Abstract:Problem definition: Firms heavily invest in big data technologies to collect consumer data and infer consumer preferences for price discrimination. However, consumers can use technological devices to manipulate their data and fool firms to obtain better deals. We examine how a firm invests in collecting consumer data and makes pricing decisions and whether it should disclose its scope of data collection to consumers who can manipulate their data. Methodology/results: We develop a game-theoretic model to consider a market in which a firm caters to consumers with heterogeneous preferences for a product. The firm collects consumer data to identify their types and issue an individualized price, whereas consumers can incur a cost to manipulate data and mimic the other type. We find that when the firm does not disclose its scope of data collection to consumers, it collects more consumer data. When the firm discloses its scope of data collection, it reduces data collection even when collecting more data is costless. The optimal scope of data collection increases when it is more costly for consumers to manipulate data but decreases when consumer demand becomes more heterogeneous. Moreover, a lower cost for consumers to manipulate data can be detrimental to both the firm and consumers. Lastly, disclosure of data collection scope increases firm profit, consumer surplus, and social welfare. Managerial implications: Our findings suggest that a firm should adjust its scope of data collection and prices based on whether the firm discloses the data collection scope, consumers’ manipulation cost, and demand heterogeneity. Public policies should require firms to disclose their data collection scope to increase consumer surplus and social welfare. Even without such a mandatory disclosure policy, firms should voluntarily disclose their data collection scope to increase profit. Moreover, public educational programs that train consumers to manipulate their data or raise their awareness of manipulation tools can ultimately hurt consumers and firms.

A Behavioral Economics Approach to Digitalization

Societal, Economic, Ethical and Legal Challenges of the Digital Revolution: From Big Data to Deep Learning, Artificial Intelligence, and Manipulative Technologies

The Challenges of Machine Learning and Their Economic Implications

The Tyranny of Data? The Bright and Dark Sides of Data-Driven Decision-Making for Social Good

How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online

Machine learning and behavioral economics for personalized choice architecture

Behavioral Finance in the Digital Economy

BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS AND FINANCE AT THE HEART OF ADVANCED FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT DECISION-MAKING SYSTEMS

Beating the Algorithm: Consumer Manipulation, Personalized Pricing, and Big Data Management

Behavioral Economics: Past, Present and Future

Digital nudging and privacy: improving decisions about self-disclosure in social networks

Automating Automaticity: How the Context of Human Choice Affects the Extent of Algorithmic Bias

Towards an Equitable Digital Society: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Corporate Digital Responsibility (CDR)

Information Token Driven Machine Learning for Electronic Markets: Performance Effects in Behavioral Financial Big Data Analytics

A Broader View on Bias in Automated Decision-Making: Reflecting on Epistemology and Dynamics

Barriers to Academic Data Science Research in the New Realm of Algorithmic Behaviour Modification by Digital Platforms.

Reflections on societal and business model transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda

Social media ethics in the data economy: Issues of social responsibility for using Facebook for public relations

Big Techs in Finance: On the New Nexus Between Data Privacy and Competition

Unboxing the Black Box of Artificial Intelligence: Algorithmic Transparency and/or a Right to Functional Explainability

Understanding Decision-Making in the Adoption of Digital Health Technology: The Role of Behavioral Economics’ Prospect Theory