Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 408

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

Dienlin, Tobias, Trepte, Sabine·2015·European Journal of Social Psychology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ejsp.2049

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 58 references

Cited by

See all 408

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.