Advertisement

“I Am the Eye in the Sky – Can You Read My Mind?” How to Address Public Concerns Towards Drone Use

  • Anne Oltvoort
  • Peter de VriesEmail author
  • Thomas van Rompay
  • Dale Rosen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11433)

Abstract

Inspired by recent debates on drone technology and privacy protection, this research examines how negative consequences of drone usage can be mitigated by tailoring information about drone employment to the environmental context in which they are used. Additionally, this study seeks to clarify the role of information needs people have when confronted with drones in different settings. Using virtual reality environments and a dedicated virtual app providing opportunities for the public to learn more about drone usage, participants were confronted with drone surveillance at either a business area, at a park, or during an event, and received transparent information on drone usage or a neutral message proving no information on drone usage. Additionally, participants could obtain more information on drone usage by clicking on one or more information buttons in the app. Results show that, compared to an event, participants were less acceptant of drones in a business area and even less so at the park. Further analyses indicated that heightened transparency perceptions resulted in higher levels of trust, perceived control, and drone acceptance. Finally, participants particularly sought information on how drones are used in the business area and park environment, whereas a need for privacy information stood out in the park context. These findings testify to the importance of careful consideration of the environmental context and related communication needs people have when informing the public about drone usage.

Keywords

Drones Acceptance Transparency 

References

  1. 1.
    Winkler, S., Zeadally, S., Evans, K.: Privacy and civilian drone use: the need for further regulation. IEEE Secur. Priv. 16, 72–80 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Vries, P., Galetzka, M., Gutteling, J.: Persuasion in the wild: communication, technology, and event safety. In: Spagnolli, A., Chittaro, L., Gamberini, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8462, pp. 80–91. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jolly, J.: ‘Never, ever try to shoot at a drone.’ Neighborhoods buzz with complaints over pesky drones. USA Today (2018). https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2018/09/03/drone-gripes-mount-homeowners-complain-breached-privacy-annoyance/1117085002/
  4. 4.
    Witteman, J.: Wanneer schendt een drone uw privacy? De Volkskrant (2017). https://www.volkskrant.nl/cultuur-media/wanneer-schendt-een-drone-uw-privacy-~b91d9c53/
  5. 5.
    Rahman, M.F.A.: Security Drones: is the Singapore Public Ready? (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Custers, B. (ed.): The Future of Drone Use: Opportunities and Threats from Ethical and Legal Perspectives. ITLS, vol. 27. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-132-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taylor, E.: I spy with my little eye: the use of CCTV in schools and the impact on privacy. Sociol. Rev. 58, 381–405 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Rompay, T.J.L., De Vries, P.W., Damink, M.T.: “For your safety”: effects of camera surveillance on safety impressions, situation construal and attributed intent. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9072, pp. 141–146. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bennis, W., Goleman, D., O’Toole, J.: Transparency: How Leaders Create a Culture of Candor. Wiley, Hoboken (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fombrun, C.J., Rindova, V.P.: The road to transparency: reputation management at Royal Dutch/Shell. Expressive Organ. 7, 7–96 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jahansoozi, J.: Organization-stakeholder relationships: exploring trust and transparency. J. Manag. Dev. 25, 942–955 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tapscott, D., Ticoll, D.: The Naked Corporation: How the Age of Transparency Will Revolutionize Business. Simon and Schuster, New York City (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S., Peterson, S.J.: Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure. J. Manag. 34, 89–126 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baronas, A.-M.K., Louis, M.R.: Restoring a sense of control during implementation: how user involvement leads to system acceptance. MIS Q. 12, 111–124 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bloomfield, R., O’Hara, M.: Market transparency: who wins and who loses? Rev. Financ. Stud. 12, 5–35 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clark Williams, C.: Toward a taxonomy of corporate reporting strategies. J. Bus. Commun. 1973(45), 232–264 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schnackenberg, A.K., Tomlinson, E.C.: Organizational transparency: a new perspective on managing trust in organization-stakeholder relationships. J. Manag. 42, 1784–1810 (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W.: Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q. 27, 51–90 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pavlou, P.A., Gefen, D.: Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust. Inf. Syst. Res. 15, 37–59 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 709–734 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mills, R.T., Krantz, D.S.: Information, choice, and reactions to stress: a field experiment in a blood bank with laboratory analogue. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37, 608 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rawlins, B.R.: Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency and employee trust. Public Relat. J. 2, 1–21 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ouwehand, C., De Ridder, D.T.D., Bensing, J.M.: Situational aspects are more important in shaping proactive coping behaviour than individual characteristics: a vignette study among adults preparing for ageing. Psychol. Health 21, 809–825 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Der Laan, J.D., Heino, A., De Waard, D.: A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 5, 1–10 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bateson, J.E., Hui, M.K.: The ecological validity of photographic slides and videotapes in simulating the service setting. J. Consum. Res. 19, 271–281 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stamps III, A.E.: Use of photographs to simulate environments: a meta-analysis. Percept. Mot. Skills 71, 907–913 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kuliga, S.F., Thrash, T., Dalton, R.C., Hölscher, C.: Virtual reality as an empirical research tool—exploring user experience in a real building and a corresponding virtual model. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 54, 363–375 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thomasen, K.: Beyond Airspace Safety: A Feminist Perspective on Drone Privacy Regulation (2017)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    PytlikZillig, L.M., Duncan, B., Elbaum, S., Detweiler, C.: A drone by any other name: purposes, end-user trustworthiness, and framing, but not terminology, affect public support for drones. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 37, 80–91 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Oltvoort
    • 1
  • Peter de Vries
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thomas van Rompay
    • 2
  • Dale Rosen
    • 3
  1. 1.Psychology of Conflict, Risk and SafetyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Communication ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.BMS LabUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations