Users’ Willingness to Share Data on the Internet: Perceived Benefits and Caveats

Martina Ziefle, Julian Halbey, Sylvia Kowalewski


One of the major challenges of the ongoing digitalization and the ubiquitous usage of pervasive computing in all fields of our lives is to steer a sensible balance between benefits and drawbacks of using the Internet and to implement an appropriate data handling when using digital media. The broad availability of data, in line with the enormous velocity of information retrieval, is open to abuse and malpractice, with privacy threats as the most serious barrier. The consumers and their attitudes and behaviors when using the Internet play an important role in the discussion about privacy protection. The aim of the current study was to analyze Internet usage behaviors and users’ willingness to share their data when using digital services and social network sites. In a two step empirical approach, we first explore users’ perceptions of privacy in the context of Internet usage and social network sites by means of a focus group approach. In a second step, a quantitative study was carried out. Using a conjoint measurement approach, user scenarios were created from combinations of different levels of anonymization extent, data type, and benefits from sharing the data. The respondents’ task was to decide under which conditions they would be willing to share their data. 80 volunteers (50,6% women) between 14 and 60 years of age participated in the conjoint study.


  1. Akhter, S. H., 2014. Privacy concern and online transactions: the impact of internet self-efficacy and internet involvement. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31, pp. 118-125.
  2. Awad, N. F. and Krishnan, M. S., 2006. The personalization privacy paradox: an empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS quarterly, 30(1), pp. 13-28.
  3. Barker, V. (2009). Older adolescents' motivations for social network site use: The influence of gender, group identity, and collective self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(2), 209-213.
  4. Boyd, D. and Hargittai, E., 2010. Facebook privacy settings: Who cares? First Monday, 15 (8).
  5. Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C. and Guinalíu, M., 2007. The role of security, privacy, usability and reputation in the development of online banking. Online Information Review, 31, pp. 583-603.
  6. Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J.P., Horn, A.-K., and Hughes, B.N., 2009. Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviours, and Unintended Consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), pp. 83- 108.
  7. Dritsas, S., Gritzalis, D. and Lambrinoudakis, C., 2006. Protecting privacy and anonymity in pervasive computing: trends and perspectives. Telematics and informatics, 23(3), pp. 196-210.
  8. Durndell, A. and Haag, Z., 2002. Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample. Computers in human behavior, 18(5), pp. 521-535.
  9. Dwork, C., 2006. Differential privacy. Differential privacy. In Bugliesi, M. et al. (eds.), Automata, Languages and Programming, 4052, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 1-12.
  10. Fogel, J. and Nehmad, E., 2009. Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, pp. 153-160.
  11. Freestone, O. and Mitchell, V., 2004. Generation Y attitudes towards e-ethics and internet-related misbehaviours. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), pp. 121-128.
  12. Gantz, J. and Reinsel, D., 2012. The digital universe in 2020: Big data, bigger digital shadows, and biggest growth in the far east. IDC iView: IDC Analyze the Future, pp. 1-16.
  13. Halder, D., & Jaishankar, K., 2011. Cyber gender harassment and secondary victimization: A comparative analysis of the United States, the UK, and India. Victims & Offenders, 6(4), 386-398.
  14. Hargittai, E., 2007. Whose space? Differences among users and non users of social network sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1), 276-297.
  15. Hornung, G. and Schnabel, C., 2009. Data protection in Germany I: The population census decision and the right to informational self-determination. Computer Law & Security Review, 25(1), pp. 84-88.
  16. Kalwar, S. K., 2008. Human behavior on the internet. Potentials, IEEE, 27(5), pp. 31-33.
  17. Karim, N. S. A., Zamzuri, N. H. A. and Nor, Y.M., 2009. Exploring the relationship between Internet ethics in university students and the big five model of personality. Computers & Education, 53(1), pp. 86-93.
  18. Karabey, B., 2012. Big Data and Privacy Issues. In: Kurbanoglu, S. et al. (eds.) E-Science and Information Management, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, p. 3.
  19. Katal, A., Wazid, M. and Goudar, R. H., 2013. Big data: Issues, challenges, tools and Good practices. In: Sixth International Conference on Contemporary Computing (IC3), IEEE, Noida, India, pp. 404-409.
  20. Kennedy, T., Wellman, B. and Klement, K., 2003. Gendering the digital divide. It & Society, 1(5), pp. 72- 96.
  21. Kim, D. Y., Lehto, X. Y. and Morrison, A. M., 2007. Gender differences in online travel information search: Implications for marketing communications on the internet. Tourism management, 28(2), pp. 423-433.
  22. Kowalewski, S., Ziefle, M., Ziegeldorf, H., & Wehrle, K. (2015). Like us on Facebook!-Analyzing User Preferences Regarding Privacy Settings in Germany. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 815-822.
  23. Krasnova, H. and Veltri, N. F., 2010. Privacy Calculus on Social Networking Sites: Explorative Evidence from Germany and USA. In: 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii, USA, pp. 1-10.
  24. Lahlou, S., 2008. Identity, social status, privacy and facekeeping in digital society. Social science information, 47(3), pp. 299-330.
  25. Laufer, R. S. and Wolfe, M., 1977. Privacy as a concept and a social issue: A multidimensional developmental theory. Journal of social Issues, 33(3), pp. 22-42.
  26. Luce, R. D. & Tukey, J.W., 1964. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1-27.
  27. Marx, G. T., 1998. Ethics for the new surveillance. The Information Society, 14(3), pp. 171-185.
  28. Matsusaki, H., 2016. The Data Needs and the Scientific Methodologies of Marketing Studies: An Analysis From Ecological Perspectives. In: Proceedings of the 1979 Academy of Marketing Science Annual Conference, Springer International Publishing, pp. 374- 374.
  29. Mayeda, G., 2016. Privacy in the Age of the Internet: Lawful Access Provisions and Access to ISP and OSP Subscriber Information. Alberta Law Review, 53(3), pp. 2015-27.
  30. Nissenbaum, H., 2011. A Contextual Approach to Privacy Online. Daedalus, 140, pp. 32-48.
  31. Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R. and Horne, D. A., 2007. The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41, pp. 100-126.
  32. Phelps, J. E., D'Souza, G. & Nowak, G. J., 2001. Antecedents and consequences of consumer privacy concerns: An empirical investigation. Journal of Interactive Marketing., 15, pp. 2-17.
  33. Ribble, M. S., Bailey, G. D. and Ross, T.W., 2004. Digital Citizenship:Addressing Appropriate Technology Behavior. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(1), p. 6.
  34. Rouvroy, A. & Poullet, Y., 2009. The right to informational self-determination and the value of self-development: Reassessing the importance of privacy for democracy. In Gutwirth, S. et al. (eds.) Reinventing data protection? Springer Netherlands, pp. 45-76.
  35. Schmidt, T.; Philipsen, R. & Ziefle, M. 2016. Share to protect - Quantitative Study on Privacy Issues in V2XTechnology. Full paper at the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 2016, in press.
  36. Spiekermann, S., 2005. Perceived control: Scales for privacy in ubiquitous computing. In 10th International conference on user modeling. Available at SSRN: or 2139/ssrn.761109
  37. Sun, Y., Wang, N., Shen, X. L., & Zhang, J. X., 2015. Location information disclosure in location-based social network services: Privacy calculus, benefit structure, and gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, pp. 278-292.
  38. Sweeney, L., 2002. K-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 10(05), pp. 557-570.
  39. Szongott, C., Henne, B. and von Voigt, G., 2012. Big data privacy issues in public social media. In: 6th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems Technologies (DEST), IEEE, Campione, Italy, 18-20 June 2012, pp. 1-6.
  40. Takabi, H., Joshi, J. B. and Ahn, G. J., 2010. Security and privacy challenges in cloud computing environments. IEEE Security & Privacy, 6, pp. 24-31.
  41. Tene, O. and Polonetsky, J., 2012. Big data for all: Privacy and user control in the age of analytics. Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop., 11(5), pp. 239-273.
  42. Thelwall, M., Wilkinson, D., & Uppal, S. (2010). Data mining emotion in social network communication: Gender differences in MySpace. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 190-199.
  43. Thelwall, M. (2008). Social networks, gender, and friending: An analysis of MySpace member profiles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(8), 1321-1330.
  44. Trstenjak, V., 2016. General report: The influence of human rights and basic rights in private law. In: Trstenjak and Weingerl (eds.) The Influence of Human Rights and Basic Rights in Private Law, Springer International Publishing, pp. 3-61.
  45. Van Heek, J., Schaar, A. K., Trevisan, B., Bosowski, P. & Ziefle, M., 2014. User requirements for wearable smart textiles. Does the usage context matter (medical vs. sport)? In: S. Boll and F. H. Köhler (Eds.). UserCentered Design. 4th International Workshop on UserCentered Design of Pervasive Healthcare Applications (pp. 205-209). Institute for Computer Science, SocialInformatics and Telecommunications Engineering (ICST).
  46. Van Heek, J., Arning, K., and Ziefle, M., 2015. Safety and privacy perceptions in public spaces: An empirical study on user requirements for city mobility. In Giaffreda, R., Caganova, D., Li, Y., Riggio, R., and Voisard, A. (Eds.). Internet of Things 2014, LNICST 151, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  47. Van Heek, J.; Arning, K. & Ziefle, M. (2016). How Fear of Crime affects Needs for Privacy & Safety. Acceptance of Surveillance Technologies in Smart Cities. Full paper at the 5th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (Smartgreens 2016), in press.
  48. Wilkowska, W. and Ziefle, M., 2012. Privacy and data security in E-health: Requirements from the user's perspective. Health Informatics J., 18, 191-201.
  49. Wilkowska, W., Gaul, S., & Ziefle, M. (2010). A Small but Significant Difference - The Role of Gender on Acceptance of Medical Assistive Technologies (pp. 82- 100). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  50. Young, A. L. and Quan-Haase, A., 2013. Privacy Protection Strategies on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 16, pp. 479-500.
  51. Ziefle, M., Himmel, S., & Wilkowska, W. 2011. When your living space knows what you do: Acceptance of medical home monitoring by different technologies (pp. 607-624). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Ziefle M., Kowalewski S. and Halbey J. (2016). Users’ Willingness to Share Data on the Internet: Perceived Benefits and Caveats . In Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet of Things and Big Data - Volume 1: IoTBD, ISBN 978-989-758-183-0, pages 255-265. DOI: 10.5220/0005897402550265

in Bibtex Style

author={Martina Ziefle and Sylvia Kowalewski and Julian Halbey},
title={Users’ Willingness to Share Data on the Internet: Perceived Benefits and Caveats},
booktitle={Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet of Things and Big Data - Volume 1: IoTBD,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet of Things and Big Data - Volume 1: IoTBD,
TI - Users’ Willingness to Share Data on the Internet: Perceived Benefits and Caveats
SN - 978-989-758-183-0
AU - Ziefle M.
AU - Kowalewski S.
AU - Halbey J.
PY - 2016
SP - 255
EP - 265
DO - 10.5220/0005897402550265