Zahra Aivazpour
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Self-disclosure of personal information is generally accepted as a security risk. Nonetheless, many individuals who are concerned about their privacy will often voluntarily reveal information to others. This inconsistency between individuals' expressed privacy concern and the willingness to divulge personal information is referred to as privacy paradox. Several arguments have been proposed to explain the inconsistency. One set of arguments centers around the possible effects of differences in personality characteristics, such as the Big Five factors. In the current article, we examine the role of one personality characteristic, impulsivity, in explaining the relationship between privacy concern and information disclosure. We report the results of a survey-based study that consisted of two hundred and forty-two (242) usable responses from subjects recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk. The results show that one of the three dimensions of impulsivity, motor impulsivity, directly influences the extent of information disclosure and also moderates the relationship between privacy concern and information disclosure. Furthermore, our study shows impulsivity explains more variance in information disclosure than explained by the Big Five factors only.
- Acquisti, A., & Grossklags, J. (2007). What can behavioral economics teach us about privacy? Digital Privacy: Theory, Technologies and Practices, 363--377. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications (Taylor and Francis Group).Google Scholar
- Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509--514.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aivazpour, Z., & Rao, V. S. (2018). Impulsivity and risky cybersecurity behaviors: A replication. Proceedings of the 24th American Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
- Aivazpour, Z., Valecha, R., & Rao, H. R., (2017). Unpacking privacy paradox: A dual process theory approach. Proceedings of the 23rd American Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Boston, MA.Google Scholar
- Alderman, E., & Kennedy, C. (1997). The right to privacy. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
- Arce, E., & Santisteban, C. (2006). Impulsivity: A review. Psicothema, 18(2), 213--220.Google Scholar
- Awad, N. F., & Krishnan, M. S. (2006). The personalization privacy paradox: an empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 3--28.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Baek, Y. M., Kim, E. M., & Bae, Y. (2014). My privacy is okay, but theirs is endangered: Why comparative optimism matters in online privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 48--56.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bansal, G., & Zahedi, F. (2008). The moderating influence of privacy concern on the efficacy of privacy assurance mechanisms for building trust: A multiple-context investigation. Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Paris, France.Google Scholar
- Bansal, G., Zahedi, F. M., & Gefen, D. (2015). The role of privacy assurance mechanisms in building trust and the moderating role of privacy concern. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(6), 624--644.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bansal, G., Zahedi, F.M., & Gefen, D. (2010). The impact of personal dispositions on information sensitivity, privacy concern and trust in disclosing health information online. Decision Support Systems, 49(2), 138--150.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Barratt, E. S. (1993). Impulsivity: Integrating cognitive, behavioral, biological, and environmental data. In W. G. McCown, J. L. Johnson, J & M. B. Shue, (Eds.), The impulsive client: Theory, research, and treatment. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Bazarova, N. N., & Choi, Y. H. (2014). Self-disclosure in social media: Extending the functional approach to disclosure motivations and characteristics on social network sites. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 635--657.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011). Privacy in the digital age: A review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 1017--1042.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bennett, C.J. (1992). Regulating privacy: data protection and public policy in Europe and the United States, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Beresford, A. R., Kübler, D., & Preibusch, S. (2012). Unwillingness to pay for privacy: A field experiment. Economics letters, 117(1), 25--27.Google Scholar
- Blank, G., Bolsover, G., & Dubois, E. (2014). A new privacy paradox: Young people and privacy on social network sites. Prepared for the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, (17). Retrieved from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2479938Google ScholarCross Ref
- Boyles, J.L., Smith, A., & Madden, M. (2012). Privacy and data management on mobile devices. Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet.org/2012/09/05/privacy-and-data-management-on-mobile-devices/Google Scholar
- Brandimarte, L., Acquisti, A., & Loewenstein, G. (2013). Misplaced confidences: Privacy and the control paradox. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 340--347.Google Scholar
- Brown, A. I. (2001). Privacy issues affecting welfare applicants. Clearinghouse Review, 35, 421.Google Scholar
- BusinessWire (2016). Study: Consumers remain carelessly indifferent to online security and privacy. Retrieved from https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160218005142/en/Study-U.S.-Consumers-Remain-Carelessly-Indifferent-Online> 2016Google Scholar
- Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personality development. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
- Butavicius, M., Parsons, K., Pattinson, M., & McCormac, A. (2015). Breaching the human firewall: Social engineering in phishing and spear-phishing emails. Paper presented at the 26th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
- Camerer, C. (1998). Bounded rationality in individual decision making. Experimental Economics, 1(2), 163--183.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chakraborty, R., Lee, J., Bagchi-Sen, S., Upadhyaya, S., & Rao, H. R. (2016). Online shopping intention in the context of data breach in online retail stores: An examination of older and younger adults. Decision Support Systems, 83, 47--56.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chelune, G.J. and Associates (1979). Self-disclosure: Origins, patterns and implications of openness in interpersonal relationships, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
- Chen, J. V., Widjaja, A. E. & Yen, D. C. (2015). Need for affiliation, need for popularity, self-esteem, and the moderating effect of big five personality traits affecting individuals' self-disclosure on Facebook. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(11), 815--831.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cho, H., Lee, J. S., & Chung, S. (2010). Optimistic bias about online privacy risks: Testing the moderating effects of perceived controllability and prior experience, Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 987--995.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Choi, J. S., Park, S. M., Roh, M. S., Lee, J. Y., Park, C. B., Hwang, J. Y., Gwak, A. R., & Jung, H. Y. (2014). Dysfunctional inhibitory control and impulsivity in Internet addiction, Psychiatry Research, 215(2), 424--428.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christofides, E., Muise, A. & Desmarais, S. (2012). Hey mom, what's on your Facebook? Comparing Facebook disclosure and privacy in adolescents and adults. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(1), 48--54.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Coutlee, C. G., Politzer, C. S., Hoyle, R. H., & Huettel, S. A. (2014). An Abbreviated Impulsiveness Scale constructed through confirmatory factor analysis of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Version 11. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 2(1), 1.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Coventry, L. M., Jeske, D., Blythe, J. M., Turland, J., & Briggs, P. (2016). Personality and social framing in privacy decision-making: A study on cookie acceptance, Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1341).Google Scholar
- Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing (3rd Ed.), New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
- Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999). Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 10(1), 104--115.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dalbudak, E., Evren, C., Topcu, M., Aldemir, S., Coskun, K.S., Bozkurt, M., Evren, B., & Canbal, M. (2013). Relationship of Internet addiction with impulsivity and severity of psychopathology among Turkish university students. Psychiatry Research, 210 (3), 1086--1091.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D'Arcy, J., Hovav, A., & Galletta, D. (2009). User awareness of security countermeasures and its impact on information systems misuse: A deterrence approach. Information Systems Research, 20(1), 79--98.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Davis, F. C., Knodt, A. R., Sporns, O., Lahey, B. B., Zald, D. H., Brigidi, B. D., & Hariri, A. R. (2013). Impulsivity and modular organization of resting-state neural networks. Cerebral Cortex, 23(6), 1444--1452.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dir, A. L., Cyders, M. A., & Coskunpinar, A. (2013). From the bar to the bed via mobile phone: A first test of the role of problematic alcohol use, sexting, and impulsivity-related traits in sexual hook-ups. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1664--1670.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eastlick, M. A., Lotz, S. L., & Warrington, P. (2006). Understanding online B-to-C relationships: An integrated model of privacy concerns, trust, and commitment. Journal of Business Research, 59(8), 877--886.Google Scholar
- Egelman, S. & Peer, E. (2015). Predicting privacy and security attitudes. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 45(1), 22--28.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Esere, M. O., Omotosho, J. A. & Idowu, A. I., (2012). Self-disclosure in online counselling. In B. I. Popoola, & O. F. Adebowale, (Eds.), Online Guidance and Counseling: Toward Effectively Applying Technology, Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 180--189.Google Scholar
- Evenden, J. L. (1999). Varieties of impulsivity. Psychopharmacology, 146, 348--361Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (3), 382--388.Google Scholar
- Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504--528.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society, Alexandria, VA, 71--80.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gurven, M., von Rueden, C., Massenkoff, M., Kaplan, H., & Lero Vie, M. (2013) How universal is the Big Five? Testing the five-factor model of personality variation among forager-farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 354--370.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hadlington, L. (2017). Human factors in cybersecurity; examining the link between Internet addiction, impulsivity, attitudes towards cybersecurity, and risky cybersecurity behaviors. Heliyon, 3(7), e00346.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
- Hair, J., Hult, T., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
- Hallam, C., & Zanella, G. (2017). Online self-disclosure: The privacy paradox explained as a temporally discounted balance between concerns and rewards. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 217--227.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Han, J., Kim, Y. J., & Kim, H. (2017). An integrative model of information security policy compliance with psychological contract: Examining a bilateral perspective. Computers and Security, 66, 52--65.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hann, I. H., Hui, K. L., Lee, S. Y. T., & Png, I. P. (2007). Overcoming online information privacy concerns: An information-processing theory approach. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2), 13--42.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Huberman, B. A., Adar, E., & Fine, L. R. (2005). Valuating privacy. IEEE Security and Privacy, 3(5), 22--25.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jensen, C., Potts, C., & Jensen, C. (2005). Privacy practices of Internet users: Self-reports vs. observed behavior, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63 (1), 203--277.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jeske, D., & Shultz, K. S. (2016). Using social media content for screening in recruitment and selection: Pros and cons. Work, Employment and Society, 30(3), 535--546.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Junglas, I. A., Johnson, N.A., & Spitzmüller, C. (2008). Personality traits and concern for privacy: An empirical study in the context of location-based services. European Journal of Information Systems 17(4), 387--402.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kankanhalli, A., Teo, H. H., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2003). An integrative study of information systems security effectiveness. International Journal of Information Management, 23(2), 139--154.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media, Business Horizons, 53(1), 59--68.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kehr, F., Wentzel, D., & Kowatsch, T. (2014). Privacy paradox revised: Pre-existing attitudes, psychological ownership, and actual disclosure. Proceedings of the Thirty-fifth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
- Keith, M. J., Thompson, S. C., Hale, J., Lowry, P. B., & Greer, C. (2013), Information disclosure on mobile devices: Re-examining privacy calculus with actual user behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(12), 1163--117.Google ScholarDigital Library
- King, J. A., Tenney, J., Rossi, V., Colamussi, L., & Burdick, S. (2006). Neural substrates underlying impulsivity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1008(1), 160--169.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kipnis, D., & Goodstadt, B. (1970). Character structure and friendship relationships. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(3), 201--211.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behavior: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers and Security, 64, 122--134.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Krasnova, H., Veltri, N.F., & Gunther, O. (2012). Self-disclosure and privacy calculus on social networking sites: The role of culture, intercultural dynamics of privacy calculus. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 3, 127--135.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Neter, J. (2004). Applied linear regression models (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.Google Scholar
- Lee, H. W., Choi, J. S., Shin, Y. C., Lee, J. Y., Jung, H. Y., & Kwon, J. S. (2012). Impulsivity in internet addiction: A comparison with pathological gambling. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15(7). DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0063Google Scholar
- Liu, C, Ang, R. P., & Lwin, M. O. (2013). Cognitive, personality, and social factors associated with adolescents' online personal information disclosure. Journal of Adolescence, 36(4), 629--638.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Logan, G. D., Schachar, R. J., & Tannock, R. (1997). Impulsivity and inhibitory control. Psychological Science, 8 (1), 60--64.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lowry, P. B., & Gaskin, J. (2014). Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(2), 123--146.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lutz, C., & Strathoff, P. (2014). Privacy concerns and online behavior--Not so paradoxical after all? Viewing the privacy paradox through different theoretical lenses. (April 15, 2014). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2425132Google Scholar
- Lwin, M., Williams, J., & Wirtz, J. (2007). Consumer online privacy concerns and Responses: A power-responsibility equilibrium perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (4), 572--585.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336--355.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mayhorn, C. B., Welk, A. K., Zelinska, O. A., & Murphy-Hill, A. (2015). Assessing individual differences in a phishing detection task. Proceedings of the 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
- Midha, V. (2012). Impact of consumer empowerment on online trust: An examination across genders. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 198--205.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Moffitt, T. E. (2001). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. The Science of Mental Health: Personality and Personality Disorder, 90(11), 420--427.Google Scholar
- Mohammed, Z. A., & Tejay, G. P. (2015a). Understanding the role of equity in leveraging privacy concerns of consumers in ecommerce. Proceedings of CONF-IRM 2015, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
- Mohammed, Z. A., & Tejay, G. P. (2015b). The role of cognitive disposition in deconstructing the privacy paradox: A neuroscience study. Proceedings of American Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2015), Puerto Rico, USA.Google Scholar
- Mottram, A. J., & Fleming, M. J. (2009). Extraversion, impulsivity, and online group membership as predictors of problematic internet use. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12(3).Google Scholar
- Neupane, A., Saxena, N., Maximo, J.O., & Kana, R. (2016). Neural markers of cybersecurity: An fMRI study of phishing and malware warnings. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 11(9), 1970--1983.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., & Horne, D. A. (2007). The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100--126.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pattison, M., Jerram, C., Parsons, K., McCormac A., & Butavicius, M. (2012). Why do some people manage phishing emails better than others? Information Management and Computer Security, 20(1), 18--28.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(6), 768--774.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pavlou, P. A. (2011). State of the information privacy literature: Where are we now and where should we go? MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 977--988.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Phelps, J., Nowak, G., & Ferrell, E. (2000). Privacy concerns and consumer willingness to provide personal information. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 19(1), 27--41.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rainie, L., Kiesler, S., Kang, R., Madden, M., Duggan, M., Brown, S., & Dabbish, L. (2013). Anonymity, privacy, and security online. Pew Research Center Reports. Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/05/anonymity-privacy-and-security-online/Google Scholar
- Roca, C., García, J., & de la Vega, J. (2009). The importance of perceived trust, security and privacy in online trading systems. Information Management and Computer Security, 17(2), 96--113.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schoeman, F. D. (Ed.). (1984). Philosophical dimensions of privacy: An anthology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989--1016.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Smith, H. J., Milberg, S. J. & Burke, S. J. (1996). Information privacy: Measuring individuals' concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quarterly, 20 (2)167--196.Google Scholar
- Son, J. Y., & Kim, S. S. (2008). Internet users' information privacy-protective responses: A taxonomy and a nomological model. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 503--529.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sun, Y., Wang, N., Shen, X. L., & Zhang, J. X. (2015). Location information disclosure in location-based social network services: Privacy calculus, benefit structure, and gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 278--292.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Taddicken, M. (2014). The 'privacy paradox' in the social web: The impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance on different forms of self-disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 248--273.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Trepte, S. & Reinecke, L. (2013). The reciprocal effects of social network site use and the disposition for self-disclosure: A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1102--1112.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tufekci, Z. (2008). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 28(1), 20--36.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Turow, J., Hennessy, M., & Draper, N. (2015). The tradeoff fallacy: How marketers are misrepresenting American consumers and opening them up to exploitation. A Report from the Annenberg School of Communication, University of Pennsylvania. Available at SSRN 2820060. Epub ahead of print 2015. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2820060Google Scholar
- Uebelacker, S., & Quiel, S. (2014). The social engineering personality framework. In 2014 Workshop on Socio-Technical Aspects in Security and Trust (24--30). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Utz, S., & Kramer, N. (2009). The privacy paradox on social network sites revisited: The role of individual characteristics and group norms. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3(2), article 2.Google Scholar
- Van Holst, R. J., van der Meer, J. N., McLaren, D. G., van den Brink, W., Veltman, D. J., & Goudriaan, A. E. (2012). Interactions between affective and cognitive processing systems in problematic gamblers: A functional connectivity study. PLoS One, 7(11), e49923.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wakefield, R. (2013). The influence of user affect in online information disclosure. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 22(2), 157--174.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wang, H., Lee, M. K., & Wang, C. (1998). Consumer privacy concerns about Internet marketing. Communications of the ACM, 41(3), 63--70.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wang, T., Duong, T. D., & Chen, C. C. (2016). Intention to disclose personal information via mobile applications: A privacy calculus perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 531--542.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). Right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193--220.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Weinstein, W. L. (1971). The private and the free: A conceptual inquiry. In J. R. Pennock and J. W. Chapman (eds.), Privacy. Nomos XIII, New York: Atherton Press.Google Scholar
- Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(4), 669--689.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Williams, M., Nurse, J. R. C., & Creese, S. (2016). The perfect storm: The privacy paradox and the Internet-of-Things. Computers and Society. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.05754.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Wills, T. A., Vaccaro, D., & McNamara, G. (1994). Novelty seeking, risk taking, and related constructs as predictors of adolescent substance use: An application of Cloninger's theory. Journal of Substance Abuse, 6(1), 1--20.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wui, A. M. S., Cheung, V. I., Ku, L., & Hung, E. P. W. (2013). Psychological risk factors of addiction to social networking sites among Chinese smartphone users. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2(3), 160--166.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, H. J., & Hart, P. (2008). Examining the formation of individual's privacy concerns: Toward an integrative view. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Paris, France.Google Scholar
- Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, J., & Hart, P. (2011b). Information privacy concerns: Linking individual perceptions with institutional privacy assurances. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(12), 798.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Xu, H., Luo, X. R., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2011a). The personalization, privacy paradox: An exploratory study of the decision making process for location-aware marketing. Decision Support Systems, 51(1), 42--52.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Young, A. L., & Quan-Haase, A. (2009). Information revelation and internet privacy concerns on social network sites: A case study of Facebook. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Communities and Technologies (pp. 265--274), New York, NY: ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Young, A. L., & Quan-Haase, A. (2013). Privacy protection strategies on Facebook: The Internet privacy paradox revisited. Information, Communication and Society, 16(4), 479--500.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zhang, J., Wang, W., Khansa, L., & Kim, S. (2018). Actual privacy self-disclosure on online social network sites: Reflective-impulsive model. Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth European Conference on Information Systems, Portsmouth, UK.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Information Disclosure and Privacy Paradox: The Role of Impulsivity
Recommendations
The Privacy Paradox in Smartphone Users
MUM '22: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous MultimediaIn order to better understand the seemingly paradoxical online behavior of smartphone users, i.e. the privacy paradox, we conduct a survey study comprising 488 German university students. Our results indicate that users can be categorized into four ...
Explaining the privacy paradox: A systematic review of literature investigating privacy attitude and behavior
AbstractAlthough survey results show that the privacy of their personal data is an important issue for online users worldwide, most users rarely make an effort to protect this data actively and often even give it away voluntarily. Privacy ...
Unveiling consumers' privacy paradox behaviour in an economic exchange
Privacy paradox is of great interest to IS researchers and firms gathering personal information. It has been studied from social, behavioural, and economic perspectives independently. However, prior research has not examined the degrees of influence ...
Comments