Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Willingness to grant access to personal information among augmented reality mobile app users

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main aim of this research is to gain understanding of the motives and factors that influence users’ willingness to share personal information, particularly in the realm of augmented reality (AR) apps. Within this context, we also examined the hot–cold empathy gap, i.e., the difference between how people estimate their reactions if faced with a particular situation (cold) to how they act when they are in such a situation (hot). Four experiments were executed to examine the research questions. The Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) crowdsourcing platform was used to recruit participants from all around the world. An experimental method was used to address a number of research questions. In order to avoid a carry-over effect, a different group of participants was recruited for each question researched. The research focused on participants over the age of 18, from different countries with various backgrounds. The various experiments mimic real life scenarios. Findings show that AR app users are willing to grant access to certain types of information but are prone to refuse access to highly invasive personal information. The order of requests presented to users to grant access to their personal information is significant. In addition, we found a correlation between the time gaps between access requests and the willingness of users to grant access. Finally, we found that users underestimate their own willingness to share their private information when they are asked a hypothetical question about it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abas ZA, Rahman AFNA, Pramudya G, Wee SY, Kasmin F, Yusof N, Yunos NM, Abidin ZZ (2020) Analytics: a review of current trends, future application and challenges. Compusoft 9(1):3560–3565 (ProQuest Central)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brandtzaeg PB, Pultier A, Moen GM (2019) Losing control to data-hungry apps: a mixed-methods approach to mobile app privacy. Soc Sci Comput Rev 37(4):466–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318777706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Balebako R, Jung J, Lu W, Cranor LF, and Nguyen C (2013) “Little brothers watching you”: raising awareness of data leaks on smartphones. Proc Ninth Symp Usable Privacy Sec 1–11 https://doi.org/10.1145/2501604.2501616

  4. Liu R, Cao J, Yang L (2015) Smartphone privacy in mobile computing: issues, methods and systems. Inform Media Technol 10(2):281–293. https://doi.org/10.11185/imt.10.281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Quermann N, Degeling M (2020) Data sharing in mobile apps—user privacy expectations in Europe. IEEE Europ Symp Sec Privacy Workshops (EuroS PW) 2020:107–119. https://doi.org/10.1109/EuroSPW51379.2020.00024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Waldman AE (2020) Cognitive biases, dark patterns, and the ‘privacy paradox.’ Curr Opin Psychol 31:105–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shklovski I, Mainwaring SD, Skúladóttir HH, and Borgthorsson H (2014) Leakiness and creepiness in app space: perceptions of privacy and mobile app use. Proc SIGCHI Conf Human Factors Comput Syst 2347–2356. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557421

  8. Degirmenci K (2020) Mobile users’ information privacy concerns and the role of app permission requests. Int J Inf Manage 50:261–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kununka S, Mehandjiev N, and Sampaio P (2017) A Comparative Study of Android and iOS Mobile Applications’ Data Handling Practices Versus Compliance to Privacy Policy. IFIP Int Summer School Privacy Identity Manag 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92925-5_20

  10. Wang T, Duong TD, Chen CC (2016) Intention to disclose personal information via mobile applications: A privacy calculus perspective. Int J Inf Manage 36(4):531–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Furini M, Mirri S, Montangero M, Prandi C (2020) Privacy Perception when Using Smartphone Applications. Mobile Net App 25(3):1055–1061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-020-01529-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mendigochea P (2017) WebAR: Creating augmented reality experiences on smart glasses and mobile device browsers. ACM SIGGRAPH 2017 Studio 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/3084863.3107580

  13. De Guzman JA, Thilakarathna K, Seneviratne A (2019) Security and privacy approaches in mixed reality: a literature survey. ACM Comput Surv 52(6):110:1-110:37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cao W, Xia C, Peddinti ST, Lie D, Taft N, Austin LM (2021) A large scale study of user behavior, expectations and engagement with android permissions. In: 30th USENIX Sec Symp (USENIX Security 21), pp 803–820. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity21/presentation/cao-weicheng. Accessed 15 Feb 2022

  15. Harbach M, Hettig M, Weber S, and Smith M (2014) Using personal examples to improve risk communication for security & privacy decisions. Proc SIGCHI Conf Human Factors Comput Syst 2647–2656. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2556978

  16. Felt AP, Greenwood K, and Wagner D (2011) The effectiveness of application permissions. Proc 2nd USENIX Conf Web App Dev 7–7

