Mind the Gap?: Respondent Age and

Concerns about Privacy

Presentation to the American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Conference

May 2012 Kristen Cibelli PhD Student, Program in Survey Methodology, University of Michigan

1

Background • The Census Bureau launched a program of privacy-

related research in the early 1990s • Privacy concerns can affect respondent willingness to

respond to surveys and cooperate with information requests (Singer et al, 1993, Singer et al 2003, Census Consensus, 2010).

• Singer (2001) found a small yet significant decrease in overall privacy concern. However, much has changed since the time of this analysis with accelerated technological advancement.

• In this environment, privacy concerns are increasingly salient to the public with both the government and business seen as potential threats (Corning and Singer, 2007).

• Some authors argue that the US is experiencing a “third wave” of increased privacy concern (Sylvester and Lohr, 2005 pg 149).

2

Background, continued…

• In the midst of growing privacy concern in some aspects of society, movement into the digital age has also facilitated the proliferation of the sharing of personal information.

• Younger adults are coming of age during an era when sharing information is the norm – developing a “habit of disclosure”.

• Older adults have been less exposed to the practice of sharing information and may be more hesitant regarding matters of privacy.

3

Research Questions

• Have general privacy concerns increased in the last decade?

• Have older people grown more concerned about privacy compared to younger people – producing an “age gap” in privacy attitudes?

4

Data and Methods • Analysis draws on results from several nearly identical surveys

of public attitudes of the telephone population 18 and over related to privacy, confidentiality and data sharing

• The surveys were conducted by various organizations under contract with the Census Bureau:

• 1995 - The Joint Program in Survey Methodology (JPSM)

• 1996 - Westat

• 1999 & 2000 - University of Michigan with data collection by the Gallup Organization

• 2010 - JPSM

• Each survey began with questions from the 1990, 2000 or 2010 Decennial Census (age, sex, DOB, race, and ethnicity)

5

The 1995 and 2010 Surveys • The 1995 survey was developed in the context of the JPSM

practicum and in consultation with the Census Bureau (Singer, 2001)

• The 2010 survey was also conducted in the context of the JPSM practicum and under contract with the Census Bureau

• Both surveys were weighted to correct for unequal probabilities of selection and to represent the population.

1995 2010

RDD landline RDD landline with cell supplement

HH member 18 or older randomly selected from list

HH member 18 or older selected using last birthday (or whoever answered cell phone)

N = 1,443 N = 1,961 (1,569 landline; 392 cell)

61.0% RR 14.0% RR2 landline; 18.6% RR2 cell

6

Privacy Index • In a 2001 article, Singer developed a Privacy Index to measure

general privacy concern in an analysis of the 1995, 1999 and 2000 surveys.

• The Privacy Index combines responses to 5 items (wording shown below): 5 = low privacy concern; 20 = high concern.

1.) In general, how worried would you say you are about your personal privacy? (1 = not worried at all; 4 = very worried)

(For remaining items 1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree)

2.) People’s rights to privacy are well protected. (responses reverse coded)

3.) People have lost all control over how personal information about them is used. 4.) If privacy is to be preserved, the use of computers must be strictly regulated. 5.) The government knows more about me that it needs to. 7

Mean Scores on the Privacy Index* in 1995, 1999, 2000 and 2010

Year Mean Standard Deviation N

1995 15.202 2.722 1443

1999 15.129 2.819 1677

2000 14.918 2.944 1978

2010 14.950 2.990 1961

Source: Census commissioned surveys in 1995, 1999, 2000 and 2010.

Results from 1995, 1999 and 2000 were taken from Singer (2001).

Note: Maximum Privacy Index Score is 20, minimum is 5.

• Contrary to expectation, we see no substantively meaningful increase in privacy concern between 2000 and 2010 (difference is not statistically significant).

• However, we do see an end to the decline in privacy concern observed between the 1995, 1999 and 2000 surveys.

* See Appendix for scores on individual items by age category for 1995 and 2010.

8

A closer look at sample composition between the 1995 and 2010 surveys

• The 2010 sample included many more respondents in the 51-64 and 65+ age categories and fewer in the 18-35 and 36-50 age categories.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

18 - 35 36 - 50 51 - 64 65 +

1995

2010

• More college graduates in the 2010 sample – particularly among the older age categories.

• No notable differences in other demographic variables (sex, race, etc)

1995 and 2010 Respondents by Age Category

9

Overall Mean Privacy Index Scores by Age Category, 1995, 2010

13.3

13.8

14.3

14.8

15.3

15.8

18-35 36-50 51-64 65+

1995

13.3

13.8

14.3

14.8

15.3

15.8

18-35 36-50 51-64 65+

2010

Note: Respondents answered component questions on a 4-point scale. Responses coded so that high scores indicate greater privacy concern. Source: 1995 and 2010 Practicum Surveys

• Overall privacy concern (as measured by the Privacy Index) was higher in

1995. • The difference in privacy concern is much more pronounced between

younger people (18-35) and older people (65+) in 2010 than in 1995. 10

Regression Results Age Category and Demographic Predictors of Privacy Index Score 1995, 2010

1995 2010 Variable Estimate S.E Estimate S.E Intercept 15.318 0.189 *** 14.219 0.252 *** Age 36-50 0.245 0.191 0.775 0.252 ** Age 51-64 0.527 0.232 ** 1.234 0.238 *** Age 65+ 0.581 0.232 ** 1.360 0.251 *** Reference group: White females in 1995 18-35 with no college education Source: 1995 and 2010 JPSM Practicum surveys * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** P <0.001

• Age 51-64 and 65+ are significant predictors of privacy concern in both 1995 and 2010.

• However, the coefficients for age 51-64 and 65+ are larger and more statistically significant in 2010 than in 1995.

11

Variable Estimate S.E Intercept 14.22 (0.160) *** Age 36-50 0.254 (0.201) Age 51-64 0.746 (0.246) ** Age 65+ 0.430 (0.222) * 2010Survey -0.584 (0.248) ** Age 36-50*2010Survey 0.532 (0.321) * Age 51-64*2010Survey 0.480 (0.342) Age 65+*2010Survey 0.875 (0.331) ** Reference group: White females in 1995 18-35 with no college education

Source: 1995 and 2010 JPSM Practicum surveys

* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** P <0.001

Pooled Regression Results Age Category and Demographic Predictors of Privacy Index Score

• Data from the 1995 and 2010 surveys is pooled – model includes an indicator variable for the 2010 survey (1995 as reference) and interaction terms for each of the age categories and the 2010 survey.

• The 2010 survey has a downward effect on privacy concern (-0.455, marginally significant at the p<.10 level

• 36-50*2010Survey is marginally significant at the p<.10 level and statistically significant at the p<.05 level for 65+*2010Survey

12

Summary of Findings

• We find no support for an increase in overall privacy concern – however, we do see an end to the decline in privacy concerns observed between the mid 90s and 2000.

• We observe a larger and more highly significant effect for age on privacy concern in 2010 than in 1995.

• The pooled analysis provides evidence of an “age gap” with a statistically significant effect for the 36-50 age group and 65+ in interaction with the 2010 survey.

13

Limitations • It is important to exercise caution when comparing two

cross-sectional surveys.

• Substantial differences in response rates between the 1995 and 2010 surveys – and in particular differences in the age composition of the samples mean that nonresponse bias cannot be ignored.

• The growing age gap in privacy concerns observed here may be due to underestimated privacy concern among older respondents in 1995 (due to nonresponse among older respondents) and underestimated privacy concern among younger respondents in 2010 (due to nonresponse among younger respondents)

14

Future Directions

• A gap in privacy attitudes between generations seems plausible – with unfamiliarity with disclosing personal information among contemporary older adults a possible factor in increased privacy concerns – but further research is needed to lend more support to this hypothesis and to make a causal link.

• Future research should continue to monitor privacy attitudes by age to determine how the privacy attitudes of the Internet generation may change as they mature.

15

Thank you!

Please direct questions to kcibelli@umich.edu

16

References

• Abt SRBI (2010). Report on 2010 JPSM Practicum Survey Fielding Experience. August 30, 2010.

• Census Consensus: 87% of Americans Plan to Complete the Census (2010, March 16). Retrieved from http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1833

• Corning, A. and Singer, E. (2007). Review of Public Opinion Data on U.S. Attitudes Toward Government Anti-Terrorism Efforts. Survey Research Center, University of Michigan.

• Singer, E. (2001). "Perceptions of Confidentiality and Attitudes toward Data Sharing by Federal Agencies." Pat Doyle et al, eds., Confidentiality, Disclosure, and Data Access: Theory and Practical Applications for Statistical Agencies." Amsterdam, NE, Elsevier, 2001.

• Singer, E., Van Hoewyk, J., & Neugebauer, R. (2003). Attitudes and Behavior: The impact of privacy and confidentiality concerns on participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(3), 368-384.

• Sylvester, D.J. and Lohr, S. (2005). The Security of Our Secrets: A History of Privacy and Confidentiality in Law and Statistical Practice. Denver University Law Review. Vol 83:1 147-207.

17

Appendix

18

Mean Privacy Index Item Scores by Age Category, 1995, 2010

1995 2010 18-35 36-50 51-64 65+ 18-35 36-50 51-64 65+

1.) In general, how worried would you say you are about your privacy? 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.) People's rights to privacy are well protected.

2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9

3.) People have lost all control over how personal information about them is used. 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2

4.) If privacy is to be preserved, the use of computers must be strictly regulated. 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.1 5.) The government knows more about me than it needs to. 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.2 Source: 1995 and 2010 JPSM Practicum surveys 19