IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/dicedp/143.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The willingness to sell personal data

Author

Listed:
  • Benndorf, Volker
  • Normann, Hans-Theo

Abstract

We elicit the willingness to sell personal data (contact information, Facebook details, preferences) in laboratory experiments, using a BDM and take-it-or-leave-it offers. Our experiments are novel in that (i) the experiments are incentivized, (ii) the focus on privacy issues is salient, and (iii) the use of the data - marketing purposes - is transparent and unambiguous. We find that only a minority of about 10% to 20% of the participants are unwilling to sell personal data, a share which is roughly constant across both the type of personal data and elicitation method. Subjects willing to sell request about € 15 for their contact details and € 19 for Facebook details.

Suggested Citation

  • Benndorf, Volker & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2014. "The willingness to sell personal data," DICE Discussion Papers 143, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:dicedp:143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/100663/1/79530904X.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    2. Beresford, Alastair R. & Kübler, Dorothea & Preibusch, Sören, 2012. "Unwillingness to pay for privacy: A field experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 25-27.
    3. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-638, September.
    4. Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 1987. ""Preference Reversal' and the Observability of Preferences by Experimental Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 675-685, May.
    5. Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2008. "Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 81, pages 752-767, Elsevier.
    6. 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.
    7. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    8. Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Bohm, Peter & Linden, Johan & Sonnegard, Joakim, 1997. "Eliciting Reservation Prices: Becker-DeGroot-Marschak Mechanisms vs. Markets," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(443), pages 1079-1089, July.
    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. Mohr Jochen, 2018. "Wettbewerbsrecht und Ökonomie im digitalen 21. Jahrhundert: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Intel-Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs und zum Facebook-Verfahren des Bundeskartellamts," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 69(1), pages 259-308, July.
    2. Hermstrüwer, Yoan & Dickert, Stephan, 2017. "Sharing is daring: An experiment on consent, chilling effects and a salient privacy nudge," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 38-49.
    3. Holm, Hakan J. & Samahita, Margaret, 2018. "Curating social image: Experimental evidence on the value of actions and selfies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 83-104.
    4. Schudy, Simeon & Utikal, Verena, 2017. "‘You must not know about me’—On the willingness to share personal data," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1-13.
    5. Heinz, Matthias & Schumacher, Heiner, 2017. "Signaling cooperation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 199-216.
    6. Valentine Weydert & Pierre Desmet & Caroline Lancelot Miltgen, 2019. "Convincing consumers to share personal data: double-edged effect of offering money," Post-Print hal-02566613, HAL.
    7. Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Ordnungspolitik und Kartellrecht im Zeitalter der Digitalisierung," DICE Ordnungspolitische Perspektiven 77, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).

    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. Schudy, Simeon & Utikal, Verena, 2017. "‘You must not know about me’—On the willingness to share personal data," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1-13.
    2. Simeon Schudy & Verena Utikal, 2012. "The Influence of (Im)perfect Data Privacy on the Acquisition of Personal Health Data," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2012-12, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    3. Belianin Alexis, 1998. "Risk Attitudes and Choice under Uncertainty: Experimental Evidence from Russia," EERC Working Paper Series 98-01e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS.
    4. Friederike Mengel & Ronald Peeters, 2022. "Do markets encourage risk-seeking behaviour?," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(13-15), pages 1474-1480, October.
    5. Simeon Schudy & Verena Utikal, 2018. "Does Imperfect Data Privacy Stop People from Collecting Personal Data?," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-23, March.
    6. Hermstrüwer, Yoan & Dickert, Stephan, 2017. "Sharing is daring: An experiment on consent, chilling effects and a salient privacy nudge," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 38-49.
    7. repec:lmu:muenec:20791 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Simeon Schudy & Verena Utikal, 2014. "Sharing Personal Information with Close and Distant Peers," TWI Research Paper Series 91, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    9. Simon Gächter & Lingbo Huang & Martin Sefton, 2016. "Combining “real effort” with induced effort costs: the ball-catching task," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 687-712, December.
    10. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    11. Benndorf, Volker & Kübler, Dorothea & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2015. "Privacy concerns, voluntary disclosure of information, and unraveling: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 43-59.
    12. Kocher, Martin G. & Pahlke, Julius & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2015. "An experimental study of precautionary bidding," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 27-38.
    13. Kim Kaivanto & Eike Kroll, 2014. "Alternation bias and reduction in St. Petersburg gambles," Working Papers 65600286, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    14. Roxane Bricet, 2018. "Preferences for information precision under ambiguity," THEMA Working Papers 2018-09, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    15. Kocher, Martin G. & Pahlke, Julius & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2010. "An Experimental Test of Precautionary Bidding," Discussion Papers in Economics 11743, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    16. Roxane Bricet, 2018. "Precise versus imprecise datasets: revisiting ambiguity attitudes in the Ellsberg paradox," THEMA Working Papers 2018-08, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    17. Sean M. Collins & R. Mark Isaac, 2012. "Holdout: Existence, Information, and Contingent Contracting," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(4), pages 793-814.
    18. Werner Güth & Matteo Ploner & Ivan Soraperra, 2013. "Buying and Selling Risk - An Experiment Investigating Evaluation Asymmetries," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-047, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    19. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2004. "Revealing consumers' willingness-to-pay: A comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 725-741, December.
    20. Alexia Gaudeul, 2013. "Social preferences under uncertainty," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-024, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    21. Sebastian Ebert & Daniel Wiesen, 2014. "Joint measurement of risk aversion, prudence, and temperance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 231-252, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    privacy; preference elicitation; valuation of personal data;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:dicedp:143. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diduede.html .

    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.