The digitalized economy is all about data privacy. Recent policy changes have been made to increase users’ control over their personal data. Copenhagen Business School has revealed that cookie banner creators can influence users’ privacy choices through manipulating the choice architecture. This can lead to simple changes that can increase absolute consent up to 17%.
A website cookie banner allows users to sign their consent for the processing of their personal information. In order to consent, users must actively give their consent under the current legal framework.
The banner manipulations can influence users’ decisions about whether they make an active decision. These research results provide empirical evidence to show that data privacy decisions of people can be easily manipulated.
“Choice architecture should be designed to benefit the user to make more informed decisions, which are essential for free markets to work efficiently. Exploiting psychological mechanisms in design, to manipulate users to the benefit of the website owner is problematic,” says Associate Professor Jan Michael Bauer, Copenhagen Business School, Management, Society and Communication.
“Detailed user data has become valuable as it allows to better understand customer behavior and improve the targeting of advertisements. Users and customers deserve and should demand a choice environment that allows their own need satisfaction and not one that benefits the website owner,” adds Bauer.
The research shows that website owners can manipulate user data privacy decisions, which is in direct contradiction to the principles of the ePrivacy directive and the GDPR.
The research paper has been published in the Human Behavior journal.
Privacy manipulation
The impact of cookie banner design elements and acceptance rates on acceptance rates was unknown when the researchers began the project in 2019. A case ruling regarding the use pre-ticked cookies in cookie banners was all that was available.
Experiments on public websites were used to test different banner designs. This provided empirical support for the study’s conclusions. The experiment that tested different banner designs on a public website showed how the researchers’ manipulations affected the user’s interactions with them and the data privacy choice (i.e. giving or declining consent).
Although many official guides have been published on banner design since the experiment was started, the researchers claim that website owners still enjoy a special position.
“If they would use their expertise and design skills to elicit their user’s privacy preferences in a neutral way, we would potentially welcome this and not have a problem. Nudging users to make a privacy choice is potentially a good thing, manipulating them into providing consent is not and should be opposed,” states Bauer.
Protecting user data
In the beginning, the researchers wanted policy makers to be aware of and take action. However, they also recognized that manipulations in digital space (also known as dark patterns) remain important issues for discussion. These researchers introduce a conceptual distinction among choice-making architectures and choice outcomes architectures that may facilitate a more structured discussion.
Jan Michael Bauer: “We see this analysis of the choice-making architecture and a choice outcome architecture as a helpful deconstruction of this privacy decision when it comes to protecting user data”.
The choice-making framework captures all aspects of the environment that may discourage or encourage people from making a decision. According to the researchers, there are many instances where it might be beneficial for people to make a decision without affecting the outcome. But, increasing choice-making does not mean that people should be pushed towards a single outcome.
“In some cases, we might be more confident that selecting one specific option is likely to make users better off and target the choice outcome itself (e.g., cigarettes unhealthy foods). However, interventions that favor a specific outcome is suspect to manipulation and warrants more scrutiny,” says Bauer.
Learning about dark patterns
While regulators will hopefully catch up to digital technology, the researchers conclude it is up to consumers to identify, avoid and resist manipulative architecture. “One way forward for users and consumers could be to learn about the broader issues surrounding dark patterns and the tricks used in websites and apps to hopefully become less responsive to these manipulations. Even though these manipulations are often subtle, they should be called out,” adds Bauer.
“One helpful approach can be to treat aggressive prompts and design element that favor a specific choice outcome as a warning sign to pause and reflect: do I really want to share my data? An issue not limited to data privacy as many websites and online shops gear up with dark patterns in the fight for user attention and to increase sales,” concludes Bauer.
Source: https://www.cbs.dk/en