UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Privacy, Disclosure, and Social Exchange Theory Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5hw5w5c1 Author King, Jennifer Publication Date 2018 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Privacy, Disclosure, and Social Exchange Theory by Jennifer King A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Information Management and Systems in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Deirdre K. Mulligan, Chair Professor Coye Cheshire Professor David Wagner Professor Steven Weber Spring 2018 Privacy, Disclosure, and Social Exchange Theory Copyright 2018 by Jennifer King 1 Abstract Privacy, Disclosure, and Social Exchange Theory by Jennifer King Doctor of Philosophy in Information Management and Systems University of California, Berkeley Professor Deirdre K. Mulligan, Chair Maintaining the privacy of one’s personal information—one’s choice of when to disclose it and to whom, how one maintains control over it, and the risks of disclosure—is one of the most important social issues of the internet era. For the past decade, privacy researchers have focused on several domains, including: documenting public opinion about privacy attitudes and expectations; understanding how user interfaces affect disclosure; and focusing on understanding interpersonal privacy dynamics within social media settings, to name a few. All of this work shares the goal of furthering our collective understanding of how people think about information privacy in online settings, what they expect when disclosing their personal information, and why they make the disclosure choices they make. A common element missing from the extant privacy research is an accounting of social structures. More specifically, as researchers consider the various factors that affect personal disclosure, they often do not consider the relationship between the discloser and the recipient, and how aspects of that relationship may directly or indirectly affect one’s decision to disclose. A specific form of relationship I examine here is that between individuals and the companies to whom they disclose their personal information. This dissertation explores how the structure of relationships between individuals and compa- nies influences individuals’ decisions to disclose personal information. I accomplish this though a mixed-methods approach; first, I conducted twenty exploratory qualitative interviews with ten users of the 23andMe genetic testing service and ten women who used mobile apps to track their pregnancies. I interviewed all twenty participants about their experiences using online search en- gines. I then conducted three online survey experiments, using a hypothetical wearable fitness device that collects personal information as the premise of the study. The experiments tested a set of hypotheses and further explored themes that emerged from the qualitative research. These studies examine the ways in which the relationship between individuals and the compa- nies they disclose to, and in particular the distribution of power within the relationship, affects the individuals’ decisions to disclose. I use social exchange theory (SET) as the theoretical framework for this inquiry because the transfer of personal information in exchange for a service is an ex- change between social actors. Thus, SET provides an empirically tested scaffolding for exploring 2 key features of these relationships and their impact on the normative aspects of exchange that affect disclosure choices, specifically: individuals’ perceptions of trust, fairness, power, and privacy. This dissertation forges new ground in the analysis of information privacy and personal dis- closure. Namely, the results of my mixed-method studies demonstrate the utility of the relational analytic approach for identifying social structural factors that affect personal disclosure. Further, it demonstrates the influence of power