IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v13y2023i3p21582440231184422.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Those With Privacy Concerns Show Stronger In-Group Favoritism: Using Personal Information From In-Group and Out-Group Members to Identify Terrorist Threats

Author

Listed:
  • Torsten Reimer
  • Nathanael Johnson

Abstract

Terrorist threats and attacks provide major risks and sources of public crises in the 21st century. New probabilistic computing technologies possess the capability of increasing the success of identifying terrorist threats and solving cybersecurity and encryption problems more efficiently. However, to identify terrorist threats, these technologies would require the use of a large amount of personal data, which cause potential concerns for privacy. We offer a social-identity explanation of public support for the detection of terrorist threats through the use of online personal data. A survey study ( N  = 1,204) revealed strong support for the provided social-identity explanation of public perceptions. As expected, respondents displayed in-group favoritism by more strongly supporting the use of private personal information from out-group members (non-U.S. citizens) than from in-group members (U.S. citizens). The observed in-group favoritism was most pronounced when respondents had both a strong national identity and a strong sense of general privacy concern. The observed differences were independent of respondents’ political orientation and age.

Suggested Citation

  • Torsten Reimer & Nathanael Johnson, 2023. "When Those With Privacy Concerns Show Stronger In-Group Favoritism: Using Personal Information From In-Group and Out-Group Members to Identify Terrorist Threats," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:3:p:21582440231184422
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440231184422
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440231184422
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440231184422?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leonie Huddy & Nadia Khatib, 2007. "American Patriotism, National Identity, and Political Involvement," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 63-77, January.
    2. Katya Drozdova & Michael Samoilov, 2010. "Predictive analysis of concealed social network activities based on communication technology choices: early-warning detection of attack signals from terrorist organizations," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 61-88, March.
    3. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    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. Gobena, Lemessa Bayissa & Van Dijke, Marius, 2017. "Fear and caring: Procedural justice, trust, and collective identification as antecedents of voluntary tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1-16.
    2. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    3. Michele Cantarella & Chiara Strozzi, 2021. "Workers in the crowd: the labor market impact of the online platform economy [An evaluation of instrumental variable strategies for estimating the effects of catholic schooling]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(6), pages 1429-1458.
    4. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    5. Park, JungKun & Ahn, Jiseon & Thavisay, Toulany & Ren, Tianbao, 2019. "Examining the role of anxiety and social influence in multi-benefits of mobile payment service," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 140-149.
    6. Akinwumi Sharimakin & Rasheed O. Alao & Oluseyi Omosuyi, 2024. "Foreign remittances, deprivation and patriotism," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 753-780, February.
    7. Chunhao Wei & Han Chen & Yee Ming Lee, 2022. "COVID-19 preventive measures and restaurant customers’ intention to dine out: the role of brand trust and perceived risk," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 16(3), pages 581-600, September.
    8. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.
    9. Abel Brodeur, Nikolai M. Cook, Anthony Heyes, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," LCERPA Working Papers am0133, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis.
    10. Lude, Maximilian & Prügl, Reinhard, 2021. "Experimental studies in family business research," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 12(1).
    11. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    12. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    13. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    14. Jun Zhang & Joon Soo Lim, 2021. "Mitigating negative spillover effects in a product-harm crisis: strategies for market leaders versus market challengers," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(1), pages 77-98, January.
    15. Haas, Nicholas & Hassan, Mazen & Mansour, Sarah & Morton, Rebecca B., 2021. "Polarizing information and support for reform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 883-901.
    16. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. O. Ashton Morgan & John C. Whitehead, 2018. "Willingness to Pay for Soccer Player Development in the United States," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 19(2), pages 279-296, February.
    18. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    19. Atalay, Kadir & Bakhtiar, Fayzan & Cheung, Stephen & Slonim, Robert, 2014. "Savings and prize-linked savings accounts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 86-106.
    20. Xiaowen Zhang & Yuxin Tang, 2024. "Digital diplomacy and domestic audience: how official discourse shapes nationalist sentiments in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.

    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:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:3:p:21582440231184422. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.