The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in‐depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors
Abstract
The privacy paradox states that online privacy concerns do not sufficiently explain online privacy behaviors on social network sites (SNSs). In this study, it was first asked whether the privacy paradox would still exist when analyzed as in prior research. Second, it was hypothesized that the privacy paradox would disappear when analyzed in a new approach. The new approach featured a multidimensional operationalization of privacy by differentiating between informational, social, and psychological privacy. Next to privacy concerns, also, privacy attitudes and privacy intentions were analyzed. With the aim to improve methodological aspects, all items were designed on the basis of the theory of planned behavior. In an online questionnaire with N = 595 respondents, it was found that online privacy concerns were not significantly related to specific privacy behaviors, such as the frequency or content of disclosures on SNSs (e.g., name, cell‐phone number, or religious views). This demonstrated that the privacy paradox still exists when it is operationalized as in prior research. With regard to the new approach, all hypotheses were confirmed: Results showed both a direct relation and an indirect relation between privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors, the latter mediated by privacy intentions. In addition, also an indirect relation between privacy concerns and privacy behaviors was found, mediated by privacy attitudes and privacy intentions. Therefore, privacy behaviors can be explained sufficiently when using privacy attitudes, privacy concerns, and privacy intentions within the theory of planned behavior. The behaviors of SNS users are not as paradoxical as was once believed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Discovering Statistics Using SPSS
Field, A. P., & Miles, J. N. V. (2000) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 28,265
lavaan : An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling
Rosseel, Y. (2012) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02 · Cited by 27,955
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/bf02723327 · Cited by 26,163
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I. (1985) · Action Control · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 · Cited by 19,057
Cited by
Kokolakis, S. (2017) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002 · Cited by 1,229
Barth, S., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2017) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013 · Cited by 798
“…when distinguishing between privacy concerns and attitudes, applying the appropriate theory to the problem in question (here TPB) and differentiating on the above mentioned privacy dimension, the authors consider the privacy paradox as ‘a relic of the past’ (p. 295; Dienlin and Trepte, 2015).”
BackgroundBaruh, L., Secinti, E., & Cemalcilar, Z. (2017) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12276 · Cited by 618
Gerber, N., Gerber, P., & Volkamer, M. (2018) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.002 · Cited by 511
Dienlin, T., & Metzger, M. J. (2016) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/jcc4.12163 · Cited by 391
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Dienlin, T., & Trepte, S.
- Venue
- European Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-07-31
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 285-297
- ISSN
- 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0992
- OpenAlex
- W1841680562
- Cited by
- 408
- References
- 58
- FWCI
- 60.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in‐depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ejsp.2049
- The paper
- Dienlin, T., & Trepte, S. (2015). Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in‐depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2049
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.