  17. Felt AP, Ha E, Egelman S, Haney A, Chin E, and Wagner D (2012) Android permissions: user attention, comprehension, and behavior. Proc Eighth Symp Usable Privacy Security 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/2335356.2335360

  18. Loewenstein G (2005) Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision making. Health Psychol 24(4, Suppl):S49–S56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Grant MJ, Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 26(2):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lin J, Liu B, Sadeh N, Hong JI (2014) Modeling users’ mobile app privacy preferences: restoring usability in a sea of permission settings. In: 10th Symp Usable Privacy Security (SOUPS 2014), pp 199–212. https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2014/proceedings/presentation/lin. Accessed 15 Feb 2022

  21. Kelley PG, Cranor LF, and Sadeh N (2013) Privacy as part of the app decision-making process. Proc SIGCHI Conf Human Factors ComputSyst 3393–3402. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466466

  22. Mysore Sathyendra K, Wilson S, Schaub F, Zimmeck S, and Sadeh N (2017) Identifying the provision of choices in privacy policy text. Proc 2017 Conf Empirical Methods Nat Language Process 2774–2779. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D17-1294

  23. Choe EK, Jung J, Lee B, Fisher K (2013) Nudging people away from privacy-invasive mobile apps through visual framing. In: Kotzé P, Marsden G, Lindgaard G, Wesson J, Winckler M (eds) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2013. Springer, pp 74–91

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Gates CS, Chen J, Li N, Proctor RW (2014) Effective risk communication for android apps. IEEE Trans Dependable Secure Comput 11(3):252–265. https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2013.58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Liu B, Andersen MS, Schaub F, Almuhimedi H, Zhang S (Aerin) Sadeh N, Agarwal Y, and Acquisti A (2016) Follow my recommendations: a personalized privacy assistant for mobile app permissions. 27–41. https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2016/technical-sessions/presentation/liu

  26. Greene D, Shilton K (2017) Platform privacies: governance, collaboration, and the different meanings of “privacy” in iOS and Android development. New Media Soc 20:1640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dai W, Qiu M, Qiu L, Chen L, Wu A (2017) Who moved my data? Privacy protection in smartphones. IEEE Commun Mag 55(1):20–25. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2017.1600349CM

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Benenson Z, Gassmann F, and Reinfelder L (2013) Android and iOS users’ differences concerning security and privacy. CHI ’13 Ext Abs Human Fact Comput Syst 817–822. https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468502

  29. Tufekci Z (2007) Can You See Me Now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bull Sci, Technol Soc 28:36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467607311484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fogel J, Nehmad E (2009) Internet social network communities: risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns. Comput Hum Behav 25(1):153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hoy MG, Milne G (2010) Gender differences in privacy-related measures for young adult Facebook users. J Interact Advert 10(2):28–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2010.10722168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Weinberger M, Zhitomirsky-Geffet M, Bouhnik D (2017) Factors affecting users’ online privacy literacy among students in Israel. Online Inf Rev 41(5):655–671. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2016-0127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355

  34. Olsson T, and Salo M (2011) Online user survey on current mobile augmented reality applications. 2011 10th IEEE Int Symp Mixed Augmented Reality 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2011.6092372

  35. Muñoz-Saavedra L, Miró-Amarante L, Domínguez-Morales M (2020) Augmented and virtual reality evolution and future tendency. Appl Sci 10(1):322. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research (2016) Virtual and augmented reality: understanding the race for the next computing platform. Goldman Sachs. https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/technology-driving-innovation-folder/virtual-and-augmented-reality/report.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2022

  37. Augmented Reality Total Market Value Will Surpass US$140 Billion in 2025 (2021). ABI Research. https://www.abiresearch.com/press/augmented-reality-total-market-value-will-surpass-us140-billion-2025/. Accessed 15 Feb 2022

  38. Mohring M, Lessig C, and Bimber O (2004) Video see-through AR on consumer cell-phones. Third IEEE ACM Int Symp Mixed Augmented Reality 252–253. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2004.63

  39. Harborth D, Pape S (2021) Investigating privacy concerns related to mobile augmented reality apps – a vignette based online experiment. Comput Hum Behav 122:106833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Dacko SG (2017) Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping apps. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 124:243–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Harborth D (2019) Unfolding concerns about augmented reality technologies: a qualitative analysis of user perceptions. In: Ludwig T, Pipek V (eds) Human practice. Digital ecologies. Our future. 14. Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI 2019), February 24–27, 2019, Siegen, Germany. University of Siegen/AISeL, pp 1262–1276. https://aisel.aisnet.org/wi2019/track11/papers/1. Accessed 15 Feb 2022

  42. Harborth D, and Pape S (2018) Privacy concerns and behavior of Pokémon Go players in Germany. In Hansen M, Kosta E, Nai-Fovino I, and Fischer-Hübner S (Eds.), Privacy and Identity Management. The Smart Revolution 526:314–329). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92925-5_21

  43. Roesner F, Kohno T, Molnar D (2014) Security and privacy for augmented reality systems. Commun ACM 57(4):88–96. https://doi.org/10.1145/2580723.2580730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Harborth D, Pape S (2017) Exploring the hype: investigating technology acceptance factors of Pokémon Go. IEEE Int Symp Mixed Augment Reality (ISMAR) 2017:155–168. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2017.32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Braghin C, and Del Vecchio M (2017) Is Pokémon GO watching you? A survey on the privacy-awareness of location-based apps’ users. 2017 IEEE 41st Ann Comput Soft App Conf (COMPSAC) 2:164–169. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2017.158

  46. Minchev Z, and Boyanov L (2016). Augmented reality and cyber challenges exploration. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2940.1209

  47. Lebeck K, Ruth K, Kohno T, Roesner F (2018) Arya: operating system support for securely augmenting reality. IEEE Security Privacy 16(1):44–53. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2018.1331020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lebeck K, Kohno T, and Roesner F (2016). How to safely augment reality: challenges and directions. Proc 17th Int Workshop Mobile Comput Syst App 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/2873587.2873595

  49. Thompson C, and Wagner D (2016) Securing recognizers for rich video applications. Proc 6th Workshop Security Privacy Smartphones Mobile Devices 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2994459.2994461

  50. Jana S, Narayanan A, Shmatikov V (2013) A scanner darkly: protecting user privacy from perceptual applications. IEEE Symp Security Privacy 2013:349–363. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2013.31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lehman SM, and Tan CC (2017) PrivacyManager: an access control framework for mobile augmented reality applications. 2017 IEEE Conf Commun Network Security (CNS) 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/CNS.2017.8228630

  52. Consolvo S, Smith IE, Matthews T, LaMarca A, Tabert J, and Powledge P (2005) Location disclosure to social relations: why, when, & what people want to share. Proc SIGCHI Conf Human Fact Comput Syst 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1054985

  53. Shteingart H, Neiman T, Loewenstein Y (2013) The role of first impression in operant learning. J Exp Psychol Gen 142(2):476–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hajaj C, Hazon N, Sarne D (2017) Enhancing comparison shopping agents through ordering and gradual information disclosure. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 31(3):696–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-016-9342-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Jacoby, J., Kohn, C. A., & Speller, D. E. (1973). Time spent acquiring product information as a function of information load and organization. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 817–818. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1973-30128-001.

  56. Howe J (2006) The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired 14(6). https://www.wired.com/2006/06/crowds/. Accessed 15 Feb 2022

  57. Crump MJC, McDonnell JV, Gureckis TM (2013) Evaluating Amazon’s mechanical turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS ONE 8(3):e57410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Difallah D, Filatova E, and Ipeirotis P (2018) Demographics and dynamics of mechanical turk workers. Proc Eleventh ACM Int Conf Web Search Data Mining 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159652.3159661

  59. Staiano J, Oliver N, Lepri B, de Oliveira R, Caraviello M, and Sebe N (2014) Money walks: a human-centric study on the economics of Personal mobile data. Proc 2014 ACM Int Joint Conf Perv Ubiquitous Comput 583–594. https://doi.org/10.1145/2632048.2632074

  60. Pfeil U, Arjan R, Zaphiris P (2009) Age differences in online social networking – a study of user profiles and the social capital divide among teenagers and older users in MySpace. Comput Hum Behav 25(3):643–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Information Science Department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

    Gilad Taub, Avshalom Elmalech & Noa Aharony

Authors
  1. Gilad Taub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Avshalom Elmalech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Noa Aharony
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gilad Taub.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taub, G., Elmalech, A. & Aharony, N. Willingness to grant access to personal information among augmented reality mobile app users. Pers Ubiquit Comput 27, 363–377 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-022-01700-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-022-01700-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation