Skip to main content

The role of privacy assurance mechanisms in building trust and the moderating role of privacy concern

European Journal of Information Systems volume 24, pages 624–644 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

Privacy policy statements and privacy assurance cues are among the most important website features that online providers use to increase individuals’ trust and willingness to disclose private information online. The focus of this study is a comprehensive examination of the process by which privacy assurance mechanisms influence trust and the moderating role of privacy concern in this process. We use the lens of the Elaboration Likelihood Model to investigate the way different individuals perceive and process privacy assurance mechanisms. We argue that the trust-enhancing role of these mechanisms depends on the individual’s privacy concern. The results of this study articulate the process by which various privacy assurance mechanisms operate in enhancing an individual’s trust, and show that there are distinct behavioral differences between individuals with high- vs low-privacy concern when forming their trust to disclose private information. The paper sheds new light on the role of elaboration in the trust building process, and shows why privacy assurance mechanisms have different impacts depending on individuals’ privacy concerns.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  • Angst C and Agarwal R (2009) Adoption of electronic health records in the presence of privacy concerns: the elaboration likelihood model and individual persuasion. MIS Quarterly 33 (2), 339–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arcand M, Nantel J, Arles-Dufour M and Vincent A (2007) The impact of reading a web site’s privacy statement on perceived control over privacy and perceived trust. Online Information Review 31 (5), 661–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold HJ (1982) Moderator variables: a clarification of conceptual, analytic, and psychometric issues. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 29 (2), 143–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awad NF and Krishnan MD (2006) The personalization privacy paradox: an empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Quarterly 30 (1), 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassili JN (1996) Meta-judgmental versus operative indices of psychological properties: the case of measures of attitude and strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (4), 637–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacherjee A and Sanford C (2006) Influence processes for information technology acceptance: an elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quarterly 30 (4), 805–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau M-C, Gefen D and Straub DW (2001) Validation in information systems research: a state-of-the-art assessment. MIS Quarterly 25 (1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carte TA and Russell CJ (2003) In pursuit of moderation: nine common errors and their solutions. MIS Quarterly 27 (3), 479–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken S and Maheswaran D (1994) Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 (3), 460–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung CM-Y, Sia C-L and Kuan KKY (2012) Is this review believable? A study of factors affecting the credibility of online consumer reviews from an ELM perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13 (8), 618–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW, Johnson N and Schwarz A (2008) A fast form approach to measuring technology acceptance and other constructs. MIS Quarterly 32 (4), 687–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson JJ, Hirt ER, Jia L and Alexander MB (2010) When perception is more than reality: the effects of perceived versus actual resource depletion on self-regulatory behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98 (1), 29–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culnan MJ (2000) Protecting privacy online: is self-regulation working? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 19 (1), 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culnan MJ and Bies RJ (2003) Consumer privacy: balancing economic and justice considerations. Journal of Social Issues 59 (2), 323–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinev T and Hart P (2006) An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transaction. Information Systems Research 17 (1), 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earp JB, Antón AI, Aiman-Smith L and Stufflebeam WH (2005) Examining internet privacy policies within the context of user privacy values. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 52 (2), 227–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastlick MA, Lotz SL and Warrington P (2006) Understanding online B-to-C relationships: an integrated model of privacy concerns, trust, and commitment. Journal of Business Research 59, 877–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Trade Commission. (2000) Privacy online: fair information practices in the electronic marketplace. [WWW document] http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/05/testimonyprivacy.htm (accessed 23 November 2012).

  • Fogg BJ et al (2001) What makes web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study. In Proceedings of the CHI 2001 Conference on Human Factors and Computing Systems, Seattle, WA.

  • Fogg BJ, Soohoo C, Danielson D, Marable L, Stanford J and Tauber ER (2002) How do people evaluate a web site’s credibility? Results from a large study. [WWW document] http://simson.net/ref/2002/stanfordPTL.pdf (accessed 18 August 2013).

