Proactive vs. reactive personalization: Can customization of privacy enhance user experience?
Open accessThe 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
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.
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?
Increasing user control can potentially diminish the user's sense of agency.
“This approach, however, introduces a known trade-off: increasing user control can also increase cognitive load and privacy fatigue [8], potentially diminishing the user's sense of agency [42,43].”
From Understanding Users' Privacy Perceptions Towards LLM's RAG-based Memory (2025) · cites this paper as [42]
Section 4.3 reports that participants given privacy-customization options had a higher sense of control than those without them; section 5.2 says customization can make users feel more agentic. The Introduction notes that repeated calls for user action can be intrusive, but it does not say they diminish users’ sense of agency. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredUsers' perception towards memory reflects their willingness of stronger agency on their memory control.
“Users' perception towards memory reflects their willingness of stronger agency on their memory control, echoing the longdiscussed balancing between users' and systems' agency [19,42].”
From Understanding Users' Privacy Perceptions Towards LLM's RAG-based Memory (2025) · cites this paper as [42]
The Conclusion (page unavailable) explicitly describes a trade-off between human and machine agency, supporting the sentence’s agency-balancing point. The Previous Privacy Intrusion section (page unavailable) links past privacy experiences to users’ sense of control, but does not examine users’ control over their own memory or show that their perceptions of memory reflect a desire for such control. (LLM, conf=0.83)
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 56 · Cited by 109
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Chin, D.N., 2007. Information Filtering, Expertise and Cognitive Load BT -Foundations of Augmented Cognition, in: Schmorrow, D.D., Reeves, L.M. (Eds.), . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 75-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73216-7_9 · DOI
- Hayes, A.F., 2012. PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. White Pap. https://doi.org/978-1-60918-230- 4
- Marathe, S., 2007. If you build it, they will come-Or will they? Need for uniqueness and need for control for psychological predictions of customization, in: 57th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association. San Francisco, CA.
- Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., Malhotra, A., 2000. Conceptual Framework for understanding e-service quality: Implications for future research and managerial practice (No. 00-115). Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
- Authors
- Zhang, B., & Sundar, S. S.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sundar, S. Shyam
- ORCID
- Sundar, S. Shyam
- Venue
- International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-08
- Volume
- 128
- Pages
- 86-99
- ISSN
- 1071-5819 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2921770172
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 20.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1450500)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- privacy settings, recommender systems, user experience, movie recommendation, privacy concerns, user preferences
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
