PRIVACY PARADOX: INTEGRATIVE LITERATURE REVIEWABSTRACT
The so-called privacy paradox refers to individuals’ desire for privacy, which is subordinated to their willingness to trade it for the benefits of consuming a product or service, leading to a paradoxical situation. Although multiple theories attempt to explain this phenomenon, there is a lack of studies that integrate, at the construct level, the different theoretical approaches used to understand the privacy paradox. This study proposes a comprehensive view based on a literature review of 34 studies involving 14 theories that support the investigation of the privacy paradox. The review integrates studies addressing (1) the theoretical foundations of the privacy paradox, (2) the factors influencing the privacy paradox, and (3) the behavioral consequences that lead to the privacy paradox. We present an integrated theoretical framework at the construct level, allowing researchers in this field to propose new models derived from combinations of different theoretical approaches.
Keywords:
information privacy; privacy paradox; privacy behavior; disclosure behavior; protection behavior.
RESUMO
O chamado paradoxo da privacidade está relacionado com o desejo de privacidade dos indivíduos subordinado a uma disposição de perdê-la por um ganho gerado pelo consumo de um produto ou serviço, levando à situação paradoxal. Apesar de haver múltiplas teorias que se propõem a explicar esse fenômeno, faltam estudos que integrem, ao nível dos construtos, as diferentes abordagens teóricas usadas para entendimento do paradoxo da privacidade. Este trabalho tem como objetivo propor uma visão abrangente, baseada na revisão da literatura de 34 estudos envolvendo 14 teorias usadas como suporte no estudo do paradoxo da privacidade. São integrados estudos que tratam (1) dos fundamentos teóricos do paradoxo da privacidade, (2) dos fatores que o influenciam e (3) das consequências comportamentais que levam ao paradoxo da privacidade. Como resultado, apresenta-se um quadro teórico integrado, ao nível dos construtos, que permitirá que os pesquisadores do tema proponham novos modelos derivados das combinações de diferentes abordagens teóricas.
Palavras-chave:
privacidade da informação; paradoxo da privacidade; comportamento de privacidade; comportamento de divulgação; comportamento de proteção
RESUMEN
La llamada paradoja de la privacidad se refiere a la situación en la que el deseo de privacidad de los individuos se subordina a su disposición a intercambiarla por los beneficios generados por el consumo de un producto o servicio, lo que lleva a una situación paradójica. Aunque múltiples teorías intentan explicar este fenómeno, faltan estudios que integren, a nivel de constructos, los diferentes enfoques teóricos utilizados para comprender la paradoja de la privacidad. Este estudio tiene como objetivo proponer una visión integral basada en una revisión de la literatura de 34 estudios que involucran 14 teorías que respaldan la investigación de la paradoja de la privacidad. La revisión integra estudios que abordan (1) los fundamentos teóricos de la paradoja de la privacidad, (2) los factores que influyen en la paradoja de la privacidad y (3) las consecuencias conductuales que llevan a la paradoja de la privacidad. Como resultado, se presenta un marco teórico integrado a nivel de constructos, que permitirá que los investigadores de este campo propongan nuevos modelos derivados de la combinación de diferentes enfoques teóricos.
Palavras clave:
privacidad de la información; paradoja de la privacidad; conducta de la privacidad; conducta de divulgación; conducta protectora..
INTRODUCTION
Privacy is a complex and multidimensional concept (Seo et al., 2022). Its definition has evolved from the legal notion of the ability to control and limit physical, interactional, psychological, and informational access to oneself or one’s group, encompassing four dimensions (physical, interactional, psychological, and informational) (Seo et al., 2022). For this study, the term is addressed within the dimension of informational privacy, which refers to individuals’ ability to determine when, how, and to what extent their personal information is shared online (Cho, 2012). This environment may have created conflicts around this concept, as technology enables individuals to exercise their preferences online, while service providers and others often collect information without consent (Weinberger et al., 2017).
While privacy plays a crucial role in the flow of information, enabling companies to predict consumer behavior and offer personalized services, its loss is often perceived as a threatening experience. Such loss can include stalking, personal information leaks, reputation damage, surveillance, identity theft, and the misuse of personal data by third parties, all of which may lead to psychological health consequences (Debatin et al., 2009). As a result, there is a delicate balance between data-driven marketing efforts and an individual’s struggle to protect their privacy while disclosing personal information (Bandara et al., 2020).
The dichotomy of individuals acting in ways that contradict their desire for privacy is known as the privacy paradox (Seo et al., 2022). Various perspectives on the concept and the constructs being measured have been identified. Some authors refer to the dichotomy between privacy concerns and disclosure behavior (Li & Guo, 2022), while others focus on the dichotomy between disclosure intention and actual behavior (Kim & Kim, 2020). Additionally, there is a distinction between privacy concerns and protective behavior (Chen, 2018).
The privacy paradox is not new in privacy research (Gerber et al., 2018). Over time, various attempts have been made to explain it through different theoretical lenses, such as social contract theory (Bandara et al., 2020), construal level theory (Li & Guo, 2022), and social exchange theory (Cloarec et al., 2022). Additionally, empirical findings have explored different constructs, with some focusing on disclosure intention (Wang et al., 2020) and others on privacy concerns (Chen, 2018).
