Perceived information sensitivity and interdependent privacy protection: a quantitative study

  • Jakob WirthEmail author
  • Christian Maier
  • Sven Laumer
  • Tim Weitzel
Research Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Digitization of the Individual


From a theoretical point of view, previous research has considered information sensitivity in terms of potential negative consequences for someone who has disclosed information to others and that information becomes public. However, making information public could also have negative consequences for other individuals as well. In this study, we extend the concept of information sensitivity to include negative consequences for other individuals and apply it in a quantitative research study. The results prove that the extended concept of information sensitivity leads to a better understanding of privacy-related concepts especially in an interdependent privacy setting. We contribute to theory by defining the extended concept of information sensitivity and by drawing conclusions on how to use it in future privacy research studies.


Privacy Information sensitivity Communication privacy management theory Interdependent privacy Motivation to comply 

JEL classification




  1. Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire. Accessed 30 January 2017.
  2. Alashoor, T., Keil, M., Liu, L., & Smith, J. (2015). How values shape concerns about privacy for self and others. In D. Leidner & J. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Dallas, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Al-Natour, S., Benbasat, I., & Cenfetelli, R. (2009). The antecedents of customer self-disclosure to online virtual advisors. In H. Chen & S. Slaugther (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Information Systems, Phoenix, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, C. L., and Agarwal, R. (2009). “Genetic information altruists: how far and to whom does their generosity extend?” ICIS 2009 Proceedings.Google Scholar
  5. Animesh, A., Pinsonneault, A., Yang, S.-B., & Oh, W. (2011). An Odyssey into virtual worlds: exploring the impacts of technological and spatial environments. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 789–810.Google Scholar
  6. Bansal, G., Zahedi, F. M., & Gefen, D. (2010). The impact of personal dispositions on information sensitivity, privacy concern and trust in disclosing health information online. Decision Support Systems, 49(2), 138–150.Google Scholar
  7. Batson, C. D., Duncan, D. B., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 290–302.Google Scholar
  8. Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Understanding User Responses to Information Technology: A Coping Model of User Adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 493–524.Google Scholar
  9. Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011). Privacy in the digital age: A review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 1017–1042.Google Scholar
  10. Bellekens, X., Hamilton, A., Seeam, P., Nieradzinska, K., Franssen, Q., and Seeam, A. (2016). “Pervasive eHealth services a security and privacy risk awareness survey,” in 2016 International Conference On Cyber Situational Awareness, Data Analytics And Assessment (CyberSA), London, United Kingdom, IEEE, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  11. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142.Google Scholar
  12. Biczók, G., & Chia, P. H. (2013). Interdependent privacy: Let me share your data. In A.-R. Sadeghi (Ed.), Financial cryptography and data security (pp. 338–353). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.Google Scholar
  14. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.Google Scholar
  15. Boyer O’Leary, M., Wilson, J. M., & Metiu, A. (2014). Beyond being there: the symbolic role of communication and identification in perceptions of proximity to geographically dispersed colleagues. MIS Quarterly, 38(4), 1219–1243.Google Scholar
  16. Buckel, T., & Thiesse, F. (2013). Predicting the disclosure of personal information on social networks: an empirical investigation. In R. Alt & B. Franczyk (Eds.), 11th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
  17. Cao, Z., Hui, K.-L., & Xu, H. (2018). An economic analysis of peer disclosure in online social communities. Information Systems Research, 29(3), 546–566.Google Scholar
  18. Carmines, E. G., and Zeller, R. A. 2008. Reliability and validity assessment, Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Chen, J., Ping, W., Xu, Y., & Tan, B. C.Y. (2009). Am i afraid of my peers? Understanding the antecedents of information privacy concerns in the online social context. In H. Chen & S. Slaugther (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Information Systems, Phoenix, USA, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  20. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern methods for Business Research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Cialdini, R. B., Darby, B. L., & Vincent, J. E. (1973). Transgression and altruism: a case for hedonism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9(6), 502–516.Google Scholar
  22. Clark, R. D., & Word, L. E. (1974). Where is the apathetic bystander? Situational characteristics of the emergency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 279–287.Google Scholar
  23. Culnan, M. J. (1993). "How did they get my name?": An exploratory investigation of consumer attitudes toward secondary information use. MIS Quarterly, 17(3), 341–363.Google Scholar
  24. Davis, J. A. (1985). The logic of causal order. Iowa City: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Davis, M. H., Soderlund, T., Cole, J., Gadol, E., Kute, M., Myers, M., & Weihing, J. (2004). Cognitions associated with attempts to empathize: how do we imagine the perspective of another? Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1625–1635.Google Scholar
  26. Deutsch, R., & Strack, F. (2006). TARGET ARTICLE: Duality Models in Social Psychology: From Dual Processes to Interacting Systems. Psychological Inquiry, 17(3), 166–172.Google Scholar
  27. Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80.Google Scholar
  28. Dinev, T., Xu, H., Smith, J. H., & Hart, P. (2013). Information privacy and correlates: an empirical attempt to bridge and distinguish privacy-related concepts. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(3), 295–316.Google Scholar
  29. Eling, N., Krasnova, H., Widjaja, T., & Buxmann, P. (2015). Will you accept an app? Empirical investigation of the decisional calculus behind the adoption of applications on facebook. In D. Leidner & J. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Dallas, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co..Google Scholar
  31. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.Google Scholar
  32. Gandy, O. H. (1993). The panoptic sort: A political economy of personal information. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  33. Gerlach, J., Widjaja, T., & Buxmann, P. (2015). Handle with care: How online social network providers’ privacy policies impact users’ information sharing behavior. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(1), 33–43.Google Scholar
  34. Goel, V., and Perlroth, N. (2016). Yahoo says 1 billion user accounts were hacked. Accessed 15 December 2016.
  35. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  37. Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20.Google Scholar
  38. Hess, T., Legner, C., Esswein, W., Maaß, W., Matt, C., Österle, H., Schlieter, H., Richter, P., & Zarnekow, R. (2014). Digital life as a topic of business and information systems engineering? Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6(4), 247–253.Google Scholar
  39. Hu, L.‐. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.Google Scholar
  40. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.Google Scholar
  41. James, T. L., Wallace, L., Warkentin, M., Kim, B. C., & Collignon, S. E. (2017). Exposing others’ information on online social networks (OSNs): Perceived shared risk, its determinants, and its influence on OSN privacy control use. Information Management, 54(7), 851–865.Google Scholar
  42. Johnson, M. E. (2008). Information risk of inadvertent disclosure: an analysis of file-sharing risk in the financial supply chain. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(2), 97–123.Google Scholar
  43. Junglas, I., Goel, L., Abraham, C., & Ives, B. (2013). The Social component of information systems—How sociability contributes to technology acceptance. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(10), 585–616.Google Scholar
  44. Karwatzki, S., Trenz, M., Tuunainen, V. K., & Veit, D. (2017). Adverse consequences of access to individuals’ information: An analysis of perceptions and the scope of organisational influence. European Journal of Information Systems, 26(6), 688–715.Google Scholar
  45. Kehr, F., Wentzel, D., & Mayer, P. (2013). Rethinking the privacy calculus: on the role of dispositional factors and affect. In R. Baskerville & M. Chau (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Information Systems, Milan, Italy, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  46. Koohikamali, M., Peak, D. A., & Prybutok, V. R. (2017). Beyond self-disclosure: disclosure of information about others in social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 69), 29–42.Google Scholar
  47. Krasnova, H., & Veltri, N. F. (2010). Privacy calculus on social networking sites: explorative evidence from Germany and USA. In R. Sprague & S. Laney (Eds.), 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2010), Koloa, Kauai, Hawaii, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  48. Leider, S., Möbius, M. M., Rosenblat, T., & Do, Q.-A. (2009). Directed altruism and enforced reciprocity in social networks *. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4), 1815–1851.Google Scholar
  49. Li, H., Sarathy, R., & Xu, H. (2011). The role of affect and cognition on online consumers' decision to disclose personal information to unfamiliar online vendors. Decision Support Systems, 51(3), 434–445.Google Scholar
  50. Li, T., Pavlou, P., & dos Santos, G. L. (2013). What drives users’ website registration? A randomized field experiment. In R. Baskerville & M. Chau (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Information Systems, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
  51. Lowry, P. B., D’Arcy, J., Hammer, B., & Moody, G. D. (2016). “Cargo cult” science in traditional organization and information systems survey research: A case for using nontraditional methods of data collection, including Mechanical Turk and online panels. JSIS, 25(3), 232–240.Google Scholar
  52. Lwin, M., Wirtz, J., & Williams, J. D. (2007). Consumer online privacy concerns and responses: a power–responsibility equilibrium perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(4), 572–585.Google Scholar
  53. Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet Users' Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): the construct, the scale, and a causal model: information systems research. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336–355.Google Scholar
  54. Metzger, M. J. (2007). Communication privacy management in electronic commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 335–361.Google Scholar
  55. Milne, G. R. (1997). Consumer participation in mailing lists: a field experiment. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16(2), 298–309.Google Scholar
  56. Milne, G. R., & Gordon, M. E. (1993). Direct mail privacy-efficiency trade-offs within an implied social contract framework. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12(2), 206–215.Google Scholar
  57. Moon, Y. (2000). Intimate Exchanges: Using Computers to Elicit Self‐Disclosure From Consumers. Journal of consumer research, 26(4), 323–339.Google Scholar
  58. Morlok, T. (2016). Sharing is (not) caring - the role of external privacy in users’ information disclosure behaviors on social network sites. In T.-P. Liang & S.-Y. Hung (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Chiayi, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  59. Mothersbaugh, D. L., Foxx, W. K., Beatty, S. E., & Wang, S. (2011). Disclosure antecedents in an online service context: the role of sensitivity of information. Journal of Service Research, 15(1), 76–98.Google Scholar
  60. Myers, D. G. (2009). Social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  61. Nissenbaum, H. F. (2010). Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford: Stanford Law Books an imprit of Standford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: a principal -- agent perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 105–136.Google Scholar
  63. Petronio, S. S., & Altman, I. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  64. Phelps, J., Nowak, G., & Ferrell, E. (2000). Privacy concerns and consumer willingness to provide personal information. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 27–41.Google Scholar
  65. Poremba, S. M. (2012). How friends spoil your social-media privacy. Accessed 9 October 2017.
  66. Posey, C., & Ellis, S. (2007). Understanding self-disclosure in electronic communities: an exploratory model of privacy risk beliefs, reciprocity, and trust. In J. Hoxmeier & S. Hayne (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th American Conference on Information Systems, Keystone, Colorado, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  67. Pu, Y., & Grossklags, J. (2014). An economic model and simulation results of app adoption decisions on networks with interdependent privacy consequences. International Conference on Decision and Game Theory for Security, 246–265.Google Scholar
  68. Pu, Y., & Grossklags, J. (2015). Using conjoint analysis to investigate the value of interdependent privacy in social app adoption scenarios. In D. Leidner & J. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty sixth international conference on information systems, Dallas.Google Scholar
  69. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., and Becker, J.-M. (2014). SmartPLS 3. Accessed 21 February 2017.
  70. Roberts, S. C. (2011). Applied evolutionary psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Santrock, J. W. (2014). A topical approach to life-span development. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  72. Schreiner, M., & Hess, T. (2015). Why are consumers willing to pay for privacy? An application of the privacy-freemium model to media companies. In J. Becker, J. vom Brocke & M. de Marco (Eds.), Twenty-Third European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Münster, Germany.Google Scholar
  73. Schwarz, A., Rizzuto, T., Carraher-Wolverton, C., Roldan, J. L., & Barrera-Barrera, R. (2017). Examining the Impact and Detection of the "Urban Legend" of Common Method Bias. ACM Sigmis Database, 48(1), 93–119.Google Scholar
  74. Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M. G. (2000). Dimensions of Privacy Concern among Online Consumers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 62–73.Google Scholar
  75. Son, J.-Y., & Kim, S. S. (2008). Internet users' information privacy-protective responses: a taxonomy and a nomological model. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 503–529.Google Scholar
  76. Spiekermann, S., & Korunovska, J. (2017). Towards a value theory for personal data. Journal of Information Technology, 32(1), 62–84.Google Scholar
  77. (2016). Share of internet users in the United States who have shared passwords to online accounts with friends or family as of May 2016, by age group. Accessed 8 September 2017.
  78. (2018). Most famous social network sites worldwide as of January 2018, ranked by number of active users (in millions). Accessed 20 March 2018.
  79. Steelman, Z. R., Hammer, B. I., & Limayem, M. (2014). Data collection in the digital age: Innovative alternatives to student samples. MIS Quarterly, 38(2), 355–378.Google Scholar
  80. Stein, M.-K., Newell, S., Wagner, E. L., & Galliers, R. D. (2015). Coping with information technology: Mixed emotions, vacillation and non-conforming use patterns. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 367–392.Google Scholar
  81. 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.Google Scholar
  82. 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.Google Scholar
  83. van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom's expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 575–586.Google Scholar
  84. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  85. Wacks, R. (1989). Personal Information: Privacy and the Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  86. Weible, R. J. (1993). Privacy and data: An empirical study of the influence of types of data and situational context upon privacy perceptions. Doctoral Dissertation.Google Scholar
  87. Wirth, J. (2018). Dependent variables in the privacy-related field: a descriptive literature review. In T. Bui (Ed.), Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa Village, Hawaii, pp. 3658–3667.Google Scholar
  88. Xie, E., Teo, H.-H., & Wan, W. (2006). Volunteering personal information on the internet: Effects of reputation, privacy notices, and rewards on online consumer behavior. Marketing Letters, 17(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
  89. Zhang, Y., He, D., & Sang, Y. (2013). Facebook as a platform for health information and communication: a case study of a diabetes group. Journal of Medical Systems, 37(3), 9942.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information Systems and Applied Computer Science, Department of Information Systems and ServicesUniversity of BambergBambergGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Information Systems, School of Business, Economics and Society, Schöller Endowed Chair of Information Systems (Digitalization in Business and Society)Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-NürnbergNürnbergGermany

Personalised recommendations