Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding individuals’ intentions to limit online personal information disclosures to protect their privacy: implications for organizations and public policy

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the present research is to understand individuals’ intentions to limit their personal information online to partially anonymize their digital identity. Key concepts from several privacy theories are used to generate hypotheses that can be used to understand the behavior of interest. Data from a national probability sample of 792 adults is used to test the hypotheses. The results indicate that the size of an individual’s digital footprint, their need for control over personal information, and past privacy violations are important determinants of their online information limiting behavior. The findings have important implications for theory and practice. From a theoretical perspective, the findings indicate that individual intentions to limit personal information online seem to be based on a desire to balance their current online exposure with their need to control their personal online information. Past privacy violations also exert an influence on online information disclosures. The research is important for organizations and policy makers in designing privacy policies and proposing regulation that recognizes the dilemma that individuals encounter when they share information online with an organization for mutual benefit.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Acquisti A, Brandimarte L, Loewenstein G (2015) Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science 347(6221):509–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ashworth L, Free C (2006) Marketing dataveillance and digital privacy: using theories of justice to understand consumers’ online privacy concerns. J Bus Ethics 67(2):107–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Awad NF, Krishnan MS (2006) The personalization privacy paradox: an empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Q 30:13–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boatright M (2000) Privacy, ethics and the conduct of business, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Saddle River, pp 159–183

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen K, Rea AI Jr (2004) Protecting personal information online: a survey of user privacy concerns and control techniques. J Comput Inf Syst 44(4):85

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Diamantopoulos A, Winklhofer HM (2001) Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. J Mark Res 38(2):269–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. Epstein LH, Temple JL, Roemmich JN, Bouton ME (2009) Habituation as a determinant of human food intake. Psychol Rev 116(2):384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fukukawa K, Ennew C (2010) What we believe is not always what we do: an empirical investigation into ethically questionable behavior in consumption. J Bus Ethics 91(1):49–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gefen D, Ridings CM (2005) If you spoke as she does, sir, instead of the way you do: a sociolinguistics perspective of gender differences in virtual communities. ACM SIGMIS Database 36(2):78–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Golder SA, Macy MW (2014) Digital footprints: opportunities and challenges for online social research. Ann Rev Sociol 40:129–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hair JF Jr, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M (2017) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. Harris MA, Brookshire R, Chin AG (2016) Identifying factors influencing consumers’ intent to install mobile applications. Int J Inf Manag 36(3):441–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Henseler J, Sarstedt M (2013) Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Comput Stat 28(2):565–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoffman DL, Novak TP, Peralta MA (1999) Information privacy in the marketspace: implications for the commercial uses of anonymity on the Web. Inf Soc 15(2):129–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Horne DR, Norberg PA, Cemal Ekin A (2007) Exploring consumer lying in information-based exchanges. J Consum Mark 24(2):90–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jai TMC, King NJ (2015) 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. James TL, Nottingham Q, Collignon SE, Warkentin M, Ziegelmayer JL (2016) The interpersonal privacy identity (IPI): development of a privacy as control model. Inf Technol Manag 17(4):341–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jarvenpaa SL, Tractinsky N, Vitale M (2000) Consumer trust in an Internet store. Inf Technol Manag 1(1–2):45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jensen C, Potts C, Jensen C (2005) Privacy practices of Internet users: self-reports versus observed behavior. Int J Hum Comput Stud 63(1):203–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jiang Z, Heng CS, Choi BC (2013) Research note—privacy concerns and privacy-protective behavior in synchronous online social interactions. Inf Syst Res 24(3):579–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lambiotte R, Kosinski M (2014) Tracking the digital footprints of personality. Proc IEEE 102(12):1934–1939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lanier CD, Saini A (2008) Understanding consumer privacy: a review and future directions. Acad Mark Sci Rev 12(2):1–45

    Google Scholar 

  28. LaRose R, Rifon N (2006) Your privacy is assured-of being disturbed: websites with and without privacy seals. New Media Soc 8(6):1009–1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Li Y (2012) Theories in online information privacy research: a critical review and an integrated framework. Decis Support Syst 54(1):471–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lowry PB, Gaskin J (2014) Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: when to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 57(2):123–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lwin MO, Williams JD (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 

  32. Lwin M, Wirtz J, Williams JD (2007) Consumer online privacy concerns and responses: a power–responsibility equilibrium perspective. J Acad Mark Sci 35(4):572–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. McKinnon J, Vartabedian M (August 6, 2018) Tech firms, embattled over privacy, warm to federal regulation. Wall Street Journal

  34. McSweeney FK, Swindell S (1999) General-process theories of motivation revisited: the role of habituation. Psychol Bull 125(4):437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Milne GR, Boza ME (1999) Trust and concern in consumers’ perceptions of marketing information management practices. J Interact Mark 13(1):5–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Milne GR, Labrecque LI, Cromer C (2009) Toward an understanding of the online consumer’s risky behavior and protection practices. J Consum Aff 43(3):449–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Milne GR, Rohm AJ, Bahl S (2004) Consumers’ protection of online privacy and identity. J Consum Aff 38(2):217–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Muhammad SS, Dey BL, Weerakkody V (2018) Analysis of factors that influence customers’ willingness to leave big data digital footprints on social media: a systematic review of literature. Inf Syst Front 20(3):559–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Newman AL (2015) What the “right to be forgotten” means for privacy in a digital age. Science 347(6221):507–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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 

  42. Pavlou PA (2011) State of the information privacy literature: where are we now and where should we go? MIS Q 35(4):977–988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Peltier JW, Milne GR, Phelps JE (2009) Information privacy research: framework for integrating multiple publics, information channels, and responses. J Interact Mark 23(2):191–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Petronio S (1991) Communication boundary management: a theoretical model of managing disclosure of private information between marital couples. Commun Theory 1(4):311–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Phelps JE, D’Souza G, Nowak GJ (2001) Antecedents and consequences of consumer privacy concerns: an empirical investigation. J Interact Mark 15(4):2–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rainie L, Kiesler S, Kang R, Madden M (September 5, 2013) Anonymity, privacy, and security online. Pew Research Center Report

  48. Rifon NJ, LaRose R, Choi S (2005) Your privacy is sealed: effects of web privacy seals on trust and personal disclosures. J Consum Aff 39(2):339–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Straub DW (2012) Editor’s comments: a critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Q 36:iii–xiv

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Romanosky S, Acquisti A (2009) Privacy costs and personal data protection: economic and legal perspectives. Berkeley Technol Law J 24:1061

    Google Scholar 

  51. Romanosky S, Telang R, Acquisti A (2011) Do data breach disclosure laws reduce identity theft? J Policy Anal Manag 30(2):256–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Seetharaman D (March 28, 2018) Facebook to streamline privacy settings. Wall Street Journal

  53. Sheehan KB, Hoy MG (1999) Flaming, complaining, abstaining: how online users respond to privacy concerns. J Advert 28(3):37–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sheehan KB, Hoy MG (2000) Dimensions of privacy concern among online consumers. J Public Policy Mark 19(1):62–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Stanton JM, Stam KR (2002) Information technology, privacy, and power within organizations: a view from boundary theory and social exchange perspectives. Surveill Soc 1(2):152–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Stewart DW (2017) A comment on privacy. J Acad Mark Sci 45(2):156–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sutanto J, Palme E, Tan CH, Phang CW (2013) Addressing the personalization-privacy paradox: an empirical assessment from a field experiment on smartphone users. MIS Q 37(4):1141–1164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Taylor H (March 19, 2003) Most people are privacy pragmatists: who, while concerned about privacy, will sometimes trade it off for other benefits. Harris Interactive

  60. Van Slyke C, Comunale CL, Belanger F (2002) Gender differences in perceptions of web-based shopping. Commun ACM 45(8):82–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. White TB, Novak TP, Hoffman DL (2014) No strings attached: when giving it away versus making them pay reduces consumer information disclosure. J Interact Mark 28(3):184–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wirtz J, Lwin MO, Williams JD (2007) Causes and consequences of consumer online privacy concern. Int J Serv Ind Manag 18(4):326–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Xu H, Luo XR, Carroll JM, Rosson MB (2011) The personalization privacy paradox: an exploratory study of decision making process for location-aware marketing. Decis Support Syst 51(1):42–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Youn S (2009) Determinants of online privacy concern and its influence on privacy protection behaviors among young adolescents. J Consum Aff 43(3):389–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Zwick D, Dholakia N (2004) Whose identity is it anyway? Consumer representation in the age of database marketing. J Macromark 24(1):31–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, School of Business, University of Connecticut, 2100 Hillside Road, Storrs, CT, 06269-9013, USA

    Girish N. Punj

Authors
  1. Girish N. Punj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Girish N. Punj.

Appendix: Survey questions in the pew research center research report used as measures of study constructs

Appendix: Survey questions in the pew research center research report used as measures of study constructs

1.1 Size of digital footprint

We’d like to know if any of the following information about you is available on the internet for others to see. It doesn’t matter if you put it there yourself or someone else did so. As I read each item, you can just tell me yes or no—if you’re not sure if something is on the internet, just say so.

How about (insert items in order):

  1. a.

    Your email address

  2. b.

    Your home address

  3. c.

    Your home phone number

  4. d.

    Your cell phone number

  5. e.

    Your employer or a company you work for

  6. f.

    Your political party or political affiliation

  7. g.

    Things you’ve written that have your name on it

  8. h.

    A photo of you

  9. i.

    Video of you

  10. j.

    Which groups or organizations you belong to

  11. k.

    Your birth date

Response Categories

  1. 1.

    Yes

  2. 2.

    No

  3. 3.

    Does not apply to me

  4. 8.

    Do not know or not sure

  5. 9.

    Refused

Note Only the highlighted items were used as formative measures of the construct.

1.2 Need for control

Now, here is a list of some things that you might do online. For each activity, how much do you care that only you and those you authorize should have access to the following kinds of information? First, is it very important to you, somewhat important, or not too important to you that only you and those you authorize have access to?

How about (insert items in order):

  1. a.

    The websites you browse

  2. b.

    The place where you are located when you use the internet

  3. c.

    The content and files that you download

  4. d.

    The times of day you are online

  5. e.

    The applications or programs you use

  6. f.

    The searches you perform

  7. g.

    The content of your email

  8. h.

    The people you exchange email with

  9. i.

    The content of your online chats or hangouts with others

Response Categories

  1. 1.

    Very important

  2. 2.

    Somewhat important

  3. 3.

    Not too important

  4. 4.

    Not at all important

  5. 5.

    Does not apply to me

  6. 8.

    Do not know

  7. 9.

    Refused

Note Only the highlighted items were used as formative measures of the construct.

1.3 Online information limiting behavior

While using the internet, have you ever done any of the following things? First, have you ever while you used the internet?

How about (insert items in order):

  1. a.

    Used a temporary username or email address

  2. b.

    Used a fake name or untraceable username

  3. c.

    Given inaccurate or misleading information about yourself

  4. d.

    Set your browser to disable or turn off cookies

  5. e.

    Cleared cookies and browser history

  6. f.

    Used a service that allows you to browse the web anonymously, such as a proxy server, or software, or a virtual personal network

  7. g.

    Encrypted your communications

  8. h.

    Decided not to use a website because they asked for your real name

  9. i.

    Deleted or edited something you posted in the past

  10. j.

    Asked someone to remove something that was posted about you online

  11. k.

    Used a public computer to browse anonymously

Response Categories

  1. 1.

    Yes

  2. 2.

    No

  3. 3.

    Does not apply to me

  4. 8.

    Do not know

  5. 9.

    Refused

Note Only the highlighted items were used as formative measures of the construct.

1.4 Past privacy violations

As far as you know, have you ever had any of these experiences as a result of your online activities? Have you ever had this experience as a result of your online activities?

How about (insert items in order):

  1. a.

    Had important personal information stolen such as your social security number, your credit card, or bank account information

  2. b.

    Had an email or social networking account of yours compromised or taken over without your permission by someone else

  3. c.

    Been the victim of an online scam and lost money

  4. d.

    Been stalked or harassed online

  5. e.

    Lost a job opportunity or educational opportunity because of something you posted online or someone posted about you online

  6. f.

    Experienced trouble in a relationship between you and a family member or a friend because of something you posted online

  7. g.

    Had your reputation damaged because of something that happened online

  8. h.

    Something happened online that led you into physical danger

Response Categories

  1. 1.

    Yes

  2. 2.

    No

  3. 8.

    Do not know

  4. 9.

    Refused

Note Only the highlighted items were used as formative measures of the construct.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Punj, G.N. Understanding individuals’ intentions to limit online personal information disclosures to protect their privacy: implications for organizations and public policy. Inf Technol Manag 20, 139–151 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-018-0295-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-018-0295-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation