Advertisement

Das Privacy-Paradoxon – Ein Erklärungsversuch und Handlungsempfehlungen

  • Paul GerberEmail author
  • Melanie Volkamer
  • Nina Gerber
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Der Schutz der eigenen Privatsphäre im digitalen Alltag fällt schwer. Spätestens seit der Omnipräsenz des mobilen Internets dank Smartphones und der damit verbundenen rapiden Verbreitung digitaler Dienste, ist die Verbreitung persönliche Informationen immer schwerer zu kontrollieren. Darüber hinaus stellte die Forschung bereits vor etwa zehn Jahren fest, dass Menschen sich widersprüchlich in Bezug auf ihre Privatsphäre verhalten (Norberg et al. 2007) und bezeichneten dieses Phänomen als das Privacy-Paradoxons. Um zu klären, warum Menschen sich im Hinblick auf ihre Privatsphäre widersprüchlich verhalten und ob dies in der Tat paradox im Sinne des Wortes ist, ist es notwendig, zu verstehen, was Menschen motiviert und wie sie Entscheidungen treffen. Kurz, wie menschliches Verhalten entsteht. Im Rahmen dieses Beitrags werden Faktoren beschrieben und diskutiert, die in verschiedenen Situationen das menschliche Verhalten beeinflussen und aus diesen ein integratives Verhaltensmodell im Kontext der digitalen Privatsphäre abgeleitet. Auf Basis dieses Modell werden dann Antworten auf die Frage geliefert, wie das Phänomen des Privacy-Paradoxons zu erklären ist und anhand eines Beispiels diskutiert, was sich daraus für die Praxis an Handlungsansätzen ableiten lassen.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In G. Danezis, & P. Golle, 6th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PET) (S. 36-58). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Acquisti, A., & Grossklags, J. (2003). Losses, gains, and hyperbolic discounting: an experimental approach to information security attitudes and behavior. In Proceedings of the 2nd annual workshop on economics and information security (WEIS 2003). Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Acquisti, A., & Grossklags, J. (2005). Privacy and Rationality in Individual Decision Making. IEEE Security & Privacy, 3(1), S. 26-33.Google Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckmann, Action-control: From cognition to behavior (S. 11-39). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), S. 179-211.Google Scholar
  6. Awad, N., & Krishnan, M. (2006). The personalization privacy paradox: an empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), S. 13-28.Google Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, S. 191-215.Google Scholar
  8. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, S. 122-147.Google Scholar
  9. Bandura, A. (1991). Social-cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50.Google Scholar
  10. Bansal, G., Zahedi, F., & 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).Google Scholar
  11. Bennett, C. J. (1995). The Political Economy of Privacy: A Review of the Literature. Hackensack, NJ: Center for Social and Legal Research.Google Scholar
  12. Bitkom. (22. 09 2015). Internetnutzer gehen pragmatisch mit Datenschutz um. Abgerufen am 19. 10 2016 von https://www.bitkom.org/Presse/Presseinformation/Internetnutzer-gehen-pragmatisch-mit-Datenschutz-um.html
  13. Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1).Google Scholar
  14. Butler, J. K. (1991). oward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17, S. 643-663.Google Scholar
  15. Cho, H., Lee, J. S., & Chung, S. (2010). Optimistic bias about online privacy risks: Testing the moderating effects of perceived controllability and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), S. 987-995.Google Scholar
  16. Cox, D. F. (1967). Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. Boston, Massachusetts: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  17. Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999). Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation. Organization Science, 10, S. 104-115.Google Scholar
  18. Culnan, M., & Bies, R. (2003). Consumer Privacy: Balancing Economic and Justice Considerations. Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), S. 323-342.Google Scholar
  19. Cunningham, S. M. (1967). The Major Dimensions of Perceived Risk. Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior, 1, S. 82-111.Google Scholar
  20. Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17, S. 61-80.Google Scholar
  21. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), S. 252-284.Google Scholar
  22. Felt, A. P., Ha, E., Egelman, S., Haney, A., Chin, E., & Wagner, D. (2012). Android permissions: User attention, comprehension, and behavior. In Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2335356.2335360
  23. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Boston, USA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Floyd, D., Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. (2000). A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), S. 407-429.Google Scholar
  26. Ghigleri, M., Volkamer, M., & Gerber, P. (in Vorbereitung). Smart TV Consumers Willingly Sacrifice Privacy to Benefit from Functionality.Google Scholar
  27. Giffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication department. Psychological Bulletin, 68, S. 104-120.Google Scholar
  28. Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., & Göritz, A. (2010). Needs, affect, and interactive products – Facets of user experience. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), S. 353-362. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002
  29. Hassenzahl, M., Wiklund-Engblom, A., Bengs, A., Hägglund, S., & Diefenbach, S. (2015). Experience-Oriented and Product-Oriented Evaluation: Psychological Need Fulfillment, Positive Affect, and Product Perception. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(8), S. 530-544. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2015.1064664
  30. Havighurst, R. J. (1964). Human development and education. (D. McKay, Hrsg.) New York: Longmans, Green and Company.Google Scholar
  31. Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), S. 42-63.Google Scholar
  32. Jensen, C., & Potts, C. (2004). Privacy policies as decision-making tools: an evaluation of online privacy notices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (S. 471-478). ACM.Google Scholar
  33. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological review, 80(4), S. 237-251.Google Scholar
  34. Kehr, F., Wentzel, D., & P., M. (2013). Rethinking the privacy calculus: on the role of dispositional factors and affect. In Proceedings of the thirty fourth international conference on information systems (S. 15-18). Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
  35. Kehr, F., Wentzel, D., & T., K. (2014). Privacy paradox revised: preexisting attitudes, psychological ownership, and actual disclosure. In Proceedings of the thirty fifth international conference on information systems (S. 14-17). Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  36. Kulyk, O., Gerber, P., El Hanafi, M., Reinheimer, B., Renaud, K., & Volkamer, M. (2016). Encouraging Privacy-Aware Smartphone App Installation: What Would the Technically-Adept Do. In Usable Security Workshop (USEC). Darmstadt, Deutschland.Google Scholar
  37. Kumaraguru, P., Sheng, S., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L. F., & Hong, J. (2008). Lessons from a real world evaluation of anti-phishing training. In IEEE (Hrsg.), eCrime Researchers Summit (S. 1-12). Anti-Phishing Working Group. doi: 10.1109/ECRIME.2008.4696970
  38. Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009). Avoidance of information technology threats: A theoretical perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), S. 71-90.Google Scholar
  39. Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2010). Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. Journal of the association for information systems (JAIS), 11(7), S. 394-413.Google Scholar
  40. Lind, E., & Tyler, T. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  41. Loewenstein, G., Weber, E., Hsee, C., & Welch, E. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, S. 267-286.Google Scholar
  42. Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), S. 709-734.Google Scholar
  43. Milne, G., & Gordon, M. (1993). Direct mail privacy-efficiency trade-offs within an implied social contract framework. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12(2), S. 206-215.Google Scholar
  44. Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., & Horne, D. A. (2007). The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), S. 100-126.Google Scholar
  45. Panne, F. (1977). Das Risiko im Kaufentscheidungsprozeß des Konsumenten: Die Beiträge risikotheoretischer Ansätze zur Erklärung des Kaufentscheidungsverhaltens des Konsumenten. Zurich, Schweiz.Google Scholar
  46. Rogers, R. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 91(1), S. 9-114.Google Scholar
  47. Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. (2001). Money, kisses and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of probability weighting. Psychological Science, 12, S. 185-190.Google Scholar
  48. Rust, R., Kannan, P., & Peng, N. (2002). The customer economics of internet privacy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), S. 455-464.Google Scholar
  49. Schoeman, F. D. (1984). Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, S. 195-202.Google Scholar
  51. Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of personality and social psychology, 80(2), S. 325-339. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325
  52. Simon, H. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, S. 1-19.Google Scholar
  53. Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, S. 129-138.Google Scholar
  54. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, G. D. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, W. D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman, Heuristics and biases (S. 397-420). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS quarterly, 35(4), S. 989-1016.Google Scholar
  56. Stone, E., & Stone, D. (1990). Privacy in organizations: theoretical issues, research findings, and protection mechanisms. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 8, S. 349-411.Google Scholar
  57. Volkamer, M., Stockhardt, S., Bartsch, S., & Kauer, M. (2013). Adopting the cmu/apwg anti-phishing landing page idea for germany. In 2013 Third Workshop on Socio-Technical Aspects in Security and Trust (S. 46-52). IEEE.Google Scholar
  58. Vroom, V. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Willey & Sons.Google Scholar
  59. Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DarmstadtDeutschland

Personalised recommendations