CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 337Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Information disclosure on mobile devices: Re-examining privacy calculus with actual user behavior

Open access
Keith, Mark J., Thompson, Samuel C., Hale, Joanne, Lowry, Paul Benjamin, Greer, Chapman·2013·International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
DOI 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.08.016
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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 · 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.08.016

Cites

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?

  • During information exchange, negative consequences are rationally weighed against goals and possible outcomes, aiming to maximize benefits and minimize the risks of information disclosure.

    “During information exchange, negative consequences are rationally weighed against goals and possible outcomes, aiming to maximize benefits and minimize the risks of information disclosure (Keith et al., 2013;Li, 2012;Vroom, 1964).”

    From The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review (2017) · cites this paper as Keith et al., 2013

    Section 2.1 frames disclosure as a rational choice involving costs and benefits, and §5.3 says the study demonstrates a tradeoff between disclosure benefits and risks. But §5.3 also identifies rational decision-making as a premise of privacy calculus and notes evidence of bounded rationality, so the claim overstates rational weighing and optimization as a description of actual behavior. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 60 · Cited by 337

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Acquisti, A., Grossklags, J., 2003. Losses, Gains, and Hyperbolic Discounting: An Experimental Approach to Information Security Attitudes and Behavior. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Workshop on "Economics and Information Security", UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
  2. Acquisti, A., Grossklags, J., 2004. Privacy attitudes and privacy behavior. In: Camp, L., Lewis, S. (Eds.), Economics of Information Security. Springer, US, pp. 165-178.
  3. Acquisti, A., Grossklags, J., 2005. Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security and Privacy 3, 26-33.
  4. Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ, USA.
  5. Awad, N.F., Krishnan, M.S., 2006. The personalization privacy paradox: an empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Quarterly 30, 13-28.
  6. Barkhuus, L., 2004. Privacy in Location-based Services: Concern vs. Coolness. In: Proceedings of the Mobile HCI 2004 Workshop: Location System Privacy and Control, Glasgow, UK.
  7. Becker, G.S., 1978. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  8. Becker, G.S., Murphy, K.M., 1988. A theory of rational addiction. Journal of Political Economy 96, 675-700.
  9. Bélanger, F., Hiller, J.S., Smith, W.J., 2002. Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: the role of privacy, security, and site attributes. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 11, 245-270.
  10. Blau, P.M., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley, New York.
  11. Davies, S., 1997. Re-engineering the right to privacy: how privacy has been transformed from a right to a commodity. In: Agre, P., Rotenberg, M. (Eds.), Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape. MIT Press.
  12. Decker, M., 2008. Location Privacy-An Overview. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Mobile Business, ICMB '08, pp. 221-230.
  13. Dinev, T., Hart, P., 2006. An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research 17, 61-80.
  14. Fornell, C., Bookstein, F.L., 1982. Two structural equation models: Lisrel and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research 19, 440-452.
  15. Friedman, M., Savage, L.J., 1952. The expected-utility hypothesis and the measur- ability of utility. Journal of Political Economy 60, 463-474.
  16. Ghosh, A.K., Swaminatha, T.M., 2001. Software security and privacy risks in mobile e-commerce. Communications of the ACM 44, 51-57.
  17. Grewal, D., Gotlieb, J., Marmorstein, H., 1994. The moderating effects of message framing and source credibility on the price-perceived risk relationship. Journal of Consumer Research 21, 145-153.
  18. Jentzsch, N., Preibusch, S., Harasser, A., 2012. Study on Monetising Privacy: An Economic Model for Pricing Personal Information. European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA), Published, pp. 1-76.
  19. Junglas, I., Watson, R., 2008. Location-based services. Communications of the ACM 51, 65-69.
  20. Keith, M.J., Babb, J.S., Furner, C.P., Abdullat, A., 2010. Privacy Assurance and Network Effects in the Adoption of Location-based Services: An Iphone Experiment In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS '10), St. Louis, MI, pp. 237.
  21. Keith, M.J., Babb, J.S., Furner, C.P., Abdullat, A., 2011. The Role of Mobile Self-efficacy in the Adoption of Location-Based Applications: An Iphone Experiment. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS '11), Kauai, HI.
  22. Laufer, R.S., Wolfe, M., 1977. Privacy as a concept and a social issue: a multi- dimensional developmental theory. Journal of Social (33), 22-42.
  23. Margulis, S.T., 1977. Conceptions of privacy: current status and next steps. Journal of Social (33), 5-21.
  24. McCarthy, B., 2002. New economics of sociological criminology. Annual Review of Sociology 28, 417-442.
  25. Norberg, P.A., Horne, D.R., Horne, D.A., 2007. The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 41, 100-126.
  26. Paine, C., Reips, U.D., Stieger, S., Joinson, A., Buchanan, T., 2007. Internet users' perceptions of 'privacy concerns' and 'privacy actions'. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65, 526-536.
  27. Pavlou, P.A., Liang, H.G., Xue, Y.J., 2007. Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: a principal-agent perspective. MIS Quarterly 31, 105-136.
  28. Peter, J.P., Tarpey Sr., L.X., 1975. A comparative analysis of three consumer decision strategies. Journal of Consumer Research 2, 29-37.
  29. Posey, C., Lowry, P.B., Roberts, T.L., Ellis, S., 2010. The culture-influenced online community self-disclosure model: the case of working professionals in France and the UK who use online communities. European Journal of Information Systems 19, 181-195.
  30. Rao, B., Minakakis, L., 2003. Evolution of mobile location-based services. Commu- nications of the ACM 46, 61-65.
  31. Sheng, H., Nah, F.F.H., Siau, K., 2008. An experimental study on ubiquitous commerce adoption: impact of personalization and privacy concerns. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9, 344-376.
  32. Smith, H.J., Dinev, T., Xu, H., 2011. Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly 35, 989-1015.
  33. Smith, H.J., Milberg, S.J., Burke, S.J., 1996. Information privacy: measuring indivi- dual's concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quarterly 20, 167-196.
  34. Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S., Budgen, D., 2010. Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 52, 463-479.
  35. Vance, A., Elie-Dit-Cosaque, C., Straub, D.W., 2008. Examining trust in information technology artifacts: the effects of system quality and culture. Journal of Management Information Systems 24, 73-100.
  36. Vihavainen, S., Oulasvirta, A., Sarvas, R., 2009. "I can't lie anymore!": The Implications of Location Automation for Mobile Social Applications. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International MobiQuitous Conference, Toronto, ON, July 13-16. pp. 1-10.
  37. Vroom, V.H., 1964. Work and Motivation. Wiley, New York.
  38. Warren, S.V., Brandeis, L.D., 1890. The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review 4, 193-220.
  39. Xu, H., Teo, H.H., Tan, B.C.Y., Agarwal, R., 2010. The role of push-pull technology in privacy calculus: the case of location-based services. Journal of Management Information Systems 26, 135-174.

Authors
Keith, M. J., Thompson, S. C., Hale, J., Lowry, P. B., & Greer, C.
Affiliations
  • Brigham Young University (US)
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • City University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Keith, Mark J.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
71
Issue
12
Pages
1163-1173
ISSN
1071-5819 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.08.016
OpenAlex
W1966862742
Cited by
337
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 5
FWCI
42.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) (submittedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
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 › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
privacy calculus, information disclosure, mobile application, location-based services, location data, perceived privacy risk, disclosure intention, consumer privacy behavior

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