However, no explanation has yet been found for the privacy paradox at the individual level, making it a complex phenomenon that remains only partially understood (Gerber et al., 2018). Therefore, it is essential to clarify these different conceptual perspectives and develop a systematic and integrative framework of the theories that explain the privacy paradox, including understanding how they approach the phenomenon differently. This framework will provide researchers with a foundation to further advance the field, encouraging the development of new theoretical perspectives or combinations of existing ones. The theoretical framework proposed at the end of this article enables researchers to build more integrative views of these theories. In particular, this study highlights theories that have been underexplored in explaining the privacy paradox, such as the protection motivation theory.
The objective of this study is to propose a theoretical and systematic framework of theories that explain the privacy paradox at the individual level by integrating different approaches that address (1) the theoretical foundations of the privacy paradox, (2) the factors influencing the privacy paradox, and (3) the behaviors that lead to the privacy paradox. This study is based on an integrative literature review of 34 studies exploring 14 theories used in privacy paradox research. As a contribution, it highlights the conceptual differences of the phenomenon, provides a theoretical framework of the findings in this field, and suggests (1) a more significant privacy paradox in the use of theories that only address disclosure behavior without considering the influence of protective behavior, and (2) a smaller privacy paradox for those that integrate both disclosure behavior and protective behavior.
This study contributes to an integrative review that has not yet been conducted, covering different approaches to explain the privacy paradox. Some theories focus on explaining the foundations of the privacy paradox, others on the factors that influence it, and others on the behaviors that lead to it. The second contribution is the proposition of causal connections between different constructs from the various theories studied, enabling the development of new models by combining these theories and connections. For example, integrating privacy calculus theory with information boundary theory helped identify the influence of protective behavior on disclosure behavior, indicating a reduction in the privacy paradox.
In this analysis, fourteen theories that aim to explain the privacy paradox through different approaches are examined, and a theoretical and systematic framework is developed to provide a foundation for future research. The framework encourages the development of more integrative views of these theories, aiming to accelerate the understanding of the privacy paradox and, consequently, offer a more comprehensive explanation than what has been proposed.
The structure of this paper is as follows: Section 2 introduces the privacy paradox phenomenon. Section 3 outlines the research methodology. Section 4 reviews the theories analyzed and their application in privacy paradox studies. Section 5 proposes an integrative framework, explaining the relationships between the theories and discussing the study’s limitations and implications for future research in the field.
PRIVACY PARADOX
The privacy paradox arises when individuals disclose personal information despite desiring privacy (Seo et al., 2022). However, four perspectives on the concept have been identified, particularly regarding how the desire for privacy is understood and the constructs used for empirical evaluation. This lack of clarity underscores that the phenomenon is not clearly defined, contributing to the wide variety of theories used to explain the privacy paradox (Gerber et al., 2018).
The first conceptualization, developed by Brown (2001) and Barnes (2006), focuses on the concern-behavior dichotomy, describing how individuals share personal information despite having privacy concerns. The second conceptualization, introduced by Norberg et al. (2007), centers on the intention-behavior dichotomy, noting that individuals share personal information even when they intend not to. The third, proposed by Acquisti (2004) and Kokolakis (2017), emphasizes the attitude-behavior dichotomy, highlighting that individuals disclose personal information despite a reluctance to do so (Gerber et al., 2018). Some studies introduce a fourth interpretation of the privacy paradox, referring to the tension between personalization and privacy, known as the personalization-privacy paradox (Gerber et al., 2018).
Kokolakis (2017) notes that, although some scholars equate attitude with privacy concerns, these constructs are closely related yet fundamentally different. Privacy concerns are often generic and not tied to any specific context, whereas privacy attitudes involve evaluating particular privacy-related behaviors. In contrast, Gerber et al. (2018) argue that privacy attitude refers to the general evaluation of various privacy behaviors, which is why it is often operationalized as an assessment of privacy concerns. Additionally, some empirical studies on the phenomenon, such as Karwatzki et al. (2017), have analyzed behavioral intention despite the privacy paradox being more closely related to actual behavior. This distinction is crucial, as intention does not always translate into behavior, potentially affecting the results. Even studies that examined behavior, such as Pentina et al. (2016), often relied on self-reported rather than actual behavior, which could also influence the findings (Gerber et al., 2018). These points further show that the privacy paradox remains insufficiently defined.
RESEARCH METHOD
This study employs an integrative literature review approach. In line with the research objectives, the first step was to compile a list of articles from the Scopus (Elsevier) database. This process, conducted in early April 2023, involved searching for documents using the ‘Article title, Abstract, Keywords’ fields and the keyword ‘privacy paradox.’ The search was further refined by filtering for document type ‘Article’ and language ‘English.’ As a result, the following search key was generated: TITLE-ABS-KEY (‘privacy paradox’) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, ‘ar’)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, ‘English’)).
The analyzed articles were classified into six groups. Group 1, ‘explanatory of the privacy paradox,’ includes articles that aim to explain the privacy paradox using established theories. Only well-established theories were selected for this group-those involving specific sets of variables or constructs in consistent relationships that are widely studied and referenced, such as the theory of planned behavior (Li, 2012). Group 2, ‘existence of the privacy paradox,’ comprises articles that assess the existence of the privacy paradox without relying on established theories to explain the phenomenon. Group 3, ‘discovery of the privacy paradox,’ includes articles identifying it as a study finding and suggesting its existence. Group 4, ‘use of the privacy paradox,’ refers to articles that assume the privacy paradox exists and use it to explain another topic. Group 5, ‘not focused on the privacy paradox,’ encompasses articles exploring other phenomena or constructs, such as privacy concerns as a barrier to customer engagement, without directly addressing the privacy paradox. Finally, Group 6, ‘duplicates,’ consists of repeated articles.
