Influence of Users’ Privacy Risks Literacy on the Intention to Install a Mobile Application

  • Alessio De Santo
  • Cédric Gaspoz
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 353)


While users are increasingly embracing smartphones worldwide, these devices, storing our most personal information, are repeatedly found to be leaking users’ data. Despite various attempts to inform users of these privacy issues, they continue to adopt risky behaviors. In order to better protect users of these devices, we need to understand the antecedents of the decision to install potentially privacy-threatening applications on them. We ran a large experiment in order to determine the influence of privacy risks literacy on the intent to install a potentially privacy threatening application on a smartphone. Using partial least squares (PLS), we were able to find that more than the privacy risks literacy, it is the coping behavior literacy that influences the user’s decision to install a mobile application. These findings are relevant to help determine a course of action in order to increase the user’s privacy protection when using such devices.


Privacy risk literacy coping behavior smartphone protection motivation theory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anderson, C.L., Agarwal, R.: Practicing safe computing: a multimedia empirical examination of home computer user security behavioral intentions. MIS Q 34(3), 613–643 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angst, C.M., Agarwal, R.: Adoption of electronic health records in the presence of privacy concerns: the elaboration likelihood model and individual persuasion. MIS Q 33(2), 339–370 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bélanger, F., Crossler, R.E.: Privacy in the digital age: a review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Q 35(4), 1017–1042 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bennett, C.: In defense of privacy: the concept and the regime. Surveill 8(4), 485–496 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bollen, K., Lennox, R.: Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychol. Bull. 110(2), 305–314 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chin, W.W.: Commentary: Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 22(1), vii–xvi (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dinev, T., Hart, P.: An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions. Inf. Syst. Res. 17(1), 61–80 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: Awareness Contexts and Social Interaction. Am. Sociol. Rev. 29(5), 669–679 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Günther, O., Spiekermann, S.: RFID and the perception of control. Commun. ACM. 48(9), 73–76 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnston, A.C., Warkentin, M.: Fear appeals and information security behaviors: an empirical study. MIS Q 34(3), 549–566 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maddux, J.E., Rogers, R.W.: Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19(5), 469–479 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malhotra, N.K., et al.: Internet Users’ Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model. Inf. Syst. Res. 15(4), 336–355 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Öztaş Ayhan, H., Işiksal, S.: Memory recall errors in retrospective surveys: A reverse record check study. Qual. Quant. 38(5), 475–493 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pavlou, P.A.: State of the information privacy literature: where are we now and where should we go? MIS Q 35(4), 977–988 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ringle, C.M., et al.: Editor’s comments: a critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Q. 36(1), iii–xiv (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith, H.J. et al.: Information Privacy Research: An Interdisciplinary Review. MIS Q. 35(4), 989–1015 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith, H.J. et al.: Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals’ Concerns about Organizational Practices. MIS Q. 20(2), 167–196 (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stone, E.F., et al.: A field experiment comparing information-privacy values, beliefs, and attitudes across several types of organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 68(3), 459–468 (1983)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Systems and Management Institute, HES-SOUniversity of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, HEG ArcNeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations