IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0256822.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Privacy nudges for disclosure of personal information: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Athina Ioannou
  • Iis Tussyadiah
  • Graham Miller
  • Shujun Li
  • Mario Weick

Abstract

Objective: Digital nudging has been mooted as a tool to alter user privacy behavior. However, empirical studies on digital nudging have yielded divergent results: while some studies found nudging to be highly effective, other studies found no such effects. Furthermore, previous studies employed a wide range of digital nudges, making it difficult to discern the effectiveness of digital nudging. To address these issues, we performed a systematic review of empirical studies on digital nudging and information disclosure as a specific privacy behavior. Method: The search was conducted in five digital libraries and databases: Scopus, Google Scholar, ACM Digital Library, Web of Science, and Science Direct for peer-reviewed papers published in English after 2006, examining the effects of various nudging strategies on disclosure of personal information online. Results: The review unveiled 78 papers that employed four categories of nudge interventions: presentation, information, defaults, and incentives, either individually or in combination. A meta-analysis on a subset of papers with available data (n = 54) revealed a significant small-to-medium sized effect of the nudge interventions on disclosure (Hedges’ g = 0.32). There was significant variation in the effectiveness of nudging (I2 = 89%), which was partially accounted for by interventions to increase disclosure being more effective than interventions to reduce disclosure. No evidence was found for differences in the effectiveness of nudging with presentation, information, defaults, and incentives interventions. Conclusion: Identifying ways to nudge users into making more informed and desirable privacy decisions is of significant practical and policy value. There is a growing interest in digital privacy nudges for disclosure of personal information, with most empirical papers focusing on nudging with presentation. Further research is needed to elucidate the relative effectiveness of different intervention strategies and how nudges can confound one another.

Suggested Citation

  • Athina Ioannou & Iis Tussyadiah & Graham Miller & Shujun Li & Mario Weick, 2021. "Privacy nudges for disclosure of personal information: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-29, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0256822
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256822
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0256822
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0256822&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0256822?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, 2023. "Libertarian paternalism," Chapters, in: Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch (ed.), Research Handbook on Nudges and Society, chapter 1, pages 10-16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    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. Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2017. "The overselling of globalization," Business Economics, Palgrave Macmillan;National Association for Business Economics, vol. 52(3), pages 129-137, July.
    2. Tasoff, Joshua & Letzler, Robert, 2014. "Everyone believes in redemption: Nudges and overoptimism in costly task completion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 107-122.
    3. Ross Guest, 2010. "Policy Forum: Saving for Retirement: Policy Options to Increase Retirement Saving in Australia," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 43(3), pages 293-301, September.
    4. Asen Ivanov, 2021. "Optimal pension plan default policies when employees are biased," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 23(3), pages 583-596, June.
    5. Hitoshi Matsushima, 2018. "Bank Runs and Minimum Reciprocity," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-1099, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    6. Schnellenbach, Jan, 2012. "Nudges and norms: On the political economy of soft paternalism," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 266-277.
    7. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    8. Blomquist, Soren & Micheletto, Luca, 2006. "Optimal redistributive taxation when government's and agents' preferences differ," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(6-7), pages 1215-1233, August.
    9. Johannes Abeler & Felix Marklein, 2017. "Fungibility, Labels, and Consumption," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 99-127.
    10. Marianne Bertrand & Dean Karlin & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," NBER Working Papers 11892, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    12. Claus Dierksmeier, 2018. "Qualitative Freedom and Cosmopolitan Responsibility," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 109-123, February.
    13. Nicole D. Sintov & P. Wesley Schultz, 2017. "Adjustable Green Defaults Can Help Make Smart Homes More Sustainable," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, April.
    14. Ajla Cosic & Hana Cosic & Sebastian Ille, 2018. "Can nudges affect students' green behaviour? A field experiment," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 2(1), pages 107-111, March.
    15. Till Grüne-Yanoff, 2012. "Old wine in new casks: libertarian paternalism still violates liberal principles," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(4), pages 635-645, April.
    16. Christopher Jeffords, 2014. "Preference-directed regulation when ethical environmental policy choices are formed with limited information," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 573-606, March.
    17. Cristiano Codagnone & Giuseppe Alessandro Veltri & Francesco Bogliacino & Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva & George Gaskell & Andriy Ivchenko & Pietro Ortoleva & Francesco Mureddu, 2016. "Labels as nudges? An experimental study of car eco-labels," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(3), pages 403-432, December.
    18. Markus Haavio & Kaisa Kotakorpi, 2012. "Sin Licenses Revisited," CESifo Working Paper Series 4010, CESifo.
    19. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    20. Dohmen, Thomas & Falk, Armin & Huffman, David & Marklein, Felix & Sunde, Uwe, 2009. "Biased probability judgment: Evidence of incidence and relationship to economic outcomes from a representative sample," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 903-915, December.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0256822. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.