Experimentally Elicited Beliefs Explain Privacy Behavior
AbstractThe privacy literature has recognized a dichotomy between reported values of privacy and actual behavior. People tend to say they value privacy highly, and then behave in ways which seem to contradict these statements. In this experiment, the consequences of privacy loss were controlled using a voluntary contributions mechanism that isolated personal information from the natural world. Elicited values were higher than what has typically been observed in the literature. The evidence does not support a “privacy paradox.” Subjective expected utility maximization explains the dichotomy. Trust and asymmetric beliefs are substantial determinants of (information) values.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Central Florida, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 2010-09.
Length: 33 Pages
Date of creation: Sep 2010
Date of revision: Feb 2011
elicitation; expected utility; privacy; privacy paradox; subjective beliefs;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- M59 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - Personnel Economics - - - Other
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Hoffman Elizabeth & McCabe Kevin & Shachat Keith & Smith Vernon, 1994. "Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 346-380, November.
- Isaac, R Mark & Walker, James M, 1988.
"Group Size Effects in Public Goods Provision: The Voluntary Contributions Mechanism,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 103(1), pages 179-99, February.
- R. M. Isaac & J. M. Walker, 2010. "Group size effects in public goods provision: The voluntary contribution mechanism," Levine's Working Paper Archive 310, David K. Levine.
- Hey, John D & Orme, Chris, 1994. "Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1291-1326, November.
- Wilcox, Nathaniel T., 2011.
"'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk,"
Journal of Econometrics,
Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 89-104, May.
- Wilcox, Nathaniel, 2007. "Stochastically more risk averse: A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk," MPRA Paper 11851, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Isaac, R. Mark & McCue, Kenneth F. & Plott, Charles R., .
"Public Goods Provision in an Experimental Environment,"
428, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Mark Isaac, R. & McCue, Kenneth F. & Plott, Charles R., 1985. "Public goods provision in an experimental environment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 51-74, February.
- Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
- Heath, Chip & Tversky, Amos, 1991. " Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-28, January.
- Yan Chen & Sherry Xin Li, 2009. "Group Identity and Social Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 431-57, March.
- Helen Bernhard & Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2006. "Group Affiliation and Altruistic Norm Enforcement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 217-221, May.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (John Paul).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.