Since this study aims to develop a theoretical, systematic, and integrative framework of theories that explain the privacy paradox at the individual level, only articles from Group 1 were considered. Articles containing the keyword ‘organizational level’ in their titles or abstracts were excluded. This process identified 216 studies, of which 34 were selected: 10 involved experiments, 2 involved interviews, and 22 applied surveys. Figure 1 illustrates the review procedure. A similar search in the Web of Science database yielded no additional relevant articles.
In the 34 selected studies, it is possible to identify that theories were used to explain the privacy paradox across three categories: (1) theoretical foundations of the privacy paradox, (2) factors influencing the privacy paradox, and (3) behaviors leading to the privacy paradox. Table 1 presents the authors of the selected studies and their respective categories.
REVIEW OF THEORIES
Based on the three categories in which theories were used to explain the privacy paradox, Table 2 was developed to present each theory within its respective category, along with the analyses conducted in privacy paradox studies and references to the authors of these studies.
Studies addressing the theoretical foundations of the privacy paradox
The first category includes studies that use theories to explain the theoretical foundations of the privacy paradox. The privacy calculus theory and the uses and gratifications theory are fundamental theories in this category.
As one of the most prominent frameworks in information privacy research, privacy calculus theory, according to Wang et al. (2024), was the most frequently used theory and the first adopted in the studies reviewed, starting in 2011. Privacy calculus has gained increasing importance in the digital landscape, as it plays a central role in individuals’ online decision-making regarding sharing personal information (Cloarec et al., 2024). Additionally, it is often integrated with other theories, such as the uses and gratifications theory (Kim & Kim, 2020), information boundary theory (Chen, 2018), construal level theory (Cowan et al., 2021), social exchange theory (Hayes et al., 2021), the elaboration likelihood model (Wang et al., 2020), and the theory of planned behavior (Kim & Kim, 2020), making it a foundational starting point for studies related to the phenomenon.
This joint effect of opposing forces on privacy behavior is referred to as ‘privacy calculus’ by Culnan and Armstrong (1999), based on the behavioral calculus theory developed by Laufer and Wolfe (1977) (Sun et al., 2020). The theory suggests that behavioral intention and disclosure behavior are shaped by opposing beliefs, typically assessed in terms of costs and benefits (Dinev & Hart, 2006). Individuals will disclose information if they perceive that the benefits of doing so outweigh, or at least balance, the costs, which are measured in terms of privacy risks or concerns (Dinev & Hart, 2006).
Another theory examined in this category is the uses and gratifications theory, which focuses solely on perceived benefits. It suggests that individuals are motivated to choose and use specific forms of communication to meet their needs (Klapper, 1963) actively. This theory provides a foundation for understanding intended use and resulting satisfaction, offering a ‘how and why’ approach to analyzing media use motivations (Quinn, 2016). Cutler and Danowski (1980) categorized gratifications into two dimensions: content gratifications, which relate to the messages conveyed by the media, and process gratifications, which pertain to the experience of using the medium. Later, Stafford and Stafford (2001) introduced a third dimension-social gratifications-focused on the social interactivity facilitated by the media environment (Quinn, 2016).
In privacy paradox studies, the uses and gratifications theory has been integrated with other theories, including privacy calculus theory (Kim & Kim, 2020), information boundary theory (Sutanto et al., 2013), and the theory of planned behavior (Kim & Kim, 2020).
Studies addressing the factors that influence the privacy paradox
Starting in 2016, studies on the privacy paradox increasingly began incorporating theories related to individual factors, primarily from psychology. These studies fall into the second category of this review, focusing on the factors that influence the privacy paradox. Theories in this category include personality traits, regulatory focus theory, social exchange theory, multidimensional development theory, social contract theory, elaboration likelihood theory, and cultural dimensions theory.
A personality trait is a stable set of attributes that determine commonalities and differences in individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and actions as predictors of perceptions and behaviors. The most widely recognized theory in this area is the Big Five personality traits, initially developed by Fiske (1949) and later refined by Tupes and Christal (1992). This theory includes the following dimensions: extraversion/introversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism/emotional stability, and openness, which were further elaborated by several scholars (Pentina et al., 2016). Extraversion is associated with warmth, sociability, and assertiveness. Agreeableness emphasizes trust, altruism, compliance, and modesty. Conscientiousness relates to competence, achievement, self-discipline, and duty. Neuroticism is characterized by anxiety, self-consciousness, and impulsivity. Finally, openness to new experiences reflects a tendency to conform less to norms and a broader range of interests (Pentina et al., 2016). In studies on the privacy paradox, researchers have integrated personality traits with the privacy calculus theory (Pentina et al., 2016).
