Asking for Traces: A Vignette Study on Acceptability Norms and Personal Willingness to Donate Digital Trace Data

Abstract

Digital trace data are increasingly used in the social sciences. Given the risks associated with data access via application programming interfaces (APIs) as well as ethical discussions around the use of such data, data donations have been proposed as a methodologically reliable and ethically sound way of collecting digital trace data. While data donations have many advantages, study participants may be reluctant to share their data, for example, due to privacy concerns. To assess which factors in a data donation request are relevant for participants’ acceptance and decisions, we conducted a vignette experiment investigating the general acceptability and personal willingness to donate various data types (i.e., data from GPS, web browsing, LinkedIn/Xing, Facebook, and TikTok) for research purposes. The preregistered study was implemented in the probability-based German Internet Panel (GIP) and gathered responses from n = 3821 participants. Results show that people rate the general acceptability of data donation requests higher than their own willingness to donate data. Regarding the different data types, respondents indicated that they would be more willing to donate their LinkedIn/Xing, TikTok, and GPS data compared to web browsing and Facebook data. In contrast, information about whether the donated data would be shared with other researchers and data security did not affect the responses to the respective donation scenarios. Based on these results, we discuss implications for studies employing data donations.

Keywords

data sharing consent vignette experiment privacy attitudes digital trace data data donation data linkage

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al Baghal

Sloan

Jessop

Williams

M. L.

Burnap

(2020). Linking Twitter and survey data: The impact of survey mode and demographics on consent rates across three UK studies. Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319828011

Araujo

Ausloos

van Atteveldt

Loecherbach

Moeller

Ohme

Trilling

van de Velde

de Vreese

Welbers

(2022). OSD2F: An open-source data donation framework. Computational Communication Research, 4(2), 372–387. https://doi.org/10.5117/ccr2022.2.001.arau

Auspurg

Hinz

(2015). Factorial survey experiments. Sage.

Bellman

Johnson

E. J.

Kobrin

S. J.

Lohse

G. L.

(2004). International differences in information privacy concerns: A global survey of consumers. The Information Society, 20(5), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490507956

Beuthner

Weiß

Silber

Keusch

Schröder

(2023). Consent to data linkage for different data domains–the role of question order, question wording, and incentives. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Available online first.

Bietz

Patrick

Bloss

(2019). Data donation as a model for citizen science health research. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.178

Blom

A. G.

Gathmann

Krieger

(2015). Setting up an online panel representative of the general population: The German Internet Panel. Field Methods, 27(4), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x15574494

Blom

A. G.

Gonzalez Ocanto

Fikel

Krieger

Rettig

(2021). German Internet Panel, Welle 51 (Januar 2021). GESIS, Köln. ZA7759 Datenfile Version 2.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13833

Blom

A. G.

Herzing

J. M.

Cornesse

Sakshaug

J. W.

Krieger

Bossert

(2017). Does the recruitment of offline households increase the sample representativeness of probability-based online panels? Evidence from the German Internet Panel. Social Science Computer Review, 35(4), 498–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439316651584

10.

Boeschoten

Ausloos

Möller

J. E.

Araujo

Oberski

D. L.

(2022). A framework for privacy preserving digital trace data collection through data donation. Computational Communication Research, 4(2), 388–423. https://doi.org/10.5117/ccr2022.2.002.boes

11.

Boeschoten

Mendrik

van der Veen

Vloothuis

Voorvaart

Oberski

D. L.

(2022). Privacy-preserving local analysis of digital trace data: A proof-of-concept. Patterns, 3(3), Article 100444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100444

12.

Bosnjak

Ajzen

Schmidt

(2020). The theory of planned behavior: Selected recent advances and applications. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 352–356. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v16i3.3107

13.

Breuer

Bishop

Kinder-Kurlanda

(2020). The practical and ethical challenges in acquiring and sharing digital trace data: Negotiating public-private partnerships. New Media & Society, 22(11), 2058–2080. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820924622

14.

Breuer

Kmetty

Haim

Stier

(2023a). User-centric approaches for collecting Facebook data in the ‘post-API age’: Experiences from two studies and recommendations for future research. Information, Communication & Society, 26(14), 2649–2668. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2022.2097015

15.

Breuer

Weller

Kinder-Kurlanda

(2023). The role of participants in online privacy research: Ethical and practical consideration. In Trepte

Masur

P. K.

(Eds.), The routledge handbook of privacy and social media (pp. 314–323). Routledge.

16.

Brough

A. R.

Norton

D. A.

Sciarappa

S. L.

John

L. K.

(2022). The bulletproof glass effect: Unintended consequences of privacy notices. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(4), 739–754. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437211069093

17.

Bruns

(2019). After the ‘APIcalypse’: Social media platforms and their fight against critical scholarly research. Information, Communication & Society, 22(11), 1544–1566. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2019.1637447

18.

Couper

M. P.

Singer

Conrad

F. G.

Groves

R. M.

(2008). Risk of disclosure, perceptions of risk, and concerns about privacy and confidentiality as factors in survey participation. Journal of Official Statistics, 24(2), 255–275.

19.

Culnan

M. J.

Armstrong

P. K.

(1999). Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 10(1), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.1.104

20.

Devlin

Chang

M. W.

Lee

Toutanova

(2019). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805.

21.

De Vreese

C. H.

Boukes

Schuck

Vliegenthart

Bos

Lelkes

(2017). Linking survey and media content data: Opportunities, considerations, and pitfalls. Communication Methods and Measures, 11(4), 221–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1380175

22.

Elevelt

Lugtig

Toepoel

(2019). Doing a time use survey on smartphones only: What factors predict nonresponse at different stages of the survey process? Survey Research Methods, 13(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2019.v13i2.7385

23.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

24.

Freelon

(2018). Computational research in the post-API age. Political Communication, 35(4), 665–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1477506

25.

Gerdon

Nissenbaum

Bach

R. L.

Kreuter

Zins

(2021). Individual acceptance of using health data for private and public benefit: Changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.edf2fc97

26.

German Internet Panel, Universität Mannheim . (2024). German Internet Panel, Welle 60 (Juli 2022). GESIS, Köln. ZA7880 Datenfile Version 1.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.14364

27.

Gilbert

Shilton

Vitak

(2023). When research is the context: Cross-platform user expectations for social media data reuse. Big Data & Society, 10(1), Article 205395172311641. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231164108

28.

Gweon

Schonlau

(2022). Automated classification for open-ended questions with BERT. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 12(2), 493. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smad015

29.

Haim

Leiner

Hase

(2023). Integrating data donations in online surveys. Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 71(1–2), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2023-1-2-130

30.

Hainmueller

Hangartner

Yamamoto

(2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(8), 2395–2400. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1416587112

31.

Halavais

(2019). Overcoming terms of service: A proposal for ethical distributed research. Information, Communication & Society, 22(11), 1567–1581. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2019.1627386

32.

Jenkins

S. P.

Cappellari

Lynn

Jäckle

Sala

(2006). Patterns of consent: Evidence from a general household survey. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 169(4), 701–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985x.2006.00417.x

33.

Keusch

Bähr

Haas

G. C.

Kreuter

Trappmann

Eckman

(2022). Non-participation in smartphone data collection using research apps. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series A: Statistics in Society, 185(Supplement_2), S225–S245. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12827

34.

Keusch

Struminskaya

Antoun

Couper

M. P.

Kreuter

(2019). Willingness to participate in passive mobile data collection. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(Suppl 1), 210–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz007

35.

Keusch

Struminskaya

Kreuter

Weichbold

(2020). Combining active and passive mobile data collection: A survey of concerns. In Hill

C. A.

Biemer

P. P.

Buskirk

T. D.

Japec

Kirchner

Kolenikov

Lyberg

L. E.

(Eds.), Big data meets survey science: A collection of innovative methods (1st ed., pp. 657–682). Wiley.

36.

Landis

J. R.

Koch

G. G.

(1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33(2), 363–374.

37.

Marreiros

Tonin

Vlassopoulos

Schraefel

M. C.

(2017). “Now that you mention it”: A survey experiment on information, inattention and online privacy. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 140(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.03.024

38.

Martin

Nissenbaum

(2017). Measuring privacy: An empirical test using context to expose confounding variables. The Columbia Science & Technology Law Review, 18(1), 176–218. https://doi.org/10.7916/STLR.V18I1.4015

39.

Máté

Á.

Rakovics

Rudas

Wallis

Ságvári

Huszár

Á.

Koltai

(2023). Willingness of participation in an application-based digital data collection among different social groups and smartphone user clusters. Sensors, 23(9), 4571. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23094571

40.

Miller

P. V.

(2017). Is there a future for surveys? Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(S1), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx008

41.

Munzert

Ramirez-Ruiz

Watteler

Breuer

Batzdorfer

Eder

Wiltshire

Barberá

Guess

Yang

(2023). Publishing combined web tracking and survey data. OSF Preprints. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/y4v8z

42.

Nissenbaum

(2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press.

43.

Ohme

Araujo

(2022). Digital data donations: A quest for best practices. Patterns, 3(4), Article 100467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100467

44.

Ohme

Araujo

Boeschoten

Freelon

Ram

Reeves

B. B.

Robinson

T. N.

(2023). Digital trace data collection for social media effects research: APIs, data donation, and (screen) tracking. Communication Methods and Measures. Available online first.

45.

Parry

D. A.

Davidson

B. I.

Sewall

C. J. R.

Fisher

J. T.

Mieczkowski

Quintana

D. S.

(2021). A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digital media use. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(11), 1535. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01117-5

46.

Pfiffner

Friemel

T. N.

(2023). Leveraging data donations for communication research: Exploring drivers behind the willingness to donate. Communication Methods and Measures, 17(3), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2023.2176474

47.

Pfiffner

Witlox

Friemel

T. N.

(2022). Data donation module [Computer software]. Available at: https://github.com/uzh/ddm

48.

Revilla

Couper

M. P.

Ochoa

(2019). Willingness of online panelists to perform additional tasks. Methods, Data, Analyses, 13(2), 223–252. https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2018.01

49.

Revilla

Couper

M. P.

Paura

Ochoa

(2021). Willingness to participate in a metered online panel. Field Methods, 33(2), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x20983986

50.

Ronzhyn

Cardenal

A. S.

Batlle Rubio

(2022). Defining affordances in social media research: A literature review. New Media & Society, 25(11), 3165–3188. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221135187

51.

Rosman

Bosnjak

Silber

Koßmann

Heycke

(2022). Open science and public trust in science: Results from two studies. Public Understanding of Science, 31(8), 1046–1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221100686

52.

Schmidt

Gordoni

Ajzen

Beuthner

Davidov

Silber

Steinmetz

Weiß

(2022). Twitter users’ privacy behavior: A reasoned action approach. Social Media + Society, 8(3), Article 20563051221126085. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221126085

53.

Silber

Breuer

Beuthner

Gummer

Keusch

Siegers

Stier

Weiß

(2022). Linking surveys and digital trace data: Insights from two studies on determinants of data sharing behaviour. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 185(Supplement_2), 387–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12954

54.

Silber

Breuer

Felderer

Gerdon

Stammann

Daikeler

Keusch

Weiß

Be.

(2024). Replication Code for the manuscript “Asking for Traces: A Vignette Study on Acceptability Norms and Personal Willingness to Donate Digital Trace Data”. PsychArchives. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.15635

55.

Silber

Gerdon

Bach

Kern

Keusch

Kreuter

(2022). A preregistered vignette experiment on determinants of health data sharing behavior: Willingness to data sensor data, medical records, and biomarkers. Politics and the Life Sciences, 41(2), 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2022.15

56.

Singer

Hippler

H.-J.

Schwarz

(1992). Confidentiality assurances in surveys: Reassurance or threat? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 4(3), 256–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/4.3.256

57.

Skatova

Goulding

(2019). Psychology of personal data donation. PLoS One, 14(11), Article e0224240. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224240

58.

Stier

Breuer

Siegers

Thorson

(2020). Integrating survey data and digital trace data: Key issues in developing an emerging field. Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 503–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319843669

59.

Struminskaya

Lugtig

Toepoel

Schouten

Giesen

Dolmans

(2021). Sharing data collected with smartphone sensors: Willingness, participation, and nonparticipation bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 85(Suppl 1), 423–462. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfab025

60.

Taylor

Pagliari

(2018). Mining social media data: How are research sponsors and researchers addressing the ethical challenges? Research Ethics, 14(2), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559

61.

van Driel

I. I.

Giachanou

Pouwels

J. L.

Boeschoten

Beyens

Valkenburg

P. M.

(2022). Promises and pitfalls of social media data donations. Communication Methods and Measures, 16(4), 266–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2022.2109608

62.

Walzenbach

Burton

Couper

M. P.

Crossley

T. F.

Jackle

(2022). Experiments on multiple requests for consent to data linkage in surveys. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 11(3), 518–540. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smab053

63.

Wenz

Jackle

Couper

M. P.

(2019). Willingness to use mobile technologies for data collection in a probability household panel. Survey Research Methods, 13(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2019.v13i1.7298

64.

Wenzel

Scherer

(2023). Sharing data for social good: From uninformed consent to misinformed dissent. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4407097

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.73 MB