PePER

Taking part in surveys, experiments, and studies is often compensated by rewards to increase the number of participants and encourage attendance. While privacy requirements are usually considered for participation, privacy aspects of the reward procedure are mostly ignored. To this end, we introduce PrePaMS, an efficient participation management system that supports prerequisite checks and participation rewards in a privacy-preserving way. Our system organizes participations with potential (dis-)qualifying dependencies and enables secure reward payoffs. By leveraging a set of proven cryptographic primitives and mechanisms such as anonymous credentials and zero-knowledge proofs, participations are protected so that service providers and organizers cannot derive the identity of participants even within the reward process. In this paper, we have designed and implemented a prototype of PrePaMS to show its effectiveness and evaluated its performance under realistic workloads. PrePaMS covers the information whether subjects have participated in surveys, experiments, or studies. When combined with other secure solutions for the actual data collection within these events, PrePaMS can represent a cornerstone for more privacy-preserving empirical research.

Digital interactions via the internet have become the norm rather than the exception in our global society. Concerns have been raised about human-centered privacy and the often unreflected self-disclosure behavior of internet users. This study on human-centered privacy follows two major aims: first, investigate the willingness of university students as digital natives to self-disclose private data and information from psychological domains including their person, social and academic life, their mental health as well as their health behavior habits when taking part as a volunteer in a scientific online survey. Second, examine to what extent the participants’ self-disclosure behavior can be modulated by experimental induction of Privacy Awareness (PA) or Trust in Privacy (TIP) or a combination of both (PA and TIP). In addition, the role of human factors such as personality traits, gender or mental health (e.g., self-reported depressive symptoms) on self-disclosure behavior was explored and the influence of PA and TIP induction were considered. Participants were randomly assigned to four experimental groups. In group A (n = 50, 7 males), privacy awareness (PA) was induced implicitly by the inclusion of privacy concern items. In group B (n = 43, 6 males), trust in privacy (TIP) was experimentally induced by buzzwords and by visual TIP primes promising safe data storage. Group C (n = 79, 12 males) received both, PA and TIP induction, while group D (n = 55, 9 males) served as control group. Participants had the choice to answer the survey items by agreeing to one of a number of possible answers including the options to refrain from self-disclosure by choosing the response options “don’t know” or “no answer”. Self-disclosure among participants was high irrespective of experimental group and irrespective of psychological domains of the information provided. The results of this study suggest that willingness of volunteers to self-disclose private data in a scientific online study cannot simply be overruled or changed by any of the chosen experimental privacy manipulations. The present results extend the previous literature on human-centered privacy and despite limitations can give important insights into self-disclosure behavior of young people and the privacy paradox.

The open science movement has taken up the important challenge to increase transparency of statistical analyses, to facilitate reproducibility of studies, and to enhance reusability of data sets. To counter the replication crisis in the psychological and related sciences, the movement also urges researchers to publish their primary data sets alongside their articles. While such data publications represent a desirable improvement in terms of transparency and are also helpful for future research (e.g., subsequent meta-analyses or replication studies), we argue that such a procedure can worsen existing privacy issues that are insufficiently considered so far in this context. Recent advances in de-anonymization and re-identification techniques render privacy protection increasingly difficult, as prevalent anonymization mechanisms for handling participants' data might no longer be adequate. When exploiting publicly shared primary data sets, data from multiple studies can be linked with contextual data and eventually, participants can be de-anonymized. Such attacks can either re-identify specific individuals of interest, or they can be used to de-anonymize entire participant cohorts. The threat of de-anonymization attacks can endanger the perceived confidentiality of responses by participants, and ultimately, lower the overall trust of potential participants into the research process due to privacy concerns.