IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/apeclt/v28y2021i8p625-629.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Survey response bias and the ‘privacy paradox’: evidence from a discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Garrett Glasgow
  • Sarah Butler
  • Samantha Iyengar

Abstract

The discrepancy between the stated and revealed value of personal information is frequently referred to as the ‘privacy paradox.’ We test for evidence that survey response bias contributes to the privacy paradox through a discrete choice survey experiment based on hypothetical ride-hailing services, some of which track the rider’s location and share it with third parties. The value that respondents place on their personal location data is measured by the willingness to pay higher prices to avoid rides with location sharing. Our survey experiment compares a within-subjects design in which location sharing was presented as an attribute of the hypothetical rides within each choice scenario to a between-subjects design in which location sharing was not presented as an attribute – instead, the location-sharing practices of the hypothetical firms were presented to a treatment group before the respondents made their choices. On average, survey respondents placed a positive value on their personal location data under both survey designs. The difference in value between the survey designs was statistically insignificant, indicating there is no evidence that the within-subjects design led to the type of survey response bias that might contribute to the privacy paradox.

Suggested Citation

  • Garrett Glasgow & Sarah Butler & Samantha Iyengar, 2021. "Survey response bias and the ‘privacy paradox’: evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(8), pages 625-629, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:apeclt:v:28:y:2021:i:8:p:625-629
    DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2020.1770183
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13504851.2020.1770183
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13504851.2020.1770183?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.

    More about this item

    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:taf:apeclt:v:28:y:2021:i:8:p:625-629. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEL20 .

    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.