IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2603.08848.html

The Data-Dollars Tradeoff: Privacy Harms vs. Economic Risk in Personalized AI Adoption

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Erlei
  • Tahir Abbas
  • Kilian Bizer
  • Ujwal Gadiraju

Abstract

Privacy concerns significantly impact AI adoption, yet little is known about how information environments shape user responses to data leak threats. We conducted a 2 x 3 between-subjects experiment (N=610) examining how risk versus ambiguity about privacy leaks affects the adoption of AI personalization. Participants chose between standard and AI-personalized product baskets, with personalization requiring data sharing that could leak to pricing algorithms. Under risk (30% leak probability), we found no difference in AI adoption between privacy-threatening and neutral conditions (ca. 50% adoption). Under ambiguity (10-50% range), privacy threats significantly reduced adoption compared to neutral conditions. This effect holds for sensitive demographic data as well as anonymized preference data. Users systematically over-bid for privacy disclosure labels, suggesting strong demand for transparency institutions. Notably, privacy leak threats did not affect subsequent bargaining behavior with algorithms. Our findings indicate that ambiguity over data leaks, rather than only privacy preferences per se, drives avoidance behavior among users towards personalized AI.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Erlei & Tahir Abbas & Kilian Bizer & Ujwal Gadiraju, 2026. "The Data-Dollars Tradeoff: Privacy Harms vs. Economic Risk in Personalized AI Adoption," Papers 2603.08848, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2603.08848
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.08848
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ting Li & Till Unger, 2012. "Willing to pay for quality personalization? Trade-off between quality and privacy," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 621-642, November.
    2. Baillon, Aurélien & Koellinger, Philipp D. & Treffers, Theresa, 2016. "Sadder but wiser: The effects of emotional states on ambiguity attitudes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 67-82.
    3. Clavorà Braulin, Francesco, 2023. "The effects of personal information on competition: Consumer privacy and partial price discrimination," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    4. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Maribeth Coller & Melonie Williams, 1999. "Eliciting Individual Discount Rates," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(2), pages 107-127, December.
    7. Cosmin L. Ilut & Martin Schneider, 2022. "Modeling Uncertainty as Ambiguity: a Review," NBER Working Papers 29915, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Barham, Bradford L. & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Fitz, Dylan & Salas, Vanessa Ríos & Schechter, Laura, 2014. "The roles of risk and ambiguity in technology adoption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 204-218.
    9. S Nageeb Ali & Greg Lewis & Shoshana Vasserman, 2023. "Voluntary Disclosure and Personalized Pricing," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(2), pages 538-571.
    10. Avi Goldfarb & Catherine Tucker, 2012. "Shifts in Privacy Concerns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(3), pages 349-353, May.
    11. Janice Y. Tsai & Serge Egelman & Lorrie Cranor & Alessandro Acquisti, 2011. "The Effect of Online Privacy Information on Purchasing Behavior: An Experimental Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 254-268, June.
    12. Kanin Anantanasuwong & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia S. Mitchell & Kim Peijnenburg, 2024. "Ambiguity attitudes for real-world sources: field evidence from a large sample of investors," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(3), pages 548-581, July.
    13. Jean-Pierre Dubé & Sanjog Misra, 2023. "Personalized Pricing and Consumer Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(1), pages 131-189.
    14. Stephen G. Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Ambiguity Attitudes in a Large Representative Sample," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1363-1380, May.
    15. Leslie K. John & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2011. "Strangers on a Plane: Context-Dependent Willingness to Divulge Sensitive Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(5), pages 858-873.
    16. Zhang, Yu, 2022. "Subjective beliefs and ambiguity aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    17. Avi Goldfarb & Catherine E. Tucker, 2011. "Privacy Regulation and Online Advertising," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 57-71, January.
    18. Andreoni, James & Kuhn, Michael A. & Sprenger, Charles, 2015. "Measuring time preferences: A comparison of experimental methods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 451-464.