As a factor influencing the privacy paradox, an individual’s motivation to engage in behaviors has been assessed using regulatory focus theory. Developed by Higgins (1997) based on self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987), the theory proposes two self-regulatory orientations motivated by different desired end states: one driven by hopes, desires, and aspirations (promotion focus) and the other by beliefs about duties, responsibilities, and security (prevention focus). These orientations lead to different strategic inclinations, with promotion focus associated with sensitivity to positive outcomes (gain/no gain) and a desire to approach ideal end states. In contrast, prevention focus is linked to sensitivity to adverse outcomes (non-loss/loss) and a desire to avoid mismatches with desired end states (Ying et al., 2023). These inclinations influence both motivational meaning and performance. In other words, motivation and performance are enhanced when the means of achieving a goal align with an individual’s regulatory focus, which can be temporarily induced in specific situations (Higgins, 1997). In privacy paradox studies, regulatory focus theory has been integrated with social exchange theory (Mosteller & Poddar, 2017), privacy calculus theory, and behavioral reasoning theory (Ying et al., 2023).
The role of reciprocity as an influencing factor in the privacy paradox has been assessed using social exchange theory. This theory is one of the primary perspectives on social interaction and social structure, drawing on the foundational works of Blau (1964), Emerson (1972), and Homans (1961). Homans (1961) emphasized individual behavior in interactions, where rewards and punishments drive actions. His focus was on mutual reinforcement over time to explain the persistence of exchange relationships (Cook et al., 2013). In contrast, Blau (1964) approached social exchange in terms of anticipated rewards-voluntary, reciprocal relationships motivated by the expectation of maximizing benefits and minimizing costs through social interaction, even when these relationships involve power imbalances that can create social debts (Cook et al., 2013). Emerson (1972) further expanded on this by explicitly treating power as a relational dynamic rather than an individual attribute.
In privacy paradox studies, social exchange theory has been integrated with construal level theory (Cloarec et al., 2022), privacy calculus theory (Hayes et al., 2021), and regulatory focus theory (Mosteller & Poddar, 2017).
The influence of situational factors, such as the emotions experienced during initial contact with an exchange environment, on the privacy paradox was assessed using multidimensional development theory. Developed by Laufer and Wolfe (1977), this theory aims to understand the formation of individual and situational privacy based on the premise that individuals cannot fully comprehend the privacy situation. This limitation triggers a desire to exert control over such situations and the need for interaction with these environments for mutuality and sharing. The theory suggests that an individual’s privacy is shaped simultaneously through multiple processes, including the self-development of personality in the pursuit of privacy and the situational interactions with the environment and other individuals. It focuses on the impact of three key factors: self-ego, environmental, and interpersonal (Li et al., 2017). In privacy paradox studies, this theory has not been integrated with others.
The influence of social norms and established agreements on the privacy paradox has been assessed using social contract theory. Initially developed by Donaldson and Dunfee (1994) in the field of business ethics, the application of privacy as a social contract was introduced by Culnan and Bies (2003). In this framework, a mutually beneficial and sustainable agreement between individuals and organizations is governed by social norms, which dictate what type of information is shared, who has access to it, and how it is used in the context of participation in the exchange. These norms-whether procedural, hypothetical, or moral-are established with the expectation of minimum ethical standards and principles. According to this theory, sharing personal information is not solely an economic exchange but also a socially-driven exchange, meaning that individuals continue to selectively disclose their information despite privacy concerns (Bandara et al., 2020). In privacy paradox studies, this theory has been integrated with construal level theory (Bandara et al., 2020).
The possibility that individuals adopt different levels of cognitive effort in decision-making can influence the privacy paradox and is evaluated through the elaboration likelihood model. This model, proposed by Petty and Cacioppo (1979), is based on two routes of influence: the central route, where individuals engage in thorough elaboration of relevant information, and the peripheral route, where individuals engage in little to no elaboration of available information. The model helps to understand the effectiveness of persuasion and attitude changes (Tian et al., 2022). Specifically, the central route involves significant cognitive effort, with individuals drawing on prior experience and knowledge to carefully examine and evaluate all the information presented. This route requires motivation, such as perceived relevance or an individual’s inclination to think, as well as the necessary skills to assess the merits of the information (Petty et al., 1997). In contrast, the peripheral route suggests that simple cues within the context of persuasion trigger heuristics, allowing individuals to judge the message’s validity without much cognitive effort (Chaiken, 1987). In privacy paradox studies, this model has been integrated with privacy calculus theory (Wang et al., 2020).
Finally, the influence of collective distinctions related to culture, described as the collective programming of the mind that differentiates members of one group or category from another (Hofstede, 2011), was evaluated in the context of the privacy paradox using cultural dimension theory. Developed by Hofstede (1984), this theory defines cultural dimensions as measurable aspects of culture that can be compared across different societies, which Inkeles and Levinson (1969) referred to as ‘standard analytical questions.’ Initially, Hofstede’s theory included four dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity. Later, Hofstede and Bond (1988) introduced long-term versus short-term orientation, and indulgence versus restraint was added by Hofstede et al. (2010).
Power distance concerns how societies address human inequality, while uncertainty avoidance reflects society’s stress when facing an uncertain future. Individualism versus collectivism pertains to the integration of individuals into groups, and masculinity versus femininity addresses the division of emotional roles between men and women. Long-term versus short-term orientation refers to the time horizon individuals focus on-whether the future, present, or past. Finally, indulgence versus restraint examines the extent to which societies encourage the enjoyment of life versus the regulation of desires (Hofstede, 2011). In privacy paradox studies, this theory has been integrated with privacy calculus theory (Seo et al., 2022).
Studies addressing the behavioral consequences leading to the privacy paradox
The third category includes studies that use theories to evaluate the behavioral consequences leading to the privacy paradox, such as consumer intentions or behaviors related to disclosing personal information or protecting their privacy. The theories in this category include the theory of planned behavior, information boundary theory, construal level theory, protection motivation theory, and behavioral reasoning theory.
