No abstract

Application abstract: A large number of electronic devices are rejected and returned to the seller in the first weeks of trial use, which costs organizations millions of dollars. We aimed to identify the causes behind those returns and find that stress during the trial period is a major contributing factor. Users are stressed as they need to learn how to use the electronic device, integrate it into their daily life, and take care of privacy issues. All that creates stress and makes users feel unhappy with using the electronic device so that they will send it back to the seller. In particular, we see in our results that individuals who are not innovative in using IT in general and have a low willingness to learn using the new electronic device tend to send back electronic devices in the first weeks of the trial period. When discussing those results with individuals who had sent back tablet devices, we see that stress in the trial period can even overwhelm positive thoughts. So, with our results, we conclude that stress in the trial period has many causes that are often responsible for returning electronic devices.

No abstract

Purpose“Smart devices think you're “too lazy” to opt out of privacy defaults” was the headline of a recent news report indicating that individuals might be too lazy to stop disclosing their private information and therefore to protect their information privacy. In current privacy research, privacy concerns and self-disclosure are central constructs regarding protecting privacy. One might assume that being concerned about protecting privacy would lead individuals to disclose less personal information. However, past research has shown that individuals continue to disclose personal information despite high privacy concerns, which is commonly referred to as the privacy paradox. This study introduces laziness as a personality trait in the privacy context, asking to what degree individual laziness influences privacy issues.Design/methodology/approachAfter conceptualizing, defining and operationalizing laziness, the authors analyzed information collected in a longitudinal empirical study and evaluated the results through structural equation modeling.FindingsThe findings show that the privacy paradox holds true, yet the level of laziness influences it. In particular, the privacy paradox applies to very lazy individuals but not to less lazy individuals.Research limitations/implicationsWith these results one can better explain the privacy paradox and self-disclosure behavior.Practical implicationsThe state might want to introduce laws that not only bring organizations to handle information in a private manner but also make it as easy as possible for individuals to protect their privacy.Originality/valueBased on a literature review, a clear research gap has been identified, filled by this research study.

No abstract