IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/elmark/v31y2021i2d10.1007_s12525-020-00447-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

User preferences for privacy features in digital assistants

Author

Listed:
  • Frank Ebbers

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI)

  • Jan Zibuschka

    (Robert Bosch GmbH)

  • Christian Zimmermann

    (Robert Bosch GmbH)

  • Oliver Hinz

    (Goethe University Frankfurt)

Abstract

Digital assistants (DA) perform routine tasks for users by interacting with the Internet of Things (IoT) devices and digital services. To do so, such assistants rely heavily on personal data, e.g. to provide personalized responses. This leads to privacy concerns for users and makes privacy features an important component of digital assistants. This study examines user preferences for three attributes of the design of privacy features in digital assistants, namely (1) the amount of information on personal data that is shown to the user, (2) explainability of the DA’s decision, and (3) the degree of gamification of the user interface (UI). In addition, it estimates users’ willingness to pay (WTP) for different versions of privacy features. The results for the full sample show that users prefer to understand the rationale behind the DA’s decisions based on the personal information involved, while being given information about the potential impacts of disclosing specific data. Further, the results indicate that users prefer to interact with the DA’s privacy features in a serious game. For this product, users are willing to pay €21.39 per month. In general, a playful design of privacy features is strongly preferred, as users are willing to pay 23.8% more compared to an option without any gamified elements. A detailed analysis identifies two customer clusters “Best Agers” and “DA Advocates”, which differ mainly in their average age and willingness to pay. Further, “DA Advocates” are mainly male and more privacy sensitive, whereas “Best Agers” show a higher affinity for a playful design of privacy features.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank Ebbers & Jan Zibuschka & Christian Zimmermann & Oliver Hinz, 2021. "User preferences for privacy features in digital assistants," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(2), pages 411-426, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:elmark:v:31:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s12525-020-00447-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s12525-020-00447-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12525-020-00447-y
    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/s12525-020-00447-y?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. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    2. Rossnagel, Heiko & Zibuschka, Jan & Muntermann, Jan & Hinz, Oliver, 2014. "Users' Willingness-to-Pay for Web Identity Management," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 69936, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    3. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    4. Sebastian Derikx & Mark de Reuver & Maarten Kroesen, 2016. "Can privacy concerns for insurance of connected cars be compensated?," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 26(1), pages 73-81, February.
    5. Karniouchina, Ekaterina V. & Moore, William L. & van der Rhee, Bo & Verma, Rohit, 2009. "Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 340-348, August.
    6. Robert E. Crossler & France Bélanger, 2019. "Why Would I Use Location-Protective Settings on My Smartphone? Motivating Protective Behaviors and the Existence of the Privacy Knowledge–Belief Gap," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 995-1006, September.
    7. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E M & Gielens, Katrijn, 2003. "Consumer and Market Drivers of the Trial Probability of New Consumer Packaged Goods," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(3), pages 368-384, December.
    8. Kai Huotari & Juho Hamari, 2017. "A definition for gamification: anchoring gamification in the service marketing literature," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(1), pages 21-31, February.
    9. Zibuschka, Jan & Nofer, Michael & Hinz, Oliver, 2016. "Zahlungsbereitschaft für Datenschutzfunktionen intelligenter Assistenten," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 84849, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    10. Alessandro Acquisti & Curtis Taylor & Liad Wagman, 2016. "The Economics of Privacy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(2), pages 442-492, June.
    11. Alexander Maedche & Christine Legner & Alexander Benlian & Benedikt Berger & Henner Gimpel & Thomas Hess & Oliver Hinz & Stefan Morana & Matthias Söllner, 2019. "AI-Based Digital Assistants," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 61(4), pages 535-544, August.
    12. Moorthy, Sridhar & Ratchford, Brian T & Talukdar, Debabrata, 1997. "Consumer Information Search Revisited: Theory and Empirical Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 23(4), pages 263-277, March.
    13. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    14. Ole Jann & Christoph Schottmüller, 2020. "An Informational Theory of Privacy," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(625), pages 93-124.
    15. A. Cristina Mihale-Wilson & Jan Zibuschka & Oliver Hinz, 2019. "User preferences and willingness to pay for in-vehicle assistance," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(1), pages 37-53, March.
    16. Avi Goldfarb & Catherine Tucker, 2012. "Shifts in Privacy Concerns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(3), pages 349-353, May.
    17. Alessandro Acquisti & Leslie K. John & George Loewenstein, 2013. "What Is Privacy Worth?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(2), pages 249-274.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Annette Wenninger & Daniel Rau & Maximilian Röglinger, 2022. "Improving customer satisfaction in proactive service design," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1399-1418, September.
    2. Valerie Graf-Drasch & Maximilian Röglinger & Annette Wenninger & Sabiölla Hosseini, 2022. "A Contextualized Acceptance Model for Proactive Smart Services," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 345-387, September.
    3. Katharina Baum & Olga Abramova & Stefan Meißner & Hanna Krasnova, 2023. "The effects of targeted political advertising on user privacy concerns and digital product acceptance: A preference-based approach," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-17, December.
    4. Rainer Alt, 2021. "Electronic Markets on digital platforms and AI," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(2), pages 233-241, June.
    5. Kim, Doha & Song, Yeosol & Kim, Songyie & Lee, Sewang & Wu, Yanqin & Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Daeho, 2023. "How should the results of artificial intelligence be explained to users? - Research on consumer preferences in user-centered explainable artificial intelligence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).

    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. Long Chen & Yadong Huang & Shumiao Ouyang & Wei Xiong, 2021. "The Data Privacy Paradox and Digital Demand," Working Papers 2021-47, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    2. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    3. Cloos, Janis & Mohr, Svenja, 2022. "Acceptance of data sharing in smartphone apps from key industries of the digital transformation: A representative population survey for Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Jeffrey T. Prince & Scott Wallsten, 2022. "How much is privacy worth around the world and across platforms?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 841-861, November.
    5. Helia Marreiros & Mirco Tonin & Michael Vlassopoulos & M.C. Schraefel, 2016. "“Now that you mention it”: A Survey Experiment on Information, Salience and Online Privacy," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS34, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
    6. Michael Kummer & Patrick Schulte, 2019. "When Private Information Settles the Bill: Money and Privacy in Google’s Market for Smartphone Applications," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3470-3494, August.
    7. Michiel Bijlsma & Carin van der Cruijsen & Nicole Jonker, 2021. "Not all data are created equal - Data sharing and privacy," Working Papers 728, DNB.
    8. Garrett A. Johnson & Scott K. Shriver & Shaoyin Du, 2020. "Consumer Privacy Choice in Online Advertising: Who Opts Out and at What Cost to Industry?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 33-51, January.
    9. Heng Xu & Nan Zhang, 2022. "From Contextualizing to Context Theorizing: Assessing Context Effects in Privacy Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(10), pages 7383-7401, October.
    10. P. A. Ferrari & S. Salini, 2008. "Measuring Service Quality: The Opinion of Europeans about Utilities," Working Papers 2008.36, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    11. Dengler, Sebastian & Prüfer, Jens, 2021. "Consumers' privacy choices in the era of big data," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 499-520.
    12. Daron Acemoglu & Ali Makhdoumi & Azarakhsh Malekian & Asu Ozdaglar, 2022. "Too Much Data: Prices and Inefficiencies in Data Markets," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 218-256, November.
    13. Mert Demirer & Diego Jimenez-Hernandez & Dean Li & Sida Peng, 2024. "Data, Privacy Laws and Firm Production: Evidence from the GDPR," Working Paper Series WP 2024-02, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
    14. Caleb S. Fuller, 2019. "Is the market for digital privacy a failure?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 180(3), pages 353-381, September.
    15. Cecere, Grazia & Le Guel, Fabrice & Soulié, Nicolas, 2012. "Perceived Internet privacy concerns on social network in Europe," MPRA Paper 41437, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Clavorà Braulin, Francesco, 2021. "The effects of personal information on competition: Consumer privacy and partial price discrimination," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-007, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    17. Ratul Das Chaudhury & Chongwoo Choe, 2023. "Digital Privacy: GDPR and Its Lessons for Australia," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 56(2), pages 204-220, June.
    18. Scholz, Michael & Pfeiffer, Jella & Rothlauf, Franz, 2017. "Using PageRank for non-personalized default rankings in dynamic markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 388-401.
    19. Cloarec, Julien, 2020. "The personalization–privacy paradox in the attention economy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    20. Tat Chan & Naser Hamdi & Xiang Hui & Zhenling Jiang, 2022. "The Value of Verified Employment Data for Consumer Lending: Evidence from Equifax," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(4), pages 795-814, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Information privacy; Digital assistant; Intelligent personal assistant; Choice-based conjoint analysis; Privacy preferences; Internet of things;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:elmark:v:31:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s12525-020-00447-y. 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.