Human Ecology Research

The Korean Home Economics Association (대한가정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Exploratory Study on Consumer Privacy Paradox Experience: Grounded Theory Approach

소비자 프라이버시 역설 경험에 대한 탐색적 연구: 근거이론적 접근

  • Kim, Hyo Jung (Department of Consumer Science, Seoul National University) ;
  • Rha, Jong Youn (Department of Consumer Science, Seoul National University)
  • 김효정 (서울대학교 소비자학과) ;
  • 나종연 (서울대학교 소비자학과)
  • Received : 2016.12.28
  • Accepted : 2017.02.28
  • Published : 2017.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study redefines 'consumer privacy attitude and behavior discrepancy' that occurs in the transaction environment that exists between consumer and provider as 'consumer privacy paradox.' In this study, qualitative research was conducted based on grounded theory. This study explored how consumers react to a privacy paradox as well as looked into how to adapt to the negative and positive results that can be generated by the privacy paradox. 'Consumer privacy paradox' is the same as the existing privacy paradox in that consumers can utilize the resources of personal information to consume and benefit from the market environment. However, it differs from previous studies in that it examines the privacy paradox in terms of consumer influence and consumer experience. The results of the study are as follows. First, a paradigm model of the consumer privacy paradox was derived. Second, consumers used three types of strategies to rationalize themselves or maintain indifference or relief to cope with the consumer privacy paradox. Third, the possibility of damage and the responsibility for privacy protection were the mediators of the consumer privacy paradox. Fourth, the 'result' generated by the consumer privacy paradox showed four types of: non-response, satisfaction, commitment to change, and negative emotional experience. Fifth, there is a difference in strategies to respond to the consumer privacy paradox according to consumer types.

Keywords

References

  1. Acquisti, A., & Grossklags, J. (2004). Privacy attitudes and privacy behavior. In J. Camp & R. Lewis (Eds.), Economics of information security (pp. 165-178). Boston, MA: Springer.
  2. Acquisti, A., & Grossklags, J. (2007). What can behavioral economics teach us about privacy? In A. Acquisti, S. Gritzalis, C. Lambrinoudakis, & S. D. C. di Vimercati (Eds.), Digital privacy: Theory, technologies, and practices (pp. 363-377). New York, NY: Auerbach Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420052183.ch18
  3. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for "lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488-500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431
  4. 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
  5. Brandimarte, L., Acquisti, A., & Loewenstein, G. (2013). Misplaced confidences privacy and the control paradox. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 340-347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612455931
  6. Carrascal, J. P., Riederer, C., Erramilli, V., Cherubini, M., & de Oliveira, R. (2013, May). Your browsing behavior for a big mac: Economics of personal information online. Paper presented at the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  7. Chon, K., & Chae, M. S. (2008). A cross-cultural study on the mobile technology paradox. The Journal of Information Systems, 17(4), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.5859/kais.2008.17.4.001
  8. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. (1963). Resource conservation: Economics and policies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  9. 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
  10. Daily Economy IoT Revolution Project Team. (2014). Internet of things. Seoul: Daily Economics.
  11. Deuker, A. (2010). Addressing the privacy paradox by expanded privacy awareness: The example of context-aware services. In M. Bezzi, P. Duquenoy, S. Fischer-Hubner, M. Hansen, & G. Zhang (Eds.), Privacy and identity management for life (pp. 275-283). Berlin: Springer.
  12. Dienlin, T., & Trepte, S. (2015). Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), 285-297. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2049
  13. 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
  14. Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007, August). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Paper presented at the 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMICS 2007), Keystone, CO, USA.
  15. Egelman, S., Tsai, J., Cranor, L. F., & Acquisti, A. (2009, April). Timing is everything? The effects of timing and placement of online privacy indicators. Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, USA.
  16. Flender, C. (2013). Order effects in observations of stated and revealed privacy preferences. In C. Douligeris, A. Karantjias, & W. Lamersdorf (Eds.), Collaborative, trusted and privacy-aware e/m-services (pp. 13-24). Berlin: Springer.
  17. Gartner. (2015). Gartner identifies the top 10 strategic technology trends for 2016. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3143521
  18. Goodwin, C. (1991). Privacy: Recognition of a consumer right. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(1), 149-166.
  19. Grossklags, J., & Acquisti, A. (2007, June). When 25 cents is too much: An experiment on willingness-to-sell and willingness-to-protect personal information. Paper presented at the 6th Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2007), Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
  20. Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2010). Preference for consistency and social influence: A review of current research findings. Social Influence, 5(3), 152-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510903332378
  21. Hu, T. G. (2005). The role of cognitive dissonance in development of negative attitudes toward the law. Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues, 11(1), 25-42.
  22. Hughes-Roberts, T. (2013, September). Privacy and social networks: Is concern a valid indicator of intention and behaviour? Paper presented at the 2013 International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), Washington, DC, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/SocialCom.2013.140
  23. Jang, Y., & Choi, H. (2013). A study on the decision making process of insurance consumer: A grounded theory approach. Korean Society of Consumer Studies, 24(4), 171-204.
  24. Kang, G. Y. (2006). Study on the effect of consumer negative emotion on customer satisfaction and post purchase behavior (Unpublished master's thesis). Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.
  25. Kehr, F., Kowatsch, T., Wentzel, D., & Fleisch, E. (2015). Blissfully ignorant: The effects of general privacy concerns, general institutional trust, and affect in the privacy calculus. Information Systems Journal, 25(6), 607-635. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12062
  26. Ki, S. J., & Lee, S. Y. (2013). Exploring categories of SNS user on the basis of privacy concern and self-efficacy. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 57(1), 81-110.
  27. Kim, E. J. (2013). The cognitive dissonance factor of the financial consumer after the financial product purchase. Journal of Consumer Studies, 24(2), 25-46.
  28. Kim, J., & Kim, S. (2013). Privacy protection behavior of online user: Based on privacy paradox perspective. The Journal of Internet Electronic Commerce Research, 13(1), 41-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-013-9105-4
  29. Kim, J. E., & Yeo, J. (2010). An analysis on the determinants of valuation of consumers’ personal information. Journal of Consumer Studies, 21(2), 341-366.
  30. Kim, J. K., & Kim, S. H. (2014). The effect of relationships between justice and privacy calculus on intention to disclose personal information. The Journal of Internet Electronic Commerce Research, 14(1), 45-67.
  31. 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
  32. Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443-478. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355 397555253
  33. 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
  34. Lee, H., Park, H., Bae, S., & Kim, J. (2012). Social network service users’ criteria and strategies for context sharing. Korea Journal of HCI Society of Korea, 7(1), 11-17. https://doi.org/10.17210/jhsk.2012.05.7.1.11
  35. Lee, T. Y. (2001). The effects of self-efficacy and confirmity toward social norm on environmentally responsible behaviors. The Environmental Education, 14(2), 106-115.
  36. Li, Y. (2011). Empirical studies on online information privacy concerns: Literature review and an integrative framework. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28(1), 453-496.
  37. 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
  38. Ling, K. C., Chai, L. T., & Piew, T. H. (2010). The 'inside-out' and 'outside-in' approaches on students' perceived service quality: An empirical evaluation. Management Science and Engineering, 4(2), 1-26.
  39. Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption experience: Evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 451-466. https://doi.org/10.1086/209361
  40. Na, E. Y. (2013). Twitter users' online self-disclosure: Impacts of risk reduction and benefit expectancy. Korea Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 57(4), 124-148.
  41. Nam, M. J., Ahn, M. J., Cho, M. H., & Jeong, C. (2012). Cognitive dissonance in post decision making and behavioral intention for eating out. Korean Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 21(1), 129-144.
  42. 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
  43. Pavlou, P. A. (2011). State of the information privacy literature: Where are we now and where should we go? MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 977-988. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409969
  44. Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice. New York, NY: Ecco.
  45. Shin, K. R. (2004). Qualititative metholodgy. Seoul: Ewha Womans University Press.
  46. Son, D. Y., & Lee, E. H. (2013). A study on the consumer's attitude and utilization intention toward full ingredient lists for cosmetics: For female consumers. Family and Environment Research, 51(5), 513-526. https://doi.org/10.6115/fer.2013.51.5.513
  47. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  48. Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083020
  49. Sun, Y., Wang, N., Shen, X. L., & Zhang, J. X. (2015). Location information disclosure in location-based social network services: Privacy calculus, benefit structure, and gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 278-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.006
  50. 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
  51. Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2008). Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
  52. TRUSTe. (2016). The state of online privacy 2016. Retrieved January 28, 2016, from http://www.truste.com/blog/2016/01/28/stateonline-privacy-2016/
  53. Varian, H. R. (1996). Economic aspects of personal privacy. In W. H. Lehr & L. M. Pupillo (Eds.), Privacy and self-regulation in the information Age. Berkeley, CA: Springer.
  54. Wang, H., Lee, M. K. O., & Wang, C. (1998). Consumer privacy concerns about internet marketing. Communications of the ACM, 41(3), 63-70. https://doi.org/10.1145/272287.272299
  55. Xu, H., Luo, X. R., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2011). The personalization privacy paradox: An exploratory study of decision making process for location-aware marketing. Decision Support Systems, 51(1), 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.017
  56. Yi, Y., & Cha, M. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of negative consumption emotion: Focused on the regret and disappointment. Journal of Consumer Studies, 16(4), 103-128.
  57. Zafeiropoulou, A. M., Millard, D. E., Webber, C., & O'Hara, K. (2013, May). Unpicking the privacy paradox: Can structuration theory help to explain location-based privacy decisions? Paper presented at the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference, Paris, France.