IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v13y2023i3p21582440231184422.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Those With Privacy Concerns Show Stronger In-Group Favoritism: Using Personal Information From In-Group and Out-Group Members to Identify Terrorist Threats

Author

Listed:
  • Torsten Reimer
  • Nathanael Johnson

Abstract

Terrorist threats and attacks provide major risks and sources of public crises in the 21st century. New probabilistic computing technologies possess the capability of increasing the success of identifying terrorist threats and solving cybersecurity and encryption problems more efficiently. However, to identify terrorist threats, these technologies would require the use of a large amount of personal data, which cause potential concerns for privacy. We offer a social-identity explanation of public support for the detection of terrorist threats through the use of online personal data. A survey study ( N  = 1,204) revealed strong support for the provided social-identity explanation of public perceptions. As expected, respondents displayed in-group favoritism by more strongly supporting the use of private personal information from out-group members (non-U.S. citizens) than from in-group members (U.S. citizens). The observed in-group favoritism was most pronounced when respondents had both a strong national identity and a strong sense of general privacy concern. The observed differences were independent of respondents’ political orientation and age.

Suggested Citation

  • Torsten Reimer & Nathanael Johnson, 2023. "When Those With Privacy Concerns Show Stronger In-Group Favoritism: Using Personal Information From In-Group and Out-Group Members to Identify Terrorist Threats," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:3:p:21582440231184422
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440231184422
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440231184422
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440231184422?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. Leonie Huddy & Nadia Khatib, 2007. "American Patriotism, National Identity, and Political Involvement," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 63-77, January.
    2. Katya Drozdova & Michael Samoilov, 2010. "Predictive analysis of concealed social network activities based on communication technology choices: early-warning detection of attack signals from terrorist organizations," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 61-88, March.
    3. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    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. Gobena, Lemessa Bayissa & Van Dijke, Marius, 2017. "Fear and caring: Procedural justice, trust, and collective identification as antecedents of voluntary tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1-16.
    2. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    3. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    4. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    5. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    6. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    8. Xiaowen Zhang & Yuxin Tang, 2024. "Digital diplomacy and domestic audience: how official discourse shapes nationalist sentiments in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    9. Kyungsik Han, 2018. "How do you perceive this author? Understanding and modeling authors’ communication quality in social media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, February.
    10. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    11. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    12. Huet-Vaughn, Emiliano & Robbett, Andrea & Spitzer, Matthew, 2019. "A taste for taxes: Minimizing distortions using political preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    13. Holgersen, Henning & Jia, Zhiyang & Svenkerud, Simen, 2021. "Who and how many can work from home? Evidence from task descriptions," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 55, pages 1-4.
    14. Jesper EDMAN & Riki TAKEUCHI, 2021. "Do Japanese Expatriates Matter for Foreign Subsidiary Performance? A Role-Based Analysis of Three-Wave Panel Data," Discussion papers 21046, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    15. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    16. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    17. Min Chung Han, 2021. "Thumbs down on “likes”? The impact of Facebook reactions on online consumers’ nonprofit engagement behavior," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(2), pages 255-272, June.
    18. Valerio Capraro & Hélène Barcelo, 2021. "Punishing defectors and rewarding cooperators: Do people discriminate between genders?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 19-32, September.
    19. Jimin Pyo & Michael G. Maxfield, 2021. "Cognitive Effects of Inattentive Responding in an MTurk Sample," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 2020-2039, July.
    20. Yoram Halevy & Guy Mayraz, 2020. "Identifying Rule-Based Rationality," Working Papers tecipa-677, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.

    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:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:3:p:21582440231184422. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.