    19. Beresford, Alastair R. & Kübler, Dorothea & Preibusch, Sören, 2012. "Unwillingness to pay for privacy: A field experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 25-27.
    20. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    21. Mark J. Machina, 2014. "Ambiguity Aversion with Three or More Outcomes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(12), pages 3814-3840, December.
    22. Peter Seele & Claus Dierksmeier & Reto Hofstetter & Mario D. Schultz, 2021. "Mapping the Ethicality of Algorithmic Pricing: A Review of Dynamic and Personalized Pricing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(4), pages 697-719, May.
    23. Cohen, Michele & Jaffray, Jean-Yves & Said, Tanios, 1987. "Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-22, February.
    24. Tamara Dinev & Paul Hart, 2006. "An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 61-80, March.
    25. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
    26. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1995. "Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 585-603.
    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. 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.
    2. Gianna Lotito & Anna Maffioletti & Michele Santoni, 2024. "Testing source influence on ambiguity reaction: Preference and insensitivity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 349-411, December.
    3. Marreiros, Helia & Tonin, Mirco & Vlassopoulos, Michael & Schraefel, M.C., 2017. "“Now that you mention it”: A survey experiment on information, inattention and online privacy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-17.
    4. Bó, Inácio & Chen, Li & Hakimov, Rustamdjan, 2024. "Strategic responses to personalized pricing and demand for privacy: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 487-516.
    5. Li, Jiangyan & Fairley, Kim & Fenneman, Achiel, 2024. "Does it matter how we produce ambiguity in experiments?," MPRA Paper 122336, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Ahsanuzzaman, & Priyo, Asad Karim Khan & Nuzhat, Kanti Ananta, 2022. "Effects of communication, group selection, and social learning on risk and ambiguity attitudes: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    7. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    8. Jindrich Matousek & Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova, 2022. "Individual discount rates: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 318-358, February.
    9. Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Ponti, Giovanni, 2017. "Social motives vs social influence: An experiment on interdependent time preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 177-194.
    10. Stephen L. Cheung, 2020. "Eliciting utility curvature in time preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 493-525, June.
    11. Fast, Victoria & Sachs, Nikolai & Schnurr, Daniel, 2021. "Privacy Decision-Making in Digital Markets: Eliciting Individuals' Preferences for Transparency," 23rd ITS Biennial Conference, Online Conference / Gothenburg 2021. Digital societies and industrial transformations: Policies, markets, and technologies in a post-Covid world 238020, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    12. Anna Maffioletti & Michele Santoni, 2019. "Emotion and Knowledge in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-28, September.
    13. Biener, Christian & Eling, Martin & Lehmann, Martin, 2020. "Balancing the desire for privacy against the desire to hedge risk," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 608-620.
    14. Bleier, Alexander & Goldfarb, Avi & Tucker, Catherine, 2020. "Consumer privacy and the future of data-based innovation and marketing," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 466-480.
    15. Alexander L. Brown & Hwagyun Kim, 2014. "Do Individuals Have Preferences Used in Macro-Finance Models? An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 939-958, April.
    16. Elisa Cavatorta & David Schröder, 2019. "Measuring ambiguity preferences: A new ambiguity preference survey module," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 71-100, February.
    17. Hanjin Li & Danny Campbell & Seda Erdem, 2022. "Measuring Time Preferences Using Stated Credit Repayment Choices," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 20(1), pages 43-67, March.
    18. Morlok, Tina & Matt, Christian & Hess, Thomas, 2017. "Privatheitsforschung in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften: Entwicklung, Stand und Perspektiven," Working Papers 1/2017, University of Munich, Munich School of Management, Institute for Information Systems and New Media.
    19. Cheung, Stephen L., 2016. "Recent developments in the experimental elicitation of time preference," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 1-8.
    20. Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Measuring time preferences: Comparing methods and evaluating the magnitude effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 16-26.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2603.08848. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.