Digital trace data are increasingly used in the social sciences. Given the risks associated with data access via application programming interfaces (APIs) as well as ethical discussions around the use of such data, data donations have been proposed as a methodologically reliable and ethically sound way of collecting digital trace data. While data donations have many advantages, study participants may be reluctant to share their data, for example, due to privacy concerns. To assess which factors in a data donation request are relevant for participants’ acceptance and decisions, we conducted a vignette experiment investigating the general acceptability and personal willingness to donate various data types (i.e., data from GPS, web browsing, LinkedIn/Xing, Facebook, and TikTok) for research purposes. The preregistered study was implemented in the probability-based German Internet Panel (GIP) and gathered responses from n = 3821 participants. Results show that people rate the general acceptability of data donation requests higher than their own willingness to donate data. Regarding the different data types, respondents indicated that they would be more willing to donate their LinkedIn/Xing, TikTok, and GPS data compared to web browsing and Facebook data. In contrast, information about whether the donated data would be shared with other researchers and data security did not affect the responses to the respective donation scenarios. Based on these results, we discuss implications for studies employing data donations.
Al BaghalT.SloanL.JessopC.WilliamsM. L.BurnapP. (2020). Linking Twitter and survey data: The impact of survey mode and demographics on consent rates across three UK studies. Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319828011
2.
AraujoT.AusloosJ.van AtteveldtW.LoecherbachF.MoellerJ.OhmeJ.TrillingD.van de VeldeB.de VreeseC.WelbersK. (2022). OSD2F: An open-source data donation framework. Computational Communication Research, 4(2), 372–387. https://doi.org/10.5117/ccr2022.2.001.arau
BellmanS.JohnsonE. J.KobrinS. J.LohseG. L. (2004). International differences in information privacy concerns: A global survey of consumers. The Information Society, 20(5), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490507956
5.
BeuthnerC.WeißB.SilberH.KeuschF.SchröderJ. (2023). Consent to data linkage for different data domains–the role of question order, question wording, and incentives. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Available online first.
6.
BietzM.PatrickK.BlossC. (2019). Data donation as a model for citizen science health research. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.178
7.
BlomA. G.GathmannC.KriegerU. (2015). Setting up an online panel representative of the general population: The German Internet Panel. Field Methods, 27(4), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x15574494
8.
BlomA. G.Gonzalez OcantoM.FikelM.KriegerU.RettigT. (2021). German Internet Panel, Welle 51 (Januar 2021).GESIS, Köln. ZA7759 Datenfile Version 2.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13833
9.
BlomA. G.HerzingJ. M.CornesseC.SakshaugJ. W.KriegerU.BossertD. (2017). Does the recruitment of offline households increase the sample representativeness of probability-based online panels? Evidence from the German Internet Panel. Social Science Computer Review, 35(4), 498–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439316651584
10.
BoeschotenL.AusloosJ.MöllerJ. E.AraujoT.OberskiD. L. (2022). A framework for privacy preserving digital trace data collection through data donation. Computational Communication Research, 4(2), 388–423. https://doi.org/10.5117/ccr2022.2.002.boes
11.
BoeschotenL.MendrikA.van der VeenE.VloothuisJ.HuH.VoorvaartR.OberskiD. L. (2022). Privacy-preserving local analysis of digital trace data: A proof-of-concept. Patterns, 3(3), Article 100444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100444
12.
BosnjakM.AjzenI.SchmidtP. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Selected recent advances and applications. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 352–356. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v16i3.3107
13.
BreuerJ.BishopL.Kinder-KurlandaK. (2020). The practical and ethical challenges in acquiring and sharing digital trace data: Negotiating public-private partnerships. New Media & Society, 22(11), 2058–2080. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820924622
14.
BreuerJ.KmettyZ.HaimM.StierS. (2023a). User-centric approaches for collecting Facebook data in the ‘post-API age’: Experiences from two studies and recommendations for future research. Information, Communication & Society, 26(14), 2649–2668. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2022.2097015
15.
BreuerJ.WellerK.Kinder-KurlandaK. (2023). The role of participants in online privacy research: Ethical and practical consideration. In TrepteS.MasurP. K. (Eds.), The routledge handbook of privacy and social media (pp. 314–323). Routledge.
