Privacy Concerns and Behavior of Pokémon Go Players in Germany

  • David HarborthEmail author
  • Sebastian Pape
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 526)


We investigate privacy concerns and the privacy behavior of users of the AR smartphone game Pokémon Go. Pokémon Go accesses several functionalities of the smartphone and, in turn, collects a plethora of data of its users. For assessing the privacy concerns, we conduct an online study in Germany with 683 users of the game. The results indicate that the majority of the active players are concerned about the privacy practices of companies. This result hints towards the existence of a cognitive dissonance, i.e. the privacy paradox. Since this result is common in the privacy literature, we complement the first study with a second one with 199 users, which aims to assess the behavior of users with regard to which measures they undertake for protecting their privacy. The results are highly mixed and dependent on the measure, i.e. relatively many participants use privacy-preserving measures when interacting with their smartphone. This implies that many users know about risks and might take actions to protect their privacy, but deliberately trade-off their information privacy for the utility generated by playing the game.


Privacy concerns Augmented reality Pokémon Go Concerns for Information Privacy (CFIP) Privacy calculus Privacy behavior 



The authors wish to thank the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration of the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main for supporting this work with a grant within the funding program “Forschungstopf”. This research was also partly funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) with grant number: 16KIS0371. In addition, we would also like to thank Harald Zwingelberg for his valuable feedback with regard to the privacy measures.

Supplementary material


  1. 1.
    Acquisti, A., Grossklags, J.: Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Secur. Priv. Mag. 3(1), 24–30 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albao, M.G.: Ingress: A Game, Lifestyle and Social Network in One! (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apple App Store: Pokémon Go (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Azuma, R.T., Baillot, Y., Feiner, S., Julier, S., Behringer, R., Macintyre, B.: Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 21, 34–47 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    BBC: Pokemon and the power of nostalgia (2016).
  6. 6.
    Bélanger, F., Crossler, R.E.: Privacy in the digital age: a review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Q. 35(4), 1017–1041 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Belanger, F., Hiller, J.S., Smith, W.J.: Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: the role of privacy, security, and site attributes. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 11(July 2016), 245–270 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellini, H., Chen, W., Sugiyama, M., Shin, M., Alam, S., Takayama, D.: Virtual & augmented reality: understanding the race for the next computing platform. Technical report, Goldman Sachs Equity Research (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berendt, B., Guenther, O., Spiekermann, S.: Privacy in e-commerce. Commun. ACM 48(4), 101–106 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Culnan, M.J.: How did they get my name?: an exploratory investigation of consumer attitudes toward secondary information use. MIS Q. 17(September), 341–364 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Culnan, M.J., Armstrong, P.K.: Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation. Organ. Sci. 10(1), 104–115 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dienlin, T., Metzger, M.J.: An extended privacy calculus model for SNSs: analyzing self-disclosure and self-withdrawal in a representative U.S. sample. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 21(5), 368–383 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dienlin, T., Trepte, S.: Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? an in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 45(3), 285–297 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dinev, T., Bellotto, M., Hart, P., Russo, V., Serra, I., Colautti, C.: Internet users’ privacy concerns and beliefs about government surveillance: an exploratory study of differences between Italy and the United States. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. 14(4), 57–93 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dinev, T., Hart, P.: An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Inf. Syst. Res. 17(1), 61–80 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dinev, T., Hart, P.: Privacy concerns and levels of information exchange: an empirical investigation of intended e-services use. e-Service J. 4(3), 25–60 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evans, I.: Pokémon Go May Not Truly Be Augmented Reality, and That’s OK (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fitzgerald, B.: Concrete Steps to Take to Minimize Risk While Playing Pokémon GO (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grubert, J., Langlotz, T., Zollmann, S., Regenbrecht, H.: Towards pervasive augmented reality: context-awareness in augmented reality. IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graph. PP(99), 1–20 (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gstoll, A.: A love letter from augmented reality to Pokémon Go, August 2016Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harborth, D.: Augmented reality in information systems research: a systematic literature review. In: Twenty-Third Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), pp. 1–10. Boston (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harborth, D., Pape, S.: Exploring the hype: investigating technology acceptance factors of Pokémon Go. In: 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 155–168 (2017)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Helsper, E.J., Eynon, R.: Digital natives: where is the evidence? Br. Educ. Res. J. 36(3), 503–520 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Henseler, J., Fassott, G.: Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: an illustration of available procedures. In: Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W., Henseler, J., Wang, H. (eds.) Handbook of Partial Least Squares, pp. 713–735. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hyman, P.: Augmented-reality glasses bring cloud security into sharp focus. Commun. ACM 56(6), 18–20 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ryan, Kh.: Augmented Reality Gets Boost From Pokemon Go (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lang, B.: ‘Pokémon Go’ is Where I Draw the Line on “Augmented Reality” (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mason, W.: Pokemon Go or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying About The Definition And Love Augmented Reality (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., Kishino, F.: Augmented Reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In: SPIE Proceedings on Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies, vol. 2351, pp. 282–292 (1994)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nedelcheva, I.: Analysis of transmedia storytelling in Pokémon GO. Int. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 10(11), 3744–3752 (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Niantic Labs: Official Website of Niantic Labs (2017)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nicas, J., Zakrzewski, C.: Augmented Reality Gets Boost From Success of Pokémon Go (2016)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Norberg, P.A., Horne, D.R., Horne, D.A.: The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. J. Consum. Aff. 41(1), 100–126 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Palfrey, J., Gasser, U.: Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, vol. 13. Basic Books, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Prensky, M.: Digital natives, digital immigrants. Horizon 9(5), 1–6 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rosen, L.D., Whaling, K., Carrier, L.M., Cheever, N.A., Rokkum, J.: The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: an empirical investigation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(6), 2501–2511 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schmitz, C.: LimeSurvey Project Team (2015)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sheehan, K.B.: An investigation of gender differences in on-line privacy concerns and resultant behaviors. J. Interact. Mark. 13(4), 24–38 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jeff Smith, H., Dinev, T., Xu, H.: Theory and review information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Q. 35(4), 989–1015 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smith, H.J., Milberg, S.J., Burke, S.J.: Information privacy: measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. MIS Q. 20(2), 167–196 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Spiekermann, S., Grossklags, J., Berendt, B.: E-privacy in 2nd generation e-commerce: privacy preferences versus actual behavior. In: EC 2001 Third ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 38–47. ACM, Tampa (2001). Humboldt University BerlinGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stewart, K.A., Segars, A.H.: An empirical examination of the concern for information privacy instrument. Inf. Syst. Res. 13(1), 36–49 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Swan II, J.E., Gabbard, J.L.: Survey of user-based experimentation in augmented reality. In: 1st International Conference on Virtual Reality, pp. 1–9 (2005)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Swatman, R.: Pokémon Go catches five new world records, August 2016Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tang, Z., Hu, Y., Smith, M.D.: Gaining trust through online privacy protection: self-regulation, mandatory standards, or caveat emptor. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(4), 153–173 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tschersich, M., Kiyomoto, S., Pape, S., Nakamura, T., Bal, G., Takasaki, H., Rannenberg, K.: On gender specific perception of data sharing in Japan. In: Hoepman, J.-H., Katzenbeisser, S. (eds.) SEC 2016. IAICT, vol. 471, pp. 150–160. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  47. 47.
    Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., Xin, X.: Consumer acceptance and user of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36(1), 157–178 (2012)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Warren, S.D., Brandeis, L.D.: The right to privacy. Harvard Law Rev. 1(5), 193–220 (1890)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Weidner, J.B.: How & Why Google Glass Failed (2015)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yu, H.: What Pokémon Go’s Success Means for the Future of Augmented Reality (2016)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    All websites. Accessed 20 July 2017Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Mobile Business and Multilateral SecurityGoethe University Frankfurt am MainFrankfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations