IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jftint/v15y2023i5p164-d1135344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Online Privacy Fatigue: A Scoping Review and Research Agenda

Author

Listed:
  • Karl van der Schyff

    (School of Design and Informatics, Abertay University, Dundee DD1 1HG, UK)

  • Greg Foster

    (Department of Information Systems, Rhodes University, Grahamstown 6139, South Africa)

  • Karen Renaud

    (School of Design and Informatics, Abertay University, Dundee DD1 1HG, UK
    Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XQ, UK
    School of Computer Science, University of South Africa, Pretoria 0003, South Africa)

  • Stephen Flowerday

    (School of Cyber Studies, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 74104, USA)

Abstract

Online users are responsible for protecting their online privacy themselves: the mantra is custodiat te (protect yourself). Even so, there is a great deal of evidence pointing to the fact that online users generally do not act to preserve the privacy of their personal information, consequently disclosing more than they ought to and unwisely divulging sensitive information. Such self-disclosure has many negative consequences, including the invasion of privacy and identity theft. This often points to a need for more knowledge and awareness but does not explain why even knowledgeable users fail to preserve their privacy. One explanation for this phenomenon may be attributed to online privacy fatigue . Given the importance of online privacy and the lack of integrative online privacy fatigue research, this scoping review aims to provide researchers with an understanding of online privacy fatigue, its antecedents and outcomes, as well as a critical analysis of the methodological approaches used. A scoping review based on the PRISMA-ScR checklist was conducted. Only empirical studies focusing on online privacy were included, with nontechnological studies being excluded. All studies had to be written in English. A search strategy encompassing six electronic databases resulted in eighteen eligible studies, and a backward search of the references resulted in an additional five publications. Of the 23 studies, the majority were quantitative (74%), with fewer than half being theory driven (48%). Privacy fatigue was mainly conceptualized as a loss of control (74% of studies). Five categories of privacy fatigue antecedents were identified: privacy risk, privacy control and management, knowledge and information, individual differences, and privacy policy characteristics. This study highlights the need for greater attention to be paid to the methodological design and theoretical underpinning of future research. Quantitative studies should carefully consider the use of CB-SEM or PLS-SEM, should aim to increase the sample size, and should improve on analytical rigor. In addition, to ensure that the field matures, future studies should be underpinned by established theoretical frameworks. This review reveals a notable absence of privacy fatigue research when modeling the influence of privacy threats and invasions and their relationship with privacy burnout, privacy resignation, and increased self-disclosure. In addition, this review provides insight into theoretical and practical research recommendations that future privacy fatigue researchers should consider going forward.

Suggested Citation

  • Karl van der Schyff & Greg Foster & Karen Renaud & Stephen Flowerday, 2023. "Online Privacy Fatigue: A Scoping Review and Research Agenda," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-31, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:15:y:2023:i:5:p:164-:d:1135344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/15/5/164/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/15/5/164/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bandara, Ruwan & Fernando, Mario & Akter, Shahriar, 2020. "Explicating the privacy paradox: A qualitative inquiry of online shopping consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    2. Jörg Drechsler, 2023. "Differential Privacy for Government Agencies—Are We There Yet?," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 118(541), pages 761-773, January.
    3. David Johnson & John Barry Ryan, 2020. "Amazon Mechanical Turk workers can provide consistent and economically meaningful data," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 87(1), pages 369-385, July.
    4. Chang Boon Lee & Hio Nam Io & Heng Tang, 2022. "Sentiments and perceptions after a privacy breach incident," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 2050018-205, December.
    5. Heng Xu & Hock-Hai Teo & Bernard C. Y. Tan & Ritu Agarwal, 2012. "Research Note ---Effects of Individual Self-Protection, Industry Self-Regulation, and Government Regulation on Privacy Concerns: A Study of Location-Based Services," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1342-1363, December.
    6. Mogaji, Emmanuel & Nguyen, Nguyen Phong, 2022. "The dark side of mobile money: Perspectives from an emerging economy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    7. Richard Henkenjohann, 2021. "Role of Individual Motivations and Privacy Concerns in the Adoption of German Electronic Patient Record Apps—A Mixed-Methods Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-31, September.
    8. Francisco Femenia-Serra & Athina Ioannou & Iis P. Tussyadiah, 2022. "Is smart scary? A mixed-methods study on privacy in smart tourism," Current Issues in Tourism, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(14), pages 2212-2238, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shah, Purvi, 2020. "Managing customer reactions to brand deletion in B2B and B2C contexts," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    2. Cloarec, Julien, 2022. "Privacy controls as an information source to reduce data poisoning in artificial intelligence-powered personalization," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 144-153.
    3. Esther Gal-Or & Ronen Gal-Or & Nabita Penmetsa, 2018. "The Role of User Privacy Concerns in Shaping Competition Among Platforms," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 698-722, September.
    4. Wang, Lu-Yao & Hu, Hai-Hua & Wang, Le & Qin, Jian-Qun, 2022. "Privacy assurances and social sharing in social commerce: The mediating role of threat-coping appraisals," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    5. Abel Brodeur, Nikolai M. Cook, Anthony Heyes, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," LCERPA Working Papers am0133, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis.
    6. David Harborth & Sebastian Pape, 2020. "Empirically Investigating Extraneous Influences on the “APCO” Model—Childhood Brand Nostalgia and the Positivity Bias," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Haas, Nicholas & Hassan, Mazen & Mansour, Sarah & Morton, Rebecca B., 2021. "Polarizing information and support for reform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 883-901.
    8. John Gibson & David Johnson, 0. "Breaking Bad: When Being Disadvantaged Incentivizes (Seemingly) Risky Behavior," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 0, pages 1-28.
    9. Syed Far Abid Hossain & Zhao Xi & Mohammad Nurunnabi & Khalid Hussain, 2020. "Ubiquitous Role of Social Networking in Driving M-Commerce: Evaluating the Use of Mobile Phones for Online Shopping and Payment in the Context of Trust," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    10. Alrawad, Mahmaod & Lutfi, Abdalwali & Alyatama, Sundus & Al Khattab, Adel & Alsoboa, Sliman S. & Almaiah, Mohammed Amin & Ramadan, Mujtaba Hashim & Arafa, Hussin Mostafa & Ahmed, Nazar Ali & Alsyouf, , 2023. "Assessing customers perception of online shopping risks: A structural equation modeling–based multigroup analysis," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    11. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    12. Roger Clarke, 2022. "Research opportunities in the regulatory aspects of electronic markets," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 179-200, March.
    13. Kaitlynn Sandstrom‐Mistry & Frank Lupi & Hyunjung Kim & Joseph A. Herriges, 2023. "Comparing water quality valuation across probability and non‐probability samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 744-761, June.
    14. Chen Liang & Jing Peng & Yili Hong & Bin Gu, 2023. "The Hidden Costs and Benefits of Monitoring in the Gig Economy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 297-318, March.
    15. Idris Adjerid & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2019. "Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2267-2290, May.
    16. Ying, Shiyi & Huang, Youlin & Qian, Lixian & Song, Jinzhu, 2023. "Privacy paradox for location tracking in mobile social networking apps: The perspectives of behavioral reasoning and regulatory focus," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    17. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell us about p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Online Experiments," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1157, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    18. Cloarec, Julien, 2020. "The personalization–privacy paradox in the attention economy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    19. John Gibson & David Johnson, 2021. "Breaking Bad: When Being Disadvantaged Incentivizes (Seemingly) Risky Behavior," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 107-134, January.
    20. Pallant, Jason I. & Pallant, Jessica L. & Sands, Sean J. & Ferraro, Carla R. & Afifi, Eslam, 2022. "When and how consumers are willing to exchange data with retailers: An exploratory segmentation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:15:y:2023:i:5:p:164-:d:1135344. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.