Type Indeterminacy in Privacy Decisions: The Privacy Paradox Revisited
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
From their subjective point of view, the decision process may well appear rational.
“However, from their subjective point of view, the decision process may well appear rational (Flender and Müller, 2012).”
From The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review (2017) · cites this paper as Flender and Müller, 2012
Individuals tend to underestimate their own risk of privacy invasion while overestimating the chances that others will experience adverse events.
“Individuals tend to underestimate their own risk of privacy invasion while overestimating the chances that others will experience adverse events.”
From The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review (2017) · cites this paper as Flender and Müller, 2012
Peer group pressure negatively influences the privacy decision process.
“In their study on online service providers, Flender and Müller (2012) found that peer group pressure negatively influences the privacy decision process.”
From The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review (2017) · cites this paper as Flender and Müller (2012)
Cites
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 17,604 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kokolakis, S. (2017) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002 · Cited by 1,229 · see citing works
Barth, S., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2017) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013 · Cited by 798 · see citing works
“In their study on online service providers, Flender and Müller (2012) found that peer group pressure negatively influences the privacy decision process.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGerber, N., Gerber, P., & Volkamer, M. (2018) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.002 · Cited by 511 · see citing works
Barth, S., de Jong, M. D. T., Junger, M., Hartel, P. H., & Roppelt, J. C. (2019) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2019.03.003 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Privacy Perceptions of Custom GPTs by Users and Creators
Ma, R., Maidhof, C., Carrillo, J. C., Lindqvist, J., & Such, J. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713540 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Flender, C., & Müller, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Freiburg (DE)
- Venue
- Lecture Notes in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- Published
- 2012
- Pages
- 148-159
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- 1611-3349
- OpenAlex
- W158506424
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 4.13
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- privacy paradox, privacy decisions, personal information disclosure, privacy valuation, conflicting preferences, risk awareness, privacy risks, rational choice
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
