Skip to main content

The interpersonal privacy identity (IPI): development of a privacy as control model

Information Technology and Management volume 17, pages 341–360 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

The Internet and social computing technology have revolutionized our ability to gather information as well as enabled new modes of communication and forms of self-expression. As the popularity of social computing technologies has increased, our society has begun to witness modifications in socialization behaviors. Social psychology theory suggests that technological changes can influence an individual’s expectation of privacy, through adaptive behaviors resulting from use (Laufer and Wolfe in J Soc Issues 33(3): 22–42 (1977)). We adapt traditional privacy theory to explore the influence of developmental and environmental factors on the individual’s inner privacy identity, which is comprised of the individual’s belief in his or her right to control (1) personal information and (2) interactions with others, and is continuously shaped by privacy experiences. We then use the inner privacy identity to examine interpersonal behaviors in the online context. We find that individuals’ belief in their right to control their information impacts their information disclosure practices when consequences are implied and that their belief in their right to control the interaction impacts their online information sharing practices. We do not find support for a relationship between the interaction management component of the IPI and online interaction behavior, which considered in the presence of the relationship between interaction management and online information sharing, suggests that interaction behavior is more complicated in the online context. Insights from the model developed in this study can inform future studies of situational privacy behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Acquisti A (2004) Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on electronic commerce, pp 21–29. ACM

  2. Acquisti A, Gross R (2006) Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In: Privacy enhancing technologies, lecture notes in computer science, vol 4258. Springer, Berlin, pp 36–58

  3. Altman I (1975) The environment and social behavior. Brooks/Cole, Monterey

    Google Scholar 

  4. Altman I, Taylor DA (1973) Social penetration: the development of interpersonal relationships. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103(3):411–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anton AI, Earp JB, Young JD (2010) How internet users’ privacy concerns have evolved since 2002. IEEE Secur Priv 8(1):21–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barnes SB (2006) A privacy paradox: social networking in the United States. First Monday 11(9):11–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bélanger F, Crossler RE (2011) Privacy in the digital age: a review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Q 35(4):1017–1042

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bélanger F, Hiller JS, Smith WJ (2002) Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: the role of privacy, security, and site attributes. J Strateg Inf Syst 11(3):245–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bennett CJ (1995) The political economy of privacy: a review of the literature. Center for Social and Legal Research, Hackensack

    Google Scholar 

  11. Berendt B, Gunther O, Spiekermann S (2005) Privacy in e-commerce: stated preferences vs. actual behavior. Commun ACM 48(4):101–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bierbrauer G, Meyer H, Wolfradt U (1994) Measurement of normative and evaluative aspects in individualistic and collectivistic orientations: The Cultural Orientation Scale (COS). In: Kim U, Triandis HC, Cigdem K, Choi S-C, Yoon G (eds) Individualism and collectivism: theory, method, and applications. Cross-cultural research and methodology series, vol 18. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, pp 189–199

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chan JC (1991) Response-order effects in Likert-type scales. Educ Psychol Meas 51:531–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chellappa RK, Sin R (2005) Personalization versus privacy: an empirical examination of the online consumer’s dilemma. Inf Technol Manag 6(2):181–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Child JT, Pearson JC, Petronio S (2009) Blogging, communication, and privacy management: development of the blogging privacy management measure. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 60(10):2079–2094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Culnan M, Armstrong P (1999) Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation. Organ Sci 10(1):104–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Daft RL, Lengel RH, Trevino LK (1987) Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: implications for information systems. MIS Q 11(3):355–366

  18. Dennis AR, Fuller RM, Valacich JS (2008) Media, tasks, and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Q 32(3):575–600

    Google Scholar 

  19. Derlega VJ, Chaikin AL (1977) Privacy and self-disclosure in social relationships. J Soc Issues 33(3):102–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Derlega VJ, Metts S, Petronio S, Margulis ST (1993) Self-disclosure. Sage Publications Inc, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dinev T, Hart P (2004) Internet privacy concerns and their antecedents—measurement validity and a regression model. Behav Inf Technol 23(6):413–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dinev T, Hart P (2006) An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Inf Syst Res 17(1):61–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dinev T, Bellotto M, Hart P, Russo V, Serra I, Colautti C (2006) Privacy calculus model in e-commerce—a study of Italy and the United States. Eur J Inf Syst 15(4):389–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dinev T, Xu H, Smith JH, Hart P (2013) Information privacy and correlates: an empirical attempt to bridge and distinguish privacy-related concepts. Eur J Inf Syst 22(3):295–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fornell C, Larker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18:39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gefen D, Straub DW, Boudreau M-C (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 1(7):1–78

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gross R, Acquisti A (2005) Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on privacy in the electronic society, pp. 71–80. ACM

  28. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2006) Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hakstian A, Suedfeld P, Ballard E, Rank D (1986) The ascription of responsibility questionnaire: development and empirical extensions. J Pers Assess 50(2):229–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hann I-H, Hui K-L, Lee SYT, Png IPL (2008) Overcoming online information privacy concerns: an information-processing theory approach. J Manag Inf Syst 24(2):13–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hui KL, Teo HH, Lee SYT (2007) The value of privacy assurance: an exploratory field experiment. MIS Q 31(1):19–33

