Fuelled on the Fly’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    13. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    14. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    15. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    16. Bruno S. Frey & Reiner Eichenberger, 1989. "Should Social Scientists Care about Choice Anomalies?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 1(1), pages 101-122, July.
    17. Piccolo, Salvatore & Pignataro, Aldo, 2018. "Consumer loss aversion, product experimentation and tacit collusion," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 49-77.
    18. Zhihua Li & Songfa Zhong, 2023. "Reference Dependence in Intertemporal Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(1), pages 475-490, January.
    19. Roee Teper, 2010. "Probabilistic Dominance and Status Quo Bias," Working Paper 5864, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    20. Eddie Dekel & Barton L. Lipman, 2010. "How (Not) to Do Decision Theory," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 257-282, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:snbeco:v:3:y:2023:i:7:d:10.1007_s43546-023-00501-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.