on personal disclosure—the extent to which individuals can control the terms under which personal information is exchanged, the options available to them to obtain similar resources elsewhere, how fair the exchange is, and the extent to which individuals benefit from it. This approach yields a different set of insights into the dynamic of personal disclo- sure and information privacy. It reveals the impact of power differentials on personal disclosure, demonstrating that imbalances in power between individuals and companies can affect individual decisions to disclose. i To my stars and moon: Deneb, Seren, and Sashi Thank you for all the love in the universe, and for your support through this crazy journey. ii Contents Contents ii List of Figures viii List of Tables ix 1 Introduction and Literature Review 1 1.1 Introduction . 1 1.2 Problem Space . 1 1.3 Research Motivations . 2 1.3.1 Research Focus . 3 1.3.2 Dissertation Structure . 3 1.4 Related Literature . 3 1.4.1 Information Privacy . 4 1.4.2 Privacy as Control . 5 1.4.2.1 Research Based on Privacy As Control . 6 1.4.2.2 Privacy As A Rational Calculus . 7 1.4.3 The Privacy Paradox . 8 1.4.4 Privacy and Behavioral Economics . 10 1.4.4.1 Economics of Privacy . 11 1.4.5 Privacy as Contextual Integrity . 12 1.5 Social Exchange Theory . 14 1.5.1 Forms of Exchange . 15 1.5.1.1 Direct Negotiated Binding Exchange . 16 1.5.1.2 Direct Reciprocal Exchange . 16 1.5.1.3 Generalized Exchange . 16 1.5.2 The Object of Exchange . 16 1.5.3 Assurances and SET . 18 1.5.4 Power and SET . 18 2 Motivations, Research Questions, and Study Hypotheses 21 2.1 Interleaving SET and Privacy . 21 iii 2.2 Motivating the Studies . 24 2.2.1 Qualitative Study . 24 2.2.1.1 Interview Contexts . 24 2.2.1.2 Qualitative Research Questions . 25 2.2.2 Experimental Survey . 25 2.2.2.1 The Paradox of Control . 26 2.2.2.2 Experimental Research Questions . 27 2.3 Study One: Hypotheses . 27 2.3.1 Trust . 28 2.3.2 Power . 28 2.3.3 Fairness . 29 2.3.4 Privacy . 29 2.4 Studies 2A and 2B . 30 2.4.1 Hypotheses . 30 3 Qualitative Methods 32 3.1 Study Overview . 32 3.1.1 Study Context . 32 3.1.1.1 Pregnancy Tracking Apps . 33 3.1.1.2 Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing (DTCGT) . 34 3.1.1.3 23andMe Company Background . 34 3.1.1.4 Genetic Testing Process . 35 3.2 Participant Recruitment . 36 3.2.1 Search Interviews . 37 3.2.2 Interview Instrument . 37 3.2.3 Contextual Questions . 38 3.2.4 SET Thematic Questions . 40 3.2.4.1 Relationships . 41 3.2.4.2 Fairness and Benefits . 41 3.2.4.3 Reciprocity and Negotiation . 42 3.2.4.4 Assurances . 42 3.2.4.5 Personal Disclosure . 44 3.2.4.6 Risks and Trade-Offs . 44 3.2.5 Interviews . 45 3.2.6 Data Analysis . 46 3.2.7 Generalizability and Limitations . 46 4 Qualitative Interview Findings 48 4.1 Overview . 48 4.2 Interviews: Setting the Context . 49 4.2.1 Pregnancy Tracking Apps . 50 4.2.1.1 Selecting Pregnancy Applications . 50 iv 4.2.1.2 Company and App Impressions . 50 4.2.1.3 Personal Disclosure and Revealing the Pregnancy . 51 4.2.2 Genetic Testing . 52 4.2.2.1 Motivations for Genetic Testing . 52 4.2.2.2 Participant Impressions of 23andMe . 53 4.2.2.3 Complicating Social Norms . 54 4.2.3 Search Engines . 55 4.2.3.1 Evolving Search Norms . 56 4.2.4 Summary . 56 4.3 Social Exchange Theory and Relationships . 57 4.3.1 The Nature of the Relationship . 57 4.3.2 Pregnancy Tracking . 58 4.3.3 Genetic Testing . 60 4.3.4 Search Queries . 61 4.3.5 Summary . 62 4.3.6 Benefits and Fairness . 64 4.3.6.1 Pregnancy Tracking . 65 4.3.6.2 Genetic Testing . 66 4.3.6.3 Search Queries . 68 4.3.6.4 Summary . 71 4.3.7 Assurances and Trust . 72 4.3.7.1 Pregnancy Tracking . 72 4.3.7.2 Institutional Assurances . 74 4.3.7.3 Genetic Testing . 75 4.3.7.4 Institutional Assurances . 76 4.3.7.5 Search Queries . 76 4.3.7.6 Institutional Assurances . 77 4.3.7.7 Summary . 78 4.4 Privacy: Personal Disclosure, Risk, and Trade-Offs . 79 4.4.1 Personal Disclosure . ..