Is the Privacy Paradox a Matter of Psychological Distance? An Exploratory Study of the Privacy Paradox from a Construal Level Theory Perspective

Bandara, Ruwan; Fernando, Marío; Akter, Shahriar

doi:10.24251/hicss.2018.465

Cited by 10 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The finding corroborates prior research, which indicated that users of various digital technologies are willing to share most form of data for instant monetary gratification [54,55]. These responses are partly associated with peoples' perception of this information as something that only exists in a virtual world that is less likely to impact on their real life; this may have an influence on consumers' behaviours towards making such trade-off decisions [56]. For example, although our research participant Julie was concerned about how the fitness data might be used against her due to concerns about her health status, she was willing to make such a trade-off for instant monetary in exchange for sharing fitness information: Amongst all the participants only one participant was unwilling to share or link the devices and share personal data from the activity tracker for any benefits.…”

Section: Figure 1 Flybys Loyalty System Connects With Activity Tracksupporting

confidence: 86%

Users’ Responses to Privacy Issues with the Connected Information Ecologies Created by Fitness Trackers

Pingo

Narayan

2018

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With increased innovation and adoption of digital technologies in our everyday life for various purposes, media, privacy experts, advocates, scholars and researchers have noted and raised privacy and security concerns associated with the misuse of personal information from digital technologies. These technologies enable collection, processing and re-puposing of personal information for various purposes by commercial and interested entities.This paper presents a privacy awareness perspective in an attempt to understand how people respond to privacy concerns while using activity tracking devices and applications, loyalty cards and related data sharing within various information ecologies. The research used a constructivist paradigm; we interviewed twenty-one users of activity trackers and loyalty cards to understand their privacy practices. Results show that privacy is a flexible concept which is a result of users' negotiation between the benefits and the harms of disclosing personal information.

show abstract

Section: Figure 1 Flybys Loyalty System Connects With Activity Tracksupporting

confidence: 86%

Users’ Responses to Privacy Issues with the Connected Information Ecologies Created by Fitness Trackers

Pingo

Narayan

2018

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Psychological factors (e.g., bounded rationality, optimistic bias, mental resource availability, framing, context, habits, psychological distance, etc.) may also influence the choices (Cho et al, 2010 [Singapore]; Acquisti et al, 2013; Dinev et al, 2015; Quinn, 2016; Acquisti et al, 2017; Hallam and Zanella 2017 [mostly students]; Veltri & Ivchenko, 2017 [UK]; Bandara et al, 2018; Becker et al, 2019; Bandara et al, 2020 [Australia]; Ackermann et al, 2022). Another problem with privacy calculus is that both mood and emotion influence information disclosures (Li et al, 2008; Braunstein et al, 2011; Kehr et al, 2015 [US and Switzerland]; Li et al, 2017 [students]; Alashoor et al In press).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Privacy concerns and social desirability bias

Larson

2023

International Journal of Market Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Privacy concerns may influence many choices consumers make. However, their expressed concerns are sometimes inconsistent with their information-sharing and privacy-protecting behaviors. Many theories have been proposed to explain the paradoxical gap between privacy attitudes and behaviors. Part of the privacy paradox may be explained with two measures that have received limited consideration: impulsiveness and social desirability bias (SDB). Surveys of US adults in 2015 and 2022 included questions to measure several types of privacy concerns along with impulsive tendencies and SDB (N = 2729). Age, education, gender, race, income, and impulsive tendencies were linked with some privacy concerns. If people with above-average concerns also disclose personal information on impulse, it might explain part of the paradox. Large coefficients on the SDB measure suggest that individuals who adjust their responses to be consistent with social norms may also overstate specific privacy concerns. For these individuals, their high expressed concerns may be inconsistent with their privacy behaviors. When researchers try to explain consumer attitudes or actions that involve privacy, multiple privacy concern dimensions should be considered and demographics, impulsive tendencies, and SDB should be included in the models.

show abstract