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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
In particular, we researched on perceived information sensitivity as a 2nd order construct and also accounted for possible non-linear effects of perceived information sensitivity on the intention of the co-owner to protect the privacy of the original owner
Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire. http://people.umass.edu/~aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf. Accessed 30 January 2017.
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.
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.
Anderson, C. L., and Agarwal, R. (2009). “Genetic information altruists: how far and to whom does their generosity extend?” ICIS 2009 Proceedings.
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.
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.
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.
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Understanding User Responses to Information Technology: A Coping Model of User Adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 493–524.
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.
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.
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142.
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.
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.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
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.
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.
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.
Carmines, E. G., and Zeller, R. A. 2008. Reliability and validity assessment, Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Davis, J. A. (1985). The logic of causal order. Iowa City: Sage.
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.
Deutsch, R., & Strack, F. (2006). TARGET ARTICLE: Duality Models in Social Psychology: From Dual Processes to Interacting Systems. Psychological Inquiry, 17(3), 166–172.
Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80.
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.
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.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co..
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Gandy, O. H. (1993). The panoptic sort: A political economy of personal information. Boulder: Westview Press.
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.
Goel, V., and Perlroth, N. (2016). Yahoo says 1 billion user accounts were hacked. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/technology/yahoo-hack.html. Accessed 15 December 2016.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Metzger, M. J. (2007). Communication privacy management in electronic commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 335–361.
Milne, G. R. (1997). Consumer participation in mailing lists: a field experiment. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16(2), 298–309.
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.
Moon, Y. (2000). Intimate Exchanges: Using Computers to Elicit Self‐Disclosure From Consumers. Journal of consumer research, 26(4), 323–339.
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.
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.
Myers, D. G. (2009). Social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
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.
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.
Petronio, S. S., & Altman, I. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany: State University of New York Press.
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.
Poremba, S. M. (2012). How friends spoil your social-media privacy. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47711709/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/how-friends-spoil-your-socialmedia-privacy/#.WdTU28hJa70. Accessed 9 October 2017.
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.
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.
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.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., and Becker, J.-M. (2014). SmartPLS 3. http://www.smartpls.com. Accessed 21 February 2017.
Roberts, S. C. (2011). Applied evolutionary psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Santrock, J. W. (2014). A topical approach to life-span development. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
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.
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.
Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M. G. (2000). Dimensions of Privacy Concern among Online Consumers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 62–73.
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.
Spiekermann, S., & Korunovska, J. (2017). Towards a value theory for personal data. Journal of Information Technology, 32(1), 62–84.
statista.com (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. https://www.statista.com/statistics/676114/us-sharingof-online-passwords-with-family/. Accessed 8 September 2017.
statista.com (2018). Most famous social network sites worldwide as of January 2018, ranked by number of active users (in millions). https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-ofusers/. Accessed 20 March 2018.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wacks, R. (1989). Personal Information: Privacy and the Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Digitization of the Individual
Responsible Editors: Christian Matt and Manuel Trenz
Post-hoc analyses: Second-order construct and non-linear effects
Besides the given post-hoc analysis concerning the non-supported hypothesis H1, we also evaluated two other research opportunities:
One might consider perceived information sensitivity to be a reflective-formative second-order construct called perceived information sensitivity overall. It would be formative in a way that perceived information sensitivity is caused by perceived information sensitivity for the original owner and perceived information sensitivity for the co-owner. It would be reflective since for both first-order constructs the indicators would reflect the corresponding construct (Hair et al. 2017). Such a second-order construct would also be in line with the conceptualization of perceived information sensitivity, stating that perceived information sensitivity consists of perceived negative consequences for both co-owners and original owners. We checked our research model accordingly and can state that such a second-order construct is valid (weight of perceived information sensitivity for the original owner: 0.573; weight of perceived information sensitivity for the co-owner: 0.686; p value <0.001). Furthermore, the effect of this second-order construct on the dependent variable is positive and significant (beta-coefficient: 0.235; p value <0.01). Future research could therefore use this second-order construct as a starting point to conduct research in that area.
The results indicate that perceived information sensitivity for the co-owner becomes less important when perceived information sensitivity for the original owner is high. This calls for the examination of a non-linear quadratic effect: the effect of perceived information sensitivity for the original owner seems to become more important the higher the perception is. However, our results prove that such an effect is non-significant (p value >0.05). Furthermore, such a non-linear effect should be grounded on a strong theoretical basis which is not the case in such a post-hoc analysis (Hair et al. 2017). However, future research could build on this result and think deeper about possible non-linear effects concerning perceived information sensitivity.
Previous research about perceived information sensitivity
Previous research about perceived information sensitivity
About this article
Cite this article
Wirth, J., Maier, C., Laumer, S. et al. Perceived information sensitivity and interdependent privacy protection: a quantitative study. Electron Markets 29, 359–378 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00335-0
- Information sensitivity
- Communication privacy management theory
- Interdependent privacy
- Motivation to comply