哪些数据可以公平区分?美国人对在两种市场环境下使用个人数据的看法

IF 2.7 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Barbara Kiviat
{"title":"哪些数据可以公平区分?美国人对在两种市场环境下使用个人数据的看法","authors":"Barbara Kiviat","doi":"10.15195/v8.a2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Corporations increasingly use personal data to offer individuals different products and prices. I present first-of-its-kind evidence about how U.S. consumers assess the fairness of companies using personal information in this way. Drawing on a nationally representative survey that asks respondents to rate how fair or unfair it is for car insurers and lenders to use various sorts of information—from credit scores to web browser history to residential moves—I find that everyday Americans make strong moral distinctions among types of data, even when they are told data predict consumer behavior (insurance claims and loan defaults, respectively). Open-ended responses show that people adjudicate fairness by drawing on shared understandings of whether data are logically related to the predicted outcome and whether the categories companies use conflate morally distinct individuals. These findings demonstrate how dynamics long studied by economic sociologists manifest in legitimating a new and important mode of market allocation.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"8 1","pages":"26-47"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Which Data Fairly Differentiate? American Views on the Use of Personal Data in Two Market Settings\",\"authors\":\"Barbara Kiviat\",\"doi\":\"10.15195/v8.a2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Corporations increasingly use personal data to offer individuals different products and prices. I present first-of-its-kind evidence about how U.S. consumers assess the fairness of companies using personal information in this way. Drawing on a nationally representative survey that asks respondents to rate how fair or unfair it is for car insurers and lenders to use various sorts of information—from credit scores to web browser history to residential moves—I find that everyday Americans make strong moral distinctions among types of data, even when they are told data predict consumer behavior (insurance claims and loan defaults, respectively). Open-ended responses show that people adjudicate fairness by drawing on shared understandings of whether data are logically related to the predicted outcome and whether the categories companies use conflate morally distinct individuals. These findings demonstrate how dynamics long studied by economic sociologists manifest in legitimating a new and important mode of market allocation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22029,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociological Science\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"26-47\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociological Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15195/v8.a2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v8.a2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

公司越来越多地使用个人数据为个人提供不同的产品和价格。我提出了第一个关于美国消费者如何评估公司以这种方式使用个人信息的公平性的证据。根据一项具有全国代表性的调查,该调查要求受访者对汽车保险公司和贷款人使用各种信息的公平或不公平程度进行评分,从信用评分到网络浏览器历史记录,再到住宅搬迁,即使他们被告知数据可以预测消费者行为(分别是保险索赔和贷款违约)。开放式回答表明,人们通过对数据是否与预测结果在逻辑上相关以及公司使用的类别是否混淆了道德上不同的个人的共同理解来判断公平性。这些发现证明了经济社会学家长期研究的动力学是如何在使一种新的重要市场配置模式合法化方面表现出来的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Which Data Fairly Differentiate? American Views on the Use of Personal Data in Two Market Settings
Corporations increasingly use personal data to offer individuals different products and prices. I present first-of-its-kind evidence about how U.S. consumers assess the fairness of companies using personal information in this way. Drawing on a nationally representative survey that asks respondents to rate how fair or unfair it is for car insurers and lenders to use various sorts of information—from credit scores to web browser history to residential moves—I find that everyday Americans make strong moral distinctions among types of data, even when they are told data predict consumer behavior (insurance claims and loan defaults, respectively). Open-ended responses show that people adjudicate fairness by drawing on shared understandings of whether data are logically related to the predicted outcome and whether the categories companies use conflate morally distinct individuals. These findings demonstrate how dynamics long studied by economic sociologists manifest in legitimating a new and important mode of market allocation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sociological Science
Sociological Science Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
2.90%
发文量
13
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Sociological Science is an open-access, online, peer-reviewed, international journal for social scientists committed to advancing a general understanding of social processes. Sociological Science welcomes original research and commentary from all subfields of sociology, and does not privilege any particular theoretical or methodological approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信