Skip to content
Accepting cookies
15 September 2022

Caring about privacy but accepting cookies? Questioning the privacy paradox.

Have you ever asked yourself why you agree to privacy agreements like cookies on a website way faster and consider them less online than offline? This phenomenon is called the privacy paradox, but is it really so paradoxical or are there eventually reasonable explanations for our online behaviour?

What is the privacy paradox?

The privacy paradox is understood as a concept attempting to reconcile consumer behaviour with privacy concerns (Martin, 2019, p. 67). In short, it can be defined as follows: “People’s concerns toward privacy are unrelated to their privacy behaviours. Even though users have substantial concerns with regard to their online privacy , they engage in self-disclosing behaviours that do not adequately reflect their concerns” (Dienlin, Trepte 2014).

Living in an information society

Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) “are radically transforming devices because they engineer environments that the user is enabled to enter through gateways, experiencing a form of initiation” (Floridi, 2010, p. 5, Ch. 1). ICTs are changing our world as much as they are creating new realities. The distinction between the analogue offline and the digital online is quickly becoming blurred. “This recent phenomenon is variously known as ‘Ubiquitous Computing’ , ‘Ambient Intelligence’, ‘The Internet of Things’, or ‘Web augmented things’ (Floridi, 2010, p. 8, Ch. 1). Floridi (2010) calls this the information society, in which we are depending on ICTs because they have become a part of our reality.

How cognitive barriers influence our privacy behaviour

In the information society, we have to make privacy decisions in a limited amount of time, which companies use to their advantage. Cranor (2012) estimates for example “that it would take a user an average of 244 hours per year to read the privacy policies of every website she visits, or 54 billion hours per year for every United States consumer to read every privacy policy she encountered (McDonald & Cranor, 2008)” (Waldman, 2020).

Research has identified plenty of cognitive and behavioural barriers to rational privacy and disclosure decision making (Acquisti, Brandimarte, & Loewenstein, 2015; Camerer, 1998). One of the most pervasive cognitive biases is for example hyperbolic discounting (Waldman, 2020). The tendency to overweight immediate consequences of a decision and to underweight the ones that will occur in the future makes rational disclosure decisions difficult for the consumer. On top of the disclosure often carry certain immediate benefits like access. “But the risks of disclosure are usually felt much later. As such, our tendency to overvalue current rewards while inadequately discounting the cost of future risks makes us more willing to share now” (Waldman, 2020). The decision making process in general, as well as privacy decisions, is thus affected by incomplete information and bounded rationality (Acquisti & Grossklags, 2005). Additionally, we do not have access to all necessary information in order to make a fully informed judgement about the trade-offs involved (Kokolakis, 2017, p. 130).

An alternative approach

Kristen Martin found in her study that “consumers may be consistent in stating privacy concerns and expectations in surveys, while also retaining those concerns and expectations after engaging with a website” (2019, p. 72). She and other scholars push to overthink the privacy paradox assumption, that all privacy claims disappear after disclosure (Dienlin & Trepte, 2014; Martin, 2019; Solove, 2021). This assumption is problematic for clear responsibilities over the consumer’s data.

Privacy as a Core Value

When we say that privacy is a core value, it means that privacy needs to be protected all the time, and that firms should be held accountable for what happens with the consumers’ data after the disclosure. Martin says that “scholars who make normative claims about privacy have been arguing for privacy as a core value, which is necessary for individual autonomy and development, to foster intimacy and relationships, and for societies to flourish” (2019). Core values are not negotiable, they are positive goals we seek to attain and require in our communities (Donaldson & Walsh, 2015; Martin, 2019). Martin points out, a positive obligation to identify and respect privacy expectations from consumers is essential to business ethics (Martin, 2018; Shue, 2020).  

Where to go from here?

Evidence suggests that individuals care about their privacy even after information disclosure. The human cognitive bias in the online environment, together with the missing information for a fully informed decision, makes the decision-making processes difficult and explains the gap between the users’ privacy preferences and the disclosure behaviour. It raises the question whether the privacy paradox is really one. The privacy paradox has furthermore problematic implications for responsibilities over the consumers’ data. It places the primary responsibility for personal data on consumers, which means that companies bear little to no responsibility. An alternative approach could be seeing privacy as a core value, which would give firms a positive obligation to identify and respect privacy expectations.

This post represents the view of the author and does not necessarily represent the view of the institute itself. For more information about the topics of these articles and associated research projects, please contact info@hiig.de.

Johanna Klix

Student assistant: Knowledge & Society

Explore Research issue in focus

Du siehst eine Tastatur auf der eine Taste rot gefärbt ist und auf der „Control“ steht. Eine bildliche Metapher für die Regulierung von digitalen Plattformen im Internet und Data Governance. You see a keyboard on which one key is coloured red and says "Control". A figurative metaphor for the regulation of digital platforms on the internet and data governance.

Platform regulation and data governance

Digital platforms play a crucial role in our society. We investigate the regulation of new public spheres and the governance of their data.

Sign up for HIIG's Monthly Digest

and receive our latest blog articles.

Further articles

Could digital supply chains help the industry to become more sustainable?

Sustainable industries through digital supply chains?

Can digital supply chains help the industry to become more sustainable? Researchers at the Research Institute for Sustainability (RIFS) at the Helmholtz Centre Potsdam explored the opportunities and risks of...

Man sieht eine*n Lieferant*in eines Online-Lieferdienst für Essen auf einem Motorroller. Das Bild steht sinnbildlich für die Arbeitenden in der Gig Economy in Kenia. You see a delivery person from an online food delivery service on a scooter. The image is emblematic of the workers in the gig economy in Kenya.

Towards a socially just gig economy in Kenya: Stakeholder engagement and regulatory processes

The gig economy in Kenya is growing rapidly but conditions for workers are often precarious. We investigated the livelihoods of gig workers.

Man sieht mehrer Spiegel, die in unterschiedlichen Formen angeordnet sind und verschiedene Oberflächen, wie den Himmel, eine Hauswand und so weiter widerspiegeln. Das Bild steht sinnbildlich für die vielen verschiedenen Bedeutungen von autonomen Systemen in unserer Gesellschaft. You see several mirrors arranged in different shapes reflecting different surfaces, such as the sky, a house wall and so on. The image is emblematic of the many different meanings of autonomous machines in our society.

The age of machine autonomy?

Can machines be autonomous – or is it a human prerogative? This categorical question dominates many discussions on our relationship to purportedly intelligent machines. A human vs. machine rhetoric, however,...