[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A Typology of Online Privacy Personalities

Exploring and Segmenting Users’ Diverse Privacy Attitudes and Behaviors

  • Published:
Journal of Grid Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With our lives being increasingly digital, most users are concerned about their online privacy. Still, many users provide manifold data online and show no protection behaviors. Research has found different explanations for this privacy paradox: users perform a privacy calculus (weighing benefits and concerns about data sharing), make affective and inconsiderate decisions, or are overtaxed by the complexity of privacy protection practices. Complementing these theories, we hypothesize that different user types approach privacy differently. In interviews and focus groups (N = 25), we see that users show a different reasoning for their online behaviors. Subsequently, an online survey (N = 337) was carried out. Using cluster analyses, we identify three user groups: Privacy Guardians are highly concerned and guard their privacy carefully, Privacy Cynics are moderately concerned but feel powerless, and Privacy Pragmatists are less concerned and trade privacy for benefits. The user groups need to be addressed by individually tailored information and communication strategies to be able to adequately benefit from the digital era according to their requirements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tene, O., Polonetsky, J.: Privacy in the age of big data: a time for big decisions. Stanford Law Rev. Online 64, 63–69 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sagiroglu, S., Sinanc, D.: Big data: a review. 2013 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS), p. 42–47 (2013)

  3. Spiekermann, S., Novotny, A.: A vision for global privacy bridges: Technical and legal measures for international data markets. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 31(2), 181–200 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  4. European Commission: Special Eurobarometer 431 - Data Protection. Cologne: TNS opinion (2015)

  5. Hampson, F., Bricker, D.: CIGI-IPSOS global survey on internet seurity and trust 2018, release 1: Concern and trust. Ipsos public affairs (2018)

  6. Westin, A.F.: Privacy and freedom. Amer. Soc. Rev. 33(1), 173 (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Spiekermann, S., Korunovska, J.: Towards a value theory for personal data. J. Inf. Technol. 32(1) (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gerber, N., Gerber, P., Volkamer, M.: Explaining the privacy paradox: a systematic review of literature investigating privacy attitude and behavior. Comput. Secur. 77, 226–261 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dinev, T., Hart, P.: An extended privacy calculus model for E-Commerce transactions. Inf. Sys. Res. 17(1), 61–80 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kokolakis, S.: Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: a review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Comput. Secur. 2011(2013), 1–29 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Solove, D.: Understanding Privacy, vol. 13. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Warren, S.D., Brandeis, L.D.: The harvard law review association. Harvard Law Rev. 4(5), 193–220 (1890)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Altman, I.: Privacy - a conceptual analysis. Environ. Behav. 8(1), 7–29 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Burgoon, J.K.: Privacy and communication. Annals. Int. Commun. Assoc. 6(1), 206–249 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Koops, B.J, Newell, B.C., Timan, T., Skorvanek, I., Chokrevski, T., Galic, M.: A typology of privacy. Univ. Pennsylvanica J. Int. Law 38(2), 1–93 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  16. European Commission: Data protection eurobarometer european commission (2015)

  17. Rainie, L., Kiesler, S., Kang, R., Madden, M.: Anonymity, privacy, and security online pew research center (2013)

  18. Smith, H.J., Dinev, T., Xu, H.: Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly 35(4), 989–1015 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Buchanan, T., Paine, C., Joinson, A.N., Reips, U.D.: Development of measures of online privacy concern and protectin for use on the internet. J. Amrican. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 58(2), 157–165 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Li, Y.: Empirical studies on online information privacy concerns: Literature review and an integrative framework. Commun. Assoc. Inform. Syst. 28(28), 453–496 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Baruh, L., Secinti, E., Cemalcilar, Z.: Online privacy concerns and privacy management: a meta-analytical review. J. Commun. 67, 26–53 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Petronio, S., Durham, W.T.: Communication privacy management theory. Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives, pp. 309–322 (2008)

  23. Rogers, R.W.: Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E. (eds.) Social Psychophysiology: a Sourcebook, pp 153–174. Guilford Press, New York (1983)

  24. Happ, C., Melzer, A., Steffgen, G.: Trick with treat–Reciprocity increases the willingness to communicate personal data. Comput. Hum. Behav. 61, 372–377 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Beresford, A.R., Kübler, D., Preibusch, S.: Unwillingness to pay for privacy: a field experiment. WZ Discussion Paper, No SP II 2010-03 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, J., Hart, P.: Information privacy concerns: Linking individual perceptions with institutional privacy assurances. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 12(12), 798–824 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lee, H., Park, H., Kim, J.: Why do people share their context information on Social Network Services? A qualitative study and an experimental study on users’ behavior of balancing perceived benefit and risk. Int. J. Hum-Comput. St. 71(9), 862–877 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dienlin, T., Metzger, M.J.: An extended privacy calculus model for SNSs: analyzing self-disclosure and self-withdrawal in a representative U.S. sample. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 21(5), 368–383 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sun, Y., Wang, N., Shen, X.L., Zhang, J.X.: Location information disclosure in location-based social network services: Privacy calculus, benefit structure, and gender differences. Comput. Hum. Behav. 52(August), 278–292 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ziefle, M., Calero Valdez, A.: Decisions about medical data disclosure in the internet: an age perspective. In: Zhou, J., Salvendy, G. (eds.) 4rd International Conference on Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Applications, Services and Contexts. ITAP 2018. Part of sp ed, pp 1–16. Springer (2018)

  31. Li, H., Wu, J., Gao, Y., Shi, Y.: Examining individuals’ adoption of healthcare wearable devices: an empirical study from privacy calculus perspective. Int. J. Med. Inform. 88(555), 8–17 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Keith, M.J., Thompson, S.C., Hale, J., Lowry, P.B., Greer, C.: Information disclosure on mobile devices: Re-examining privacy calculus with actual user behavior. Int. J. Hum-Comput. Stud. 71 (12), 1163–1173 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Knijnenburg, B.P., Raybourn, E., Cherry, D., Wilkinson, D., Sivakumar, S., Sloan, H.: Death to the privacy calculus? SSRN electronic journal (2017)

  34. Acquisti, A., Grossklags, J.: Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Secur. Priv. 3(1), 26–33 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cho, H., Lee, J.S.S., Chung, S.: Optimistic bias about online privacy risks: Testing the moderating effects of perceived controllability and prior experience. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26(5), 987–995 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Baek, Y.M., Kim, E.M., Bae, Y.: My privacy is okay, but theirs is endangered: Why comparative optimism matters in online privacy concerns. Comput. Hum. Behav. 31(1), 48–56 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kehr, F., Kowatsch, T., Wentzel, D., Fleisch, E.: Blissfully ignorant: the effects of general privacy concerns, general institutional trust, and affect in the privacy calculus. Information Systems Journal 25(6) (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Schomakers, E.M., Lidynia, C., Ziefle, M.: Exploring the acceptance of mHealth applications - do acceptance patterns vary depending on context?. In: International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, pp 53–64. Springer (2019)

  39. Trepte, S., Reinecke, L., Ellison, N.B., Quiring, O., Yao, M.Z., Ziegele, M.: A Cross-Cultural perspective on the privacy calculus. Social Med. Soc. 3(1), 1–13 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hoffmann, C.P., Lutz, C., Ranzini, G.: Privacy cynicism: a new approach to the privacy paradox. Cyberpsychology:. J. Psych. Res. Cyberspace 10(4), 1–18 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Korzaan, M.L., Boswell, K.T.: The influence of personality traits and information privacy concerns on behavioral intentions. J. Comput. Inform. Syst. 48(4), 15–24 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sheehan, K.B.: Toward a typology of internet users and online privacy concerns. Inform. Soc. 18 (1), 21–32 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Woodruff, A., Pihur, V., Consolva, S., Schmidt, L., Brandimarte, L., Alessandro, A.: Would a privacy fundamentalist sell their DNA for $1000... if nothing bad Happened as a result?... The Westin categories, behavioral intentions, and consequences. In: Tenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, pp 1–18 (2014)

  44. Jai, T.M., King, N.J.: Privacy versus reward: Do loyalty programs increase consumers? willingness to share personal information with third-party advertisers and data brokers? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 28, 296–303 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hoofnagle, C.J., King, J.: Research report: What Californians understand about privacy online. Social Science Research Network p. 1–33 (2008)

  46. Baruh, L., Cemalcılar, Z.: It is more than personal: Development and validation of a multidimensional privacy orientation scale. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 70, 165–170 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Smit, E.G., Van Noort, G., Voorveld, H.A.M.: Understanding online behavioural advertising: User knowledge, privacy concerns and online coping behaviour in Europe. Comput. Hum. Behav. 32, 15–22 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lankton, N.K., McKnight, D.H., Tripp, J.F.: Facebook privacy management strategies: a cluster analysis of user privacy behaviors. Comput. Hum. Behav. 76, 149–163 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hsieh, H.F., Shannan, S.E.: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 15(9), 1277–1288 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Li, Y.: A multi-level model of individual information privacy beliefs. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 13(1), 32–44 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, H.J., Hart, P.: Examining the formation of individual’s privacy concerns: toward an integrative view, vol. 6, pp 1–18 (2008)

  52. Beier, G.: Kontrolüberzeugungen im Umgang mit Technik [Technical Self-Efficacy]. Report. Psychologie. 9, 684–693 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Joinson, A., Paine, C., Buchanan, T., Reips, U.D.: Measuring internet privacy attitudes and behavior: a multi-dimensional approach. Privacy Methodologies’) at the … 32(4) (2006)

  54. Dinev, T., Xu, H., Smith, H.J.: Information privacy values, beliefs and attitudes: an empirical analysis of Web 2.0 privacy. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp 1–10 (2009)

  55. McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., Kacmar, C.: Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Info. Sys. Res. 13(3), 334–359 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Morton, A.: Measuring inherent privacy concern and desire for privacy: a pilot survey study of an instrument to measure dispositional privacy concern. Proceedings - SocialCom/PASSAT/BigData/EconCom/BioMedCom 2013, p. 468–477 (2013)

  57. Ringle, C., Wende, S., Becker, J.M.: SmartPLS 3 smartPLS: Bönningstedt (2015)

  58. Hair, J.F.J., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E.: Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Milne, G.R., Pettinico, G., Hajjat, F.M., Markos, E.: Information sensitivity typology: Mapping the degree and type of risk consumers perceive in personal data sharing. Journal of Consumer Affairs, pp. 1–29 (2016)

  60. Festinger, L.: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, vol. 2. Stanford University Press, Redwood City (1957)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kumaraguru, P., Cranor, L.F.: Privacy indexes: a survey of westin’s studies. December (2005)

  62. Hallinan, D., Friedewald, M., McCarthy, P.: Citizens’ perceptions of data protection and privacy in Europe. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 28(3), 263–272 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Esayas, S., Mahler, T., McGillivray, K.: Is a picture worth a thousand terms? visualising contract terms and data protectin requiremente for cloud computing users. In: Casteleyn, S, et al. (eds.) ICWE Workshops, vol. 9881, pp 39–56. Springer International Publishing (2016)

  64. Kelley, P.G., Bresee, J., Cranor, L.F., Reeder, R.W.: A “nutrition label” for privacy. In: Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security SOUPS 2009 (2009)

  65. Schaub, F., Balebako, R., Durity, A.L., Cranor, L.F.: A design space for effective privacy notices. Eleventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS) 2015, 1–17 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Matzutt, R., Müllmann, D., Zeissig, E.M., Horst, C., Kasugai, K., Lidynia, S., et al.: myneData: Towards a trusted and user- controlled ecosystem for sharing personal data. In: Eibl, M., Gaedke, M. (eds.) INFORMATIK 2017, Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI), pp 1073–1084 (2017)

  67. Kuikkaniemi, K., Poikola, A., Honko, H.: MyData–a nordic model for human-centered personal data management and processing. White Paper (2015)

  68. Prensky, M.: Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon 9(5), 1–6 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Bennett, S., Maton, K., Kervin, L.: The `digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. British J. Educ. Technol. 39(5), 775–786 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Ribble, M.S., Bailey, G.D., Ross, T.W.: Digital citizenship: Addressing appropriate technology behavior. Learn. Lead. Technol. 32(1), 6 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Krasnova, H., Veltri, N.F.: Privacy calculus on social networking sites: Explorative evidence from Germany and USA. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–10 (2010)

  72. Schomakers, E.M., Lidynia, C., Vervier, L., Ziefle M. Of guardians, cynics, and pragmatists a typology of privacy concerns and behavior. In: 3rd International Conference on Internet of Things, Big Data and Security. SCITEPRESS- Science and and Technology Publications. pp. 153–163 (2018)

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all participants for their openness in sharing thoughts and opinions. Furthermore, the research support of Stefan Ahlers is highly appreciated. This research was funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the project MyneData (KIS1DSD045). The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human-Computer Interaction Center, RWTH Aachen University, Campus-Boulevard 57, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Eva-Maria Schomakers, Chantal Lidynia & Martina Ziefle

Authors
  1. Eva-Maria Schomakers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chantal Lidynia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martina Ziefle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva-Maria Schomakers.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schomakers, EM., Lidynia, C. & Ziefle, M. A Typology of Online Privacy Personalities. J Grid Computing 17, 727–747 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10723-019-09500-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10723-019-09500-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation