skip to main content
10.1145/1125170.1125230acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescprConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Internet opt-in and opt-out: investigating the roles of frames, defaults and privacy concerns

Published:13 April 2006Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper studies the solicitation process of consumers' consent - should consumers be requested to explicitly disapprove the use of their personal data (opt-out), or to acknowledge and permit the use of such data (opt-in)? Although these two actions may serve the same functional purpose (i.e., grant approval to the use of the supplied information), various regulatory and industry bodies have exhibited opposing attitudes towards them. The European Union Data Directive (1995) endorses the opt-in approach, whereas the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) recommends an opt-out procedure for consumers to remove their data from future uses. The two approaches can be operationalized via different option frames and preference elicitations. We illustrate how different permutation of frames and default preferences can affect the level of consumer participation and investigate the moderating role of privacy concern on these corollaries.

References

  1. Chaiken, S. (1980) "Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 752--766.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Chapman, G. B. and E.J. Johnson (1994) "Limits of Anchoring," Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 223--242.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Connolly, T. and M. Zeelenberg (2002) "Regret in Decision Making," Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 212--216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Cranor, L.F., M.S. Ackerman and R. Joseph (1999) "Privacy in E-Commerce: Examining User Scenarios and Privacy Preferences," ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 1--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Culnan, M.J. (1993) "How Did They Get My Name? An Exploratory Investigation of Consumer Attitudes Toward Secondary Information Use," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 341--363.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Culnan, M.J. and P.K. Armstrong (1999) "Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation," Organization Science, Vol.10, No.1, pp. 104--115. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Culnan, M.J. and R.J. Bies (2003) "Consumer Privacy: Balancing Economic and Justice Considerations," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 323--342.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Federal Trade Commission (1999) Self-Regulation and Privacy Online: A Report to Congress. {Available at http://www.ftc.gov/privacy}Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Glasner, J. (2002) "Survey: Opt-out is Cop out." {Available at http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,52328,00.html}Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Harris Poll (2003) "Most People Are "Privacy Pragmatists" Who, While Concerned about Privacy, Will Sometimes Trade It Off for Other Benefits." {Available at http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=365}Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Harris, R. J. (1973) "Answer questions containing marked and unmarked adjectives and adverbs," Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol 97, No. 4, pp. 399--401.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Jacowitz, K.R. and D. Kahneman (1995) "Measures of Anchoring in Estimation Tasks," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21 (11), 1161--1166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Johnson, P.A. and R. Varghese (2002) "The Hidden Cost of Privacy: The Potential Economic Impact of Opt-in Data Privacy Laws in California," January 2002. {Available at http://www.kmstrategies.com/pdfs/hiddencostsfinalstudy.pdf}Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jupiter Research (2002) "Seventy percent of US consumers worry about online privacy, but few take protective action." {Available at http://www.jmm.com/xp/jmm/press/2002/pr_060302.xml}Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman and A. Tversky (1982) "The Simulation Heuristic" in D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky (eds.) Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases New York: Cambridge University Press, 201--208.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. ---- and D. Miller (1986) "Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives," Psychological Review, 93 (2), 136--153.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Kanouse, D. E. (1984) "Explaining negativity biases in evaluation and choice behavior: Theory and research," In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 11, pp. 703-708). Provo, UT: Associates for Consumer Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Levin, I. P. & Gaeth, G. J. (1988) "Framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 374--378.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Levin, I. P., S. K. Schnittjer and S. L. Thee (1988) "Information framing effects in social and personal decisions," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 520--529.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Levin, I. P., S. L. Schneider and G. J. Gaeth (1998) "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 149--188.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Marteau, T. M. (1989) "Framing of information: Its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients," British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 89--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Petty, R. E. and J. T. Cacioppo (1983) "Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 135--146.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Princeton Survey Research Associates (2002) "Research Report - A Matter of Trust: What Users Want From Web Sites." April 16. {Available at http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/news/ 1_TOC.htm}Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Shafir, E. (1993) "Choose versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others," Memory & Cognition, 21 (4), 546--556.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Sheehan, K. B. (2002) "Toward a Typology of Internet Users and Online Privacy Concerns," The Information Society, Vol. 18, pp. 21--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Smith, H.J., S.J. Milberg and S.J. Burke (1996) "Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals' Concerns about Organizational Practices," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 167--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Sniezek, J. A., P. W. Paese and F. S. Switzer (1990) "The effect of choosing on confidence in choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 264--282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Spranca, M. D., Minsk, E., & Baron, J. (1991) "Omission and commission in judgment and choice." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 76--105.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Stewart, K.A. and A.H. Segars (2002) "An Empirical Examination of the Concern for Information Privacy Instrument," Information Systems Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 36--49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Wilson, T.D., C.E. Houston and K.M. Etling (1996) "A New Look at Anchoring Effects: Basic Anchoring and its Antecedents," Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 125, No. 4, pp. 387--402.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Wright, P (1974) "Analyzing Media Effects on Advertising Responses," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 38, Summer, pp. 192--205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Wright, P (1981) "Cognitive responses to mass media advocacy," In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom and T. C. Brock (Eds). Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 263--282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Internet opt-in and opt-out: investigating the roles of frames, defaults and privacy concerns

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGMIS CPR '06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMIS CPR conference on computer personnel research: Forty four years of computer personnel research: achievements, challenges & the future
      April 2006
      368 pages
      ISBN:1595933492
      DOI:10.1145/1125170
      • General Chair:
      • Conrad Shayo,
      • Program Chairs:
      • Kate Kaiser,
      • Terry Ryan

      Copyright © 2006 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 13 April 2006

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate300of480submissions,63%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader