IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i19p10679-d643562.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating the Personalization–Privacy Paradox in Internet of Things (IoT) Based on Dual-Factor Theory: Moderating Effects of Type of IoT Service and User Value

Author

Listed:
  • Ae-Ri Lee

    (Department of Business Administration, Sangmyung University, Seoul 03016, Korea)

Abstract

Despite people’s concerns over privacy leakage in the Internet of Things (IoT), the needs for personalized IoT services are increasing, creating a conflicting phenomenon viewed as the personalization–privacy (P–P) paradox. This study proposes a research model that utilizes dual-factor theory to investigate the P–P paradox in IoT. It aims to analyze the impact of the dual factor—personalization and privacy concerns related to IoT services—on the intention to use IoT. Further, the model includes four-dimensional motivated innovativeness and previous privacy-invasion experience as key antecedents of the dual factor. Particularly, this study examines the moderating effects of the type of IoT service and user value on the relationship between dual factor and usage intention. Data were collected using a web-based survey. The results showed that personalization had a significant impact on the intention to use IoT, whereas privacy concerns did not. The effects of all antecedents except social innovativeness were significant. The P–P paradox phenomenon appeared differently depending on the type of IoT service and user value. This study contributes to gaining a better understanding of the factors that influence the increase in IoT usage in terms of both protecting and appropriately using personal information for IoT services.

Suggested Citation

  • Ae-Ri Lee, 2021. "Investigating the Personalization–Privacy Paradox in Internet of Things (IoT) Based on Dual-Factor Theory: Moderating Effects of Type of IoT Service and User Value," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-27, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:19:p:10679-:d:643562
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10679/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10679/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ritu Agarwal & Jayesh Prasad, 1998. "A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 204-215, June.
    2. Sheen Low & Fahim Ullah & Sara Shirowzhan & Samad M. E. Sepasgozar & Chyi Lin Lee, 2020. "Smart Digital Marketing Capabilities for Sustainable Property Development: A Case of Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-40, July.
    3. Roehrich, Gilles, 2004. "Consumer innovativeness: Concepts and measurements," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(6), pages 671-677, June.
    4. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    5. Simonson, Itamar & Nowlis, Stephen M, 2000. "The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 49-68, June.
    6. Ronald T. Cenfetelli & Andrew Schwarz, 2011. "Identifying and Testing the Inhibitors of Technology Usage Intentions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 808-823, December.
    7. Rajagopal, 2014. "The Human Factors," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Architecting Enterprise, chapter 9, pages 225-249, Palgrave Macmillan.
    8. Tuck Siong Chung & Roland T. Rust & Michel Wedel, 2009. "My Mobile Music: An Adaptive Personalization System for Digital Audio Players," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 52-68, 01-02.
    9. Simonson, Itamar & Nowlis, Stephen M., 2000. "The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons," Research Papers 1610, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    10. Wynne W. Chin & Barbara L. Marcolin & Peter R. Newsted, 2003. "A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 189-217, June.
    11. Reinhardt, Ronny & Gurtner, Sebastian, 2015. "Differences between early adopters of disruptive and sustaining innovations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 137-145.
    12. Vandecasteele, Bert & Geuens, Maggie, 2010. "Motivated Consumer Innovativeness: Concept, measurement, and validation," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 308-318.
    13. Naresh K. Malhotra & Sung S. Kim & James Agarwal, 2004. "Internet Users' Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 336-355, December.
    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. Hwang, Jinsoo & Kim, Jinkyung Jenny & Lee, Kwang-Woo, 2021. "Investigating consumer innovativeness in the context of drone food delivery services: Its impact on attitude and behavioral intentions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    2. Haris Krijestorac & Rajiv Garg & Prabhudev Konana, 2021. "Decisions Under the Illusion of Objectivity: Digital Embeddedness and B2B Purchasing," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(7), pages 2232-2251, July.
    3. Lokesh Jasrai, 2014. "Measuring Mobile Telecom Service Innovativeness Among Youth," Paradigm, , vol. 18(1), pages 103-116, June.
    4. Gao, Tao (Tony) & Rohm, Andrew J. & Sultan, Fareena & Pagani, Margherita, 2013. "Consumers un-tethered: A three-market empirical study of consumers' mobile marketing acceptance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2536-2544.
    5. Simonson, Itamar & Sela, Aner, 2009. "On the Heritability of Choice, Judgment, and "Irrationality": Genetic Effects on Prudence and Constructive Predispositions," Research Papers 2029, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    6. Bölen, Mehmet Cem, 2020. "From traditional wristwatch to smartwatch: Understanding the relationship between innovation attributes, switching costs and consumers' switching intention," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    7. Truong, Yann, 2013. "A cross-country study of consumer innovativeness and technological service innovation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 130-137.
    8. Vandecasteele, Bert & Geuens, Maggie, 2010. "Motivated Consumer Innovativeness: Concept, measurement, and validation," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 308-318.
    9. Kassemeier, Roland & Haumann, Till & Güntürkün, Pascal, 2022. "Whether, when, and why functional company characteristics engender customer satisfaction and customer-company identification: The role of self-definitional needs," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 699-723.
    10. Se-Joon Hong & Kar Yan Tam, 2006. "Understanding the Adoption of Multipurpose Information Appliances: The Case of Mobile Data Services," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 162-179, June.
    11. Delgosha, Mohammad Soltani & Hajiheydari, Nastaran, 2020. "On-demand service platforms pro/anti adoption cognition: Examining the context-specific reasons," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 180-194.
    12. Henkel, Laura & Jahn, Steffen & Toporowski, Waldemar, 2022. "Short and sweet: Effects of pop-up stores’ ephemerality on store sales," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    13. Rashid Saeed & Hashim Zameer & Idrees Awan & Imdad Ullah, 2014. "A Study of Consumer Innovativeness and Motivations behind Adoption of Innovation," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 4(7), pages 340-349, July.
    14. B. Vandecasteele & M. Geuens, 2008. "Motivated Consumer Innovativeness: Concept and Measurement," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 08/532, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    15. Simonson, Itamar & Kramer, Thomas & Young, Maia J., 2004. "Effect propensity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 156-174, November.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Mario Silic & Andrea Back, 2016. "The Influence of Risk Factors in Decision-Making Process for Open Source Software Adoption," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 151-185, January.
    18. Tahani Z. Aldahdouh & Petri Nokelainen & Vesa Korhonen, 2020. "Technology and Social Media Usage in Higher Education: The Influence of Individual Innovativeness," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440198, January.
    19. Hajiheydari, Nastaran & Delgosha, Mohammad Soltani & Olya, Hossein, 2021. "Scepticism and resistance to IoMT in healthcare: Application of behavioural reasoning theory with configurational perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    20. Riffat Ara Zannat Tama & Md Mahmudul Hoque & Ying Liu & Mohammad Jahangir Alam & Mark Yu, 2023. "An Application of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to Examining Farmers’ Behavioral Attitude and Intention towards Conservation Agriculture in Bangladesh," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-22, February.
    21. Osama Sohaib & Kyeong Kang & Mohammad Nurunnabi, 2018. "Gender-Based iTrust in E-Commerce: The Moderating Role of Cognitive Innovativeness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, December.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:19:p:10679-:d:643562. 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.