Research News Live

Are we more trusted than Facebook?

Are we more trusted than Facebook to protect personal data?

In light of the recent Facebook / Cambridge Analytica scandal, we believe this is an important question for the market research sector to ask ourselves. Obviously we think we are, but to a large extent, what we think is irrelevant, as it is what the general public thinks which matters.

GRBN has decided to repeat our 2016 Trust Survey* in order to measure where we stand today on trust overall, as well as specifically on trust to protect and appropriately use people’s personal data. Whilst we wait for the new data, let’s see what the 2016 survey tells us about whether we are more trusted than Facebook to protect personal data?

The basic answer is ‘yes’ based on the 2016 data, but there are huge differences by country. The table below shows the average for the 9 countries surveyed and highlights the differences between the US and Germany.


In particular in the US, the perceived difference between market research companies and social media companies is alarmingly small.

Digging deeper into our research archives, our 2014 survey showed us that in the Asia Pacific region there is also very little difference between how well social media companies and market research companies are perceived to protect and appropriately use personal data, especially among young adults.

It will be interesting to see if and how trust in market research companies has developed over the last two years. We are not overly optimistic about the results, but we want to have fresh evidence of the challenge our sector faces to build trust with the general public, as we believe that this is one of the most critical issues which we currently face and that we need to do more to address the challenge.

Watch this space to be among the first to see the new data when it comes out, and whilst you wait, you can read the German trust in market research story here.

* Fieldwork was conducted by Research Now through its online panel, and the survey was conducted in nine countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Japan, Mexico, UK and US) in March/April 2016 with more than 9,000 respondents taking part. The sample for the survey was drawn to represent adults 18 plus in each country and data has been weighted to match the population in each country on key demographic variables. The total results represent an average for the nine countries and is not weighted to reflect population size.

The Australian Market and Social Research Society is linked globally to 45 associations through its partnership with the Global Research Business Network (GRBN) and the Asia Pacific Research Committee (APRC). Click here to read about the AMSRS global network. This article is originally sourced from GRBN website.

About The Research Society 1084 Articles
The Research Society is the peak body for research, insights and analytics professionals in Australia. It has a diverse membership of individuals at all levels of experience and seniority within agencies, consultancies, client-side organisations, the non-profit and government sectors, support services as well as institutions and the academic community. As well as over 2,000 individual members, the Research Society has 125+ company and client partners, with the number continuing to grow. The Research Society research professionals and company partners commit to and are regulated by the Research Society Code of Professional Behaviour.

1 Comment on Are we more trusted than Facebook?

  1. One thing that has always concerned me about using surveys to assess trust in survey companies, is that only people willing to do a survey get into the sample. I wonder whether those who use Facebook or use it more also trust it more? And I wonder if there is some (more personal or identifying) information that people are less willing to share with a survey company (even if they are in the segment of the population willing to do surveys).
    When I was teaching about trust I found evidence of three major influences on trust in another person or organisation:
    1. Capability: the belief that the promise (product, service quality and supply, assurances about confidentiality etc) can be delivered as promised – that the other has the capability to deliver
    2. Intention: the belief that the other will do their best to deliver
    3. Integrity: the belief that the other will not take advantage of anything learned about me in ways that will be damaging for me.
    Of these three, violation of the integrity expectation produces the most negative reactions.
    If expectations are not met, willingness to immediately inform the person who has been let down and seek to correct the issue with minimal harm to the “truster” can mitigate negative reactions. Negative reactions increase in a non-linear manner (accelerate) as the number of trust violations increase, and as the damage done increases.
    Probably unlikely to be able to make any changes in a multi-national survey like this, but I wonder if each of these contributors (which some experts actually use as definitions of trust)are each covered.

Comments are closed.