Fig 1.
Framework for considering privacy preferences, sharing preferences, and related behaviour.
Dotted arrows indicate that the components are linked, but that other influences (such as context) also contribute to determining the next component.
Fig 2.
Each sub-section displays a screenshot of one of the five experimental conditions.
The order of conditions was randomised between participants.
Fig 3.
Average ranking and corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals for all conditions.
Fig 4.
a. Density distribution of ranks for Tier 1 data: Banking and Medical Records Data. b. Density distribution of ranks for Tier 2 data: Browsing History, Mobile Phone GPS and Social Media Data. c. Density distribution of ranks for Tier 3 data: Electricity Use, Loyalty Cards and Physical Activity Data.
Table 1.
Break down of Krippendorff alpha consistency scores by poor, slight, fair, moderate, substantial and almost perfectly consistent.
Fig 5.
Predicted probability to pay for different data types, 95% Confidence Intervals.
Fig 6.
Predicted amount individuals are willing to pay for different data types, out of those who were prepared to pay something, 95% Confidence Intervals.