IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jcopol/v42y2019i3d10.1007_s10603-019-09419-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Much Is Data Privacy Worth? A Preliminary Investigation

Author

Listed:
  • A. G. Winegar

    (Harvard Business School
    Harvard Kennedy School)

  • C. R. Sunstein

    (Harvard University)

Abstract

Do consumers value data privacy? How much? In a survey of 2,416 Americans, we find that the median consumer is willing to pay just $5 per month to maintain data privacy (along specified dimensions), but would demand $80 to allow access to personal data. This is a “superendowment effect,” much higher than the 1:2 ratio often found between willingness to pay and willingness to accept. In addition, people demand significantly more money to allow access to personal data when primed that such data includes health-related data than when primed that such data includes demographic data. We analyze reasons for these disparities and offer some notations on their implications for theory and practice. A general theme is that because of a lack of information and behavioural biases, both willingness to pay and willingness to accept measures are highly unreliable guides to the welfare effects of retaining or giving up data privacy. Gertrude Stein’s comment about Oakland, California may hold for consumer valuations of data privacy: “There is no there there.” For guidance, policymakers should give little or no attention to either of those conventional measures of economic value, at least when steps are not taken to overcome deficits in information and behavioural biases.

Suggested Citation

  • A. G. Winegar & C. R. Sunstein, 2019. "How Much Is Data Privacy Worth? A Preliminary Investigation," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 425-440, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jcopol:v:42:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s10603-019-09419-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10603-019-09419-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10603-019-09419-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10603-019-09419-y?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shane Frederick & Nathan Novemsky & Jing Wang & Ravi Dhar & Stephen Nowlis, 2009. "Opportunity Cost Neglect," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(4), pages 553-561, December.
    2. Steffen Huck & Georg Kirchsteiger & Jörg Oechssler, 2005. "Learning to like what you have - explaining the endowment effect," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(505), pages 689-702, July.
    3. Hunt Allcott & Luca Braghieri & Sarah Eichmeyer & Matthew Gentzkow, 2020. "The Welfare Effects of Social Media," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(3), pages 629-676, March.
    4. Yang Wang & Frank A. Sloan, 2018. "Present bias and health," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 177-198, October.
    5. Alessandro Acquisti & Curtis Taylor & Liad Wagman, 2016. "The Economics of Privacy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(2), pages 442-492, June.
    6. Hunt Allcott & Cass R. Sunstein, 2015. "Regulating Internalities," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(3), pages 698-705, June.
    7. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    8. Stigler, George J., 1980. "An Introduction to Privacy in Economics and Politics," Working Papers 10, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    9. Alessandro Acquisti & Leslie K. John & George Loewenstein, 2013. "What Is Privacy Worth?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(2), pages 249-274.
    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. Brett R Gordon & Kinshuk Jerath & Zsolt Katona & Sridhar Narayanan & Jiwoong Shin & Kenneth C Wilbur, 2019. "Inefficiencies in Digital Advertising Markets," Papers 1912.09012, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2020.
    2. Nam, Sangjun & Kwon, Youngsun, 2022. "Quantifying different psychological costs of user behavioral info for overcoming the 'take-it-or-leave-it' condition," 31st European Regional ITS Conference, Gothenburg 2022: Reining in Digital Platforms? Challenging monopolies, promoting competition and developing regulatory regimes 265662, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    3. H. Li & A. Nill, 2020. "Online Behavioral Targeting: Are Knowledgeable Consumers Willing to Sell Their Privacy?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 723-745, December.
    4. M. Leszczynska & D. Baltag, 2024. "“Can I have it non-personalised?” An Empirical Investigation of Consumer Willingness to Share Data for Personalized Services and Ads," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 345-372, September.
    5. Reisch, Lucia A. & Sunstein, Cass R. & Kaiser, Micha, 2021. "What do people want to know? Information avoidance and food policy implications," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Anna D’Annunzio & Elena Menichelli, 2022. "A market for digital privacy: consumers’ willingness to trade personal data and money," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 49(3), pages 571-598, September.
    7. Suárez, David & García-Mariñoso, Begoña, 2021. "Does ad blocking have an effect on online shopping?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3).

    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. Cecere, Grazia & Le Guel, Fabrice & Soulié, Nicolas, 2012. "Perceived Internet privacy concerns on social network in Europe," MPRA Paper 41437, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. John M. Abowd & Ian M. Schmutte, 2017. "Revisiting the Economics of Privacy: Population Statistics and Confidentiality Protection as Public Goods," Working Papers 17-37, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    3. repec:nbr:nberch:14785 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    5. Dengler, Sebastian & Prüfer, Jens, 2021. "Consumers' privacy choices in the era of big data," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 499-520.
    6. Long Chen & Yadong Huang & Shumiao Ouyang & Wei Xiong, 2021. "The Data Privacy Paradox and Digital Demand," Working Papers 2021-47, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    7. Daron Acemoglu & Ali Makhdoumi & Azarakhsh Malekian & Asu Ozdaglar, 2022. "Too Much Data: Prices and Inefficiencies in Data Markets," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 218-256, November.
    8. Sivan Frenkel & Yuval Heller & Roee Teper, 2018. "The Endowment Effect As Blessing," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1159-1186, August.
    9. Caleb S. Fuller, 2019. "Is the market for digital privacy a failure?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 180(3), pages 353-381, September.
    10. Oliver Budzinski & Annika Stöhr, 2019. "Competition policy reform in Europe and Germany – institutional change in the light of digitization," European Competition Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 15-54, January.
    11. Catherine E. Tucker, 2023. "The Economics of Privacy: An Agenda," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Privacy, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Lagerlöf, Johan N.M., 2023. "Surfing incognito: Welfare effects of anonymous shopping," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    13. Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 2011. "The Willingness to Pay—Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 991-1011, April.
    14. Fehr, Dietmar & Hakimov, Rustamdjan & Kübler, Dorothea, 2015. "The willingness to pay–willingness to accept gap: A failed replication of Plott and Zeiler," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 120-128.
    15. Frank Ebbers & Jan Zibuschka & Christian Zimmermann & Oliver Hinz, 2021. "User preferences for privacy features in digital assistants," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(2), pages 411-426, June.
    16. Budzinski, Oliver, 2016. "Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Wettbewerbspolitik durch Marktplätze im Internet," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 103, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    17. Chiara Conti & Pierfrancesco Reverberi, 2019. "Price discrimination and product quality under opt-in privacy regulation," DIAG Technical Reports 2019-07, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    18. Jeffrey T. Prince & Scott Wallsten, 2022. "How much is privacy worth around the world and across platforms?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 841-861, November.
    19. Frik, Alisa & Gaudeul, Alexia, 2018. "An experimental method for the elicitation of implicit attitudes to privacy risk," MPRA Paper 87845, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Chen, Yongmin & Hua, Xinyu & Maskus, Keith E., 2021. "International protection of consumer data," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    21. Andrea Isoni, 2011. "The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: loss aversion or ‘bad-deal’ aversion?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 409-430, September.

    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:kap:jcopol:v:42:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s10603-019-09419-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.