How does group identity affect belief formation? To address this question, we conduct a series of online experiments with a representative sample of individuals in the US. Using the setting of the 2020 US presidential election, we find evidence of intergroup preference across three distinct components of the belief formation cycle: a biased prior belief, avoid-ance of outgroup information sources, and a belief-updating process that places greater (less) weight on prior (new) information. We further find that an intervention reducing the salience of information sources decreases outgroup information avoidance by 50%. In a social learn-ing context in wave 2, we find participants place 33% more weight on ingroup than outgroup guesses. Through two waves of interventions, we identify source utility as the mechanism driving group effects in belief formation. Our analyses indicate that our observed effects are driven by groupy participants who exhibit stable and consistent intergroup preferences in both allocation decisions and belief formation across all three waves. These results suggest that policymakers could reduce the salience of group and partisan identity associated with a policy to decrease outgroup information avoidance and increase policy uptake. 

Group Identity and Belief Formation: A Decomposition of Political Polarization

Differential privacy is seen by many experts as the ‘gold standard’ for privacy-preserving data analysis. Others argue that while differential privacy is a clean formulation in theory, it is not very workable in practice. Both perspectives are, in our view, valid and important. To bridge the gaps, researchers and practitioners must work together to advance policy and practice of differential privacy. In this paper, we outline the pressing open questions and offer recommendations around making differential privacy more usable in practice.

Centering Policy and Practice: Research Gaps Around Usable Differential Privacy

Differential privacy is a popular privacy-enhancing technology that has been deployed both in industry and government agencies. Unfortunately, existing explanations of differential privacy fail to set accurate privacy expectations for data subjects, which depend on the choice of deployment model. We design and evaluate new explanations of differential privacy for the local and central models, drawing inspiration from prior work explaining other privacy-enhancing technologies. We find that consequences-focused explanations in the style of privacy nutrition labels that lay out the implications of differential privacy are a promising approach for setting accurate privacy expectations. Further, we find that while process-focused explanations are not enough to set accurate privacy expectations, combining consequences-focused explanations with a brief description of how differential privacy works leads to greater trust. 

pdf/models-matter-setting-accurate-privacy-expectations-for-3e2f4lwww0lk.pdf

Models Matter: Setting Accurate Privacy Expectations for Local and
  Central Differential Privacy

Differential privacy (DP) is a mathematical privacy notion increasingly deployed across government and industry. With DP, privacy protections are probabilistic: they are bounded by the privacy budget parameter, $\epsilon$. Prior work in health and computational science finds that people struggle to reason about probabilistic risks. Yet, communicating the implications of $\epsilon$ to people contributing their data is vital to avoiding privacy theater -- presenting meaningless privacy protection as meaningful -- and empowering more informed data-sharing decisions. Drawing on best practices in risk communication and usability, we develop three methods to convey probabilistic DP guarantees to end users: two that communicate odds and one offering concrete examples of DP outputs. We quantitatively evaluate these explanation methods in a vignette survey study ($n=963$) via three metrics: objective risk comprehension, subjective privacy understanding of DP guarantees, and self-efficacy. We find that odds-based explanation methods are more effective than (1) output-based methods and (2) state-of-the-art approaches that gloss over information about $\epsilon$. Further, when offered information about $\epsilon$, respondents are more willing to share their data than when presented with a state-of-the-art DP explanation; this willingness to share is sensitive to $\epsilon$ values: as privacy protections weaken, respondents are less likely to share data.

pdf/what-are-the-chances-explaining-the-epsilon-parameter-in-1ik231ba.pdf

What Are the Chances? Explaining the Epsilon Parameter in Differential Privacy

Despite recent widespread deployment of differential privacy, relatively little is known about what users think of differential privacy. In this work, we seek to explore users' privacy expectations related to differential privacy. Specifically, we investigate (1) whether users care about the protections afforded by differential privacy, and (2) whether they are therefore more willing to share their data with differentially private systems. Further, we attempt to understand (3) users' privacy expectations of the differentially private systems they may encounter in practice and (4) their willingness to share data in such systems. To answer these questions, we use a series of rigorously conducted surveys (n=2424). We find that users care about the kinds of information leaks against which differential privacy protects and are more willing to share their private information when the risks of these leaks are less likely to happen. Additionally, we find that the ways in which differential privacy is described in-the-wild haphazardly set users' privacy expectations, which can be misleading depending on the deployment. We synthesize our results into a framework for understanding a user's willingness to share information with differentially private systems, which takes into account the interaction between the user's prior privacy concerns and how differential privacy is described.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3460120.3485252

"I need a better description": An Investigation Into User Expectations For Differential Privacy

We propose and initiate the study of privacy elasticity---the responsiveness of economic variables to small changes in the level of privacy given to participants in an economic system. Individuals rarely experience either full privacy or a complete lack of privacy; we propose to use differential privacy---a computer-science theory increasingly adopted by industry and government---as a standardized means of quantifying continuous privacy changes. The resulting privacy measure implies a privacy-elasticity notion that is portable and comparable across contexts. We demonstrate the feasibility of this approach by estimating the privacy elasticity of public-good contributions in a lab experiment.

The Privacy Elasticity of Behavior: Conceptualization and Application

Follow the Crowd: But Who Follows, Who Counteracts, and Which Crowd?

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Inbal Dekel

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

The Privacy Elasticity of Behavior: Conceptualization and Application

Follow the Crowd: But Who Follows, Who Counteracts, and Which Crowd?