16.
BroughA. R.NortonD. A.SciarappaS. L.JohnL. K. (2022). The bulletproof glass effect: Unintended consequences of privacy notices. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(4), 739–754. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437211069093
17.
BrunsA. (2019). After the ‘APIcalypse’: Social media platforms and their fight against critical scholarly research. Information, Communication & Society, 22(11), 1544–1566. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2019.1637447
18.
CouperM. P.SingerE.ConradF. G.GrovesR. M. (2008). Risk of disclosure, perceptions of risk, and concerns about privacy and confidentiality as factors in survey participation. Journal of Official Statistics, 24(2), 255–275.
19.
CulnanM. J.ArmstrongP. K. (1999). Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 10(1), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.1.104
20.
DevlinJ.ChangM. W.LeeK.ToutanovaK. (2019). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805.
21.
De VreeseC. H.BoukesM.SchuckA.VliegenthartR.BosL.LelkesY. (2017). Linking survey and media content data: Opportunities, considerations, and pitfalls. Communication Methods and Measures, 11(4), 221–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1380175
22.
EleveltA.LugtigP.ToepoelV. (2019). Doing a time use survey on smartphones only: What factors predict nonresponse at different stages of the survey process?Survey Research Methods, 13(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2019.v13i2.7385
23.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
GerdonF.NissenbaumH.BachR. L.KreuterF.ZinsS. (2021). Individual acceptance of using health data for private and public benefit: Changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.edf2fc97
26.
German Internet Panel, Universität Mannheim. (2024). German Internet Panel, Welle 60 (Juli 2022). GESIS, Köln. ZA7880 Datenfile Version 1.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.14364
27.
GilbertS.ShiltonK.VitakJ. (2023). When research is the context: Cross-platform user expectations for social media data reuse. Big Data & Society, 10(1), Article 205395172311641. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231164108
28.
GweonH.SchonlauM. (2022). Automated classification for open-ended questions with BERT. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 12(2), 493. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smad015
HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD.YamamotoT. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(8), 2395–2400. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1416587112
31.
HalavaisA. (2019). Overcoming terms of service: A proposal for ethical distributed research. Information, Communication & Society, 22(11), 1567–1581. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2019.1627386
32.
JenkinsS. P.CappellariL.LynnP.JäckleA.SalaE. (2006). Patterns of consent: Evidence from a general household survey. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 169(4), 701–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985x.2006.00417.x
33.
KeuschF.BährS.HaasG. C.KreuterF.TrappmannM.EckmanS. (2022). Non-participation in smartphone data collection using research apps. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series A: Statistics in Society, 185(Supplement_2), S225–S245. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12827
34.
KeuschF.StruminskayaB.AntounC.CouperM. P.KreuterF. (2019). Willingness to participate in passive mobile data collection. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(Suppl 1), 210–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz007
35.
KeuschF.StruminskayaB.KreuterF.WeichboldM. (2020). Combining active and passive mobile data collection: A survey of concerns. In HillC. A.BiemerP. P.BuskirkT. D.JapecL.KirchnerA.KolenikovS.LybergL. E. (Eds.), Big data meets survey science: A collection of innovative methods (1st ed., pp. 657–682). Wiley.
36.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33(2), 363–374.
37.
MarreirosH.ToninM.VlassopoulosM.SchraefelM. C. (2017). “Now that you mention it”: A survey experiment on information, inattention and online privacy. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 140(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.03.024
38.
MartinK.NissenbaumH. (2017). Measuring privacy: An empirical test using context to expose confounding variables. The Columbia Science & Technology Law Review, 18(1), 176–218. https://doi.org/10.7916/STLR.V18I1.4015
39.
MátéÁ.RakovicsZ.RudasS.WallisL.SágváriB.HuszárÁ.KoltaiJ. (2023). Willingness of participation in an application-based digital data collection among different social groups and smartphone user clusters. Sensors, 23(9), 4571. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23094571
MunzertS.Ramirez-RuizS.WattelerO.BreuerJ.BatzdorferV.EderC.WiltshireD.BarberáP.GuessA.YangJ. (2023). Publishing combined web tracking and survey data. OSF Preprints. Available at:https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/y4v8z
42.
