Cited by 84Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataCultural Differences and Values

Cross-Cultural Privacy Prediction

Open access
Li, Yao, Kobsa, Alfred, Knijnenburg, Bart P., Carolyn Nguyen, M-H.·2017·Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies

Abstract

The influence of cultural background on people’s privacy decisions is widely recognized. However, a cross-cultural approach to predicting privacy decisions is still lacking. Our paper presents a first integrated cross-cultural privacy prediction model that merges cultural, demographic, attitudinal and contextual prediction. The model applies supervised machine learning to users’ decisions on the collection of their personal data, collected from a large-scale quantitative study in eight different countries. We find that adding culture-related predictors (i.e. country of residence, language, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions) to demographic, attitudinal and contextual predictors in the model can improve the prediction accuracy. Hofstede’s variables - particularly individualism and indulgence - outperform country and language. We further apply generalized linear mixed-effect regression to explore possible interactions between culture and other predictors. We find indeed that the impact of contextual and attitudinal predictors varies between different cultures. The implications of such models in developing privacy-enabling technologies are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/popets-2017-0019

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The difference in memory's privacy preferences may be subject to power distance and culture norms.

    “The difference in memory's privacy preferences may be subject to the power distance [9] and culture norms [18].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, Y., Kobsa, A., Knijnenburg, B. P., & Carolyn Nguyen, M.-H.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Clemson University (US)
  • Microsoft Corporation
Venue
Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies
Published
2017-04-01
Volume
2017
Issue
2
Pages
113-132
ISSN
2299-0984 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2605025788
Cited by
84
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 1
FWCI
18.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
Keywords
privacy decisions, cultural dimensions, Hofstede cultural dimensions, individualism, indulgences, personal data collection, demographic predictors, contextual predictors, language, country of residence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review