IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infsem/v21y2023i2d10.1007_s10257-023-00622-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond the trade-offs on Facebook: the underlying mechanisms of privacy choices

Author

Listed:
  • Hung-Pin Shih

    (Minnan Science and Technology University)

  • Wuqiang Liu

    (Minnan Science and Technology University)

Abstract

The theory of privacy calculus in terms of the trade-offs between benefits and risks is believed to explain people’s willingness to disclose private information online. However, the phenomenon of privacy paradox, referring to the preference-behavior inconsistency, misfits the risk–benefit analysis. The phenomenon of privacy paradox matters because it reflects an illusion of personal control over privacy choices. The anomaly of privacy paradox is perhaps attributed to cognitive heuristics and biases in making privacy decisions. We consider the stability-instability of privacy choices is better used to explain the underlying mechanisms of paradoxical relationship. A rebalanced trade-off, referring to the embeddedness of “bridging” and “bonding” social support in privacy calculus, is derived to develop the risk–benefit paradigms to explain the underlying mechanisms. In this study we address the underlying mechanisms of privacy choices in terms of self-disclosure and user resistance. To test the hypotheses (or mechanisms) of the research model, we developed the instrument by modifying previous scales. A general sample of 311 experienced Facebook users was collected via online questionnaire survey. From the empirical results, perceived benefits based on information support rather than emotion support can motivate self-disclosure willingness. In contrast, privacy risks rather than privacy concerns inhibit the willingness to disclose private information. The risk–benefit paradigms instead of the imbalanced trade-offs help to explain the instability of privacy choices where privacy calculus sticks with the stability view. Implications for the theory and practice of privacy choices are discussed accordingly.

Suggested Citation

  • Hung-Pin Shih & Wuqiang Liu, 2023. "Beyond the trade-offs on Facebook: the underlying mechanisms of privacy choices," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 353-387, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:infsem:v:21:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10257-023-00622-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10257-023-00622-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10257-023-00622-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10257-023-00622-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yu, Lu & Li, He & He, Wu & Wang, Feng-Kwei & Jiao, Shiqiao, 2020. "A meta-analysis to explore privacy cognition and information disclosure of internet users," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    2. Wang, Tien & Duong, Trong Danh & Chen, Charlie C., 2016. "Intention to disclose personal information via mobile applications: A privacy calculus perspective," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 531-542.
    3. Kelly D. Martin & Patrick E. Murphy, 2017. "The role of data privacy in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 135-155, March.
    4. Mary J. Culnan & Pamela K. Armstrong, 1999. "Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 104-115, February.
    5. Anol Bhattacherjee & Neset Hikmet, 2007. "Physicians' resistance toward healthcare information technology: a theoretical model and empirical test," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(6), pages 725-737, December.
    6. Girish N. Punj, 2019. "Understanding individuals’ intentions to limit online personal information disclosures to protect their privacy: implications for organizations and public policy," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 139-151, September.
    7. Paul Benjamin Lowry & Tamara Dinev & Robert Willison, 2017. "Why security and privacy research lies at the centre of the information systems (IS) artefact: proposing a bold research agenda," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 546-563, November.
    8. Tim Klaus & J Ellis Blanton, 2010. "User resistance determinants and the psychological contract in enterprise system implementations," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(6), pages 625-636, December.
    9. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    10. GM Marakas & S Hornik, 1996. "Passive resistance misuse: overt support and covert recalcitrance in IS implementation," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 208-219, September.
    11. Tamara Dinev & Paul Hart, 2006. "An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 61-80, March.
    12. Core, John E., 2001. "A review of the empirical disclosure literature: discussion," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1-3), pages 441-456, September.
    13. Zafer D. Ozdemir & H. Jeff Smith & John H. Benamati, 2017. "Antecedents and outcomes of information privacy concerns in a peer context: An exploratory study," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 642-660, November.
    14. Janice Y. Tsai & Serge Egelman & Lorrie Cranor & Alessandro Acquisti, 2011. "The Effect of Online Privacy Information on Purchasing Behavior: An Experimental Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 254-268, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Leslie K. John & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2011. "Strangers on a Plane: Context-Dependent Willingness to Divulge Sensitive Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(5), pages 858-873.
    17. Aurélie Leclercq-Vandelannoitte & Jeremy Aroles, 2020. "Does the end justify the means?Information systems and control society in the age of pandemics," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(6), pages 746-761, November.
    18. Woolcock, Michael & Narayan, Deepa, 2000. "Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 15(2), pages 225-249, August.
    19. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 1992. "The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 398-427, August.
    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. Tawfiq Alashoor & Mark Keil & H. Jeff Smith & Allen R. McConnell, 2023. "Too Tired and in Too Good of a Mood to Worry About Privacy: Explaining the Privacy Paradox Through the Lens of Effort Level in Information Processing," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1415-1436, December.
    2. Helia Marreiros & Mirco Tonin & Michael Vlassopoulos & M.C. Schraefel, 2016. "“Now that you mention it”: A Survey Experiment on Information, Salience and Online Privacy," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS34, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
    3. Bleier, Alexander & Goldfarb, Avi & Tucker, Catherine, 2020. "Consumer privacy and the future of data-based innovation and marketing," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 466-480.
    4. Fehrenbach, David & Herrando, Carolina, 2021. "The effect of customer-perceived value when paying for a product with personal data: A real-life experimental study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 222-232.
    5. Morlok, Tina & Matt, Christian & Hess, Thomas, 2017. "Privatheitsforschung in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften: Entwicklung, Stand und Perspektiven," Working Papers 1/2017, University of Munich, Munich School of Management, Institute for Information Systems and New Media.
    6. Anna D’Annunzio & Elena Menichelli, 2022. "A market for digital privacy: consumers’ willingness to trade personal data and money," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 49(3), pages 571-598, September.
    7. Swani, Kunal & Milne, George R. & Slepchuk, Alec N., 2021. "Revisiting Trust and Privacy Concern in Consumers' Perceptions of Marketing Information Management Practices: Replication and Extension," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 137-158.
    8. Marreiros, Helia & Tonin, Mirco & Vlassopoulos, Michael & Schraefel, M.C., 2017. "“Now that you mention it”: A survey experiment on information, inattention and online privacy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-17.
    9. 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).
    10. Nils Koester & Patrick Cichy & David Antons & Torsten Oliver Salge, 2022. "Perceived privacy risk in the Internet of Things: determinants, consequences, and contingencies in the case of connected cars," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 2333-2355, December.
    11. Eunji Lee & Jin-young Kim & Junchul Kim & Chulmo Koo, 2023. "Information Privacy Behaviors during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Focusing on the Restaurant Context," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 1829-1845, October.
    12. Alisa Frik & Luigi Mittone, 2016. "Factors Influencing the Perceived Websites' Privacy Trustworthiness and Users' Purchase Intentions," CEEL Working Papers 1609, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    13. Joseph R. Buckman & Jesse C. Bockstedt & Matthew J. Hashim, 2019. "Relative Privacy Valuations Under Varying Disclosure Characteristics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 375-388, June.
    14. Weiyin Hong & Frank K. Y. Chan & James Y. L. Thong, 2021. "Drivers and Inhibitors of Internet Privacy Concern: A Multidimensional Development Theory Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 539-564, January.
    15. Ruwan Bandara & Mario Fernando & Shahriar Akter, 2020. "Privacy concerns in E-commerce: A taxonomy and a future research agenda," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(3), pages 629-647, September.
    16. Krafft, Manfred & Arden, Christine M. & Verhoef, Peter C., 2017. "Permission Marketing and Privacy Concerns — Why Do Customers (Not) Grant Permissions?," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 39-54.
    17. Slepchuk, Alec N. & Milne, George R. & Swani, Kunal, 2022. "Overcoming privacy concerns in consumers’ use of health information technologies: A justice framework," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 782-793.
    18. Plangger, Kirk & Montecchi, Matteo, 2020. "Thinking Beyond Privacy Calculus: Investigating Reactions to Customer Surveillance," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 32-44.
    19. Anna Priester & Thomas Robbert & Stefan Roth, 2020. "A special price just for you: effects of personalized dynamic pricing on consumer fairness perceptions," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(2), pages 99-112, April.
    20. Shaw, Norman & Sergueeva, Ksenia, 2019. "The non-monetary benefits of mobile commerce: Extending UTAUT2 with perceived value," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 44-55.

    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:spr:infsem:v:21:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10257-023-00622-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.