NissenbaumH. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press.
OhmeJ.AraujoT.BoeschotenL.FreelonD.RamN.ReevesB. B.RobinsonT. N. (2023). Digital trace data collection for social media effects research: APIs, data donation, and (screen) tracking. Communication Methods and Measures. Available online first.
45.
ParryD. A.DavidsonB. I.SewallC. J. R.FisherJ. T.MieczkowskiH.QuintanaD. S. (2021). A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digital media use. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(11), 1535. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01117-5
46.
PfiffnerN.FriemelT. N. (2023). Leveraging data donations for communication research: Exploring drivers behind the willingness to donate. Communication Methods and Measures, 17(3), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2023.2176474
47.
PfiffnerN.WitloxP.FriemelT. N. (2022). Data donation module[Computer software]. Available at:https://github.com/uzh/ddm
48.
RevillaM.CouperM. P.OchoaC. (2019). Willingness of online panelists to perform additional tasks. Methods, Data, Analyses, 13(2), 223–252. https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2018.01
49.
RevillaM.CouperM. P.PauraE.OchoaC. (2021). Willingness to participate in a metered online panel. Field Methods, 33(2), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x20983986
50.
RonzhynA.CardenalA. S.Batlle RubioA. (2022). Defining affordances in social media research: A literature review. New Media & Society, 25(11), 3165–3188. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221135187
51.
RosmanT.BosnjakM.SilberH.KoßmannJ.HeyckeT. (2022). Open science and public trust in science: Results from two studies. Public Understanding of Science, 31(8), 1046–1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221100686
52.
SchmidtP.GordoniG.AjzenI.BeuthnerC.DavidovE.SilberH.SteinmetzH.WeißB. (2022). Twitter users’ privacy behavior: A reasoned action approach. Social Media + Society, 8(3), Article 20563051221126085. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221126085
53.
SilberH.BreuerJ.BeuthnerC.GummerT.KeuschF.SiegersP.StierS.WeißB. (2022). Linking surveys and digital trace data: Insights from two studies on determinants of data sharing behaviour. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 185(Supplement_2), 387–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12954
54.
SilberH.BreuerJ.FeldererB.GerdonF.StammannP.DaikelerJ.KeuschF.WeißBe. (2024). Replication Code for the manuscript “Asking for Traces: A Vignette Study on Acceptability Norms and Personal Willingness to Donate Digital Trace Data”. PsychArchives. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.15635
55.
SilberH.GerdonF.BachR.KernC.KeuschF.KreuterF. (2022). A preregistered vignette experiment on determinants of health data sharing behavior: Willingness to data sensor data, medical records, and biomarkers. Politics and the Life Sciences, 41(2), 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2022.15
56.
SingerE.HipplerH.-J.SchwarzN. (1992). Confidentiality assurances in surveys: Reassurance or threat?International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 4(3), 256–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/4.3.256
StierS.BreuerJ.SiegersP.ThorsonK. (2020). Integrating survey data and digital trace data: Key issues in developing an emerging field. Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 503–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319843669
59.
StruminskayaB.LugtigP.ToepoelV.SchoutenB.GiesenD.DolmansR. (2021). Sharing data collected with smartphone sensors: Willingness, participation, and nonparticipation bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 85(Suppl 1), 423–462. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfab025
60.
TaylorJ.PagliariC. (2018). Mining social media data: How are research sponsors and researchers addressing the ethical challenges?Research Ethics, 14(2), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117738559
61.
van DrielI. I.GiachanouA.PouwelsJ. L.BoeschotenL.BeyensI.ValkenburgP. M. (2022). Promises and pitfalls of social media data donations. Communication Methods and Measures, 16(4), 266–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2022.2109608
62.
WalzenbachS.BurtonJ.CouperM. P.CrossleyT. F.JackleA. (2022). Experiments on multiple requests for consent to data linkage in surveys. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 11(3), 518–540. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smab053
63.
WenzA.JackleA.CouperM. P. (2019). Willingness to use mobile technologies for data collection in a probability household panel. Survey Research Methods, 13(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2019.v13i1.7298
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