    Google Scholar 

  32. Junglas IA, Johnson NA, Spitzmüller C (2008) Personality traits and concern for privacy: an empirical study in the context of location-based services. Eur J Inf Syst 17(4):387–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kraut R, Patterson M, Lundmark V, Kiesler S, Mukophadhyay T, Scherlis W (1998) Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? Am Psychol 53(9):1017–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lansing J, Kish L (1957) Family life cycle as an independent variable. Am Sociol Rev 22(5):512–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Laufer R, Wolfe M (1977) Privacy as a concept and a social issue: a multidimensional developmental theory. J Soc Issues 33(3):22–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Luo X, Warkentin M, Johnston AC (2009) The impact of national culture on workplace privacy expectations in the context of information security assurance. In: AMCIS 2009 Proceedings

  37. Lwin M, Williams J (2003) A model integrating the multidimensional developmental theory of privacy and theory of planned behavior to examine fabrication of information online. Mark Lett 14(4):257–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Malhotra NK, Kim SS, Agarwal J (2004) Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): the construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inf Syst Res 15(4):336–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Margulis ST (1977) Conceptions of privacy: current status and next steps. J Soc Issues 33(3):5–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Marshall N (1974) Dimensions of privacy preferences. Multivar Behav Res 9(3):255–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Milne GR, Rohm A (2000) Consumer privacy and name removal across direct marketing channels: exploring opt-in and opt-out alternatives. J Pub Policy Mark 19(2):238–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Moor JH (1997) Towards a theory of privacy in the information age. Comput Soc 27(3):27–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Murphy RF (1964) Social distance and the veil. Am Anthropol 66(6):1257–1274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Nosko A (2011) To tell or not to tell: predictors of disclosure and privacy settings usage in an online social networking site (facebook). Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive). Paper 1116

  45. Norberg PA, Horne DR, Horne DA (2007) The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. J Consum Aff 41(1):100–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Oppenheimer DM, Meyvis T, Davidenko N (2009) Instructional manipulation checks: detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. J Exp Soc Psychol 45(4):867–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Pearce WB, Sharp SM (1973) Self-disclosing communication. J Commun 23(4):409–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pedersen D (1996) A factorial comparison of privacy questionnaires. Soc Behav Personal 24(3):249–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Petronio SS (2002) Boundaries of privacy: dialectics of disclosure. State University of New York Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  50. Phelps J, Nowak G, Ferrell E (2000) Privacy concerns and consumer willingness to provide personal information. J Pub Policy Mark 19(1):27–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Pirim T, James TL, Boswell K, Reithel B, Barkhi R (2008) An empirical investigation of an individual’s perceived need for privacy and security. Int J Inf Secur Priv 2(1):42–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Podsakoff PM, MacKensie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Posey C, Lowry PB, Roberts TL, Ellis TS (2010) Proposing the online community self-disclosure model: the case of working professionals in France and the UK who use online communities. Eur J Inf Syst 19(2):181–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rensel AD, Abbas JM, Rao HR (2006) Private transactions in public places: an exploration of the impact of the computer environment on public transactional Web site use. J Assoc Inf Syst 7(1):19–50

    Google Scholar 

  55. Robins C, Ladd J, Welkowitz J, Blaney P, Diaz R, Kutcher G (1994) The personal style inventory: preliminary validation studies of new measures of sociotropy and autonomy. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 16(4):277–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rule JB (1974) Private lives and public surveillance: social control in the computer age. Schocken Books, New York, p 382

    Google Scholar 

  57. Simmel G (1950) The sociology of Georg Simmel: translated, edited and with an introduction by Kurt H. Wolff. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  58. Smith HJ, Dinev T, Xu H (2011) Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Q 35(4):989–1016

    Google Scholar 

  59. Smith H, Milberg S, Burke S (1996) Information privacy: measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. MIS Q 20(2):167–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Son JY, Kim SS (2008) Internet users’ information privacy-protective responses: a taxonomy and a nomological model. MIS Q 32(3):503–529

    Google Scholar 

  61. Stewart K, Segars A (2002) An empirical examination of the concern for information privacy instrument. Inf Syst Res 13(1):36–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Tavani HT (2007) Philosophical theories of privacy: implications for an adequate online privacy policy. Metaphilosophy 38(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Van Slyke C, Shim JT, Johnson R, Jiang J (2006) Concern for information privacy and online consumer purchasing. J Assoc Inf Syst 7(6):415–444

    Google Scholar 

  64. Warkentin M, Johnston AC, Shropshire J (2011) The influence of the informal social learning environment on information privacy policy compliance efficacy and intention. Eur J Inf Syst 20(3):267–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Westin A (1967) Privacy and freedom. Atheneum Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  66. Xu H, Teo HH, Tan BCY, Agarwal R (2010) The role of push-pull technology in privacy calculus: the case of location-based services. J Manag Inf Syst 26(3):137–176

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Information Technology, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech, 1007 Pamplin Hall, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA

    Tabitha L. James, Quinton Nottingham & Stephane E. Collignon

  2. Management and Information Systems Department, College of Business, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box 9581, Mississippi State, MS, 39762-9581, USA

    Merrill Warkentin

  3. Department of Accounting and Information Systems, College of Business and Economics, Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar

    Jennifer L. Ziegelmayer

Authors
  1. Tabitha L. James
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Quinton Nottingham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephane E. Collignon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Merrill Warkentin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jennifer L. Ziegelmayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tabitha L. James.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

James, T.L., Nottingham, Q., Collignon, S.E. et al. The interpersonal privacy identity (IPI): development of a privacy as control model. Inf Technol Manag 17, 341–360 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-015-0246-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-015-0246-0

Keywords

  • Privacy
  • Online behavior
  • Information control
  • Interaction control