Information privacy and correlates

22 Pages·2013·0.3 MB·English

by  Tamara Dinev

EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems(2013)22,295–316
&2013OperationalResearchSocietyLtd.Allrightsreserved0960-085X/13
www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis/
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Information privacy and correlates: an
empirical attempt to bridge and distinguish
privacy-related concepts
Tamara Dinev1, Abstract
Heng Xu2, Privacy is one of the few concepts that has been studied across many
disciplines,butisstilldifficulttograsp.Thecurrentunderstandingofprivacyis
Jeff H. Smith3 and
largely fragmented and discipline-dependent. This study develops and tests a
Paul Hart1 framework of information privacy and its correlates, the latter often being
confused with or built into definitions of information privacy per se. Our
1DepartmentofInformationTechnology& framework development was based on the privacy theories of Westin and
OperationsManagement,CollegeofBusiness, Altman, the economic view of the privacy calculus, and the identity manage-
FloridaAtlanticUniversity,BocaRaton,USA; mentframeworkofZwickandDholakia.Thedependentvariableofthemodel
2CollegeofInformationSciencesand is perceived information privacy. The particularly relevant correlates to
Technology,PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,
information privacy are anonymity, secrecy, confidentiality, and control. We
UniversityPark,USA;3DepartmentofDecision
posit that the first three are tactics for information control; perceived
SciencesandManagementInformationSystems,
information control and perceived risk are salient determinants of perceived
FarmerSchoolofBusiness,MiamiUniversity,
Oxford,USA information privacy; and perceived risk is a function of perceived benefits of
information disclosure, information sensitivity, importance of information
Correspondence:TamaraDinev transparency,andregulatoryexpectations.Theresearchmodelwasempirically
DepartmentofInformationTechnology& testedandvalidatedintheWeb2.0context,usingasurveyofWeb2.0users.
OperationsManagement,Collegeof Ourstudyenhancesthetheoreticalunderstandingofinformationprivacyandis
Business,FloridaAtlanticUniversity,Boca useful for privacy advocates, and legal, management information systems,
Raton,FL33431,USA.
marketing, and social sciencescholars.
Tel: þ1(561)297-3181;
European Journalof Information Systems(2013) 22, 295–316.
Fax: þ1(561)297-3043
doi:10.1057/ejis.2012.23;published online29May 2012
Keywords: privacy;anonymity;secrecy;confidentiality;control;risk
Introduction
Privacy has beenstudied for more than 100 yearsin almost all spheres of
social science, most notably law, economics, psychology, management,
marketing, and management information systems. Amazingly, however,
it is also a concept that ‘is in disarray [and n]obody can articulate what
it means’ (Solove, 2006, p. 477). Margulis (1977) noted the variety of
conceptualizations of privacy and the disagreement among scholars on
whatprivacyis.Thelackofaclear,concrete,measurable,andempirically
testableconceptualizationofprivacyaffectsmanyaspectsofthesociety–
the vagueness of the concept fails to guide adjudication and lawmaking
(Bennett, 1992; Solove, 2006), as well as formation of government and
Received: 21November2009
organizational management policies and practices regarding the privacy
Revised: 31January2011
and securityof employees, consumersand clients,and citizens.
2ndRevision: 27September2011
3rdRevision: 6March2012 Numerousattemptshavebeenmadebyscholarstodefineanddevelopa
Accepted: 10March2012 coherentunderstandingofprivacyandtointegratethedifferentperspectives
296 Informationprivacyandcorrelates TamaraDinevetal
fromdifferentfields.Thepictureofprivacythatemerges andsharingofdataputstheissueofinformationprivacy
is fragmented and usually discipline-specific. The con- at the forefront of society policies and practices. This
cepts,definitions,andrelationshipsareinconsistentand development contributes to the urgency and need for
neitherfullydevelopednorempiricallyvalidated.InLaw, findingabetterandcommonframeworkforprivacy,and
manyscholarsdefinedprivacyasa‘right’or‘entitlement’ informationprivacyinparticular,thatcanbeusedacross
(e.g., Warren & Brandeis, 1890); others from other multiple areas thataffect social life.
disciplines,includingphilosophyandpsychology,define Thefocusofourpaperisinformationprivacy,although
itasa‘stateoflimitedaccessorisolation’(e.g.,Schoeman, wefoundthatinpublicandpoliticaldiscourse,aswellas
1984); and yet another group of scholars, particularly in various research streams, a clear distinction between
from the social sciences and information systems used physical and information privacy is not made. For
‘control’asadefinitionofprivacy(Westin,1967;Culnan, example, polls and surveys ask about ‘privacy’ rather
1993). Privacy ‘has been described as multidimensional, than ‘information privacy’. In many disciplines, includ-
elastic, depending upon context, and dynamic in the ing law, marketing, management information systems
sense that it varies with life experience’ (Xu et al, 2011, andeconomics,physicalprivacyconceptsanddefinitions
p. 799). And yet, ‘much of the work y has come from are directly applied to information privacy, providing
groups with a single point of view (e.g., civil liberties continuity in the nomological models associated with
advocates, trade associations) and/or a mission that is information privacy(Smithetal, 2011). Analogously, we
associatedwithapointofview(e.g.,regulatoryagencies)’ will use earlier, general privacy concepts to derive and
(Waldo et al, 2007, p. vii). Many overlapping concepts, analyze information privacy-specific concepts. In an
such as intrusion, deception, secrecy, anonymity, have attempt to be as clear as possible in our framework,
beenbuiltintothedefinitionofprivacyandhaveadded throughout the remainder of this paper we will use the
totheconfusion(Margulis,2003a,b).Moreover,veryfew term ‘privacy’ to refer to ‘information privacy’. We will
have been empirically measured or tested. As Solove refer to ‘general privacy’ when we use previous studies
(2006, p. 479) notes, ‘privacy seems to be about every- andtheoriesthatarerelevanttoinformationprivacy,but
thing,andthereforeitappearstobeaboutnothing’.Inits did not specify whether the term ‘privacy’ concerns
reportonthestatusofprivacyresearch,theCommitteeof physical orinformation privacy.
