When Facebook first introduced the ability to upload photos and create albums, we both remember friends who had mixed reactions. Some thought it was a great way to share their life and keep all of their friends and family up-to-date automatically without the need to explicitly email photos. Others were apprehensive. They were initially concerned about uploading photos that could be forever tied to their identity. They expressed concern about the potential for misuse by Facebook, access by future employers, and the all-around creepy feeling it gave them to know that people could be scrolling through their photos at any time without their knowledge. Ironically, now those same friends are posting photos of themselves and their young children on the platform almost daily.
In our Life Online research project, we examined how people use the internet in their everyday lives. Many of our participants reported a feeling of uneasiness with some technologies — particularly those that collect their data. In many cases, they used the term “creepy” to describe their attitudes toward these products and services.
When people become aware of a new technology (device, service, or feature) that utilizes their personal data (such as click behaviors or location), they often feel uneasy. This uneasiness is caused by the seemingly invasive nature of these capabilities that threaten their sense of privacy.
As people consider whether to use the new “creepy” technologies, they perform a specific type of cost-benefit analysis: they weigh the loss of privacy (among other costs) against the benefits they will receive in return.
We call this phenomenon the creepiness–convenience tradeoff.
Definition: The creepiness–convenience tradeoff refers to people’s willingness to accept the downsides of a technology that invades privacy for the sake of its benefits.
For example, one participant in our research discussed her family’s consideration of the creepiness and convenience of an Amazon Echo smart speaker. She and her husband discussed the purchase, but eventually decided the privacy concerns outweighed the potential convenience.
“We almost bought one of those voice-activated speaker things, but we were like, ‘Nah.’ My husband is like super weird. He likes conspiracy theories and stuff so he’s like ‘No, they’re watching us.’ Like, he’ll take tape and put it over his computer’s camera and on his Xbox and stuff.
“But actually, we were gonna get it for my grandmother because she’s older so if she falls down she can be like ‘Hey Alexa call 911’, but he was like, ‘Nah,’ because he thinks it’ll be listening to her and us.”
These considerations happen when users are aware of the technology’s “creepiness” (for example, how their data will be used) and can avoid the technology (for example, by not downloading an app or disabling a new creepy feature in an existing app). Note that the perceived costs and benefits of a technology will vary depending on the individual — some users are not worried about privacy or are already used to sharing their data; others may not have the knowledge or the technical skill to avoid the technology.
Creepiness–Convenience Considerations Change Over Time
Many people in our research reported being apprehensive at first about technologies due to their perceived creepiness, which caused uneasiness that outweighed the product’s perceived benefits. However, for some of our participants, the uneasiness wore off over time. Eventually, they came to accept these technologies and use them despite the privacy concerns.
It’s likely that over time, increased exposure and familiarity with a product diminishes users’ perceptions of strangeness. Even if an individual isn’t using the product or service, she may have friends or family who use the technology, or she may encounter advertisements and learn more about how the product functions. Regardless of how the user is exposed, at some point, she may become comfortable enough to try it out. If the convenience offered by the product is compelling enough, the individual is pushed over the creepiness–convenience threshold — privacy concerns are outweighed by the product’s usefulness.
We’ve heard many people describe this process. One participant shared the journey she went through to accept the location capabilities of Google Maps.
“I think in the abstract it made me nervous. I used to turn location settings off, years ago, because I didn’t want to be tracked. But now, I’m a person who even checks back into my Maps history and enjoys looking at how many kilometers I’ve biked. You can see a history of all the places you’ve been. Now I only turn it off for battery reasons, and I wish it was on. I’m looking forward to upgrading my phone so I can always have the location on.”
This participant’s quote captures her process in passing the creepiness—convenience threshold for this particular Google Maps feature.
- Initial wariness due to unfamiliarity (“in the abstract, it made me nervous”) and intentional avoidance of the technology (“I used to turn location settings off [...] because I didn’t want to be tracked”)
- Perception of the convenience, which increases over time while initial apprehensiveness diminishes
- Trial and observation of the convenience (“You can see a history of all the places you’ve been”)
- Acceptance and comfort with the technology (“Now I only turn it off for battery reasons, and I wish it was on”)
A Spectrum of Acceptance Levels
As with anything we design for, there will be differences in individual users. People will have differing levels of awareness of a product and its capabilities, meaning that some may be further along in their path toward acceptance than others. There may also be individual differences in creepiness thresholds. Some individuals will be more prone to discomfort with potentially invasive or risky technologies than others, and thus their creepiness–convenience threshold will be higher. This means that some individuals may require more perceived convenience than others to accept the technology.
In 2018 Experian conducted a survey of Asian and Australian consumers to understand tolerance and preferences in data sharing and privacy. They found that users can be grouped into two different categories, based on their approach to digital security:
- Digital voyagers: People whose desire for convenience makes them comfortable with sharing personal data and tolerant of fraud risk
- Digital pragmatists: People who have a low tolerance of fraud risk, and consequently are cautious when using digital services
Experian’s participants were from Asia and Australia, but a similar dichotomy likely exists in the rest of the world.
In some instances, acceptance may never happen. For example, there are individuals who will never adopt a smart-home device because the perceived convenience of owning one cannot outweigh the discomfort associated with potential privacy and security breaches.
In 2017, we studied different types of advertisements to learn which ones people hate most. One of the types of ads was retargeted ads that seem to “follow” users from site to site after they’ve shown interest in a specific type of product or service. Many users feel that retargeted ads are “creepy.”
Respondents rated retargeted ads on a scale of 1 to 7 (from strongly like to strongly dislike). A histogram of these ratings shows a bimodal distribution — the ratings are clustered in two areas on the 7-point scale: One group of respondents is neutral about the retargeted ads (31%), one group strongly dislikes them (29%).
Similarly, when it comes to creepy technologies in general, we expect to see the same type of bimodal distribution: Some people will be apathetic about the creepiness, and will adopt them with no apparent creepiness–convenience evaluation. For these people, the cost of lost privacy is very low. But others will be strongly opposed to the product or service and will place well below the creepiness–convenience threshold. And then the rest of us will be somewhere on the spectrum from fully embracing the technology for its benefits to slowly accepting it into our lives.
Cultural and Societal Influences
Our conception of the creepiness–convenience tradeoff focuses on the individual’s process in adopting and using a new technology. However, that process will, of course, be influenced by the individual’s culture and society. Societal norms and technology acceptance will influence people’s individual threshold of creepiness tolerance. Moreover, society’s technology acceptance will fluctuate due to the organic growth of new technologies constantly pushing boundaries. As people get more and more exposed to technologies that utilize their private data, they will habituate and lower their acceptance thresholds.
In our research, Chinese users appeared to have lower creepiness–convenience thresholds than users in the United States and Canada. Experian’s study also found Chinese people being among the most willing to sacrifice privacy for safety and convenience and classified them as digital voyagers.
In each of our studies, we asked participants to share their perceptions about new technologies such as smart-home devices (e.g., smart thermostats, window shades, or speakers). In the US and Canada, most of our participants’ comments were dominated by concerns about privacy and creepiness. In our China studies, although a few participants shared similar fears, many more were completely unconcerned or held positive views about these devices. Their comments centered around the conveniences and potential benefits to be gained by utilizing smart technologies in the home.
One Chinese owner of several smart home devices said:
“I use the smart speaker every day. In the morning, I say hello to it. It will tell me the weather. After work, I ask it to play music for me. I ask it traffic status. I also have one app that monitors and controls the power of all my appliances and the living room door, so I know if the door was opened or when a stranger is at the door.”
When asked about privacy he said, “I had concerns before. Things can be recorded. But now, it’s ok. I will choose a big brand which is trustworthy.”
This cultural difference may be related to the differences between collectivist and individualist cultures, which have been documented in the field of psychology.
Applying Creepiness–Convenience to Design
Creators of new technologies that may be subject to privacy or security concerns should consider the creepiness–convenience tradeoff in the design and delivery of these products.
For example, consider app permission requests or account registration. We’ve advocated for asking for user data gradually, rather than all-at-once, as you build a relationship with your users over time. The creepiness–convenience tradeoff explains why that works — when people feel their privacy may be threatened, you must slowly expose them to the benefits of your product before they’ll cross that threshold.
Organizations should also not only focus on providing the new service along with its benefits but consider where potential customers may fall on the spectrum of acceptance. Promote the advantages of the new technology while also addressing concerns about unfamiliar capabilities that will seem creepy to some users. Create messaging that not only targets digital voyagers’ desire for convenience but also resonates with digital pragmatists by being transparent about what data is collected and how it will be used.
Share this article: