Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Antecedents and outcomes of information privacy concerns in a peer context: An exploratory study

  • Empirical Research
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Academic studies typically view privacy threats as originating solely from organizations. With the rise of social media, such a view is incomplete because consumers increasingly face risks from peers’ misuse of data. In this paper, we study information privacy in the context of peer relationships on commercial social media sites. We develop a model that considers relationships between the constructs of privacy experiences, privacy awareness, trust, risk, and benefits and how those relationships impact individuals’ disclosure behaviors. We test the model by creating a survey that includes a number of measures that were taken directly from or were closely based on measures from prior studies. We conduct seven pilot tests of undergraduate students in order to validate the survey items. Working with the online survey firm Qualtrics, we gather a dataset of 314 Facebook users’ responses to our validated survey, and we test our model using partial least squares techniques. We find that both privacy experiences and privacy awareness are quite significant predictors of privacy concerns. We also find that trust, risk, benefits, and privacy concerns work together to explain a large amount (37%) of the variance in disclosure behaviors. We discuss implications for practice and for future research.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See https://www.facebook.com/help/247746261926036. We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out.

  2. See Smith et al (2011) for a review.

  3. This second-order viewing is often possible when a user’s friend comments on his or her post. The friend’s friends are then able to see not only the comment but also the original post.

  4. Three articles addressing corporate privacy policies and/or compliance therewith were also identified in this search: Greenaway et al (2015), Wall et al (2016) and Warkentin et al (2011). These are not included in the table.

References

  • Acquisti A (2004) Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Electronic Commerce Conference, pp 21–29, ACM Press, New York, NY.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acquisti A and Grossklags J (2005) Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security & Privacy 3, 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acquisti A, John L and Lowenstein G (2012) The impact of relative standards on the propensity to disclose. Journal of Marketing Research 49(2), 160–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AIS (2016) Senior scholars’ basket of journals. http://aisnet.org/?SeniorScholarBasket. Accessed on August 30, 2016.

  • Anderson CL and Agarwal R (2011) The digitization of healthcare: boundary risks, emotion, and consumer willingness to disclose personal health information. Information Systems Research 22(3), 469–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angst CM 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awad NF and Krishnan MS (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal G, Zahedi FM and 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal G, Zahedi FM and Gefen D (2015) The role of privacy assurance mechanisms in building trust and the moderating role of privacy concern. European Journal of Information Systems 24(6), 624–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal G, Zahedi FM and Gefen D (2016) Do context and personality matter? Trust and privacy concerns in disclosing private information online. Information & Management 53(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bélanger F and Crossler R (2011) Privacy in the digital age: A review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Quarterly 35(4), 1017–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg J, Dickhaut J and Mccabe K (1995) Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior 10(1), 122–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blatt SJ (1990) Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition: Two personality configurations and their implications for psychopathology and psychotherapy. In Repression: Defense mechanisms and personality (Singer JL, Ed), pp 299–335, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

  • Chellappa RK and Shivendu S (2007) An economic model of privacy: A property rights approach to regulatory choices for online personalization. Journal of Management Information Systems 24(3), 193–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen J, Ping JW, Xu Y and Tan BCY (2015) Information privacy concerns about peer disclosure in online social networks. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 62(3), 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW and Newsted PR (1999) Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In Statistical strategies for small sample research (Hoyle R, Ed), pp 307–341, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

  • Choi BCF, Jiang J, Xiao B and Kim SS (2015) Embarrassing exposures in online social networks: an integrated perspective of privacy invasion and relationship bonding. Information Systems Research 26(4), 675–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conger S, Pratt JH and Loch KD (2013) Personal information privacy and emerging technologies. Information Systems Journal 23(5), 401–417.

    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 

  • Davis FD, Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35(8), 982–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis J and Jurgenson N (2014) Context collapse: theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society 17(4), 476–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debatin B, Lovejoy JP, Horn A and Huges BN (2009) Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15, 83–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinev T, Bellotto M, Hart P, Russo V, Serra I and Colauti C (2006) Privacy calculus model in e-commerce – a study of Italy and the United States. European Journal of Information Systems 15, 389–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinev T, Hart P and Mullen MR (2008) Internet privacy concerns and beliefs about government surveillance: an empirical investigation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 17(3), 214–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinev T, Mcconnell AR and Smith HJ (2015) Informing privacy research through information systems, psychology, and behavioral economics: thinking outside the ‘APCO’ box. Information Systems Research 26(4), 639–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinev T, Xu H, Smith HJ and 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.

    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(8), 877–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foddy M, Platow MJ and Yamagishi T (2009) Group-based trust in strangers: the role of stereotypes and expectations. Psychological Science 20(4), 419–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D and Straub DW (2005) A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 16(5), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerlach J, Widjaja T and Buxmann P (2015) Handle with care: how online network providers’ privacy policies impact users’ information sharing behavior. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 24(1), 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenaway KE, Chan YE and Crossler R (2015) Company information privacy orientation: a conceptual framework. Information Systems Journal 25(6), 579–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM and Sarstedt M (2017) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hann I-H, Hui K-L, Lee S-YT and Png IPL (2007) Overcoming online information privacy concerns: an information-processing theory approach. Journal of Management Information Systems 24(2), 13–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinde RA (1979) Toward Understanding Relationships, Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong W and Thong JYL (2013) Internet privacy concerns: an integrated conceptualization and four empirical studies. MIS Quarterly 37(1), 275–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu T, Kettinger WJ and Poston RS (2015) The effect of online social value on satisfaction and continued use of social media. European Journal of Information Systems 24(4), 391–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa SL, Tractinsky N, Saarinen N and Vitale M (1999) Consumer trust in an internet store: a cross-cultural validation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 5(2), 44–71.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang J, Heng CS and Choi BCF (2013) Privacy concerns and privacy-protective behavior in synchronous online social interactions. Information Systems Research 24(3), 579–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junglas IA, Johnson NA and Spitzmueller C (2008) Personality traits and concern for privacy: an empirical study in the context of location-based services. European Journal of Information Systems 17(4), 387–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karahasanovic A, Brandtzæg PB, Heim J, Lüders M, Vermeir L, Pierson J et al (2009) Co-creation and user-generated content – elderly people’s user requirements. Computers in Human Behavior 25(3), 655–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kehr F, Kowatsch T, Wentzel D and Fleisch E (2015) Blissfully ignorant: the effects of general privacy concerns, general institutional trust, and affect in the privacy calculus. Information Systems Journal 25(6), 607–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith MJ, Babb JS, Lowry PB, Furner CP and Abdullat A (2015) The role of mobile-computing self-efficacy in consumer information disclosure. Information Systems Journal 25(6), 637–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasnova H, Spiekermann S, Koroleva K and Hildebrand T (2010) Online social networks: why we disclose. Journal of Information Technology 25, 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasnova H and Veltri NF (2010) Privacy calculus on social networking sites: explorative evidence from Germany and USA. In 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.

  • Ku Y (2013) Why do users continue using social networking sites? An exploratory study of members in the United States and Taiwan. Information & Management 50(7), 571–581.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Sarathy R, and 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Sarathy R and Zhang J (2008) The role of emotions in shaping consumers’ privacy beliefs about unfamiliar online vendors. Journal of Information Privacy & Security 4(3), 36–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li T and Unger T (2012) Willing to pay for quality personalization? Trade-off between quality and privacy. European Journal of Information Systems 21(6), 621–642.

    Article  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(1), 453–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindell MK and Whitney DJ (2001) Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1), 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone S (2008) Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression New Media Society 10(3), 393–411.

  • Lowry PB, Cao J and Everard A (2011) Privacy concerns versus desire for interpersonal awareness in driving the use of self-disclosure technologies: the case of instant messaging in two cultures. Journal of Management Information Systems 27(4), 163–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry PB and Gaskin J (2014) Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modelling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: when to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 57(2), 123–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry PB, Wilson DW and Haig WL (2014) A picture is worth a thousand words: source credibility theory applied to logo and website design for heightened credibility and consumer trust. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 30(1), 63–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu HP and Hsiao KL (2010) The influence of extro/introversion on the intention to pay for social networking sites. Information & Management 47(3), 150–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangelsdorf ME (2007) Beyond enterprise 2.0. MIT Sloan Management Review 48(3), 50–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marwick A and Ellison N (2012) There isn’t wifi in heaven! Negotiating visibility on Facebook memorial pages. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56(3), 378–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matook S, Brown SA and Rolf J (2015) Forming an intention to act on recommendations given via online social networks. European Journal of Information Systems 24(1), 76–92.

    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 

  • Mcallister DJ (1995) Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 38(1), 24–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcknight DH, Choudhury H 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 

  • Mello JA (2012) Social media, employee privacy and concerted activity: brave new world or big brother? Labor Law Journal 63(3), 165–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger MJ (2004) Privacy, trust, and disclosure: exploring barriers to electronic commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 9(4).

  • Milberg SJ, Smith HJ and Burke SJ (2000) Information privacy: corporate management and national regulation. Organization Science 11(1), 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miltgen CL and Peyrat-Guillard D (2014) Cultural and generational influences on privacy concerns: a qualitative study in seven European countries. European Journal of Information Systems 23(2), 103–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody GD, Galletta DF and Lowry PB (2014) When trust and distrust collide online: the engenderment and role of consumer ambivalence in online consumer behavior. Electronic Commerce Research & Applications 13(4), 266–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreland RL (2010) Are dyads really groups? Small Group Research 41(2), 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris JB (2016) First look: internet use in 2015. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/first-look-internet-use-2015. Accessed on September 7, 2016.

  • Morrison EW and Robinson SL (1997) When employees feel betrayed: a model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review 22(2), 226–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norberg PA, Horne DR and Horne DA (2007) The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs 41(1), 100–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oetzel MC and Spiekermann S (2014) A systematic methodology for privacy impact assessments: a design science approach. European Journal of Information Systems 23(2), 126–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park S and Chung N (2011) Mediating roles of self-presentation desire in online game community commitment and trust behavior of massive multiplayer online role-playing games. Computers in Human Behavior 27(6), 2372–2379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pate J and Malone C (2000) Enduring perceptions of violation. Human Resource Management Journal 8(6), 28–31.

    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 Gefen D (2005) Psychological contract violation in online marketplaces: antecedents, consequences, and moderating role. Information Systems Research 16(4), 372–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettersen L and Brandtzaeg PB (2012) Privacy Challenges in Enterprise 2.0. Association of Internet Researchers Salford, UK.

  • Petty R and Cacioppo J (1986) Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Petty R and Wegener D (1998) Attitude change: multiple roles for persuasion variables. In Handbook of Social Psychology (Gilbert D, Fiske S, Lindzey G, Eds), pp 323–390, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research (2016) The state of privacy in America: what we learned. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/20/the-state-of-privacy-in-america/. Accessed on August 30, 2016.

  • Posey C, Lowry PB and Roberts TL (2010) Proposing the online community self-disclosure model: the case of working professionals in France and the UK who use online communities. European Journal of Information Systems 19(2), 181–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rau P-LP, Gao Q and Ding Y (2008) Relationship between the level of intimacy and lurking in online social network services. Computers in Human Behavior 24(6), 2757–2770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raynes-Goldie K (2010) Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: understanding privacy in the age of Facebook. First Monday 15(1–4), article 32.

  • Ridings CM, Gefen D and Arinze B (2002) Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 11(3–4), 271–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringle CM, Wende S and Becker JM (2015) SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt. http://www.smartpls.com.

  • Robinson SL (1996) Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(4), 574–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose E (2006) An examination of the concern for information privacy in the New Zealand regulatory context. Information & Management 43(3), 322–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau DM (1989) Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities Rights Journal 2(1), 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenbachler DD and Gordon GL (2002) Trust and customer willingness to provide information in database-driven relationship marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing 16(3), 2–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan KB (1999) An investigation of gender differences in on-line privacy concerns and resultant behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing 13(4), 24–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheng H, Nah FF and Siau K (2008) An experimental study on ubiquitous commerce adoption: impact of personalization and privacy concerns. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9(6), 344–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith HJ (1994) Managing Privacy: Information Technology and Corporate America, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith HJ, Dinev T and Xu H (2011) Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly 35(4), 989–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straub DW (1989) Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quarterly 13(2), 147–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straub DW, Boudreau M-C and Gefen D (2004) Validation guidelines for is positivist research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 13(24), 380–427.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang Z, Hu Y and Smith MD (2008) Gaining trust through online privacy protection: self-regulation, mandatory standards, or caveat emptor. Journal of Management Information Systems 24(4), 153–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tow WN-FH, Dell P and Venable J (2010) Understanding information disclosure behaviour in Australian Facebook users. Journal of Information Technology 25(2), 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TRUSTe (2016) U.S. consumer privacy index 2016. https://www.truste.com/resources/privacy-research/ncsa-consumer-privacy-index-us/. Accessed on August 30, 2016.

  • 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 

  • Van Eerde W and Thierry H (1996) Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 81(5), 575–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Slyke C, Shim JT, Johnson R and Jiang JJ (2006) Concern for information privacy and online consumer purchasing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 7(6), 415–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V and Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46(2), 186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitak J (2012) The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56(4), 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vroom VH (1964) Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield R (2013) The influence of user affect in online information disclosure. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 22(2), 157–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wall JD, Lowry PB and Barlow JB (2016) Organizational violations of externally governed privacy and security rules: explaining and predicting selective violations under conditions of strain and excess. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 17(1), 39–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walther J, Van Der Heide B, Hamel L and Shulman H (2009) Self-generated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 36(2), 229–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warkentin M, Johnston AC and Shropshire J (2011) The influence of the informal social learning environment on information privacy policy compliance efficacy and intention. European Journal of Information Systems 20(3), 267–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver AC and Morrison BB (2008) Social networking. Computer 41(2), 97–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witte EH (2013) Small-group research and the crisis of social psychology: an introduction. In Understanding Group Behavior: Small Group Processes and Interpersonal Relations (Witte EH, Davis JH, Eds), pp 1–8, Psychology Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu H (2007) The effects of self-construal and perceived control on privacy concerns. In Proceedings of 28th Annual International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Montreal.

  • Xu H, Dinev T, Smith HJ and Hart P (2011) Information privacy concerns: linking individual perceptions with institutional privacy assurances. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 12(12), 798–824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu H, Teo H-H, Tan BCY and Agarwal R (2009) The role of push–pull technology in privacy calculus: the case of location-based services. Journal of Management Information Systems 26(3), 135–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu H, Teo HH and Tan BCY (2005) Predicting the adoption of location-based services: the roles of trust and privacy risk. In Proceedings of 26th Annual International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), pp 897–910, Las Vegas, NV.

  • Xu H, Teo HH, Tan BCY and Agarwal R (2012) 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 

  • Yu J, Hu PJ-H and Tsang-Hsiang C (2015) Role of affect in self-disclosure on social network websites: a test of two competing models. Journal of Management Information Systems 32(2), 239–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao L, Lu Y and Gupta S (2012) Disclosure intention of location-related information in location-based social network services. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 16(4), 53–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems and Analytics, Farmer School of Business, Miami University (Ohio), 800 E. High Street, Room 3011, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA

    Zafer D. Ozdemir

  2. Department of Information Systems and Analytics, Farmer School of Business, Miami University (Ohio), 800 E. High Street, Room 3116, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA

    H. Jeff Smith

  3. Department of Information Systems and Analytics, Farmer School of Business, Miami University (Ohio), 800 E. High Street, Room 3095, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA

    John H. Benamati

Authors
  1. Zafer D. Ozdemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Jeff Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John H. Benamati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Jeff Smith.

Additional information

Special Issue Editors: Paul Benjamin Lowry, Tamara Dinev, Robert Willison

Appendices

Appendix 1

Senior Scholars’ Basket articles 2006–2016

We searched the eight journals in the Senior Scholars’ Basket (AIS, 2016):

  • European Journal of Information Systems

  • Information Systems Journal

  • Information Systems Research

  • Journal of AIS

  • Journal of Information Technology

  • Journal of MIS

  • Journal of Strategic Information Systems

  • MIS Quarterly

We restricted our search to the years 2006–2016, which should include the “peer era” of privacy research, should it exist. We searched for articles that included the word “privacy” or the word “disclosure” in the title or subject terms list. We then examined each of those articles to ascertain whether it addressed questions associated with factors that may drive privacy concerns and/or outcomes that emanate from such concerns or if it considered some form of privacy-related calculus, either explicit or implicit. Forty-two of the articles proved to be within that domain of interest; these articles are noted in Table 8.Footnote 4

Table 8 Articles 2006–2016
Full size table

We then considered the foci of each article in this pool: Did the article focus on individuals’ relationships to institutions and/or peers? The latter could have been reflected in either a consideration of subjects’ concerns about peers having access to data associated with the subject or to communication with peers (either through an institutional system or via some other channel). Notably, only two of the articles in the pool considered such peer-associated relationships. Those two articles are highlighted in the text.

Appendix 2

Survey items

Privacy experience (scale strongly disagree → strongly agree)

  • PE1: I have frequently been the victim of an improper invasion of my information privacy by someone I know.

  • PE2: Only rarely is my information privacy invaded by someone I know.

  • PE3: I often feel that my information privacy has been being violated by someone I know.

  • PE4: My information privacy is invaded all the time by other people I know.

  • PE5: People I know often misuse my private information.

Privacy awareness (scale strongly disagree → strongly agree)

  • PA1: Almost every day, I hear something about the invasion of someone’s information privacy by people they know.

  • PA2: I frequently hear about the invasion of someone’s information privacy by people they know.

  • PA3: There is often news about how someone misuses information regarding a person she or he knows.

  • PA4: People often share information they should not about someone they know.

Privacy concerns (scale strongly disagree → strongly agree)

  • PC1: I am concerned that the information I share through the Internet with people I know could be misused by them.

  • PC2: I am concerned about sharing information through the Internet with people I know, because of what they might do with it.

  • PC3: I am concerned about sharing information through the Internet with people I know, because they could use it in a way I did not foresee.

  • PC4: I am concerned that when I share information through the Internet with people that I know, those people may share it with others whom I did not intend.

  • PC5: I am concerned that the information I share through the Internet with people I know could be misinterpreted by them.

Risk (scale not at all likely → very likely)

  • How likely is it that the information you provide to Facebook…

  • R1: Will be used by one of your Facebook friends to spy on you.

  • R2: Will be used against you by one of your Facebook friends.

  • R3: Will be used by a Facebook friend to embarrass you.

  • R4: Will be shared by one of your Facebook friends with someone you don’t want (e.g., “ex,” parents, teachers).

Trust (scale strongly disagree → strongly agree)

  • Generally, I trust that Facebook users to whom I have given access to information about me .

  • T1: Will not misuse my sincerity on Facebook.

  • T2: Will not embarrass me by using some information they learned about me through Facebook.

  • T3: Will not use the information they found about me in Facebook against me.

  • T4: Will not use the information about me in a wrong way.

  • T5: Are trustworthy.

Benefits (scale strongly disagree → strongly agree)

  • Bn1: Facebook helps me inform all my friends about my ongoing activities.

  • Bn2: Through Facebook I get connected to new people who share my interests.

  • Bn3: Facebook allows me to save time when I want to share something new with my friends.

  • Bn4: Facebook helps me to reconnect with my old friends.

  • Bn5: I find Facebook efficient in sharing information with my friends.

  • Bn6: Facebook helps me expand my network.

Information disclosure (scale not at all → to a great extent)

  • To what extent do you do each of the following on Facebook?

  • ID1: Keep your Facebook friends updated about what is going on in your life.

  • ID2: Share things you have to say with your Facebook friends.

  • ID3: Provide extra contact information to help others find you or add you as a friend.

  • ID4: Keep your information up to date for your Facebook friends.

  • ID5: Keep a detailed timeline for your Facebook friends to see.

  • ID6: Tell your Facebook friends a lot about yourself.

  • ID7: Enable your Facebook friends to find out your preferences in music, movies, books, etc.

  • ID8: Allow your Facebook friends to understand who you are.

Appendix 3

Table 9 Factor matrix
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ozdemir, Z.D., Jeff Smith, H. & Benamati, J.H. Antecedents and outcomes of information privacy concerns in a peer context: An exploratory study. Eur J Inf Syst 26, 642–660 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0056-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0056-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation