IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/iwkrep/192018.html

Trust and privacy: How trust affects individuals' willingness to disclose personal information

Author

Listed:
  • Heldman, Christina
  • Enste, Dominik

Abstract

Even though people regularly express concern about sharing personal information online and fear a loss of privacy, their behavior seldom matches their opinions - A phenomenon called Privacy Paradox and researched for over 20 years. Several influencing factors have been identified. A central one of these is trust, which strongly impacts the relationship between general concerns and actual behavior. This study investigates the impact of trust on the decision to disclose sensitive information online and examines the antecedents of that trust, focusing on the disposition to trust using a computerized laboratory experiment. Results indicate that dispositional trust determines the level of trust placed in the recipient of private data, especially when the person is unfamiliar with this recipient. This knowledge can be useful for business and politics in the design of marketing strategies and consumer protection policies. The study furthermore provides valuable insights on the relatedness between trust measures, which are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Heldman, Christina & Enste, Dominik, 2018. "Trust and privacy: How trust affects individuals' willingness to disclose personal information," IW-Reports 19/2018, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) / German Economic Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:iwkrep:192018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/179245/1/1023107090.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gefen, David, 2000. "E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 725-737, December.
    2. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher & Bernhard von Rosenbladt & J�rgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, "undated". "A Nation-Wide Laboratory: Examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative surveys," IEW - Working Papers 141, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    3. Lee, Chung Hun & Cranage, David A., 2011. "Personalisation–privacy paradox: The effects of personalisation and privacy assurance on customer responses to travel Web sites," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 987-994.
    4. Mary J. Culnan & Pamela K. Armstrong, 1999. "Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 104-115, February.
    5. Gachter, Simon & Herrmann, Benedikt & Thoni, Christian, 2004. "Trust, voluntary cooperation, and socio-economic background: survey and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 505-531, December.
    6. Bellemare, Charles & Kroger, Sabine, 2007. "On representative social capital," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 183-202, January.
    7. Niels Michalski & Jürgen Schupp, 2009. "Sozialer Rohstoff: "Den meisten Menschen kann man vertrauen."," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 76(34), pages 570-579.
    8. D. Harrison McKnight & Vivek Choudhury & Charles Kacmar, 2002. "Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 334-359, September.
    9. Enste, Dominik & Grunewald, Mara, 2017. "IW-Vertrauensindex 2017: Vertrauen in Wirtschaft, Politik und Gesellschaft im europäischen Vergleich," IW policy papers 23/2017, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) / German Economic Institute.
    10. Enste, Dominik & Ewers, Mara & Heldman, Christina & Schneider, Regina, 2016. "Verbraucherschutz und Verhaltensökonomik: Zur Psychologie von Vertrauen und Kontrolle," IW-Analysen, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) / German Economic Institute, volume 106, number 106.
    11. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    12. Guiso, Luigi & Sapienza, Paola & Zingales, Luigi, 2003. "People's opium? Religion and economic attitudes," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 225-282, January.
    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. Louis Longin & Deisy Briceno & Oleksandra Poquet, 2025. "Data sharing in learning analytics: how context and group discussion influence the individual willingness to share," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.

    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. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    2. Naef, Michael & Schupp, Jürgen, 2009. "Measuring Trust: Experiments and Surveys in Contrast and Combination," IZA Discussion Papers 4087, IZA Network @ LISER.
    3. Thöni, Christian & Tyran, Jean-Robert & Wengström, Erik, 2012. "Microfoundations of social capital," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(7-8), pages 635-643.
    4. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    5. Lisa R. Anderson & Jennifer M. Mellor & Jeffrey Milyo, 2005. "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Inequality and Relative Deprivation on Trusting Behavior," Working Papers 14, Economics Department, William & Mary.
    6. Martin G. Kocher, 2015. "How Trust in Social Dilemmas Evolves with Age," CESifo Working Paper Series 5447, CESifo.
    7. Sutter, Matthias & Kocher, Martin G., 2007. "Trust and trustworthiness across different age groups," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 364-382, May.
    8. Tamás Kovács & Marc Willinger, 2010. "Is there a relation between trust and trustworthiness?," Working Papers 10-03, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Mar 2010.
    9. Croson, Rachel & Gächter, Simon, 2010. "The science of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 122-131, January.
    10. Simon Gaechter & Benedikt Herrmann & Christian Thoeni, 2010. "Culture and Cooperation," Discussion Papers 2010-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    11. Kocher, Martin G. & Martinsson, Peter & Matzat, Dominik & Wollbrant, Conny, 2015. "The role of beliefs, trust, and risk in contributions to a public good," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 236-244.
    12. Simon Gaechter & Benedikt Herrmann, 2008. "Reciprocity, culture, and human cooperation: Previous insights and a new cross-cultural experiment," Discussion Papers 2008-14, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    13. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2012. "The Intergenerational Transmission of Risk and Trust Attitudes," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(2), pages 645-677.
    14. Alisa Frik & Luigi Mittone, 2016. "Factors Influencing the Perceived Websites' Privacy Trustworthiness and Users' Purchase Intentions," CEEL Working Papers 1609, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    15. Gächter, Simon & Herrmann, Benedikt, 2011. "The limits of self-governance when cooperators get punished: Experimental evidence from urban and rural Russia," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 193-210, February.
    16. Gerald Pruckner & Rupert Sausgruber, 2006. "A natural field experiment on newspaper purchasing," Natural Field Experiments 00320, The Field Experiments Website.
    17. Simon Gaechter & Benedikt Herrmann & Christian Thöni, 2010. "Culture and Cooperation," CESifo Working Paper Series 3070, CESifo.
      • Simon Gaechter & Benedikt Herrmann & Christian Thoeni, 2010. "Culture and Cooperation," Discussion Papers 2010-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
      • Simon Gaechter & Benedikt Herrmann & Christian Thoeni, 2010. "Culture and Cooperation," Discussion Papers 2010-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    18. Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder & Richard H. Thaler, 2012. "Split or Steal? Cooperative Behavior When the Stakes Are Large," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 2-20, January.
    19. Gill, Andrej & Heinz, Matthias & Schumacher, Heiner, 2014. "Trust, trustworthiness and selection into the financial industry," CFS Working Paper Series 458, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    20. Giuseppe Albanese & Guido de Blasio & Paolo Sestito, 2013. "Trust and preferences: evidence from survey data," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 911, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:zbw:iwkrep:192018. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iwkolde.html .

    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.