Consumers’ Digital Self-Determination:

Everything Under Control? 7

Britta Krahn and Christian Rietz

Abstract
The analysis and use of steadily growing sets of data from business processes and
consumer interactions and the intelligent linking of data provide tremendous develop-
ment potential for the digital economy, but also involve risks that are widely discussed
in association with data privacy. At the same time, of course, consumers also bene-
fit from innovative and new products and services which are only made possible by
intelligent data analysis. But when digital data becomes the raw material for value
added on the one hand and appealing products for connected life and work on the
other hand it appears that these principles alone do not suffice any longer. Not least
because due to technical reasons alone the cross-linking of economy and society gen-
erates large amounts of new data that are often not even acknowledged by consumers
and the creation of which they cannot prevent. Up until now, there has only been insuf-
ficient systematic assessment of the consumers’ experience associated with their data
sovereignty, digital self-determination respectively. However, the exercise of digital
self-determination by the consumers themselves and a corresponding rise of awareness
is a key prerequisite for acting confidently in the digital world of the Internet of Things
and in digital business processes. The following study provides answers to the fol-
lowing questions related to consumers’ digital self-determination: What is a coherent,
plausible concept of ‘digital self-determination’? How can we measure (dimensions

B. Krahn ()
Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences
Rheinbach, Germany
e-mail: britta.krahn@h-brs.de
C. Rietz
University of Cologne
Cologne, Germany
e-mail: christian.rietz@uni-koeln.de

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018 45

C. Linnhoff-Popien et al. (eds.), Digital Marketplaces Unleashed,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49275-8_7
46 B. Krahn and C. Rietz

of) ‘digital self-determination’? What degree/amount of ‘digital self-determination’

do customers/users of digital media want? Based on the empirical results the concept
of “digital self-determination” is described and accentuated. On the one hand, it can
thus be a foundation for a consumer-centered adaptation of manufacturing or business
processes. On the other hand, it can also provide implications for policy-steering con-
siderations.

7.1 Introduction

The analysis and usage of steadily increasing data sets from business processes and from
consumer interactions and the intelligent data linking offer enormous development poten-
tial for the digital economy [1]. Collection and analysis of consumer data by companies
with regard to competitive advantages as such is not new [2]. However, with smartphones
playing an increasingly crucial role – used by 63% of the German consumers aged 14
and over in 2015 with a continued upward trend [3] – the comprehensive data, which are
not only collected but now also generated and transmitted by the users themselves, are
evolving from an attractive byproduct to the center of a digital economy [4].
Meanwhile, the value chains of the digital and the analog world are inextricably linked;
partially, digital channels even replace brick-and-mortar offerings so that not only the
exchange of products and services but also the communication between provider and con-
sumer is changing fundamentally. The new “currency” and foundation of many current
business models is personal information in the form of socio-demographic data, location
and movement data and, in particular, data concerning current and prior preferences, be-
haviors, habits, life situations, and needs. The exchange of information and data has not
only become faster, more diverse, more comprehensive and more direct but also more au-
tomated, more specific to situations and persons than in the time before mobile Internet
technologies.
This can be viewed favorably, as a development towards a “desired state, where knowl-
edge of customers leads to ultra-efficient communication to exactly the right target audi-
ences about product/service offerings perfectly matching the needs and desires of those
same groups” [5, 6]. Actually, the conveniences of an offer tailored to changing individual
situations and individual needs and which is easily accessible, consumable independent
of time and location, maybe even via “one click” (such as Amazon for example), is a wel-
come simplification of everyday purchasing methods and purchasing decisions for many
consumers. At the same time, in many cases this leads consumers to “willingly, even ea-
gerly, part with intimate details of their lives” [7]. In this context, a rather imbalanced
ratio can often be observed between the high value of the data divulged voluntarily and/or
involuntarily and the low value of the consideration received, for instance in the form of
information on web pages or apps or minor price savings [8–11]. On the one hand, there
are great opportunities in respect of partaking and accessing digital or digitally issued
products and services for a larger, and due to the increasing dissemination of mobile com-
7 Consumers’ Digital Self-Determination: Everything Under Control? 47

munication technologies still growing, share of consumers. Fully-informed consumers

become business partners on an equal footing and can use their freedom of choice in the
competition of the various providers to their advantage. On the other hand there are risks,
among others with regard to the right of informational or “digital” self-determination1 ,
often also discussed in respect of data security [12]. Often in this context, rather oversim-
plified attributions draw attention, contrasting the risks of non-transparent, purely growth-
driven business models, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, citizens’ basic mistrust
in “the Internet” and the market players involved. In view of highly complex technologies
and value chains that are difficult to comprehend such simplifications are understandable.
However, they do not befit a more differentiated approach to permanently and fast chang-
ing market environments which is needed if the adjustments to existing regulations in
partially entirely new fields of interaction in the digital space are meant to balance the
interests of providers and consumers. So far, the general effort of collecting, processing
or using no personal data or as little personal data as possible has been considered one of
the most appropriate means of data protection (such data avoidance and data economy is
required by section 3a of the German Federal Data Protection Act, BDSG2 ).
Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also specifies
everyone’s right to protection of personal data on him/her.3
When digital data become, on the one hand, the raw material for value added and
attractive products for connected life and work, it appears on the other hand, that these
principles do not suffice any longer and/or need to be addressed. Not least because due to
technical reasons alone the cross-linking of economy and society generates large amounts
of new data, often even without consumers’ acknowledgment and the creation of which
they cannot prevent. Further, a (re-)assessment has to consider both the balance between
the value for the consumer and the individual costs (and, in the next stage, the social costs)
as well as how these short- and long-term effects relate to each other.
A further complication lies in the fact that this assessment changes relatively quickly
in the course of the development of technology itself, human-machine-interaction, and the
subjective user experience [13]. Therefore, regulations with regard to protecting personal
data based on consumer-oriented digital self-determination should be flexible enough to
enable appropriate responses to these developments. Another problem is that data pro-

1
The right to informational self-determination “grants the individual’s general authority to
decide for themselves on the disclosure of their personal data. The right to informational
self-determination is part of the general right of personality, protected by Article 2 (1) in
conjunction with Article 1 (1) of the German Constitution. Therefore, it has constitutional
status and constitutes an essential characteristic of human dignity and of the general free-
dom of action” (cf. http://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Verfassung/Datenschutz/
Informationelle-Selbstbestimmung/informationelle-selbstbestimmung_node.html).
2
cf. Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, BDSG, p. 6, see https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/
bdsg_1990/gesamt.pdf.
3
cf. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
charter/pdf/text_en.pdf.
48 B. Krahn and C. Rietz

tection, data security, and data usage issues are often viewed from what is feasible from
a technical or legal point of view, yet the majority of the existing principles and consumer
protection provisions originate in the analog world.
However, a strictly consumer-oriented consideration of the opportunities and risks of
digitization to consumers and deriving corresponding measures is also made difficult by
the fact that with many issues and problems it is not that easy to determine what con-
stitutes a desirable consumer-orientation in that context. Consumers’ security concerns
and/or actual vulnerabilities on the one hand and extensive disclosure of personal data on
the other hand often go together. This phenomenon, known as “Privacy Paradox” [14], is
not restricted to the digital world, but it has greater significance here because although op-
portunities and risks are often much higher, the consequences are hardly comprehensible
and data, once disclosed, are hard to erase. Also, it is possible that there no longer exists
a direct ownership which would allow an immediate, direct intervention.
In this context, more attention should be given to the consumers’ subjective experience
with regard to their own data sovereignty and thus their digital self-determination; empir-
ical approaches in particular are suited to shed light on this topic. But the latter are still
seldom to be found. The systematic collection of consumers’ own perception of their dig-
ital self-determination could for instance make a useful contribution to target audience-
orientated communication, information, and awareness-raising as key prerequisite for act-
ing competently in the world of the Internet of Things and digital business processes.
Against this background, a study commissioned by Deutsche Telekom AG in 2016 and
conducted by the Cologne Center for Ethics, Rights, Economics, and Social Sciences of
Health (CERES) explored the digital self-determination from the consumer perspective
[15]. The study provides answers to the following key questions related to consumers’
digital self-determination:

 “What is a coherent, plausible concept of ‘digital self-determination’?” (philosophical

interest)
 “How can we measure (dimensions of) ‘digital self-determination’? Which empirical
phenomena/causalities are part of this theoretical construct?” (social science interest)

7.2 Components of Digital Self Determination

Mertz et al. [15] build a comprehensive, theoretically determined framework model which
provides, first, a definition of digital self-determination and, second, also derives influ-
encing factors and determinants.4 Accordingly, digital self-determination consists of the
following dimensions

4
Determinants include autonomy and overall self-determination, but also factors from the technical,
socio-cultural, and person-related areas.
7 Consumers’ Digital Self-Determination: Everything Under Control? 49

 competency,
 level of information,
 values,
 voluntariness,
 will-formation,
 options,
 behavior.

This comprehensive and theoretically sound analysis and definition of digital self-de-
termination allows an empirical analysis of how consumers perceive and act on this very
digital self-determination.

7.3 Empirical Findings on Digital Self-Determination

Ultimately, one could spend a long time pondering the term digital self-determination
from the various specialist perspectives and background experiences, proposing work-
ing hypotheses on how consumers assess themselves with regard to self-determination
and how this assessment affects actual (consumer) behavior. Up until now, there were
no empirically substantiated answers in this area and many approaches dealing with the
topic of self-determination from both providers’ and consumers’ perspective are rather
anecdotal in nature. Only the study by Mertz et al. [15], surveying a representative sam-
ple of N = 1056 German Internet users, now provides answers on how “normal Internet
users” assess themselves with regard to digital self-determination and its components (for
sample composition [15]). Specifically, the study explores the following questions from
a consumer perspective:

1. How competent do consumers feel conducting digital transactions?

2. How informed are consumers about the “rules of the game” in the digital world?
3. Which concerns and expectations do consumers associate with digitization?
4. Just how “voluntary” is the participation in the digital world at present?
5. How important is the Internet for the freedom of expression and will-formation?
6. Are consumers at the Internet’s mercy or do they experience certain options?
7. How do consumers behave in the web? (from their perspective)

7.3.1 Competency

With respect to competency it is shown that most Internet users have the feeling that they
find information which is relevant for them. With respect to finding information only 23%
of the respondents state that it is difficult to find desired information. Another question,
which is highly relevant in view of digital consumption, referred to evaluating the trans-
50 B. Krahn and C. Rietz

parency of online ordering processes. 74% of the users know which required fields need
to be filled in and which optional entries are possible. Yet, when ordering online, 27%
of the respondents are uncertain as to at which point an order is binding, which indicates
a certain level of uncertainty.
All in all, digital transactions are considered comprehensible and also the acquisition
of information (no longer) poses a hurdle.

7.3.2 Level of Information

91% of the Internet users believe that it is important to know which personal data on them
are stored. On the other hand, there is a huge mistrust particularly concerning these data
as 82% of the users are convinced that most companies also share these data with other
companies. Apparently this is not only a question of trust but also of transparency since
85% of the Internet users also firmly believe that it is not possible to find out which private
companies or government agencies store their customers’ personal data. This concern not
only applies to the use of paid offerings, 87% of the Internet users also believe this to
apply to free applications. 78% of the Internet users assume that data once published,
stored respectively on the web cannot be removed by the users themselves; this result
shows a significant “loss of control” over one’s own data. Fitting in with this result is the
finding that 84% of the respondents assume it to be very cumbersome to get information
about the data stored about them. In general, 88% of the respondents would like to have
an influence on the sharing of data in the web.
Most Internet users assume that many of their data are stored. Apart from the fact that
most consumers would like to have an influence on the sharing of data, most users are
rather helpless with regard to the amount of data stored and the control of these data.

7.3.3 Expectations of Digitization

As can be expected, the attitude towards digitization is ambivalent: 80% attribute great
opportunities to the increasing digitization, but 55% of the respondents view the increasing
digitization of everyday life with concern.
It is of major importance for 94% of the respondents that programs and applications
are easy (and transparent) to handle, which includes high usability [13].
Apart from the classic “skepticism towards technology”, it is shown that the oppor-
tunities of digitization have been recognized by all parts of the population. Progressive
digitization can be supported by an ever improving usability and transparency.
7 Consumers’ Digital Self-Determination: Everything Under Control? 51

7.3.4 Voluntariness

86% of the Internet users in Germany still assume that in all areas it is their decision
whether they want to use digital media. Then again, 95% of the respondents acknowledge
that dependency on modern technology and digitization in society will increase signifi-
cantly. 74% of the respondents state that already today – despite the voluntariness of use,
one is excluded from some areas of life without the use of digital technology. The other
way round, 63% of the respondents assume that people not using digital media are ex-
cluded from many areas of social life. This also ties in with the finding that already 30%
of the users have the feeling to miss out on something when they are not online.
Digitization with its impact is accepted by the Internet users. Ultimately, these findings
indicate that there are no major obstacles to a further digitization of all areas of life.

7.3.5 Will-Formation

93% of the Internet users associate the Internet with the opportunity to engage with topics
that are relevant to them personally. 79% of those surveyed describe the Internet as plat-
form for freedom of speech which shows the high significance of the Internet related to
fundamental democratic rights. There are, however, limits to the freedom of speech from
the users’ perspective: A significant proportion of 83% of the respondents is in favor of
censoring hate comments and insults on the Internet. Meanwhile, the Internet has become
highly important when it comes to researching information and shaping opinions. How-
ever, the representative Internet users’ attitude appears unclear towards the question of
how far freedom of speech may go in the Internet.

7.3.6 Options

Even though nearly one third of the Internet users surveyed has the feeling to miss out
on something when they are not online (see above), 90% of the Internet users surveyed
nevertheless consider it important to be deliberately offline sometimes or to be able to be
offline. Equally clear is the finding that 92% of the respondents consider it legitimate to
not install programs that access personal data. Yet here too, this shows ambivalence to the
effect that 91% of the respondents assume that many of the Internet offerings can access
personal data unnoticed. These findings again illustrate just how important transparency
related to data collection and transfer really is. Ultimately, the Internet users just want
more control in this area.
52 B. Krahn and C. Rietz

7.3.7 Behavior on the Internet

How do the Internet users behave? For instance, 74% of the Internet users state that they
do not read the general terms and conditions at all when carrying out transactions. 92%
of the users claim to take simple precautions (e. g. not reading attachments in emails with
unknown senders). Only 27% of the users claim to take further measures for safeguard-
ing identities on the Internet (e. g. deliberate mispresentation, setting up temporary email
addresses).
Generally, there is sensitivity to the issue of data protection, on the operational level
however, it is obvious that actions exceeding simple precautions are (still) quite rare.

7.3.8 Digital Self-Determination and Digital Market Places: Conclusion

The study by Mertz et al. [15] is making an important contribution to understanding dig-
ital self-determination from a consumer perspective in two ways. For one, the identified
dimensions of the construct of digital self-determination illustrate more clearly the various
characterizing facets. In addition to more person-related facets, such as competence and
level of information, there are expectations as well as characteristics of interaction with
the facets of voluntariness, options, and will-formation. In the overall context, the behav-
ioral information can be seen as a kind of calibration of the aforementioned information,
since the above-mentioned discrepancy between experience, perception, and behavior also
becomes evident here.
The security of personal data on the Internet is questioned by a large part of the respon-
dents, the opportunities to get information on personal data stored appears unsatisfactory
and the respondents want more influence on the storage and usage of personal data. There
is ground to be made up with regard to a consumer-friendly, transparent display of infor-
mation about consequences and framework of web activities. However, when looking at
many business models and the documentation of processes and conditions, it appears that
transparency and traceability are of limited desirability for many companies. Possibly, this
has to do with not wakening “sleeping dogs” and reinforcing consumers’ mistrust and thus
maybe even deter them from using online offerings. But when looking at the findings it
could also be assumed that digital applications have become a key part of everyday life
anyway, widely used despite existing security concerns. Thus, committing to more trans-
parency (expressly wanted) and consumer-orientation could be perceived positively and
may well be appreciated in the competition.
It can be also observed that the importance and function of data protection, privacy, and
informational self-determination with regard to the Internet are changing significantly,
not least across generations. What was deemed private in the pre-Web 2.0 period, the
smartphone era respectively, has today become normal or common in social networks,
blogs, chats, and tutorials and considered part of the consumers’ social analogue as well as
digital identity and personality (on the use of social networks at the work place see [16]).
7 Consumers’ Digital Self-Determination: Everything Under Control? 53

Against this background the question is whether privacy, data protection, and also digital
self-determination need fundamental re-consideration [17]. In any event, the perception
of the consumers, of the younger digital natives generations in particular [18], with its
characteristics of experience, decision, and behavior, need to be taken into account in both
regulatory policy decisions and responsible corporate actions.
With regard to the perception of risks related to personal data one explanation may be
that consumers either do not understand the risks at all or make incorrect assumptions or
lack the technical skills to take appropriate protective measures. However, the findings
at hand give reason to confirm the above-mentioned “Privacy Paradox” insofar as there
is awareness of (poor) data security and there are respective concerns, yet rather simple
measures such as reading the terms and conditions are not taken (against better judgment).
Possibly, experience and behavior on the Internet are influenced by the same psycho-
logical effects that are at work in the analog world, such as present-orientedness, the focus
on “short-term betterment” respectively [19], the illusion of control or over-optimism,
a tendency towards over-estimation respectively. These are well known from psycholog-
ical consumer research [19, 20] and it is only with difficulty that their impact can be
reduced by means of information and education. For instance, the frequently encountered
focus on the consent for transactions does not seem very useful against this background,
since this consent is or should primarily be based on voluntariness and knowledge. While
the respondents consider themselves quite competent in reaching their goals on the Inter-
net, they also state deficits in understanding (partly background) processes and a desire
for a better level of information. At the same time, and this is where the de facto relevance
is, even a well-informed and cautious consumer apparently does not read text-heavy terms
and conditions, as is clearly substantiated by the study results. It appears that conven-
tional tools of data security and self-determination based on this, such as consent, opt-
outs, and anonymization cannot really meet the requirements of the multi-facetted con-
struct of digital self-determination and the consumers’ ambivalence. Simple, supporting
measures could be helpful here, that take into account the decision-making structure of
consumers, which is based on complexity-reduction, habits, and cognitive “short-cuts”
[19, 21].
A large majority also requested transparency in the application and ease-of-use. A cor-
responding reduction of complexity in this context should not be interpreted as patronizing
but rather as a measure that does not palm off to the consumers the entire responsibility
for processes and consequences, which cannot be overseen by them anyway. Simplicity
in this context means the opportunity to having to make only few, ideally no, resource-
binding decisions in a comprehensible decision space. If a proposed or preset alternative
reliably is the secure one, this will not only reduce unexpected negative consequences, but
will also help to increase trust in web interactions and transactions thereby reducing the
frequently expressed mistrust in companies’ data storage and data usage.
Also, access rights may be derived from the desire to know what happens to one’s
own data on the Internet and beyond. For this, however, the legal framework also needs
to be reviewed and amended to motivate providers to offer the technologies and services
54 B. Krahn and C. Rietz

necessary for making the routes and value of their data clear to consumers. Due to the
severe competitive pressure among digital services providers those companies that could
take a competitive advantage from a carefully interpreted privacy policy or provisions
to safeguard digital self-determination might be encouraged to move towards the desired
consumer-oriented direction [22].
Greater transparency, higher comprehensibility, and more control over their own data:
Nothing more and nothing less is what consumers want. And that is how digital services
providers can gain trust and secure a significant competitive advantage.

References

1. C. Linnhoff-Popien, M. Zaddach und A. Grahl, Marktplätze im Umbruch – Digitale Strategien

für Services im Mobilen Internet, Heidelberg: Springer, 2015.
2. M. Culnan und P. Armstrong, Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Imper-
sonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation, 1 Hrsg., Organizational Science, 1999, pp. 104–115.
3. Bitkom, “44 Millionen Deutsche nutzen ein Smartphone,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://
www.bitkom.org/Presse/Presseinformation/44-Millionen-Deutsche-nutzen-ein-Smartphone.
html. [Accessed 15 08 2016].
4. B. Bloching, L. Luck und T. Ramge, Data user – Wie Kundendaten die Wirtschaft revolutio-
nieren, München: Redline Verlag, 2012.
5. P. Norberg, D. Horne und D. Horne, “The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure
Intentions versus Behaviors,” in The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 1 Hrsg., 2007, pp. 100–126.
6. Y. Moon, “Intimate Exchanges: Using Computers to Elicit Self-Disclosure from Consumers,” in
Journal of Consumer Research, 4 Hrsg., 2000, pp. 323–339.
7. R. O’Harrow, No Place to Hide, New York: Free Press, 2005.
8. J. Phelps, G. Nowak und E. Ferrell, “Privacy Concerns and Consumer Willingness to Provide
Personal Information,” in Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 1 Hrsg., Bd. 19, 2000, pp. 27–
41.
9. P. Han und A. Maclaurin, Do Consumers Really Care about Online Privacy?, 1 Hrsg., Marketing
Management, 2002, pp. 35–38.
10. S. Sayre und D. Horne, Trading Secrets for Savings: How Concerned Are Consumers about
Privacy Threat from Club Cards?, 1 Hrsg., Advances in Consumer Research, 2000, pp. 151–
155.
11. S. Spiekermann, J. Grossklags und B. Berendt, “E-Privacy in 2nd Generation E-Commerce: Pri-
vacy Preferences vs. Actual Behavior,” in Proceedings of the 3rd ACM conference on Electronic
Commernce, 2001, pp. 38–47.
12. D. Hallinan, M. Friedewald und P. McCarthy, Citizens’ perceptions of data protection and pri-
vacy in Europe, 28 Hrsg., Bd. 2, Computer Law & Security Review, 2012, pp. 263–272.
13. B. Krahn, User Experience: Konstruktdefinition und Entwicklung eines Erhebungsinstruments,
Bonn: GUX, 2012.
14. S. Barnes, “A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States, First Monday,” 2006.
[Online]. Available: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1394/1312. [Accessed
15 08 2016].
15. M. Mertz, M. Jannes, A. Schlomann, E. Manderscheid, C. Rietz und C. Woopen, Digitale Selbst-
bestimmung – Cologne Center for Ethics, Rights, Economics, and Social Sciences of Health
(CERES), Cologne, 2016.
7 Consumers’ Digital Self-Determination: Everything Under Control? 55

16. C. Rietz, A. Knieper und B. Krahn, Soziale Netzwerke am Arbeitsplatz: Eine Bestandaufnahme,
18 Hrsg., Bd. 1, Wirtschaftspsychologie, 2016, pp. 46–54.
17. M. Hotter, Privatsphäre – Der Wandel eines liberalen Rechts im Zeitalter des Internets, Frankfurt
a. M.: Campus Verlag, 2011.
18. M. Prensky, Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1, On the Horizon, Bd. 5, 2007, pp. 1–6.
19. E. Kirchler, Wirtschaftspsychologie, Göttingen: Hogrefe, 2011.
20. R. Thaler und C. Sunstein, Nudge – Wie man kluge Entscheidungen anstößt, Berlin, 2015.
21. M. Grubb, “Overconfident Consumers in the Marketplace,” in Journal of Economic Perspectives,
4 Hrsg., 2015, pp. 9–36.
22. G. Spindler und C. Thorun, “Eckkpunkte einer digitalen Ordnungspolitik,” 2015. [Online].
Available: https://sriw.de/images/pdf/Spindler_Thorun-Eckpunkte_digitale_Ordnungspolitik_
final.pdf. [Accessed 15 08 2016].