Privacy in the Information Age at the National Research The overarching models guiding this process are the
CounciloftheNationalAcademyofSciencesnotesthatit general privacy theories of Altman (1974, 1975), Westin
was ‘struck by the extraordinary complexity associated (1967),andMargulis(1977,2003a,b;seeMargulis,2003a
with the subject of privacy’, and that ‘the notion of for a review) and the general privacy taxonomy devel-
privacy is fraught with multiple meanings, interpreta- oped by Solove (2006). Each of these identifies a set of
tions, and value judgments’ (Waldo et al, 2007, p. x). privacydimensionsbuttothebestofourknowledgehave
Solove (2006) also notes that many discussions about not been empirically validated. In addition, we employ
privacy are targeted toward people’s fears and anxiety to the Zwick & Dholakia’s (2004) conceptualization of
the extent that the expression ‘this violates my privacy’ identity management that will help us rigorously define
or ‘my privacy should be protected’ has become more a and operationalize the tactics of information control we
productofinstinctiverecoilvoidofmeaningratherthan willidentifyinthestudy.Weconductedasurveystudyto
awell-articulatedstatementcarryingreasonandaspecific test theresearchmodel.
relevance. The difficulty in articulating what constitutes In what follows, we first describe the literature review
privacy, and thus what constitutes harm to privacy, forourresearch,presentingtheoverarchingtheoriesand
translates into policymaker’s and the courts’ difficulty privacy definitions that guide the development of the
in defending privacy interests. This further leads to research model. Then we develop the logic underlying
dismissing cases and disregarding organizational and the research model that presents the process through
governmentproblems (Solove,2006). which individuals form privacy perceptions. This is
Given these challenges and murky conceptual waters, followed by a description of the research methodology,
our study attempts to build a more rigorous, empirically choice of context to empirically test our model, and our
testable framework of privacy and its correlates, which findings. The paper concludes with a discussion of the
have often been confused with or built into the defini- resultsand implications of thefindings.
tions of privacy per se. The specific research goals of our
study are to (i) identify the appropriate conceptualiza-
The theory – how information control and risk
tion of privacy and the correlates that previously have affect privacy
been closely associated or confused with privacy; and
(ii) develop empirical measures and test a nomological The concept of privacy – literature review
modelofthesecorrelatestoexaminetheirrelationshipto Scholars in different fields have examined the concept of
privacyand theirdistinctnessfrom it. general privacy including psychology (e.g., Altman, 1975;
We believe that our study is timely and needed. The Laufer & Wolfe, 1977), human resources (Tolchinsky et al,
dynamic globalization of the economy and information 1981;Stone&Stone,1990),sociology(e.g.,Etzioni,1999),
technology (IT), and the ubiquitous distributed storage law(e.g.,Rosen,2000),politicalscience(e.g.,Westin,1967),
EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems
Informationprivacyandcorrelates TamaraDinevetal 297
marketing (e.g., Goodwin, 1991), and management Each of these definitions carries a set of dimensions
information systems (e.g., Mason, 1986; Smith, 1994; that point to the multidimensional nature of general
Culnan&Armstrong,1999).Suchrichtheoreticalground privacy.
hasledtotheobservationthatthereisalackofconsensus Westin (1967) sees general privacy as ‘the voluntary
onwhatgeneralprivacymeans:‘theoristsdonotagreey and temporary withdrawal of a person from the general
on what privacy is or on whether privacy is a behavior, society through physical or psychological means, either
attitude, process, goal, phenomenal state, or what’ in a state of solitude or small group intimacy or, when
(Margulis, 2003b, p. 17). Indeed, there is a stream of among larger groups, in a condition of anonymity and
researchforeachoftheseperspectives.Perhaps,themost reserve’.Therearefour‘states’ofgeneralprivacyposited
famous and the oldest is the general ‘privacy as a right’ in Westin’s theory: solitude, intimacy, anonymity, and
concept,firstdefinedbyWarren&Brandeis(1890)asthe reserve (it is important to note that, in the end, Westin’s
‘the right to be left alone’. This definition has been definition does arrive at the ‘state’ interpretation of
central to legal interpretations and court decisions, as general privacy). Several researchers developed measure-
well in the political discourse, where the term ‘privacy’ ments and empirically examined Westin’s states of
hasbeenusedtoreferto‘physicalprivacyinthehomeor generalprivacy(Marshall,1974;Pedersen,1997),whereas
office,theabilitytomakepersonalreproductivedecisions othersdevelopedmorespecializedgeneralprivacyscales.
withoutinterferencefromthegovernment,freedomfrom Someofthesescalesmeasuretheabovementionedstates
surveillance, or the ability to keep electronic commu- of general privacy and through their values attempt to
nicationsandpersonalinformationconfidential’(Waldo assessgeneralprivacyitself(e.g.,theconcealmentscaleof
et al, 2007, p. 1). Congressional law committees have Cramer & Barry (1999)). Difficulties, however, arise
taken the defeatist approach to legally defining general because of a lack of a clear concept about what general
privacy(Young,1978)andconcludedthattheconceptof privacyisinthefirstplace.Forexample,Pedersen(1997)
generalprivacycannotbesatisfactorilydefined.Theneed developed measures for Solitude, Isolation, Anonymity,
was felt, however, to elaborate on the ‘right to (general) Reserve, Intimacy with Friends, and Intimacy with
privacy’ concept introduced by Warren & Brandeis Family. The researcher then introduced these constructs
(1890). Thus, in subsequent treatments, general privacy as ‘types of privacy’ (p. 147) interchangeably equating
was regarded as a ‘right’ but has been expanded to themwith‘typesofprivacybehaviors’and‘psychological
includeanumberofso-called(general)‘privacyinterests’ functions of privacy’.
(Flaherty,1979;Milbergetal,2000).Theseprivacyinterests The problem is not merely confusion in terminology
includecontrol,confidentiality,solitude,anonymity,and but reflects the scholars’ struggle to fundamentally
secrecy and in an empirical sense, can be considered understand what exactly general privacy is – behavior,
dimensions or antecedents of privacy. However, as we state,function,orfeeling–andevidentlythesecannotbe
will point out later, in many studies any of these confusedorinterchanged.Severalotherdifficultiesarose
dimensionshavebeenequatedwithprivacy,fromwhich withtheabovemeasureswhenotherscholarsarguedthat
themain currentconfusion arises. these states are actually distinct factors that are more
Psychologist’s view of general privacy is that of a antecedents than direct measures of general privacy.
feeling, an emotion (Young, 1978) rather than ‘right’. Underlining the normative element of general privacy
They argue that often there appears to be no logical that distinguishes it from these states, they argue that
reason why a person should feel that his or her general generalprivacyisnotsynonymouswithsolitude,secrecy,
privacy has been violated and yet that is his or her and autonomy (Cate, 1997). More factors were added to
perception. Thus, psychologists conclude that ‘privacy describing the states of general privacy, such as secrecy
and gregariousness are both human instincts and relate (embedded in Westin’s theory but not defined, Tefft,
toallthehigherformsofanimalbehavior’(Young,1978, 1980; McLean, 1995; Margulis, 2003a; Solove, 2004),
p.3;seealso Altman, 1974). transparency (Brin, 1998), and confidentiality (Young,
Economists, by contrast, have defined privacy as a 1978; Solove,2006).
value, in economic terms, ‘both in its role in the Altman’s (1975, p. 24) theory of general privacy
information needed for efficient markets and as a piece revolves around the concept of control; general privacy
ofproperty’(Waldoetal,2007,p.1).Sociologyresearch- is defined as ‘the selective control of access to the self’.
ers approach privacy from the perspective of the collec- Altman also distinguishes between actual and desired
tion and use of personal information in the context of general privacy. The first indication of general privacy
‘power and influence between individuals, groups, and perception in a given situation depends on the indivi-
institutionswithinsociety’(Waldoetal,2007,p.1).Thus, dual’sdesires(expectations).Hethusintroduceslevelsof
the sociology produced the control-centered definitions general privacy: optimal (desired¼actual), crowding
ofgeneralprivacy(Westin,1967;Altman,1974;Margulis, (desiredoactual), and isolation (desired4actual) (see
1977).Fromthisperspective,generalprivacyisastruggle Margulis, 2003a).
for control between the individual and society (Cate, Each discipline has argued its angle on the concept
1997). Philosophers interpreted general privacy as a of general privacy, but most developed verbose descrip-
‘state’ (of limited access or isolation) (Schoeman, 1984). tions without quantitative measurement. Management
EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems
298 Informationprivacyandcorrelates TamaraDinevetal
information systems research undertook the task of wefindconcernsasapossibledimensionofprivacyperse.
developing privacy construct measurements that can be The lack of connection of the ‘privacy concerns’ –
used in quantitative models to test relationships (Smith focused MIS privacy research with leading theories from
et al, 2011). Following Altman (1974, 1975), many other disciplines contributes to the problem of the
management and management information systems fragmentary understanding of privacy. Finally, we share
studies equated privacy with control. However, recent Young’s (1978) observation that privacy concerns carry
empirical evidence has shown that while control is a a negative connotation of the concept of information
major factor in forming individual’s privacy concerns, it and general privacy, and thus may be inadequate if
isnotidenticaltoprivacy(Dinev&Hart,2004,2006;Xu, generalprivacyshouldberegardedaspotentiallyvaluable
2007). Schoeman (1984) and Laufer & Wolfe (1977) also toany human being andsociety asa whole.
described a number of counterexamples that pose
difficultiesinequating privacywithcontrol.
Due to the inconsistencies in conceptualizing and Theoretical model of privacy and its correlates –
measuring privacy per se, much behavioral research on integrative approach
privacy uses privacy concerns as a proxy for privacy. An Perceived privacy as a dependent variable. As shown in
extensive body of literature examines privacy concerns Figure 1, the dependent variable (DV) of our research
(for references, see, e.g., Dinev & Hart, 2006 or Smith modelisperceivedprivacy.First,wenotethatinmostof
et al, 2011) because these are also the proxy used to the aforementioned theories, the most common theme
measure privacy attitudes in opinion polls and by that emerges is that privacy is a state in which an
consumer researchfirms and provide a good connection individual is found in a given situation at a given
with individuals’ feelings about privacy. Important moment of time. This consensus emerges regardless of
studies that have contributed to our understanding of howtheauthorsbegintheirconceptualizationofprivacy
privacy concerns and their implications for individual’s or whether basic assumptions varied. For example,
behavior include those of Culnan (1993), Smith et al Westin (1967) refers to ‘states of privacy’ and both
(1996),Culnan&Armstrong(1999),Milbergetal(2000), Altman (1974, 1975) and Westin (1967) discuss ‘state of
Malhotra et al (2004), Dinev & Hart (2006) and many control’and‘stateoflimitedaccess’(Margulis,2003a,b).
others. Smith et al (1996) developed an instrument, Also, Warren and Brandeis’s (1890) definition of general
Concerns For Information Privacy, to measure indivi- privacy as a ‘right to be left alone’ implicitly refers to a
duals’ concerns toward organizational privacy practices, state–ofbeingleftalone.Similarly,MISresearchershave
including four dimensions: collection, errors, secondary referred to privacy as a state. For example, Dhillon &
use,and unauthorizedaccess toinformation. Moores (2001, p. 2) defined Internet privacy as ‘the
The two main characteristics that distinguish MIS seclusionandfreedomfromunauthorizedintrusion’,and
research are the conceptualization of privacy concerns DiPietro&Mancini(2003,p.78)definedprivacyas‘the
rather than privacy, and the quantitative approach to freedomofnothavingsomeoneorsomethingtointerfere
measuring and modeling privacy concerns (for a com- in our life without our permission’. At some point, it
parative matrix of the MIS research on privacy, see Xu seems, and sometimes unintentionally, most researchers
etal,2011).Theseincludetheorganizationalinformation reachtheneedtousetheword‘state’todescribeprivacy.
practiceaspectofprivacyconcerns(Smithetal,1996)and This latter observation aligns well with the dictionary
theindividualprivacyconcerns(amongMISstudies,see, definitionof‘state’,namely‘theconditionofapersonor
e.g., Culnan & Armstrong, 1999; Belanger et al, 2002;
Culnan&Bies,2003;Malhotraetal,2004;Dinev&Hart,
2005, 2006; Liu et al, 2005; Awad & Krishnan, 2006;
Anonymity H2
Poindexter et al, 2006; Hui et al, 2007; Chellappa, 2008;
Dinevetal, 2008; Son& Kim,2008). Secrecy H3 IPneforrcmeivaetido n
In this study, however, we will consciously stay away Confidentiality H4 Control H1
from privacy concerns as the commonly adopted proxy Three Tactics of
to privacy. Instead, we will attempt to seek a rigorous Information Contro l
definition of and antecedents to privacy. We do this for Perceived Benefits of H6 Perceived
three reasons: first, while a good proxy for privacy, we Info. Disclosure Privacy
(privacy calculus )
believethatprivacyconcernsarenotidenticaltoprivacy–
Information Sensitivity H7
indeed, one may have high concerns about his or her (context difference s)
pnroitvabceyeannvdioyleattietdm, aayndbevtihceatvheirssoa.rhAeltrhporuivgahcywmeadyohnavoet ImInpfoorrmtaantcieo no f H8 PerRciesikv ed H5
yethavearigorousdefinitionofprivacy,itisclearthatit Transparency
(organizational influence s)
is distinct from privacy concerns. The second reason to
avoidprivacyconcernsasaconstructinourstudyisthat Regulatory Expectations
(legal influences ) H9
wedidnotfinditintheaforementionedprivacytheories
(andtheseareleadingsocialtheoriesofprivacy),nordid Figure1 Researchmodel.
EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems
Informationprivacyandcorrelates TamaraDinevetal 299
thing, as with respect to circumstances or attributes’, ofthemdevelopsasetofriskfactorsalthoughnoneoffers
‘particularcondition of mindor feeling’. anintegrated,comprehensivetreatmentofrisk.Wehave
Since, per definition, perception is the process of integrated the most salient risk factors shown to affect
attaining awareness or understanding of mental and perception of risk and propose that an individual’s
sensory information, anindividual’s evaluation of his or perceived risk is a function of the expected outcomes
her own mental and or/physical state of being is carried of information disclosure, together with considerations
throughhisorherperceptions(Sternberg,2003).Thus,if for context (i.e., information sensitivity), organizational
we assume that, in most general terms, privacy can be (i.e., importance of information transparency), and legal
consideredasastate,theempiricallytestabledefinitionof (i.e., regulatory expectations) influences. Figure 1 pre-
privacywillbethe‘perceived(stateof)privacy’.Wethus sents theresearchmodel.
adapt the Schoeman’s (1984) conceptual definition of
privacy in general to information privacy: perceived Informationcontrolandrisk–thebackboneofprivacy The
privacy is an individual’s self-assessed state in which levelofprivacyconcernsanindividualdevelopshasbeen
externalagentshavelimitedaccesstoinformationabout shown to lead to decision making whether to disclose
himor her. personal information (among MIS studies, see, e.g.,
Culnan&Armstrong,1999;Belangeretal,2002;Culnan
Research Model. Whileeachofthe priortheories reviewed & Bies, 2003; Malhotra et al, 2004; Dinev & Hart, 2005;
abovefocusesondifferenttheoreticalaspectsofthesame Liu et al, 2005; Awad & Krishnan, 2006; Dinev & Hart,
underlying phenomenon, in our attempt to clarify the 2006;Dinevetal,2006,2008;Poindexteretal,2006;Hui
intertwiningconceptsofprivacyanditsrelatedfactors,we et al, 2007; Chellappa, 2008; Son & Kim, 2008). In
see opportunities for consolidation and integration. comparing the work of Westin and Altman and those
Evaluating evidence from the perspective of a single whose research is based on their theories from a range
theorymayleadtofalsificationofthattheoryandcreates of disciplines, Margulis (2003b, p. 415) identified com-
a major scientific challenge (Cote, 2002). The goal of mon core elements: (general) ‘[p]rivacy involves control
theory integration is to identify the commonalities in over transactions (interactions, communications) that
multiple theories about the focal phenomenon and pro- regulateaccesstoselfandthat,asaconsequence,reduce
duceasynthesisthatissuperiortoanyofthecomponent vulnerability and increase decisional and behavioral
theories(Akers,2001).However,exactlyhowthetheories options’. This definition reflects the view of privacy as a
shouldbeintegratedseamlesslyintoa bettertheoryisfar complex construct, that is, the dichotomy between the
from clear and we do not claim to have found the individualandothers(Kelvin,1973)andcapturesthetwo
exclusive,uniquesolution.Rather,werelyontheresearch most important factors of privacy: (i) control over dis-
advances and further scholarly contributions for our closure of personal information, and (ii) the notion of
modeltobefurtherdeveloped,clarified,andenhanced. privacy risk. Furthermore, the calculus framework of
TheliteraturereviewofMISandotherdisciplinesleads general privacy (e.g., Dinev & Hart, 2004, 2006) also
us to propose a research model that integrates three underscorestherisk-controlinterplay.Bothriskandcon-
conceptual frameworks. At its core lies the calculus trol havebeenshown tooperateas privacy-borne beliefs
framework of privacy incorporating the risk-control related to the potential consequences of information
interplay (Culnan & Armstrong, 1999; Dinev & Hart, disclosure. Thus, based on the literature, we identify the
2006). The calculus perspective of privacy has been twomajorfactorsthatdirectlyaccountfortheperceived
described as ‘the most useful framework for analyzing privacy: perceived information control and perceived
contemporary consumer privacy concerns’ (Culnan & risk.Below,wepresentthetheoreticalfoundationforthe
Bies, 2003, p. 326). The implicit understanding is that control and risk constructs, and their relationship with
privacyisnotabsolute(Klopfer&Rubenstein,1977),but perceivedprivacy, andthecorresponding hypotheses.
based on a cost-benefit analysis, that is, a ‘calculus of
behavior’(Laufer&Wolfe,1977,p.36).Weintegratethis Perceived information control As discussed above, the
corewithrecentlyadvancedcontrolandrisktheoriesthat element of control has been identified as an important
aim to explain how perceptions of risk and control are factorof privacy.Laufer&Wolfe(1977, p.39) madeone
formed in individuals regarding their personal informa- of the strongest arguments for separating control from
tion. For the control aspect, we build on Zwick & the concept of privacy: ‘the dimensions of the privacy
Dholakia’s (2004) conceptualization of identity manage- phenomenon are conceptually distinct from control/
ment and identify three different tactics that consumers choice,whichisamediatingvariable’.Therefore,control
apply to control the flow of their personal information: should be a related but separate construct from privacy,
anonymity, secrecy, and confidentiality. For the risk and control and privacy should be positively related
aspect,webaseourframeworkmainlyonFusilier&Hoyer (seealso Dinev &Hart, 2006).
(1980), Petronio (2002), and Culnan (e.g., Culnan & In thisresearch,weconceptualize informationcontrol
Armstrong, 1999; Culnan & Bies, 2003). All of these stu- as a perception and define it as an individual’s beliefs in
dies address the individual’s sense of risk when consi- one’s ability to determine to what extent information
deringthe consequences of information disclosure; each about the self will be released onto the Web 2.0-related
EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems
300 Informationprivacyandcorrelates TamaraDinevetal
sites. Prior literature differentiates between two types of On the basis of the proposed definitions and the direct
control important for the privacy context: control over relationship between perceived information control and
informationdisclosureandcontroloverinformationuse perceivedprivacy, weposit that these tactics of informa-
once the information has been obtained (Culnan & tioncontrolareactuallymechanismsformaintainingthe
Armstrong, 1999; Spiekermann, 2005). Mostly, Web 2.0 desiredstateofprivacywhichisachievedthroughcontrol
operatorsaddressthefirstdimensionbyofferinggranular over the information exchange between the individual
privacy settings (Hoadley et al, 2010), which allow andtheworldoutsidehisorherinformationboundaries
limiting accessibility of one’s personal information with (Margulis, 2003a). Thus, we propose that these tactics of
regard to other members and third parties. For example, information control (i.e., anonymity, secrecy, and con-
Facebook users can specify their privacy preferences on fidentiality) will positively influence control perceptions
whocanseetheirprofilesandpersonalinformation,who inour model.
can search for them, how they can be contacted, what
stories about them get published to their profiles and so Anonymity.UsingtheframeworkinTable1,anonymityof
on. It has been suggested that individuals tend to have (Cell1)isthetactictoconcealaperson’sidentity(Camp,
alowerlevelofprivacyconcernswhentheyhaveasense 1999; Marx, 1999; Zwick & Dholakia, 2004; Rensel et al,
of information control (Culnan & Armstrong, 1999). 2006;Qian&Scott,2007)anditexistswhenanindividual
Several privacy studies suggest that the loss of informa- isactinginawaythatlimitstheavailabilityofidentifiers
tion control is central to the perception of privacy toothers.IntheITcontext,anonymityisoftenshapedby
invasion(Milne&Boza,1999;Phelpsetal,2000;Sheehan the features and affordances of the privacy enhancing
&Hoy,2000).Accordingly,wehypothesizethatperceived technologies (Qian & Scott, 2007). Technical anonymi-
information control is strongly related to perceived zation mechanisms offer different degrees of anonymity
privacy. (Kobsa & Schreck, 2003) with the options for individuals
to be totally anonymous, pseudonymous, or identifiable
H1: Perceivedinformationcontrolpositivelyaffectsperceived (Nissenbaum, 1999; Qian& Scott, 2007). Users’ ability to
privacy. stayanonymouscanbeexpectedtoleadtomoreextensive
and frank interaction, hence to more and better data
Tactics of information control Zwick & Dholakia (2004) disclosure about themselves, and thus to better persona-
propose a theoretical framework on identity manage- lizationandaggregatedatacollectionsincetheyfeelmore
ment, wherein digital representation of an individual is information control. Anonymity, therefore, is defined in
determined by the amount and accuracy of the personal our study as the ability to carry out an externalization
information collected. They further argue that attempts tacticthatcanconcealanindividual’srealidentity(Turkle,
to regain control over one’s identity require tactics that 1995;Zwick&Dholakia,2004).
limit accessibility to one’s personal information with In Web 2.0 and social networks such as Facebook or
regardtoothermembersandthirdparties.Thatis,‘asthe Linkedin, users are participating to connect with collea-
lawoftheplacebecomesdominatedbycompanies’data gues, friends, classmates or fans, and thus, they reveal
collection strategies, consumers try to devise tactics that their true identities. However, users on these sites are
allowthemtocontroleithertheamountortheaccuracy more often performing than revealing their genuine
(or both) of personal information that ends up in thoughts and feelings (Turkle, 2011). To participate
electronicdatabases’ (Zwick &Dholakia,2004, p.35). fully and contribute genuine thoughts and ideas in the
Zwick & Dholakia’s (2004) conceptual framework social reality of Web 2.0 communications (blogging,
identifies three different tactics that consumers apply to tagging,user-drivenratingsandreviews,etc.),theywould
manage the externalization of their personal informa- need to stay anonymous. Anonymity will often be
tion: anonymity, secrecy, and confidentiality (Table 1). regardedasnecessaryiftherealidentityistobeprotected
Table1 Tactics ofinformation control
Accuracyofpersonalinformation
Low High
Amountofpersonalinformationexternalized
Low SECRECY 2 CONFIDENTIALITY 3
Sharingoflittleandpotentiallyinaccurateinformation Externalizationofrestrictedbuthighlyaccurateinformation
Avoiddigitalrepresentationsoftherealself
High ANONYMITY 1 NOCONTROL 4
Sharingofpersonalinformationwithconcealingaconsumer’s Discloselargeamountofpersonalinformation
realidentity Revealanaccuraterepresentationoftheself
Source:ZwickandDholakia(2004).
EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems
Informationprivacyandcorrelates TamaraDinevetal 301
from unwarranted and biased profiling (Clarke, 1988; disclosures, (ii) insider curiosity, (iii) insider subordina-
Zwick & Dholakia, 2004). In other words, the individual tion, and (iv) unauthorized access (Rindfleisch, 1997;
creates‘amultiplicationofconsumeridentitiesasaform Earp & Payton, 2006). Therefore, by necessity, confiden-
of camouflage against the strategy of surveillance of tiality involves the recipient of the private information,
theproprietarypowers’ (Zwick &Dholakia,2004, p. 36). aswellasthirdpartiestoagreaterextentthananonymity
Therefore,whenconsumersareprovidedwiththemeans andsecrecydo.Thatis,theindividualhastorelyonthese
to conceal their identities in various Web 2.0 commu- other parties to keep personal information confidential
nications, their perceptions of information control are more so than in the case of anonymity and secrecy
likelytoincrease.Hence,wehypothesize: tactics. Camp (1999) has noted that confidentiality
impliesthatthedataandtheinformationtheyrepresent
H2: Anonymity positively affects perceived information must be protected and their use confined to authorized
control. purposesbyauthorizedpeople.Wethusdefineconfiden-
tialityastheperceivedabilitytocarryoutanexternaliza-
Secrecy. Cell 2 is secrecy, which has been defined as tion tactic that restricts the information flow in terms
intentional concealment of information (Tefft, 1980; of what is disclosed and who gets to see it (Zwick &
Bok, 1989). Secrecy usually expresses the intention Dholakia, 2004). When confidentiality is assured by
‘toward the sharing of little and potentially inaccurate preventingunauthorizedaccess,consumersmayperceive
information’ (Zwick & Dholakia, 2004, p. 35). Secretive higher levels of control over their personal information.
withholdingofpersonalinformationisthen‘regardedas Thus, we hypothesize that confidentiality is positively
an attempt to block any digital representation from related toperceivedinformation control.
emerging in the network’ (Zwick & Dholakia, 2004,
p. 35). Secretive consumers do not actively share H4: Confidentiality positively affects perceived information
information and ‘seek toavoid digital representations of control.
the real self, accurate or not’ (Zwick & Dholakia, 2004,
p. 36). People keep some information secret because the Perceived risk enters a decision-making process when
information may have the potential to result in a high situations of that process create a sense of uncertainty,
levelofriskifknownbyothers.Consequently,peopleare discomfort, and/or anxiety (Dowling & Staelin, 1994),
likely to desire the means to conceal the secret informa- such as when psychological discomfort triggers feelings
tion.AsBok(1989) states: ofuncertainty(Moormanetal,1993),anxietycausespain
(Taylor, 1974), or when there is cognitive dissonance
To keepa secretfrom someoney is to block information (Festinger, 1957). The notion of risk is related to privacy
about it or evidence of it from reaching that person, and
and shares some of the latter’s complexity. Introduced
todosointentionally;topreventhim[orher]fromlearn-
separately from privacy, risk has been described as the
ing it, and thus, from processing it, making use of it or
perceived potential risk that occurs when personal
revealingit.(p.5)
information is revealed (Raab & Bennett, 1998; Pavlou,
We thus define secrecy as the ability to carry out an 2002). However, it has also been described as a possible
externalization tactic that involves concealment of consequence of concealing information, when disclo-
information, which enables individuals to manipulate sure would be important for attaining a positive
and control environments by denying outsiders vital outcome (Petronio, 2002). Fusilier & Hoyer (1980)
information about themselves (Tefft, 1980). When con- and Petronio (2002) have argued that the perceived
sumersdonotallowmuchaccessibilitytocertainpersonal state of privacy is determined by an individual’s sense
information, they maintain high levels of control over of risk, and recently Krasnova et al (2009) have
this information. Thus, secrecy is directly related to identified perceived privacy risk as a main factor
control. predicting personal information disclosure in online
socialnetworks.Applyingtheirfindingstothecontext
H3: Secrecypositively affectsperceivedinformationcontrol. of thisresearch, we define the perception of riskasthe
user’s perceived expectation of suffering a negative
Confidentiality. Cell 3 is confidentiality and mainly outcomeasaconsequenceofonlinedisclosureofpersonal
concerns ‘the externalization of restricted but highly information.
accurate information to a specific company’ (Zwick & Users may perceive two kinds of risks if their personal
Dholakia,2004, p.35).Itconnectstothesecurityaspect information is not used fairly or responsibly (Goodwin,
ofprivateinformationthatisstoredindatabases(Camp, 1991; Culnan, 1993; Smith et al, 1996). First, a user may
1999), which ‘restricts the information flow in terms of perceive that her privacy is invaded if unauthorized
what is externalized and who gets to see it’ (Zwick & accessismadetoherpersonalinformationintheabsence
Dholakia, 2004, p. 35). Concerns for confidentiality of appropriate controls. Second, as computerized infor-
usuallyoccuratthestageinwhichprivatedatahasbeen mation may be easily distributed and reused, a user
disclosedandstoredindatabase.Researchhasshownthat may perceive a relatively high risk that the information
threats to data confidentiality include: (i) accidental she has provided is being put into secondary use for
EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems
302 Informationprivacyandcorrelates TamaraDinevetal
unrelated purposes without her knowledge or consent a positive outcome of information disclosure is antici-
(Culnan&Armstrong, 1999). Inthecontext ofWeb2.0, pated,risk beliefsare hypothesized todecrease:
improper information practices would result in the
mining and mapping of personal data to make an H6: Perceived benefits of information disclosure negatively
individual’s behavior more visible. Furthermore, users affect perceivedrisk.
who often reveal their true identities on some Web 2.0
sites (e.g., social networking sites) expose their personal It is important to note that privacy decisions involve
informationtopotentialmisuse(Gross&Acquisti,2005). more than a cost-benefit analysis as discussed above.
Therefore, when individuals perceive that there will be Informationdisclosureentailsconsiderableuncertainties,
uncertainty or negative consequences of their informa- which are also subject to the opportunistic behaviors of
tion disclosure, they will be feeling that they have less online companies or Web sites. In this research, we
privacyoverall.Hence,wehypothesize: furtherproposethattheperceptionofriskisalsoafunc-
tionofthelevelofinformationsensitivity,importanceof
H5: Perceivedrisknegatively affectsperceivedprivacy. information transparency,and regulatoryexpectations.
Information Sensitivity. Support for individuals having
Predictors of perceived risk The literature is abundant different information-related beliefs as a consequence
with studies of factors that affect perceived risk (e.g., of different information experiences or interacting with
Fusilier & Hoyer, 1980; Culnan & Armstrong, 1999; the external environment is suggested by prior general
Pavlou,2002;Petronio,2002;Culnan&Bies,2003).For and information privacy literature (Stone et al, 1983). It
example, in a recent study about the effect of inter- has been shown that the levels of privacy needs and
activity of an e-service on perceived risk, Featherman concerns are dependent on the type of information
et al (2011) suggest that richer media with instant collectedandusedbyanorganization(Milne&Gordon,
feedback and multiple cues better convey performance 1993;Phelpsetal,2000;Sheehan&Hoy,2000;Malhotra
efficacy and promised benefits helping consumers et al, 2004). Malhotra et al (2004) refer to this informa-
improve their understanding of an online service tionattributeas‘informationsensitivity’(seealsoPhelps
through an interactive preview. Thus, the perceived etal,2000).Forexample,itwasreportedthatconsumers
risk of utilizing the e-service should be lessened. In found information such as medical data, financial
another study, Luo et al (2010) used Featherman et al’s information,andpersonalidentifiers(e.g.,socialsecurity
(2011) multifaceted risk model and found that per- numbers) to be much more sensitive than demographic
ceived risk predictors include trust, self-efficacy, and information, lifestyle habits, and purchase behavior
structuralassurances.Each ofthestudiesexploresaset (Vidmar & Flaherty, 1985; Phelps et al, 2000; Sheehan &
of risk factors, but none offers an integrated, compre- Hoy, 2000; Metzger, 2004; Dinev & Hart, 2007). On the
hensivetreatmentofrisk.Onthebasisofourliterature basis of Malhotra et al (2004), we define information
review, we have identified the most salient risk factors sensitivity as a personal information attribute that
to affect perceptions of risk. We integrate these factors informs the level of discomfort an individual perceives
in our model and propose that an individual’s per- when disclosing specific personal information to a
ceived risk is a function of perceived benefits of specific external agent (in our case, a Web site). We
informationdisclosure,informationsensitivity,impor- believe this definition is in accordance with the dic-
tance of information transparency, and regulatory tionaryconnotationof‘sensitive’:whenpertainingtoan
expectations. object, it means requiring tact or caution; delicate;
touchy, like in ‘sensitive topic’, that is, having potential
Perceived Benefits of Information Disclosure. The notion of toinvoke acertainlevelof discomfort inpeople.
privacy calculus assumes that there is a consequential Since certain domains of life are considered more
tradeoff of costs and benefits salient in an individual’s private than others (Phelps et al, 2000), all things being
privacy decision making. Overall, the calculus perspec- equal, individuals will perceive a higher level of risk for
tive of privacy suggests that when asked to provide their disclosure of more sensitive information than they
personal information to service providers or companies, do for their disclosure of less sensitive information
consumersperformacost-benefitanalysis(Culnan,1993; (Li et al, 2011). Malhotra et al (2004) found that more
Milne & Gordon, 1993; Sheehan & Hoy, 2000; Dinev & sensitive information has a more negative effect on
Hart,2006)andthey‘areassumedtobehaveinwaysthat consumer’s attitudes and intentions toward revealing
theybelievewillresultinthemostfavorablenetlevelof personal information. In particular, they found that it
outcomes’ (Stone & Stone, 1990, p. 363). Consequently, willincreasetheconsumer’sriskbeliefs.Inthecontextof
we argue that consumers are more likely to accept the Web2.0,ithasbeenshownthatthemajorityofusersare
potentialrisksthataccompanythedisclosureofpersonal selective in terms of the type of personal information
information as long as they perceive that they can they disclose online (Acquisti & Gross, 2006). For
achieve a positive net outcome (i.e., benefits exceed the example, for the online social networks, most would
costs of disclosure) (Culnan & Bies, 2003). Hence, when publish their sexual orientation, political views, and
EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems
Informationprivacyandcorrelates TamaraDinevetal 303
birthday but conceal address, phone numbers, and class concernedabouttheriskofinformationdisclosure.Thus,
schedules (Acquisti & Gross, 2006). Thus, when the wehypothesizethatuserexpectationsofprivacylawswill
information requested is perceived as sensitive, risk bepositively associatedwith perceptions of risk.
perceptions arehypothesized toincrease:
H9: Regulatoryexpectations positivelyaffect perceivedrisk.
H7: Information sensitivity positively affectsperceived risk.
Importance of Information Transparency. More and more Control variables
users demand to know what type and how much Prior research on privacy suggests that a number of
information is collected about them, how is it stored, additionalfactorsshouldbeincludedascontrolvariables
and to whom it is distributed or sold. Company’s because of their potential influence on our research
transparency about the usage, storage, and sharing of model. Because our primary theoretical focus is not on
the personal data inform an individual’s ‘reasonable them or there is no sufficient theoretical argument we
expectation of privacy’ (Waldo et al, 2007) (i.e., the can make to include them in our model as actionable
expectationofhowtheinformationwillbecollectedand variables, we include them as control variables, to
handledbytheorganizations).OnthebasisoftheUtility eliminate the variance explained by them. They are
Maximization Theory, Awad & Krishnan (2006) showed gender, age,and weeklyWebusage.
the importance of a company’s information transpar-
ency. The results of their study indicated that customers Research method
who desire greater transparency for information handl- All social research involves creating a theory, which we
ing are less willing to be identified. In this research, the didintheprevioussectionandthendesigningamethod
importanceofinformationtransparencyisdefinedasthe to test the hypotheses involving actual collection of
consumer-rated importance of notifying the consumers data. The methods can be observations or controlled
what types of information a firm has collected about experiment.Theobservationmethodcanbeinterpretive
them, and how that information is going to be used innature(choosing oneormorespecific casestudies)or
(Stone et al, 1983; Awad & Krishnan, 2006). The positivist involvingquantitativeapproachesofstatistical
hypothesized relationship between the importance of testing (Straub et al, 2004). The former is an appropriate
informationtransparencyandperceivedriskissupported method when processes and policies are described. The
by Awad & Krishnan (2006), who found that privacy latter is the best approach when behavior and attitudes
beliefs were significantly related with individuals’ ex- are explored from large general populations. It also
pectations of the organization’s information-handling involves operationalization (measurement of variables)
practices. Customers who desire greater information and statistical validation of the relationships. Since our
handling transparency perceive greater risk, and thus study is about behaviors and attitudes, we adopted the
are less willing to be profiled (Awad & Krishnan, 2006). survey approach.
Thatistosay,userswhorateinformationtransparencyas
important are more aware of risk in disclosing personal Choosing a context for testing the theoretical model
information: In contrast to most privacy research which was con-
ductedintheconventionalWebcontext(e.g.,Rust etal,
H8 Importance of information transparency positively affects 2002;Stewart&Segars,2002;Malhotraetal,2004;Dinev
perceivedrisk. & Hart, 2006), we empirically test the research model
inanunderstudiedWeb2.0context.ProminentWeb2.0
Regulatory Expectations. As Smith et al (2011, p. 1001) features that support the creation and consumption of
pointed out, ‘skepticism about the effectiveness of user-generatedcontents,suchasblogging(e.g.,Blogger),
industry self-regulation in protecting consumer privacy tagging (e.g., del.icio.us and Flickr), user-driven ratings
hasresultedinprivacyadvocatesandconsumersclamor- (e.g., Digg), and social networking (e.g., Facebook and
ingforstrongandeffectivelegislationtocurtailrampant MySpace) have a number of characteristics that make
abusesofinformationbyfirms’.Inthecontextofprivacy, them particularly suitable for examining the research
theregulatoryapproachescandecreethetypeofpersonal model. First, Web 2.0 represents a shift from a World
information merchants are allowed to collect from Wide Web that is ‘read only’ to a Web that has been
individuals, sometimes with their consent, as well as described as the ‘Read Write Web’ (Gillmor, 2007).
thewayswithwhichstoredpersonalinformationshould Consequently, Web 2.0 provides user-centered platforms
be protected against misuse (Swire, 1997). Through for information sharing, information publishing, collec-
enforcement agencies, the government can catch offen- tive editing and collaboration, is becoming a prevalent
ders and determine penalties for merchants when viola- phenomenon globally (eMarketer, 2007). The explosion
tionsoccur.Suchpunishmentscanalsodeterattemptsto of Web 2.0 technologies creates the opportunity for a
misuse stored personal information (Culnan & Bies, plethora of niche markets within the media landscape
2003; Xu et al, 2010). It follows that users who expect that were expected to generate US$4.3 billion by 2011,
morerestrictiveprivacyregulationsarelikelytobemore more than four times what Web 2.0-related sites
EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems
304 Informationprivacyandcorrelates TamaraDinevetal
generated in 2007 with more than 70 million users Survey administration
(eMarketer, 2007). Second, despite the presence of some Theinitialquestionnairewasreviewedbyexternalresearch-
privacy norms and regulations, there are relatively ers and a pilot study was conducted involving 31 under-
few well-established institutional rules and contracts graduatestudents.Therespondents’opinionsontheclarity
governing Web 2.0 technologies, and this give rise to ofthesurveyinstructionsandquestionswerealsogathered.
opportunism. Following their feedback and analysis of measurement
Third, in a context characterized by active user model, some changes were made to the instrument,
participation and user generated content, privacy con- including dropping certain items, wording of items, and
cerns are particularly salient because a larger volume of editing the instructions. The survey was administered to
user digital footprints could be potentially accessible to undergraduate, graduate, andM.B.A. studentsat two large
the public. As one recent PEW survey pointed out, the universitiesintheUnitedStates.Respondentswereaskedto
vastarrayofdatathatmakesup‘personalinformation’in recalltheir experiencesin usingWeb2.0-relatedsitessuch
the age of Web 2.0 are nearly impossible to quantify or asbloggingsites(e.g.,Blogger),taggingsites(e.g.,del.icio.us
neatly define (Madden et al, 2007). Users of Web 2.0 and Flickr), user-driven rating sites (e.g., Digg), and social
applications often act in a way that the application can networking sites (e.g., Facebook and MySpace). They were
observe and record, the potential knowledge in that alsoaskedtolistthenameorURLoftheWebsitethatthey
actioncanbereleasedontotheWeb,andmadeavailable used within the last 6 months. The 10 most frequently
toeveryone.Web2.0broughtthevoluntarydisclosureof used Web 2.0 sites were http://www.Google.com, http://
personal information to the mainstream, and thus www.Amazon.com, www.facebook.com, www.myspace
increases privacy risks (Gross & Acquisti, 2005). There- .com,www.hi5.com,www.youtube.com,www.4chan.org,
fore, understanding the underlying antecedents to priv- www.flickr.com, www.friendster.com, www.linkedin
acy has become much more important in the Web 2.0 .com, www.orkut.com, and www.groups.yahoo.com.
age. A total of 192 responses were used in the empirical
testing. Table2 providesrespondent demographics.
Scale development Non-responsebiaswasassessedbyverifyingthatearly
Totest researchhypotheses, datawerecollected through and late respondents were not significantly different
a survey that included scales for the constructs specified (Armstrong & Overton, 1977). Early respondents were
in the research model. Scale development was based on those who responded within the first week (48%). The
anextensivesurveyoftheprivacyliterature.Allconstruct twogroupsofearlyandlaterespondentswerecompared
measureswerereflectivemeasures,whereachangeinthe based on their demographics (age, gender, and Web
construct affects the underlying measures (Petter et al, usage experience). All t-test comparisons between
2007).Perceivedprivacywasmeasuredbythreequestions the means of the two groups showed insignificant
adapted from Chellappa (2008) (see also Chellappa, differences.
2001a,b and Frye & Dornischa, 2010). Drawing on Theuseofstudentsubjectshasbeenquestionedbefore
Featherman & Pavlou (2003) and Dinev & Hart (2006), on grounds of external validity and generalizability.
we measured perceived privacy risk using four items to However, multiple reasons suggest that, in this case, the
reflect the potential losses associated with the informa- use of student subjects does not present a significant
tion disclosure. Our items, while more tailored for Web threat in our study. First, study participants were online
sites,arealsowellalignedwithtwoofthethreeitemsof customersandInternetusersandstudentsareamongthe
the instrument for privacy risk developed and validated most active users. On the basis of the latest survey
by Featherman & Pavlou, 2003. Items measuring per- conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project
ceived information control were measured by four (2011), the sample chosen is highly representative of
questions that were directly taken from Xu (2007). active Internet users (i.e., those between the ages of 18
Anonymitywasmeasuredbythreeitemsdevelopedfrom and 29), making the sample highly relevant for this
Teich et al (1999) and secrecy was measured by three context. Second, we investigated correlations between
itemsadaptedfromBok(1989)andTefft(1980).Informa- ageandindividualconstruct’ssub-scales,andallofthem
tion sensitivity was measured by three items based on are relatively small and insignificant. We also ran age as
priorliterature(Milne&Gordon,1993;Phelpsetal,2000; acontrolvariableinourstructuralmodelandtherewas
Sheehan&Hoy,2000),perceivedbenefitsofinformation no significant effect. Third, prior empirical research in
disclosure was measured by three items adapted from MISandmarketingsuggeststhatwhereonlinebehavioris
Stone et al (1983), and importance of information concerned,arandomsampleofthegeneralpopulationof
transparency was measured by three items taken from online consumers may not always be better than a
Awad & Krishnan (2006). Confidentiality was measured student sample. For all the reasons above, many MIS
by three items based on Camp (1999), and Zwick & studies related to internet use and online behavior have
Dholakia (2004). Measures for regulatory expectations usedstudentsassubjects(see,e.g.,McKnightetal,2002;
were developed based on prior privacy studies (Milberg Komiak&Benbasat,2006;Strite&Karahanna,2006;Tam
et al, 1995; Milberg et al, 2000; Bellman et al, 2004). All & Ho, 2006; Webster & Ahuja, 2006; Jiang & Benbasat,
measurementitems areincluded intheAppendix A. 2007a,b;McElroy etal, 2007.)
EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems