To disclose or not to disclose? Factors related to the willingness to disclose information to a COVID-19 tracing app

ABSTRACT

Contact-tracing apps have been identified as a promising technology to curb the spread of COVID-19. To be effective, a sufficient number of individuals need to install the app and disclose information like COVID-19 infection to such an app. Yet, usage data demonstrate that a large number of app users does not disclose COVID-19 infection to the app. Hence, in two studies (overall N = 1522), we investigate factors related to individuals’ willingness to actively disclose information to such an app. In a preregistered online experiment conducted two months before the app launch onto the German market, we find that disclosure willingness increases when the app’s prosocial benefit or a social-life-enabling benefit is emphasized (vs. no benefit emphasized). In a subsequent, quota-representative survey study conducted two months after the app launch onto the German market, we adapted and extended the Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2) to the context of prosocial information sharing in tracing apps. We find that the perceived prosocial benefit of the app, trust in public institutions, and fear of COVID-19 are the relevant predictors. Moreover, we demonstrate that the relation between perceived prosocial benefit and disclosure willingness is moderated by perceived ease of use. Results are discussed with regard to effective implementation and communication strategies for tracing apps, and the general role of prosocial concerns for technology usage to address major societal challenges.

KEYWORDS:

• Contact tracing
• willingness to disclose
• prosocial benefit
• Technology Adoption Model 2
• COVID-19

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The studies included human subjects and were conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the German Psychological Association. The studies did not involve deception of the participants. All participants gave their written informed consent to use and share their data for scientific purposes without disclosure of their identity. Study 1 was preregistered (http://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=zq79tr). We further provide open access to the data and the complete study material of both studies at https://osf.io/4fz5e/?view_only=dc16d50373f343929f139c1cf26e85f7.

Notes

1 The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) is Germany’s national public health institute. It is the central institution of the German Federal Government in the field of surveillance, control, and prevention of diseases.

2 The study was conducted when no details about the specific features of the app in Germany were available yet. Thus, we also included a fourth condition that described the app as especially helpful to protect the user from an infection (individual benefit). This condition was included in case the app would be implemented in such a way that clear individual benefits would be available, for example, by providing information about which places to avoid in order to reduce infection risk. Yet, the current app does not provide any individual benefit. Therefore, we do not report on and interpret this condition (but include its data to analyze the experimental factor of implementation strategy [voluntary vs. quasi-compulsory] to not decrease the test power). For transparency, note that the communication of the app’s individual benefit did not change the active disclosure willingness compared to the control condition (M_individual = 4.76, SD = 1.47, M_control = 4.49, SD = 1.72; p = .467, η_p² = .007).

3 Note that this exclusion criterion was not included in the preregistration but appeared to be necessary because only people with a smartphone can install the app and disclose information to the app.

4 The original TAM2 also considers job relevance, experience with the technology, and voluntariness are relevant factors. They are not considered here because a COVID-19 tracing app does not help to perform a job, was never in place before, and using the tracing app is voluntary in Germany (Statista 2021).

5 As described above, basic TAM2 does not cover the constructs experience, voluntariness, and job relevance because of lacking relevance for the COVID-19 tracing app context.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Moritz Jörling

Moritz Jörling is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at emlyon business school. His research investigates human-technology interaction with a focus on value creation for human users and society [email: [email protected]].

Sarah Eitze

Sarah Eitze is a PhD student at the University of Erfurt in the field of health communication. She works in the Covid-19 Snapshot Monitoring Project and her research interest is the influence of psychology and knowledge on vaccination decisions [email: [email protected]].

Philipp Schmid

Philipp Schmid is psychologist and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Erfurt, Germany. He studies the psychology of science denialism and health misinformation and aims to support people's informed decision making in health, for example, vaccination. He applies a persuasion psychology perspective to understand the impact of misinformation in health communication and to develop and evaluate promising interventions [email: [email protected]].

Cornelia Betsch

Cornelia Betsch is professor for health communication at the University of Erfurt and at the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine, Hamburg. Her research interests are health decision making and planetary health with a focus on vaccination and climate change [email: [email protected]].

Jennifer Allen

Jennifer Allen is deputy head of the Epidemiological Data and Survey Center at the Robert Koch Institute. She is project manager of the “German Health Update” study, which collects representative data at regular intervals as one component of the national health monitoring system [email: [email protected]].

Robert Böhm

Robert Böhm is a professor at the Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, heading the social and economic psychology group. He is also a part-time professor at the Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen. His research interests are at the intersection of social psychology and behavioral economics, with a main focus on social decision making in the context of societal challenges [email: [email protected]].