The theory of planned behavior is an extension of the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), developed to address the limitations of the original model in explaining behaviors over which individuals have incomplete volitional control. The theory posits that an individual’s intention to perform a particular behavior (motivation), combined with their perceived ability (behavioral control), influences their actions. Behavioral control refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of performing a specific behavior based on past experiences and skills. Intention is also shaped by behavioral control, attitude, and subjective norms. Attitude involves evaluating the behavior, influenced by beliefs about its outcomes, and assessing those outcomes, such as their likelihood and severity. In contrast, subjective norms reflect perceived social pressures or beliefs about what others think an individual should do (Li, 2012).
In privacy paradox studies, this theory has been integrated with privacy calculus theory (Kim & Kim, 2020), construal level theory (Li & Guo, 2022), and uses and gratifications theory (Kim & Kim, 2020).
Information boundary theory has been used to assess the integration of protective and disclosure behaviors. Developed by Petronio (1991), this theory explains how individuals decide what personal information to disclose, when, and to whom. It posits that individuals establish boundaries to manage and control their personal information. To do so, they create rules or criteria that limit and regulate the flow of information, balancing the need for self-disclosure and privacy protection (self-withdrawal) (Karwatzki et al., 2017). In studies on the privacy paradox, this theory has been integrated with the privacy calculus theory (Chen, 2018) and the uses and gratifications theory (Sutanto et al., 2013).
Behavioral intention leading to the privacy paradox can vary over time, a phenomenon studied using construal level theory. Developed and tested by Liberman and Trope (1998), this theory argues that individuals form different mental representations of the same information depending on whether it pertains to the near or distant future, influencing preferences and judgments (Dhar & Kim, 2007). The theory suggests that for distant future events, individuals use more abstract, simplified, and decontextualized mental models-known as higher-level interpretations-to extract the essence of the information. In contrast, they use more concrete, detailed, and contextualized models-low-level interpretations-for near-future events. This concept has been extended to other dimensions of psychological distance: social distance (self versus other, or in-group versus out-group), spatial distance (near versus distant locations), and hypothetical distance (certain versus uncertain, or actual versus hypothetical events) (Bandara et al., 2020).
In privacy paradox studies, construal level theory has been integrated with social exchange theory (Cloarec et al., 2022), the theory of planned behavior (Li & Guo, 2022), privacy calculus theory (Cowan et al., 2021), and social contract theory (Bandara et al., 2020).
Protective behavior, which contributes to the privacy paradox, has also been studied using protection motivation theory. According to the original formulation by Rogers (1975), fear appeal communications trigger cognitive evaluation processes related to the severity of a potential threat, the likelihood of its occurrence if no adaptive behavior is performed, and the effectiveness of a recommended coping response, all of which influence protective motivation intentions (Li, 2012). In his 1983 review, Rogers (1983) incorporated Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), which refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to perform the required behavior. These factors are grouped into two categories: threat appraisal (severity and likelihood of occurrence) and coping appraisal (response effectiveness and self-efficacy) (Li, 2012). In privacy paradox studies, this theory has not been integrated with others.
Finally, a new theoretical perspective was introduced in 2023, called behavioral reasoning theory, to evaluate the consequences of the privacy paradox by unifying concepts from the theory of planned behavior and privacy calculus theory. Initially developed by Westaby (2005), this theory assumes that beliefs and values influence global motives, such as attitude, subjective norms, and perceived control. Behavioral reasoning theory assumes that context-specific reasons are also fundamental antecedents of global motives and behavioral intention, serving as justifications and defenses for an individual’s actions. These reasons are subjective cognitive factors that individuals use to explain their anticipated behavior, categorized into two dimensions: ‘reasons for’ and ‘reasons against.’ These can be framed as benefits/costs or facilitators/restrictors, much like in privacy calculus theory (Ying et al., 2023).
A modified version of this theory, formulated by Claudy and Peterson (2014), allows for a direct link between reasons and behavioral intention, as reasons can explain variations in psychological mechanisms not captured by an individual’s attitude. These reasons help justify actions to prevent cognitive dissonance, even when the individual’s attitude remains ambiguous (Ying et al., 2023). In studies of the privacy paradox, this theory has been integrated with regulatory focus theory (Ying et al., 2023).
THE INTEGRATIVE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND DISCUSSION
The review highlights the multiplicity of theories proposed to explain the privacy paradox. For the development of the theoretical and systematic framework, the relationships between these theories are recognized based on the connections between the constructs explored in each theory, as identified through the hypotheses examined in the studies reviewed. For example, Li and Guo (2022) used constructs such as Perceived Benefit, Near-Future Intention, Perceived Risk, Distant-Future Intention, and Disclosure Behavior. The connection between perceived benefit and near-future intention was derived from Li and Guo’s study (2022) hypothesis: ‘Perceived benefit has a significant positive impact on college students’ near-future disclosure intention.’ Similarly, the connection between perceived risk and distant-future intention was established through the hypothesis: ‘Perceived risk has a significant negative impact on college students’ distant-future disclosure intention.’ In this manner, the constructs of each theory and their interrelations with other theories were identified. Table 3 outlines the studies that provided the hypotheses used to identify the constructs and their connections for each theory.
The positive or negative relationships between the constructs in the framework are specified based on the hypotheses from the selected articles. However, certain concepts, such as personality traits and cultural dimensions, may have varying effects depending on the specific traits and cultural dimensions studied. Based on the interrelationships between the theories, the theoretical and systematic framework presented in Figure 2 was proposed.
Figure 2 illustrates that the category of studies addressing the factors that influence the privacy paradox, defined by theories such as personality traits, regulatory focus theory, social exchange theory, social contract theory, elaboration likelihood theory, and cultural dimensions theory, serve as antecedents to the category of studies that address the theoretical foundations of the privacy paradox. In other words, the theories from studies examining the factors influencing the privacy paradox act as antecedents to privacy calculus theory, which comprises perceived benefits from the uses and gratifications theory and perceived privacy risk and privacy concern.
Similarly, the framework highlights the importance of privacy calculus theory and its central role in the privacy paradox, as its evaluation informs studies that address the behavioral consequences leading to the privacy paradox. These studies are defined by theories such as the theory of planned behavior, information boundary theory, construal level theory, protection motivation theory, and behavioral reasoning theory. The framework demonstrates that the resulting privacy calculus impacts disclosure attitude and intention, which are core components of the theory of planned behavior.
Although disclosure intention is a predictor of disclosure behavior, as defined by the theory of planned behavior, integrating theories through their constructs reveals that disclosure intention can be assessed in terms of both distant-future and near-future intentions, consistent with construal level theory. This distinction may help explain the contradiction between disclosure intention and actual disclosure behavior observed in some studies, contributing to the privacy paradox. One reason for this contradiction is that privacy concerns and privacy risks primarily affect distant-future intentions, whereas perceived benefits positively influence near-future intentions.
It can be observed from the framework that the privacy paradox can be mitigated by realigning protective behavior with privacy concerns. Therefore, it is essential to understand the theories and interrelationships that contribute to this realignment despite the limited number of studies that adopt this approach to the privacy paradox. For instance, information boundary theory proposes to explain the relationship between privacy concerns and privacy practices, demonstrating that self-withdrawal behaviors do not necessarily result in less disclosure due to a compensatory process in forming privacy management strategies. The privacy paradox is reduced in this case, but disclosure behavior remains unchanged.
A relevant theory is protection motivation theory, which posits that individuals’ threat assessment-specifically their perceptions of the likelihood and severity of risks and their perceived ability to mitigate the threat-affects their privacy concerns. The outcome of these evaluations is referred to as risk calculus or perceived privacy net risk, as defined by Li (2012). A low net risk occurs when coping mechanisms are perceived to outweigh the privacy threat, thus reducing privacy concerns, whereas a high net risk occurs when the threat is perceived as more significant. Consequently, individuals who believe they can adequately protect their privacy may be more willing to engage in disclosure behavior, suggesting a lesser privacy paradox. Conversely, individuals with a lower belief in their protective capacity (high net risk) may be less inclined to disclose personal information, often adopting an avoidance strategy unless the stakes are too high. In such cases, they seek solutions through preventive privacy protection behavior.
In summary, this work contributes to an integrative review that has not yet been conducted, addressing different approaches to explaining the privacy paradox. Some theories focus on the foundations of the privacy paradox, others on the factors that influence it, and others on the behaviors that lead to it. Another contribution is the proposition of causal connections between various constructs from the theories studied, enabling the development of new models by combining these theories and connections. Fourteen theories that aim to explain the privacy paradox through different approaches were examined, and a theoretical and systematic framework was developed to provide a foundation for future research, promoting more integrative views of these theories and advancing the understanding of the privacy paradox.
-
Evaluated through a double-anonymized peer review.
-
The Peer Review Report is available at this link
REFERENCES
-
Acquisti, A. (2004, May 17). Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce https://doi.org/10.1145/988772.988777
» https://doi.org/10.1145/988772.988777 -
Aivazpour, Z., & Rao, V. S. (2020). Information disclosure and privacy paradox: The role of impulsivity. ACM SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 51(1), 14-36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3380799.3380803
» https://doi.org/10.1145/3380799.3380803 - Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior Prentice-Hall.
-
Bandara, R., Fernando, M., & Akter, S. (2020). Explicating the privacy paradox: A qualitative inquiry of online shopping consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, 101947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101947
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101947 -
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
» https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 -
Barnes, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394
» https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394 -
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life Piscataway. https://l1nq.com/Exchangeandpowerinsociallife
» https://l1nq.com/Exchangeandpowerinsociallife -
Brown, B. (2001). Studying the Internet experience. HP laboratories technical report HPL, 49, 1-23. https://acesse.dev/Studyingtheinternetexperience
» https://acesse.dev/Studyingtheinternetexperience - Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In Social influence: The Ontario Symposium 5, 3-39.
-
Chen, H. T. (2018). Revisiting the privacy paradox on social media with an extended privacy calculus model: The effect of privacy concerns, privacy self-efficacy, and social capital on privacy management. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(10), 1392-1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218792691
» https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218792691 - Cho, H. (2012). Responses to online privacy risks. In Encyclopedia of cyber behavior (pp. 900-910).
-
Claudy, M. C., & Peterson, M. (2014). Understanding the underutilization of urban bicycle commuting: A behavioral reasoning perspective. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 33(2), 173-187. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.13.087
» https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.13.087 -
Cloarec, J., Meyer-Waarden, L., & Munzel, A. (2022). The personalization-privacy paradox at the nexus of social exchange and construal level theories. Psychology & Marketing, 39(3), 647-661. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21587
» https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21587 -
Cloarec, J., Meyer-Waarden, L., & Munzel, A. (2024). Transformative privacy calculus: Conceptualizing the personalization-privacy paradox on social media. Psychology & Marketing, 39(3), 647-661. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21998
» https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21998 - Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E. R., & Nakagawa, S. (2013). Social exchange theory. In Handbook of social psychology (pp. 61-88).
-
Cowan, K., Javornik, A., & Jiang, P. (2021). Privacy concerns when using augmented reality face filters? Explaining why and when use avoidance occurs. Psychology & Marketing, 38(10), 1799-1813. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21576
» https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21576 -
Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999). Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 10(1), 104-115. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.1.104
» https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.1.104 -
Culnan, M. J., & Bies, R. J. (2003). Consumer privacy: Balancing economic and justice considerations. Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), 323-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00067
» https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00067 -
Cutler, N. E., & Danowski, J. A. (1980). Process gratification in aging cohorts. Journalism Quarterly, 57(2), 269-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908005700210
» https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908005700210 -
Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A. K., & Hughes, B. N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 83-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01494.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01494.x -
Dhar, R., & Kim, E. Y. (2007). Seeing the forest or the trees: Implications of construal level theory for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 96-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70014-1
» https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70014-1 -
Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61-80. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0080
» https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0080 -
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252-284. https://doi.org/10.2307/258705
» https://doi.org/10.2307/258705 -
Duan, S. X., & Deng, H. (2022). Exploring privacy paradox in contact tracing apps adoption. Internet Research, 32(5), 1725-1750. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-03-2021-0160
» https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-03-2021-0160 - Emerson, R. M. (1972). Exchange theory, part I: A psychological basis for social exchange. Sociological Theories in Progress, 2, 38-57.
-
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(3), 329. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057198
» https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057198 -
Fox, G. (2020). “To protect my health or to protect my health privacy?” A mixed-methods investigation of the privacy paradox. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(9), 1015-1029. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24369
» https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24369 -
Fu, J., Zhang, J., & Li, X. (2023). How do risks and benefits affect user privacy decisions? An event-related potential study on privacy calculus process. Frontiers in Psychology, 14:1052782. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1052782
» https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1052782 -
Gerber, N., Gerber, P., & Volkamer, M. (2018). Explaining the privacy paradox: A systematic review of literature investigating privacy attitude and behavior. Computers & Security, 77, 226-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.002
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.002 -
Gruzd, A., & Hernández-García, Á. (2022). A balancing act: How risk mitigation strategies employed by users explain the privacy paradox on social media. Behaviour & Information Technology, 43(1), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2152366
» https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2152366 -
Hallam, C., & Zanella, G. (2017). Online self-disclosure: The privacy paradox is explained as a temporally discounted balance between concerns and rewards. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 217-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.033
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.033 -
Hayes, J. L., Brinson, N. H., Bott, G. J., & Moeller, C. M. (2021). The influence of consumer-brand relationship on the personalized advertising privacy calculus in social media. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 55, 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2021.01.001
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2021.01.001 -
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319
» https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319 -
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
» https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280 -
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). SAGE. https://l1nk.dev/Cultureconsquences
» https://l1nk.dev/Cultureconsquences -
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 2307-0919. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
» https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014 -
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(88)90009-5
» https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(88)90009-5 -
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Rev. 3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. https://acesse.dev/Cultureandorganization
» https://acesse.dev/Cultureandorganization -
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms Har-court, Brace, and World. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1974-20800-000
» https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1974-20800-000 - Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1969). National character: The study of modal personality and sociocultural systems. The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4(2), 418-506.
-
Karwatzki, S., Dytynko, O., Trenz, M., & Veit, D. (2017). Beyond the personalization-privacy paradox: Privacy valuation, transparency features, and service personalization. Journal of Management Information Systems, 34(2), 369-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2017.1334467
» https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2017.1334467 -
Kim, B., & Kim, D. (2020). Understanding the key antecedents of users’ disclosing behaviors on social networking sites: The privacy paradox. Sustainability, 12(12), 5163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125163
» https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125163 -
Klapper, J. T. (1963). Mass communication research: An old road resurveyed. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27(4), 515-527. https://doi.org/10.1086/267201
» https://doi.org/10.1086/267201 -
Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security, 64, 122-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002 -
Laufer, R. S., & Wolfe, M. (1977). Privacy as a concept and a social issue: A multidimensional developmental theory. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01880.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01880.x -
Lee, A. R. (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, 13(19), 10679. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910679
» https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910679 -
Lee, Y. H., & Yuan, C. W. (2020). The privacy calculus of “friending” across multiple social media platforms. Social Media+ Society, 6(2), 2056305120928478. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120928478
» https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120928478 -
Li, H., Luo, X. R., Zhang, J., & Xu, H. (2017). Resolving the privacy paradox: Toward a cognitive appraisal and emotion approach to online privacy behaviors. Information & Management, 54(8), 1012-1022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.02.005
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.02.005 -
Li, L., Li, T., Cai, H., Zhang, J., & Wang, J. (2023). I will only know after using it: The repeat purchasers of smart home appliances and the privacy paradox problem. Computers & Security, 128, 103156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2023.103156
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2023.103156 -
Li, Y. (2012). Theories in online information privacy research: A critical review and an integrated framework. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 471-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.010
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.010 -
Li, Y., & Guo, H. (2022). Sustainable development of shared mobility in China in relation to the privacy paradox of users. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 4, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7588929
» https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7588929 -
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5
» https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5 -
Liyanaarachchi, G. (2021). Managing privacy paradox through national culture: Reshaping online retailing strategy. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60, 102500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102500
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102500 -
Lünich, M., Marcinkowski, F., & Kieslich, K. (2021). It’s now or never! Future discounting in the application of the online privacy calculus. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 15(3), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2021-3-11
» https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2021-3-11 -
Mohammed, Z. A., & Tejay, G. P. (2021). Examining the privacy paradox through individuals’ neural disposition in e-commerce: An exploratory neuroimaging study. Computers & Security, 104, 102201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2021.102201
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2021.102201 -
Mosteller, J., & Poddar, A. (2017). To share and protect: Using regulatory focus theory to examine the privacy paradox of consumers’ social media engagement and online privacy protection behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 39(1), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2017.02.003
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2017.02.003 -
Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., & Horne, D. A. (2007). The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100-126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x -
Pentina, I., Zhang, L., Bata, H., & Chen, Y. (2016). Exploring privacy paradox in information-sensitive mobile app adoption: A cross-cultural comparison. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 409-419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.005
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.005 -
Petronio, S. (1991). Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of managing disclosure of private information between marital couples. Communication Theory, 1(4), 311-335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1991.tb00023.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1991.tb00023.x -
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1915. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1915
» https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1915 -
Petty, R. E., Heesacker, M., & Hughes, J. N. (1997). The elaboration likelihood model: Implications for the practice of school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 35(2), 107-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(97)00003-4
» https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(97)00003-4 -
Quinn, K. (2016). Why we share: A uses and gratifications approach to privacy regulation in social media use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(1), 61-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1127245
» https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1127245 -
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. The Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803
» https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803 - Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and psychological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook (pp. 153-176).
-
Seo, D., Gharibdoust, S., & Mandl, T. (2022). Comparing factors affecting self-disclosure behavior between German and South Korean SNS users. Telematics and Informatics, 75, 101904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101904
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101904 -
Shih, H. P., & Liu, W. (2023). Beyond the tradeoffs on Facebook: The underlying mechanisms of privacy choices. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 21, 353-387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-023-00622-6
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-023-00622-6 -
Stafford, T. F., & Stafford, M. R. (2001). Identifying motivations for the use of commercial websites. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 14(1), 22-30. https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2001010103
» https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2001010103 -
Sun, Q., Willemsen, M. C., & Knijnenburg, B. P. (2020). Unpacking the intention-behavior gap in privacy decision-making for the Internet of Things (IoT) using aspect listing. Computers & Security, 97, 101924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.101924
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.101924 -
Sun, R., Chen, J. R., Wang, Y. X., Zhou, Y. R., & Luo, Y. Y. (2020). An ERP experimental study about the effect of authorization cue characteristics on the privacy behavior of recommended users. Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, 24(4), 509-523. https://doi.org/10.20965/jaciii.2020.p0509
» https://doi.org/10.20965/jaciii.2020.p0509 -
Sutanto, J., Palme, E., Tan, C. H., & Phang, C. W. (2013). Addressing the personalization-privacy paradox: An empirical assessment from a field experiment on smartphone users. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1141-1164. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.4.07
» https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.4.07 -
Tian, X., Chen, L., & Zhang, X. (2022). The role of privacy fatigue in privacy Paradox: A PSM and heterogeneity analysis. Applied Sciences, 12(19), 9702. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199702
» https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199702 -
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 225-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00973.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00973.x -
Wang, L., Hu, H. H., Yan, J., & Mei, M. Q. (2020). Privacy calculus or heuristic cues? The dual process of privacy decision-making on Chinese social media. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 33(2), 353-380. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-05-2019-0121
» https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-05-2019-0121 -
Wang, Y., Zhu, J., Liu, R., & Jiang, Y. (2024). Enhancing recommendation acceptance: Resolving the personalization-privacy paradox in recommender systems: A privacy calculus perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 76, 102755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2024.102755
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2024.102755 -
Weinberger, M., Bouhnik, D., & Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M. (2017). Factors affecting students’ privacy paradox and privacy protection behavior. Open Information Science, 1(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2017-0002
» https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2017-0002 -
Westaby, J. D. (2005). Behavioral reasoning theory: Identifying new linkages underlying intentions and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 97-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.003
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.003 -
Williams, M., Nurse, J. R., & Creese, S. (2019). (Smart) Watch out! Encouraging privacy-protective behavior through interactive games. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 132, 121-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.07.012
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.07.012 -
Xu, H., Luo, X. R., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2011). The personalization privacy paradox: An exploratory study of the decision-making process for location-aware marketing. Decision Support Systems, 51(1), 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.017
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.017 -
Ying, S., Huang, Y., Qian, L., & Song, J. (2023). Privacy paradox for location tracking in mobile social networking apps: The perspectives of behavioral reasoning and regulatory focus. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 190, 122412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122412
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122412 -
Zhu, M., Wu, C., Huang, S., Zheng, K., Young, S. D., Yan, X., & Yuan, Q. (2021). Privacy paradox in mHealth applications: An integrated elaboration likelihood model incorporating privacy calculus and fatigue. Telematics and Informatics, 61, 101601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101601
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101601
Edited by
-
Associate Editor:
Tat-Huei Cham
