Taking Data Out of Context to Hyper-Personalize Ads: Crowdworkers' Privacy Perceptions and Decisions to Disclose Private Information

40 citations

Abstract

Data brokers and advertisers increasingly collect data in one context and use it in another. When users encounter a misuse of their data, do they subsequently disclose less information? We report on human-subjects experiments with 25 in-person and 280 online participants. First, participants provided personal information amidst distractor questions. A week later, while participants completed another survey, they received either a robotext or online banner ad seemingly unrelated to the study. Half of the participants received an ad containing their name, partner's name, preferred cuisine, and location; others received a generic ad. We measured how many of 43 potentially invasive questions participants subsequently chose to answer. Participants reacted negatively to the personalized ad, yet answered nearly all invasive questions accurately. We unpack our results relative to the privacy paradox, contextual integrity, and power dynamics in crowdworker platforms.

40
Citations
Research
Paper Only

Peer Review & Critical Discussion

3 threads

Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort

DSJDr. Sarah J.
Verified PhD Candidate
12 replies

The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.

2 hours ago

Non-naive Participants Issue

MCM. Chen (OpenAI)
Data Scientist
8 replies

I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.

5 hours ago

RLHF Applicability to This Study Design

PRWProf. R. Williams
Verified Researcher
15 replies

The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.

1 day ago

Verify your expertise to join discussion

Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.