Paying with your data. Privacy tradeoffs in ride-hailing services

References

• Acquisti, A. 2004. “Privacy in Electronic Commerce and the Economics of Immediate Gratification.” In Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, New York, United States, pp. 21–29.
   Google Scholar
• Acquisti, A., L. Brandimarte, and G. Loewenstein. 2020. “Secrets and Likes: The Drive for Privacy and the Difficulty of Achieving It in the Digital Age.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 30 (4): 736–758.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aizaki, H. 2014. “MDED: Measuring the Difference between Two Empirical Distributions, R Package Version.” 1.
   Google Scholar
• Auxier, B., L. Rainie, M. Anderson, A. Perrin, M. Kumar, and E. Turner. 2020. “Americans and Privacy: Concerned, Confused and Feeling Lack of Control over Their Personal Information.” Pew Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Beresford, A. R., D. Kübler, and S. Preibusch. 2012. “Unwillingness to Pay for Privacy: A Field Experiment.” Economics Letters 117 (1): 25–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bliemer, M. C., and J. M. Rose. 2013. “Confidence Intervals of Willingness-to-pay for Random Coefficient Logit Models.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 58: 199–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandimarte, L., A. Acquisti, and G. Loewenstein. 2013. “Misplaced Confidences: Privacy and the Control Paradox.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 4 (3): 340–347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braunstein, A., L. Granka, and J. Staddon.2011. “Indirect Content Privacy Surveys: Measuring Privacy without Asking about It.” In Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, New York, United States pp. 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Colombo, S., W. Budzinski, M. Czajkowski, and K. Glenk. 2020. “Ex-ante and Ex-post Measures to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias. Are They Alternative or Complementary Tools to Increase the Reliability and Validity of DCE Estimates?.”Working Papers 20–2020, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
   Google Scholar
• Daly, A., S. Hess, B. Patruni, D. Potoglou, and C. Rohr. 2012. “Using Ordered Attitudinal Indicators in a Latent Variable Choice Model: A Study of the Impact of Security on Rail Travel Behaviour”. Transportation 39 (2): 267–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly, A., S. Hess, and G. de Jong. 2012. “Calculating Errors for Measures Derived from Choice Modelling Estimates.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 46 (2): 333–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Draper, N. A., and J. Turow. 2019. “The Corporate Cultivation of Digital Resignation.” New Media & Society 21 (8): 1824–1839.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2019. “Special Eurobarometer 487a”. General Data Protection Regulation.
   Google Scholar
• Glasgow, G., and S. Butler. 2017. “The Value of Non-personally Identifiable Information to Consumers of Online Services: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment” Applied Economics Letters 24 (6): 392–395. .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasgow, G., S. Butler, and S. Iyengar. 2020. “Survey Response Bias and the ‘Privacy Paradox’: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment.” Applied Economics Letters28 (8): 625-629. .
   Google Scholar
• Goad, D., A. T. Collins, and U. Gal. 2020. “Privacy and the Internet of Things an Experiment in Discrete Choice.” Information Management 58 (2).
   Google Scholar
• Hess, S., and D. Palma. 2019. “Apollo: A Flexible, Powerful and Customisable Freeware Package for Choice Model Estimation and Application.” Journal of Choice Modelling 32: 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, S., and K. Train. 2017. “Correlation and Scale in Mixed Logit Models.” Journal of Choice Modelling23: 1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kokolakis, S. 2017. “Privacy Attitudes and Privacy Behaviour: A Review of Current Research on the Privacy Paradox Phenomenon.” Computers Security 64 64: 122–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, A. B. 1995. “Randomly Permuted (T, M, S)-nets and (T, S)-sequences.” In Monte Carlo and quasi-Monte Carlo Methods in Scientific Computing, 299–317. Springer, New York, United States.
   Google Scholar
• Poe, G. L., K. L. Giraud, and J. B. Loomis. 2005. “Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87 (2): 353–365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potoglou, D., J. F. Palacios, and C. Feijóo. 2015. “An Integrated Latent Variable and Choice Model to Explore the Role of Privacy Concern on Stated Behavioural Intentions in E-commerce.” Journal of Choice Modelling 17: 10–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sayaf, R. 2016. “Contextual Privacy: The Interplay of Sensitivity and Context.” Arenberg Doctoral School dissertation, KU Leuven.
   Google Scholar
• Swait, J., and J. Louviere. 1993. “The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 30 (3): 305–314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tjiong, J., T. Dekker, S. Hess, M. Giergiczny, and M. Ojeda-Cabral. 2019. “Capturing Zero-price Effects in Stated Choice Surveys and Implications for Willingness-to-pay Computation.” In International Choice Modelling Conference 2019, Kobe, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• van Ooijen, I., and H. U. Vrabec. 2019. “Does the GDPR Enhance Consumers’ Control over Personal Data? An Analysis from a Behavioural Perspective.” Journal of Consumer Policy 42 (1): 91–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar