Cited by 107Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionInnovative Human-Technology InteractionPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

Privacy Awareness: A Means to Solve the Privacy Paradox?

Open access
Pötzsch, Stefanie·2009·IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology

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 · 10.1007/978-3-642-03315-5_17

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Even if people theoretically have all of the necessary privacy-relevant information, they are unable to make proper sense of all of the information, leading to the application of simplified mental models that often favor the benefits.

    “Even if people theoretically have all of the necessary privacy-relevant information, they are unable to make proper sense of all of the information.This leads to the application of simplified mental models that are often favor the benefits (Pötzsch, 2009).”

    From The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review (2017) · cites this paper as Pötzsch, 2009

    The “Consider cognitive boundaries” section says that even with all privacy-relevant information available, people cannot use it all to make a rational decision and instead apply a simplified mental model. Section 3.2, “Balancing Values,” says privacy costs can become less salient while benefits are advertised. It does not establish that the simplified mental models themselves often favor benefits or that the cognitive limitation causes that preference. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pötzsch, S.
Affiliations
Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
Corresponding author
Pötzsch, Stefanie
Venue
IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology
Published
2009
Pages
226-236
ISSN
  • 1868-422X (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-4238
OpenAlex
W2139903329
Cited by
107
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.88
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
IFIP advances in information and communication technology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Fundación Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela
  • European Commission (216483)
  • Technische Universität Dresden
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
privacy paradox, privacy awareness, personal information disclosure, intention-behavior gap, human resource constraints, digital communication, privacy attitudes

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