Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Personal Information Disclosure via Voice Assistants: The Personalization–Privacy Paradox

  • Original Research
  • Published:
SN Computer Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to examine the factors affecting the willingness to disclose personal information based upon the privacy calculus framework and its relation to the continued usage of the Voice Assistant (VA) devices. The information disclosure is analyzed from a dual channel benefit/risk perspective through the calculus lens. Particularly, the joint effects of the two independent paths of benefits and risks that can induce the desire to disclose personal information, along with their various antecedents are proposed and empirically tested. Data are collected from 427 respondents using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) as the platform and analyzed using a Maximum Likelihood Structural Equation Modelling (ML-SEM) technique. The analysis shows that personalized services, perceived enjoyment and perceived complementarity influence the perceived benefits, which in turn positively affects the personal information disclosure. Perceived severity and perceived control are found to have a positive effect, while perceived trust has a negative effect on the perceived risks, respectively, which in turn is negatively associated with the personal information disclosure. Compared to the perceived risks, the effect of perceived benefits on the information disclosure is found to be stronger, which motivates the users to continuously use the services of the VA devices. This work extends the current literatures on privacy concerns to the users’ intention of disclosing their personal information by proposing and empirically testing six hypotheses as a part of the research model. Finally, the research implications are discussed, and suggestions are provided.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Statista. 2019. Number of digital voice assistants in use worldwide from 2019 to 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/973815/worldwide-digital-voice-assistant-in-use/. Accessed 18 Aug 2019.

  2. Moriuchi E. Okay, Google! An empirical study on voice assistants on consumer engagement and loyalty. Psychol Market. 2019;36(5):489–501.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hoy MB. Alexa, Siri, Cortana, and more: an introduction to voice assistants. Med. Ref. Services Quart. 2018;37(1):81–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. McLean G, Frimpong KO. Hey Alexa… Examine the variables influencing the use of artificial intelligent in-home voice assistants. Comput Hum Behav. 2019;99:28–37.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Riedl J. Personalization and privacy. IEEE Internet Comput. 2001;5(6):29–31.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Goodwin C. Privacy: recognition of a consumer right. J Public Policy Market. 1991;10(1):149–66.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Salehan M, Kim DJ, Koo C. A study of the effect of social trust, trust in social networking services, and sharing attitude, on two dimensions of personal information sharing behavior. J Supercomput. 2018;74(8):3596–619.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang Q, DiFranzo D, Gloria MJK, Makni B, Hendler JA. Analyzing the flow of trust in the virtual world with semantic web technologies. IEEE Trans Comput Social Syst. 2018;5(3):807–15.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sutanto J, Palme E, Tan CH, Phang CW. Addressing the personalization-privacy paradox: an empirical assessment from a flied experiment on smartphone users. MIS Quart. 2013;37(4):1141–64.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mouakket S. Information self-disclosure on mobile instant messaging applications. J Enterprise Inf Manag. 2019;32(1):98–117.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Keith MJ, Thompson SC, Hale J, Lowry PB, Greer C. Information disclosure on mobile devices: re-examining privacy calculus with actual user behavior. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2013;71(12):1163–73.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zhu H, Ou CXJ, Heuvel WJAM, Liu H. Privacy calculus and its utility for personalization services in e-commerce: an analysis of consumer decision-making. Inf Manag. 2017;54(4):427–37.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Li H, Wu J, Gao Y, Shi Y. Examining individuals’ adoption of healthcare wearable devices: an empirical study from privacy calculus perspective. Int J Med Inf. 2016;88:8–17.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Morosan C, DeFranco A. Disclosing personal information via hotel apps: a privacy calculus perspective. Int J Hosp Manag. 2015;47:120–30.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rubio-Drosdov E, Díaz-Sánchez D, Almenárez F, Arias-Cabarcos P, Marín A. Seamless human–device interaction in the internet of things. IEEE Trans Consum Electron. 2017;63(4):490–8.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Landay JA, Oliver N, Song J. Conversational user interfaces and interactions. IEEE Perv Comput. 2019;18(2):8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Porcheron M, Fischer JE, Reeves S, Sharples S. 2018. Voice interfaces in everyday life. In Proc. 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI '18), New York, NY, USA, pp 1–12. 10.1145/3173574.3174214

  18. Porcheron M, Fischer JE, Sharples S. Do animals have accents? Talking with agents in multi-party conversation. In: Proc. 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing (CSCW ‘17), New York, NY, pp 207–219. 10.1145/2998181.2998298

  19. Lovato S, Piper AM. 2015. Siri, is this you? Understanding young children's interactions with voice input systems. In: Proc. 14th international conference on interaction design and children (IDC ‘15), New York, NY, USA, pp 335–338. 10.1145/2771839.2771910

  20. Sciuto A, Saini A, Forlizzi J, Hong JI. “Hey Alexa, What's Up?”: a mixed-methods studies of in-home conversational agent usage. In: Proc. 2018 designing interactive systems conference (DIS ‘18), New York, NY, USA, pp 857–868. 10.1145/3196709.3196772W

  21. Purington A, Taft JG, Sannon S, Bazarova NN, Taylor SH. 2017. "Alexa is my New BFF": social roles, user satisfaction, and personification of the amazon echo. In: Proc. 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (CHI EA ‘17), New York, NY, USA, pp 2853–2859. 10.1145/3027063.3053246P

  22. Lopatovska I, Williams H. 2018. Personification of the amazon alexa: BFF or a mindless companion. In: Proc. 2018 conference on human information interaction & retrieval (CHIIR ‘18), New York, NY, USA, pp 265–268. 10.1145/3176349.3176868

  23. Pradhan A, Mehta K, Findlater L. 2018. Accessibility came by accident: use of voice-controlled intelligent personal assistants by people with disabilities. In: Proc. 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI '18), New York, NY, USA, pp 1–13. 10.1145/3173574.3174033R

  24. Portet F, Vacher M, Golanski C, Roux C, Meillon B. Design and evaluation of a smart home voice interface for the elderly: acceptability and objection aspects. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 2013;17(1):127–44.

    Google Scholar 

  25. König A, Malhotra A, Hoey J, Francis LE. 2016. Designing personalized prompts for a virtual assistant to support elderly care home residents. In: Proc. 10th EAI international conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare (PervasiveHealth '16), Brussels, Belgium, pp 278–282.

  26. Shaked NA. Avatars and virtual agents—relationship interfaces for the elderly. Healthc Technol Lett. 2017;4(3):83–7.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chung H, Iorga M, Voas J, Lee S. “Alexa, can i trust you?”. Computer. 2017;50(9):100–4.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chung H, Park J, Lee S. Digital forensic approaches for amazon alexa ecosystem. Digital Investig. 2017;22:s15–s25.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ford M, Palmer W. Alexa, are you listening to me? An analysis of alexa voice service network traffic. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 2019;23(1):67–79.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Alepis E, Patsakis C. Monkey says, monkey does: security and privacy on voice assistants. IEEE Access. 2017;5:17841–51.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lei X, Tu G, Liu AX, Li C, Xie T. 2018. The insecurity of home digital voice assistants—vulnerabilities, attacks and countermeasures. In: Proc. 2018 IEEE conference on communications and network security (CNS), Beijing, China, pp 1–9

  32. Diao W, Liu X, Zhou Z, Zhang K. 2014. Your voice assistant is mine: how to abuse speakers to steal information and control your phone. In: Proc. 4th ACM workshop on security and privacy in smartphones & mobile devices (SPSM ‘14), New York, NY, USA, pp 63–74

  33. Hudson FD. Enabling trust and security: TIPPSS for IoT. IT Professional. 2018;20(2):15–8.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kumar D, et al. Emerging threats in internet of things voice services. IEEE Secur Priv. 2019;17(4):18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Laufer RS, Wolfe M. Privacy as a concept and a social issue: a multidimensional developmental theory. J Social Issues. 1977;33(3):22–42.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Xu H, Teo HH, Tan BC, Agarwal R. The role of push–pull technology in privacy calculus: the case of location based services. J Manag Inf Syst. 2009;26(3):135–74.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Li Y. Theories in online information privacy research: a critical review and an integrated framework. Decis Support Syst. 2012;54(1):471–81.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Dinev T, Hart P. Internet privacy concerns and their antecedents-measurement validity and a regression model. Behav Inf Technol. 2004;23(6):413–22.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Chellappa RK, Sin RG. Personalization vs. privacy: an empirical examination of the online consumer’s dilemma. Inf Technol Manage. 2005;6(2–3):181–202.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Dinev T, Bellotto M, Hart P, Russo V, Serra I, Colautti C. Privacy calculus model in e-commerce—a study of italy and the United States. Eur J Inf Syst. 2006;15(4):389–402.

    Google Scholar 

  41. McCole P, Ramsey E, Williams J. Trust considerations on attitudes towards online purchasing: the moderating effect of privacy and security concerns. J Business Res. 2010;63(9–10):1018–24.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Perez BM, Diez I, Coronado ML. Privacy and security in mobile health apps: a review and recommendations. J Med Syst. 2015;39:181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-014-0181-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Valdez AC, Ziefle M. The users’ perspective on the privacy-utility tradeoffs in health recommender systems. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2019;121:108–21.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Guo J, Li N, Wu Y, Cui T. Examining help requests on social networking sites: integrating privacy perception and privacy calculus perspectives. Electron Commer Res Appl. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Cho H, Roh S, Park B. Of promoting networking and protecting privacy: effects of defaults and regulatory focus on social media users’ preference settings. Comput Hum Behav. 2019;101:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Smith HJ, Dinev T, Xu H. Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Quart. 2011;35(4):989–1016.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Malhotra NK, Kim SS, Agarwal J. Internet Users’ Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): the construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inf Syst Res. 2004;15(4):336–55.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Milne GR, Rohm AJ, Bahl S. Consumers protection of online privacy and identity. J Consumer Affairs. 2004;38(2):217–32.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Li Y. The impact of disposition to privacy, website reputation, and website familiarity on information privacy concerns. Decis Support Syst. 2014;57(1):343–54.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Taylor D, Davis D, Jillapalli R. Privacy concern and online personalization: the moderating effects of information control and compensation. Electron Commerce Res. 2009;9(3):203–23.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Yu Z, Xu H, Yang Z, Guo B. Personalized travel package with multi-point-of-interest recommendation based on crowdsourced user footprints. IEEE Trans Hum Mach Syst. 2016;46(1):151–8.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Chen M, Jia X, Gorbonos E, Hong CT, Yu X, Liu Y. Eating healthier: exploring nutrition information for healthier recipe recommendation. Inf Process Manage. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.05.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rubini D. Overcoming the paradox of personalization: building adoption, loyalty, and trust in digital markets. Design Manag J. 2001;12(2):49–544.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Lee D, LaRose R. The impact of personalized social cues of immediacy on consumers information disclosure: a social cognitive approach. Cyberpsychol Behav Social Netw. 2011;14(6):337–43.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Davenport TH, Mule LD, Lucker J. Know what your customers want before they do. Harvard Business Rev. 2011;89(12):84–92.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kim H, Chan HC, Gupta S. Value-based adoption of mobile internet: an empirical investigation. Decis Supp Syst. 2007;43:111–26.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci. 1989;35(8):982–1003.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Yang H, Lee H. Understanding user behavior of virtual personal assistant devices. ISEB. 2019;17(1):65–87.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Bentley F, Luvogt C, Silverman M, Wirasinghe R, White B, Lottridge D. Understanding the long-term use of smart speaker assistants. Proc ACM Interact Mobile Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2008;2(3):14.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Childers TL, Carr CL, Peck J, Carson S. Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. J Retail. 2001;77(4):511–35.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Hsu CL, Lin JCC. An empirical examination of consumer adoption of internet of things services: network externalities and concern for information privacy perspectives. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;62:516–27.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Olivero N, Lunt P. Privacy versus willingness to disclose in e-commerce exchanges: the effect of risk awareness on the relative role of rust and control. J Econ Psychol. 2004;25(2):243–62.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Katz ML, Shapiro C. Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. J Polit Econ. 1986;94(4):822–41.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lai F, Wang J, Hsieh CT, Chen JC. On network externalities, e-business adoption and information asymmetry. Ind Manag Data Syst. 2007;107(5):728–46.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Lee S, Lee S. Early diffusion of smartphones in OECD and BRICS countries: an examination of the effects of platform competition and indirect network effects. Telematics Inform. 2014;31(3):345–55.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Asvanund A, Clay K, Krishnan R, Smith MD. An Empirical analysis of network externalities in peer-to-peer music-sharing networks. Inf Syst Res. 2004;15(2):109–21313.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Gallaugher JM, Wang YM. Understanding network effects in software markets: evidence from web server pricing. MIS Quart. 2002;26(4):303–27.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Boehmer J, LaRose R, Rifon N, Alhabash S, Cotten S. Determinants of online safety behavior: towards an intervention strategy for college students. Behav Inform Technol. 2015;34(10):1022–35.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Lee Y, Larsen KR. Threat or coping appraisal: determinants of SMB executives decision to adopt anti-malware software. Eur J Inf Syst. 2009;18(2):177–87.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Mohamed N, Ahmad IH. Information privacy concerns, antecedents and privacy measure use in social networking sites: evidence from Malaysia. Comput Hum Behav. 2012;28(6):2366–75.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Derlega VJ, Chaikin AI. Privacy and self-disclosure in social relationships. J Social Issues. 1977;33(3):102–15.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Stone EF, Stone DL. Privacy in organizations: theoretical issues, research findings, and protection mechanisms. Res Personnel Hum Resources Manag. 1990;8(3):349–411.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Culnan MJ, Armstrong PK. Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation. Organ Sci. 1999;10(1):104–15.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Keith M, Thompson SH, Lowry PB, Greer C. information disclosure on mobile devices: re-examining privacy calculus with actual user behavior. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2013;71(12):1163–73.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Mamonov S, Fich RB. The impact of information security threat awareness on privacy-protective behaviors. Comput Hum Behav. 2018;83:32–44.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Rohm AJ, Milne GR. Just what the doctor ordered: the role of information sensitivity and trust in reducing medical information privacy concern. J Business Res. 2004;57(9):1000–111.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Shin DH. The effects of trust, security and privacy in social networking: a security-based approach to understand the pattern of adoption. Interact Comput. 2010;22(5):428–38.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Kumar S, Kumar P, Bhasker B. Interplay between trust, information privacy concerns and behavioral intention of users on online social networks. Behav Inf Technol. 2018;37(6):622–33.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Zlatolas LN, Welzer T, Hölbl M, Heričko M, Kamišalić A. A model of perception of privacy, trust, and self-disclosure on online social networks. Entropy. 2019;21(8):772.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Shin DH. Ubiquitous computing acceptance model: end user concern about security, privacy and risk. Int J Mobile Commun. 2010;8(2):169–86.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Milne GR, Gordon ME. Direct mail privacy-efficiency trade-offs within an implied social contract framework. J Public Policy Market. 1993;19(2):206–15.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Lee DH, Taylor CR. Voluntary self-disclosure of information on the internet: a multimethod study of the motivations and consequences of disclosing information on blogs. Psychol Market. 2020;25(7):692–710.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Xu H, Luo X, Carroll JM, Rosson MB. The personalization privacy paradox: an exploratory study of decision-making process for location-aware marketing. Decis Support Syst. 2011;51(1):42–52.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Norberg PA, Horne DR, Horne DA. The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. J Consumer Affairs. 2007;41(1):100–26.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Zimmer JC, Arsal RE, Al Marzouq M, Grover V. Investigating online information disclosure: effects of information relevance, trust, and risk. Inf Manag. 2010;47(2):115–23.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Cho JY, Ko D, Lee BG. Strategic approach to privacy calculus of wearable device user regarding information disclosure and continuance intention. KSII Trans Internet Inf Syst. 2018;12(7):3356–74.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Weinhard A, Hauser M. Explaining adoption of pervasive retail systems with a model based on UTAUT2 and the extended privacy calculus. In: Proc. 21st Pacific Asia Conference on Information System (PACIS 2017), Langkawi, Malaysia, 2017, no. 217.

  88. Bentley F, Daskalova N, White B. 2017. Comparing the reliability of amazon mechanical turk and survey monkey to traditional market research surveys. In: Proc. 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’17), NY, USA, pp 1092–1099. 10.1145/3027063.3053335

  89. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon’s mechanical turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;6:3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Hsu C, Lin JC. An empirical examination of consumer adoption of IoT services: network externalities and concern for information privacy perspectives. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;62:516–27.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13(3):319–40.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Chen S, Lin C. The impact of customer experience and perceived value on sustainable social relationship in blogs: an empirical study. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2015;96:40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2005.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  95. Kollo T. Multivariate skewness and kurtosis measures with an application in ICA. J Multivariate Anal. 2008;99(10):2328–38.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  96. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall International Inc; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluation structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE. Applied regression analysis and other multivariate methods. 4th ed. Boston: Duxbury Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Seyal A, Rahman M, Rahim M. Determinants of academic use of the internet: a structural equation model. Behav Inf Technol. 2002;21(1):71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Wang T, Duong TD, Chen CC. Intention to disclose personal information via mobile applications: a privacy calculus perspective. Int J Inf Manage. 2016;36:531–42.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Kim H. What drives you to check in on facebook? Motivations, privacy concerns, and mobile phone involvement for location-based information sharing. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;54:397–406.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Martins C, Oliveira T, Popovic AI. Understanding the internet banking adoption: a unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application. Int J Inf Manag. 2014;34(1):1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Sun Y, Wang N, Shen X, Zhang JX. Location information disclosure in location-based social network services: privacy calculus, benefit structure, and gender differences. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;52:278–92.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Krasnova H, Veltri NF, Gunther O. Self-disclosure and privacy calculus on social networking sites: the role of culture-intercultural dynamics of privacy calculus. Business Inf Syst Eng. 2012;4(3):127–35.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work is funded by the KMUTT New Researcher Funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Technology, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, 10140, Thailand

    Debajyoti Pal & Chonlameth Arpnikanondt

  2. School of Computing, Engineering and Digital Technologies, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK

    Mohammad Abdur Razzaque

Authors
  1. Debajyoti Pal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chonlameth Arpnikanondt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Abdur Razzaque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debajyoti Pal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pal, D., Arpnikanondt, C. & Razzaque, M.A. Personal Information Disclosure via Voice Assistants: The Personalization–Privacy Paradox. SN COMPUT. SCI. 1, 280 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-020-00287-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-020-00287-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation