The dimensionality of customer privacy concern on the internet

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -This study attempts to carry out an approximation both to the conceptual delimitation and to the measuring of customer concern for privacy on the electronic market. Design/methodology/approach -To complete the objective of this research, an overview of the literature is made in an attempt to summarise the main proposals as regards dimensions of the construct analysed. Furthermore, two studies were carried out with the aim of evaluating the instruments to measure concern for privacy on the internet and which support the conclusion concerning the construct's dimensionality, reached following the aforementioned literature overview.Findings -From the main results reached, we can highlight that the concern for privacy on the internet construct has a structure consisting of two dimensions, which are confirmed through the scales evaluated for different contexts of use of the internet. These dimensions are: concern for control over the collecting of personal information, and its use on the electronic market. Originality/value -The paper's main contributions are threefold: a conceptual revision of the construct; a proposal of the dimensions for the construct; and an evaluation of two scales to measure the construct in different situations.

Forecasting Stock Exchange Opening with Foreign Stock Markets: Evidence from the NYSE and the SSE

“…An international sample was obtained in one study (Bellman et al, 2004) and Krasnova & Veltri (2010) collected data from respondents in both Germany and the US but analyzed results separately by respondent country. Respondents from the United Kingdom (UK) were represented in one study (Buchanan et al, 2007); European responses were captured by Casteñeda et al (2007); and a Taiwanese perspective was collected in one study (Lian & Lin, 2007).…”

“…All studies involved data collection via survey instruments, though administration differed from email (Sheehan & Hoy, 1999;Sheehan & Hoy, 1999), mail (Eastlick et al, 2006), paper with immediate response submission opportunities (Dinev & Hart, 2004;Dinev & Hart, 2006a;Moscardelli & Divine, 2007; Lian & Lin, 2007), online (Bellman et al, 2004;Van Slyke et al, 2006;Buchanan et al, 2007;Krasnova & Veltri, 2010), personal interview (Malhotra et al, 2004) and unspecified (Dinev & Hart, 2006b;Casteñeda et al, 2007;Xu et al, 2008;. Privacy concern was measured by five-point Likert scales in six instances (Dinev &Hart, 2004; Dinev & Hart, 2006 a and b;Eastlick et al, 2006;Buchanan et al, 2007; Casteneda et al, 2007).…”

“…While Malhotra et 359 al (2004) included control as a distinct dimension of privacy concern, Casteneda et al (2007) included control in both privacy concern dimensions measured -"control over collection" and "control over use". However, as previously discussed, Dinev and Hart (2004) clearly showed that control is a construct distinct from privacy concern and no direct correlation between perceived control and privacy concern was found to exist.Another challenge with Casteñeda et al (2007) resulted from its failure to include "knowledge" as a dimension of privacy concern or place it within a nomological network despite its frequency of appearance within the study"s extensive literature review. While it may be argued that the same definitional inconsistencies that plague consumer concern for information privacy in online contexts existed in the offline situated literature used to conceptualize the construct, Casteneda et al"s (2007) two-dimensional conceptualization of control was disappointing given the authors" clear acknowledgement that "knowledge of collection" and "knowledge of use" were recognized as important in studies argued to be foundational.…”

“…Particular difficulties were noted with two conceptualizations that initially demonstrated merit with their rigorous treatment of extant literature (Malhotra et al 2004 ; Casteñeda et al"s 2007). Both Malhota et al (2004) and Casteñeda et al (2007) suffered from the likelihood of confounding the privacy concern construct conceptualization with the inclusion of control. While Malhotra et 359 al (2004) included control as a distinct dimension of privacy concern, Casteneda et al (2007) included control in both privacy concern dimensions measured -"control over collection" and "control over use".…”

“…Exploratory factor analysis was the most common technique used for examining factor structure, observed in nine of the investigated cases (Sheehan & Hoy, 2000;Dinev & Hart, 2004;Malhotra et al, 2004;Dinev & Hart, 2006a;Dinev & Hart, 2006b;Van Slyke et al, 2006;Buchanan et al, 2007; Casteneda et al, 2007;Lian & Lin, 2008). Confirmatory factor analysis was employed in five of the studies (Bellman et al, 2004;Malhotra et al, 2004;Dinev & Hart, 2006b;Eastlick et al, 2006;and Casteñeda et al, 2007). Principle component analysis was used to assess the factor structure in one case (Buchanan et al, 2007).…”