  • Gefen D, Karahanna E and Straub DW (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly 27 (1), 51–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D and Pavlou PA (2012) The boundaries of trust and risk: the quadratic moderating role of institutional structures. Information Systems Research 23 (3), 940–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Rigdon EE and Straub DW (2011) An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Quarterly 35 (2), iii–iv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D and Straub DW (1997) Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: an extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quarterly 21 (4), 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Straub DW and Boudreau M-C (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of Association for Information Systems 4 (1–79), 1–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Wyss S and Lichtenstein Y (2008) Business familiarity as risk mitigation in software development outsourcing contracts. MIS Quarterly 32 (3), 531–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greiner ME and Wang H (2010–2011) Building consumer-to-consumer trust in e-finance marketplaces: an empirical analysis. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 15 (2), 105–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hui K-L, Teo H-H and Lee S-YT (2007) The value of privacy assurance: an exploratory field experiment. MIS Quarterly 31 (1), 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa SL, Tractinsky N and Vitale M (2000) Consumer trust in an internet store. Information Technology Management 1 (1–2), 45–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim D and Benbasat I (2003) Trust-related arguments in internet stores: a framework for evaluation. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 4 (2), 49–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim D and Benbasat I (2006) The effects of trust-assuring arguments on consumer trust in internet stores: application of Toulmin’s model of argumentation. Information Systems Research 17 (3), 286–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim D and Benbasat I (2009–2010) Trust-assuring arguments in B2C e-commerce: impact of content, source, and price on trust. Journal of Management Information Systems 26 (3), 175–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim DJ (2008) Self-perception-based versus transference-based trust determinants in computer-mediated transactions: a cross-cultural comparison study. Journal of Management Information Systems 24 (4), 13–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim DJ, Steinfield C and Lai Y-J (2008) Revisiting the role of web assurance seals in business-to-consumer electronic commerce. Decision Support Systems 44 (4), 1000–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kukar-Kinney M and Close AG (2010) The determinants of consumers online shopping cart abandonment. Academy of Marketing Science Journal 38 (2), 240–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon SJ and Chung N (2010) The moderating effects of psychological reactance and product involvement on online shopping recommendation mechanisms based on a causal map. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 9 (6), 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauer TW and Deng X (2007) Building online trust through privacy practices. International Journal of Information Security 6 (5), 323–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee D-J, Ahn J-H and Bang Y (2011) Managing consumer privacy concerns in personalization: a strategic analysis of privacy protection. MIS Quarterly 35 (2), 423–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Y (2011) Empirical studies on online information privacy concerns: literature review and an integrative framework. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 28 (May), 453–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu C, Marchewka JT and Ku C (2004) American and taiwanese perceptions concerning privacy, trust, and behavioral intentions in electronic commerce. Journal of Global Information Management 12 (1), 18–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu C, Marchewka JT, Lu J and Yu C (2005) Beyond concern – a privacy-trust-behavioral intention model of electronic commerce. Information & Management 42 (2), 289–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loiacono E, Watson R and Goodhue D (2007) Webqual: an instrument for consumer evaluation of web sites. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 11 (3), 51–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loraas TM and Diaz MC (2011) Learning new technologies: the effect of ease of learning. Journal of Information Systems 25 (2), 171–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry PB, Moody G, Vance A, Jensen M, Jenkins J and Wells T (2012) Using an elaboration likelihood approach to better understand the persuasiveness of website privacy assurance cues for online consumers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63 (4), 755–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo X (2002) Trust production and privacy concerns on the internet: a framework based on relationship marketing and social exchange theory. Industrial Management & Data Systems 31 (2), 111–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mak B, Schmitt BH and Lynntinen K (1997) User participation in knowledge update of expert systems. Information & Management 32 (2), 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra NK, Kim SS and Agarwal J (2004) Internet users’ internet information privacy concerns (IUIPC): the construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research 15 (4), 336–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín SS, Camarero C and San José R (2011) Does involvement matter in online shopping satisfaction and trust? Psychology & Marketing 28 (2), 145–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer SD and Cook DP (2011) Using company web sites to e-recruit qualified applicants: a job marketing based review of theory-based research. Computers in Human Behavior 27 (1), 106–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RC, Davis JH and Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20 (3), 709–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RN, Huh J and Cude BJ (2005) Cues of credibility and price performance of life insurance comparison web sites. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 39 (1), 71–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney V, Yoon K and Zahedi FM (2002) The measurement of web-customer satisfaction: an expectation and disconfirmation approach. Information Systems Research 13 (3), 296–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight DH, Choudhury V and Kacmar C (2002) Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Information Systems Research 13 (3), 334–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meinert DB, Peterson DK, Criswell JR and Crossland MD (2006) Privacy policy statements and consumer willingness to provide personal information. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations 4 (1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger MJ (2006) Effects of site, vendor, and consumer characteristics on web site trust and disclosure. Communication Research 33 (3), 155–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne GR and Culnan MJ (2002) Using the content of online privacy notices to inform public policy: a longitudinal analysis of the 1998–2001 U.S. web surveys. The Information Society 18, 345–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne GR and Culnan MJ (2004) Strategies for reducing online privacy risks: why consumers read (or don’t read) online privacy notices. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18 (3), 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne GR and Gordon ME (1993) Direct mail privacy-efficiency trade-offs within an implied social contract framework. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 12 (2), 206–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyazaki AD and Krishnamurthy S (2002) Internet seals of approval: effects of online privacy policies and consumer perceptions. The Journal of Computer Affairs 36 (1), 28–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén LK and Muthén BO (1998–2012) Mplus User’s Guide, 7th edn, Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaou A and McKnight DH (2006) Perceived information quality in data exchanges: effects on risk, trust, and intention to use. Information Systems Research 17 (4), 332–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan Y and Zinkhan GM (2006) Exploring the impact of online privacy disclosures on consumer trust. Journal of Retailing 82 (4), 331–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parboteeah DV, Valacich JS and Wells JD (2009) The influence of website characteristics on a consumer’s urge to buy impulsively. Information Systems Research 20 (1), 60–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou PA (2003) Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 7 (3), 101–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou PA and Dimoka A (2006) The nature and role of feedback text comments in online marketplaces: implications for trust building, price premiums, and seller differentiation. Information Systems Research 17 (4), 392–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou PA and Gefen D (2005) Psychological contract violation in online marketplaces: antecedents, consequences, and moderating role. Information Systems Research 16 (4), 372–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peslak AR (2006) Internet privacy policies of the largest international companies. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations 4 (3), 46–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson D, Meinert D, Criswell J II and Crossland M (2007) Consumer trust: privacy policies and third-party seals. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 14 (4), 654–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty RE and Cacioppo JT (1984) Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research 11, 668–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty RE and Cacioppo JT (1986a) Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Petty RE and Cacioppo JT (1986b) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19, 123–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty RE, Cocioppo JT and Goldman R (1981) Personal inolvement as a determinant of argument-based persuassion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41 (5), 847–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty RE and Wegener DT (1999) The elaboration likelihood model: current status and controversies. In Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology (Chaiken S and Trope Y, Eds), pp 41–72, Guilford Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff PM, Mackenzie SB, Lee JY and Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Policinski G (2012) First amendment column: petraeus affair reveals privacy’s limits, Green Bay Press Gazette 3 December. [WWW document] http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20121128/GPG0706/311280127/First-Amendment-column-Petraeus-affair-reveals-privacy-s-limits (accessed 4 December 2012).

  • Qureshi I and Compaeu D (2009) Assessing between-group differences in information systems research: a comparison of covariance- and component-based SEM. MIS Quarterly 33 (1), 197–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi I, Fang Y, Ramsey E, Mccole P, Ibbotson P and Compeau D (2009) Understanding online customer repurchasing intention and the mediating role of trust – an empirical investigation in two developed countries. European Journal of Information Systems 18 (3), 205–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryker R, Lafleur E, Mcmanis B and Cox KC (2002) Online privacy policies: an assessment of the fortune e-50. The Journal of Computer Information Systems 42 (4), 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segars AH (1997) Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: a paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research. Omega 25 (1), 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith HJ, Dinev T and Xu H (2011) Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly 35 (4), 992–1015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith HJ, Milberg SJ and Burke SJ (1996) Information privacy: measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quarterly 20 (2), 167–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solove (2011) Why privacy matters even if you have ‘nothing to hide’. [WWW document] http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/ (accessed September 2013).

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Song J and Zahedi FM (2005) A theoretical approach to web design in e-commerce: a belief reinforcement model. Management Science 51 (8), 1219–1235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song J and Zahedi FM (2007) Trust in health infomediaries. Decision Support Systems 43 (2), 390–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart KA and Segars AH (2002) An empirical examination of the concern for information privacy instrument. Information Systems Research 13 (1), 36–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey VC, Kane GC and Schwaig KS (2009) The quality of online privacy policies: a resource-dependency perspective. Journal of Database Management 20 (2), 19–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straub D, Boudreau M-C and Gefen D (2004) Validation heuristics for IS positivist research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 14, 380–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sussman SW and Siegal WS (2003) Informational influence in organizations: an integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research 14 (1), 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tam KY and Ho SY (2005) Web personalization as a persuasion strategy: an elaboration likelihood model perspective. Information Systems Research 16 (3), 271–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor SE (1981) The interface of cognitive and social psychology. In Cognition, Social Behavior, and The Environment (Harvey JH, Eds), pp 189–211, Earlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teo TSH and Liu J (2007) Consumer trust in e-commerce in the united states, singapore and china. Omega 35 (1), 22–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Center for the Digital Future. (2009) Highlights: the 2009 digital future project – Year eight, USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism. [WWW document] http://www.digitalcenter.org/pdf/2009_Digital_Future_Project_Release_Highlights.pdf (accessed 23 November 2012).

  • The Center for the Digital Future. (2011) Highlights: the 2011 digital future project – Year ten, USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism. [WWW document] http://annenberg.usc.edu/News%20and%20Events/News/110603CDF/110603hilites.aspx (accessed 23 November 2012).

  • Tsai JY, Egelman S, Cranor L and Acquisti A (2011) The effect of online privacy information on purchasing behavior: an experimental study. Information Systems Research 22 (2), 254–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanDyke TP, Midha V and Nemati H (2007) The effect of consumer privacy empowerment on trust and privacy concerns in e-commerce. Electronic Markets 17 (1), 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman N (1989) The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Managemenf Review 14 (3), 423–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield RL, Stocks MH and Wilder WM (2004) The role of website characteristics in initial trust formation. The Journal of Computer Information Systems 45 (1), 94–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Beatty SE and Foxx W (2004) Signaling the trustworthiness of small online retailers. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18 (1), 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells JD, Valacich JS and Hess TJ (2011) What signal are you sending? How website quality influences perceptions of product quality and purchase intentions. MIS Quarterly 35 (2), 373–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westin AF (1967) Privacy and Freedom. Atheneum, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu K-W, Huang SY, Yen DC and Popova I (2012) The effect of online privacy policy on consumer privacy concern and trust. Computers in Human Behavior 28 (3), 889–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu H, Crossler RE and Bélanger F (2012a) A value sensitive design investigation of privacy enhancing tools in web browsers. Decision Support Systems 54 (1), 424–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu H, Teo H-H, Tan BCY and Agarwal R (2012b) Research note: effects of individual self-protection, industry self-regulation, and government regulation on privacy concerns: a study of location-based services. Information Systems Research 23 (4), 1342–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang S-C, Wan-Chiao H, Sung K and Cheng-Kiang F (2006) Investigating initial trust toward e-tailers from the elaboration likelihood model perspective. Psychology & Marketing 23 (5), 429–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi MY, Yoon JJ, Davis JM and Lee T (2013) Untangling the antecedents of initial trust in web-based health information: the roles of argument quality, source expertise, and user perceptions of information quality and risk. Decision Support Systems 55 (1), 284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahedi FM and Song J (2008) Dynamics of trust revision: using health infomediaries. Journal of Management Information Systems 24 (4), 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin – Green Bay, WI, U.S.A.

    Gaurav Bansal

  2. University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A.

    Fatemeh ‘Mariam’ Zahedi

  3. Drexel University, PA, U.S.A.

    David Gefen

Authors
  1. Gaurav Bansal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fatemeh ‘Mariam’ Zahedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Gefen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gaurav Bansal.

Appendices

Appendix A

Table A1

Table A1 The instrument
Full size table

Appendix B

Table B1

Table B1 Construct reliability checks (purified data)
Full size table

Appendix C

Table C1

Table C1 Construct correlations and comparison with square root of AVEs – Low PC group
Full size table

Appendix D

Table D1

Table D1 Construct correlations and comparison with square root of AVEs – High PC group
Full size table

Appendix E

Table E1

Table E1 Confirmatory factor analysis using the measurement model
Full size table

Appendix F

Table F1

Table F1 Discriminant validity chi square tests
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bansal, G., Zahedi, F. & Gefen, D. The role of privacy assurance mechanisms in building trust and the moderating role of privacy concern. Eur J Inf Syst 24, 624–644 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.41

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.41

Keywords

  • information privacy concern
  • trust
  • elaboration likelihood model
  • privacy policy statements
  • privacy assurance cues