The DOI matches its Crossref record; 113 of the 113 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 10 of the 90 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review
Open accessAbstract
Also known as the privacy paradox, recent research on online behavior has revealed discrepancies between user attitude and their actual behavior. More specifically: While users claim to be very concerned about their privacy, they nevertheless undertake very little to protect their personal data. This systematic literature review explores the different theories on the phenomenon known as the privacy paradox. Drawing on a sample of 32 full papers that explore 35 theories in total, we determined that a user’s decision-making process as it pertains to the willingness to divulge privacy information is generally driven by two considerations: (1) risk-benefit evaluation and (2) risk assessment deemed be none or negligible. By classifying in accordance with these two considerations, we have compiled a comprehensive model using all the variables mentioned in the discussed papers. The overall findings of the systematic literature review will investigate the nature of decision-making (rational vs. irrational) and the context in which the privacy paradox takes place, with a special focus on mobile computing. Furthermore, possible solutions and research limitation issues will be discussed.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This systematic literature review synthesizes 32 full papers covering 35 theories to explain the privacy paradox—the discrepancy between expressed privacy concerns and actual online disclosure behavior. It organizes explanations into rational risk-benefit calculation, biased risk assessment within that calculation, and little-to-no risk assessment, arguing that decision-making is often more irrational, especially in mobile computing.
Key findings
- Across 32 full papers and 35 theories, the review clusters explanations into two main categories: (1) risk-benefit calculation and (2) little to no risk assessment; the first is subdivided into rational calculation and biased risk assessment, with five bias types (heuristics; under-/overestimation of risks and benefits; immediate gratifications; difference between judgments of risks and benefits; habit).
- The authors conclude that decision-making takes place to a greater extent on an irrational level rather than a rational one, especially for mobile computing, and that the emergence of the privacy paradox is context-dependent.
- Concrete solutions remain scarce; proposed directions include user-oriented design, privacy awareness tools, situation-specific disclaimers, security warnings, and design cues adapted to different cognitive styles.
- Only nine studies addressed mobile applications, so the review broadened its parameters to include social network sites, general online contexts, websites, and e-commerce platforms.
Methods
- Systematic literature review using electronic database searches in GoogleScholar, Scopus, IEEE, Web of Science, and ACM with the keyword “privacy paradox,” plus a manual search of reference lists.
- Inclusion criteria: full peer-reviewed papers, peer-reviewed conference papers, and published book chapters that explicitly mention and discuss the privacy paradox with a theory or theoretical concept; excluded general privacy articles, personalization privacy paradox, practical-only solutions, legal/ethical discussions, research proposals, and commentaries.
- Searches resulted in an initial item set of 110 articles; the final sample was N = 32 full papers accounting for 35 theories, which were reviewed to detect clusters and differentiate rational from irrational approaches.
Limitations
- Stated: attitude and intention are not actual behavior, and actual behavior is seldom measured in the studies; privacy concerns seem highly situation-dependent and fluent over time, yet most studies researched privacy as a stable concept or used conventional polls unsuitable for studying online privacy.
- Stated: the authors note Dienlin and Trepte’s critique that the privacy paradox may be “a relic of the past,” but they disagree and argue future research should measure actual behavior; they also state that attempts to theoretically explain and practically solve the privacy paradox are still scarce.
- Evident from text: only nine studies addressed mobile applications, so the review broadened contexts; as a systematic literature review, it synthesizes theories rather than testing them empirically and reports no pooled effect sizes.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
59 No full text of the sources · 27 No basis given · 9 Sources not found · 9 Own interpretation · 7 Partly supported · 7 Own result · 6 Own method · 3 Supported · 3 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Keith et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Not matchedcites Li, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vroom, 1964
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Within this calculation, economic benefits, personalization or convenience and social benefit tend to negate the downside of perceived risks (Wilson and Valacich, 2012).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wilson and Valacich, 2012
The “Perceived Benefits of Privacy Disclosure” section says that benefits counterbalance perceived risks and identifies economic benefits, personalization or convenience, and social or relational benefits as examples that tend to suppress the negative effect of perceived risks. The paper presents this as a finding from prior literature, which supports the citing sentence’s paraphrase. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“During online transactions for example, users disclose private information in return for small benefits, even if their general privacy concerns are contrary to this behavior (Wilson and Valacich, 2012).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.3. (Immediate) gratifications
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wilson and Valacich, 2012
The Privacy Paradox section says that users concerned about privacy disclose information for online-shopping personalization, convenience, or discounts. Perceived Benefits of Privacy Disclosure says benefits can prompt disclosure despite general privacy concerns and describes disclosure for relatively small, immediate rewards (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“If there is choice, individuals usually choose a small benefit in the short term over a larger benefit in the longer term.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.3. (Immediate) gratifications
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites O'Donoghue and Rabin, 2001 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says present-biased people tend to pursue immediate gratification and that additional options can induce procrastination. It does not establish that, whenever there is a choice, individuals usually select a smaller short-term benefit over a larger long-term one; the modeled effect depends on the options and their costs. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Loewenstein, 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A pattern emerged, making a differentiation between rational and irrational approaches for paradoxical behavior.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plainn = 32- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When examining the nature and factors of decision-making, the applied theories (N = 35) were clustered into two main categories: (1) decision-making based on a risk-benefit calculation or (2) decision-making based on prevalent benefits and little to no risk assessment.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2.1. Approaches to the privacy paradox
plainn = 35- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main focus will be on mobile applications but as only nine studies addressing the subject could be ascertained via a literature search, the parameters in which the privacy paradox might be relevant were broadened to include social network sites, general online contexts, websites and e-commerce platforms.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
hedgedn = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, bounded rationality also has an influence on the decision-making process.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2. Biased risk assessment within the risk-benefit calculation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the factors that may play a role in that cognitive process are very difficult to aggregate, calculate and compare, requiring high cognitive involvement.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quite often, individuals are unwilling to access and process all of the information necessary to make informed decisions on issues affecting privacy due to perceived or actual cognitive limitations, choosing rather to satisfy themselves with subpar solutions.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 45
- Probably not a substantial claim. 68
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A user's ability to access all the relevant information is bounded by nature, leading to a situation where the risks are deemed to be outweighed by benefits (Deuker, 2010).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Deuker, 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3 says users have limited ability to access and process decision-relevant information, and that their processing and reasoning capabilities are restricted by nature. But it says bounded rationality can lead to either over- or underestimation of privacy risks; it does not establish that limited access itself causes users to judge benefits as outweighing risks. The separate discussion of immediate gratification says benefits can lead users to underestimate privacy risks. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In such instances, personalization, convenience, economic benefits and social advantages will suppress the perception of risks while over-emphasizing the perceived benefits of privacy disclosure (Wilson and Valacich, 2012).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Wilson and Valacich, 2012Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Perceived Benefits of Privacy Disclosure” (page not provided), the paper identifies economic, personalization or convenience, and social benefits as factors that tend to counteract the negative effect of perceived risks. It hypothesizes that these benefits increase perceived benefits of disclosure, but does not say that the benefit types themselves suppress the perception of risks or necessarily cause benefits to be over-emphasized; its risk-perception hypothesis concerns benefit immediacy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Pötzsch, 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Thus, individuals tend to heavily discount the low probability of high future risks (e.g.identity theft), resulting in a preference for almost instantaneous benefits (Acquisti, 2004;Acquisti and Grossklags, 2005;Deuker, 2010;Flender and Müller, 2012;Hughes-Roberts, 2013).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.3. (Immediate) gratifications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Acquisti, 2004 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Acquisti and Grossklags, 2005 source
- Partly supportedcites Deuker, 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section on immediate gratification says that immediate benefits can lead users to underestimate future privacy risks, and Section 3 says users give less weight to privacy threats that arise later. The copy does not characterize those risks as low-probability but high-impact, establish that they are heavily discounted, or give identity theft as an example. No page numbers were provided. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Quite often, individuals encounter self-control problems due to immediate gratifications (present bias) which leads to behavior that may backfire in the long run.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Supportedcites O'Donoghue and Rabin, 2001 source
Section II describes self-control problems as arising from the pursuit of immediate gratification in ways a person’s long-run self would not appreciate. The Introduction also explains that present-biased preferences give current well-being extra weight over future well-being. (LLM, conf=0.93)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“If there is a choice, individuals usually choose a small benefit in the short term over a larger benefit in the longer term.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Laibson, 1997 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes a high short-term discount rate and gives an example of postponing savings to avoid an immediate sacrifice. That supports a preference for near-term benefits in some circumstances, but the paper does not establish that individuals usually choose a smaller near-term benefit over a larger later one whenever offered that choice. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“(2a) value of desired goals outweighs risks assessed.Additionally, this process is largely determined by in-and out-group considerations, (2b) the privacy valuation failed, and (2c) a knowledge deficiency eventuates as a result of incomplete information.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2.1. Approaches to the privacy paradox
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we determined that a user's decision-making process as it pertains to the willingness to divulge privacy information is generally driven by two considerations: (1) risk-benefit evaluation and (2) risk assessment deemed be none or negligible.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the majority of the analyzed studies showed a markedly different tendency as the theories to explain the privacy paradox can be characterized by the non-rational processes of decision-making.Here, the risk assessment within the risk-benefit calculation is biased by internal or external forces.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The previously discussed theories show that the decision process as it pertains to information disclosure is guided by rational cost-benefit calculations where benefits outweigh risks.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quite often, users are not consciously aware of such a bias and as a consequence, choose benefits while ignoring accompanied risks.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3. Risk-benefit calculation guiding decision-making processes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These searches resulted in an item set of 110 articles.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Category (1b) can be further divided into five different types of biases influencing the calculation process: (I) heuristics, (II) under-and/or overestimation of risks and benefits, (III) (immediate) gratifications, (IV) difference between judgments of risks and benefits, and (V) habit.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2.1. Approaches to the privacy paradox
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Drawing on a sample of 32 full papers that explore 35 theories in total”
- Also stated in: § 2. Method · plain
“This eventually resulted in a final sample of N = 32 full papers that accounted for 35 theories in total.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Abstract
plainn = 32- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § 2. Method · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the majority of theories centered around a given cost-benefit calculation, with most favoring benefits over costs.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plainn = 32- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both calculation processes ultimately lead to paradoxical behavior eventually.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2.1. Approaches to the privacy paradox
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The risk-benefit calculation category can be further divided into (1a) a largely rational calculation of risks and benefits whereas benefits outweigh risks, and (1b) a calculation process but risk assessment is biased and benefits are prevalent as a result.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2.1. Approaches to the privacy paradox
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other cases, the risk-benefit assessment is not completely rationally calculated, rather subject to and influenced by factors such as time constraints, immediate gratification or optimistic bias.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3. Risk-benefit calculation guiding decision-making processes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of research into the privacy paradox considers general internet activities with a focus on e-commerce and social networking activities in particular.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 1.1. The privacy paradox
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These biases are often nonconscious but play a major part in the eventual decision-making.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2. Biased risk assessment within the risk-benefit calculation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, a decision is usually rapidly derived without an orderly subsequent analysis of the situation.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2. Biased risk assessment within the risk-benefit calculation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, heuristics can lead to biases and an approach that has been successful in the past is no guarantee that it will prove suitable in another situation.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, most studies have researched privacy as a stable concept (Xu et al., 2010) or used conventional polls that are not suitable for studying online privacy (Baek, 2014).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.6. Research limitations
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Xu et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baek, 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, heuristics hinder individuals from developing new ideas and alternative solutions.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Privacy concerns seem to be highly situation-dependent and can be described as a fluent concept that changes over time.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.6. Research limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The systematic literature brought three decision-making categories effecting information privacy to light.First, decisionmaking can be divided into either a rational calculation of risk and benefits, or an irrational risk-benefit calculation characterized by biased risk assessment.”
- Also stated in: § 4.1. Categories of decision making in the context of information privacy · plain
“The third category of decision-making describes processes in which negligible or no risk assessment takes place.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.1. Categories of decision making in the context of information privacy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 4.1. Categories of decision making in the context of information privacy · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Attitude and intention are not actual behavior and actual behavior is seldom measured in the studies.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.6. Research limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This observation has not been researched to date, despite the fact that this might play an inherent role in solving the privacy paradox problem.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.5. The special case of mobile computing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, research on this tendency is still scarce and should not be neglected when looking for solutions.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.5. The special case of mobile computing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“attempts to theoretically explain and practically solve the problem of the privacy paradox are still scarce”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, only full, peer-reviewed papers, peer-reviewed conference papers and published book-chapters were included.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Articles that dealt with privacy issues and concerns in general were not included.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An electronic database literature search was conducted in GoogleScholar, Scopus, IEEE, Web of Science and ACM.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk-benefit calculation plays a major role in the context of information privacy, known as the freedom to decide with whom, how and to what extent personal data is shared (Li et al., 2010).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Li et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“While users claim to be very concerned about their privacy, they nevertheless undertake very little to protect their personal data.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
“This discrepancy between the expressed concern and the actual behavior of users is a phenomenon known as the privacy paradox: users claim to be very concerned about their privacy but do very little to protect their personal data.”
- Also stated in: § 1.1. The privacy paradox · boosted
“Known as the privacy paradox, it is a documented fact that users have a tendency towards privacy-compromising behavior online which eventually results in a dichotomy between privacy attitudes and actual behavior (Acquisti, 2004;Barnes, 2006).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Abstract
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only the subject articles in which the phenomenon of privacy paradox was explicitly mentioned and discussed were considered eligible.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Hence, intention and actual behavior are positively influenced by expected benefits (e.g. using an app) but also negatively affected by associated costs (e.g.possible data usage by third parties) (Culnan and Armstrong, 1999).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Culnan and Armstrong, 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The cognitive style of decision-making during risk-benefit calculations is both analytical and conscious and can be described as 'logical, cause and effect, rule-based, hierarchical, sequential, process-oriented, slower to implement but quicker to change, high effort, oriented toward delayed action, conscious, and experienced actively with the individual aware of and in control of the process' (p.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Novak and Hoffman, 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, a manual search of reference lists was conducted to identify additional papers that may have been missed by the electronic database search.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Extraversion and agreeableness increased perceived benefits from the use of mobile applications, regardless of the cultural environment.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pentina et al., 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only articles that discussed the privacy paradox explicitly with the aid of a theory or theoretical concept were included in the final sample.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Quite often, the perceived benefits outweigh the perceived risks, which eventually leads to the neglecting of privacy concerns that often results in the disclosure of information in exchange for social or economic benefit (Privacy Calculus Theory; Culnan and Armstrong, 1999).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Culnan and Armstrong, 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The stronger the intention, the more likely it is that a person will engage in a certain behavior.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Here, the decision-making process is based on three beliefs: (1) valence (emotional attitude towards a particular outcome and the allure of receiving a reward); (2) expectancy (self-confidence to do s.th.); and (3) instrumentality (perception of the probability of gaining reward).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vroom, 1964
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thus, privacy concerns are considered but most individuals are unable to address them adequately (Phelan et al., 2016).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Phelan et al., 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the context of social networking sites, teenagers in particular operate under bounded rationality and risk assessment takes place according to personal experiences pertaining to privacy invasion and not hypothetically in advance (Jia et al., 2015).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jia et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The stronger such attitudes, perceived control and the compliance with social norms are, the more likely it is that an individual will engage in a certain behavior.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ajzen, 1985 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Based on a subjective belief system, an individual chooses a certain behavior over another because of the expected outcome of maximizing benefits while minimizing costs (Expectancy Theory; Vroom, 1964).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vroom, 1964
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The experiential processes are 'associative, emotional, low effort, rapid to implement but slow to change, parallel, immediate, outcome-oriented, holistic, preconscious and experienced passively with the process opaque to the individual' (p.57, Novak and Hoffman, 2008).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2. Biased risk assessment within the risk-benefit calculation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Novak and Hoffman, 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Individuals constantly try to rationally maximize benefits but decision-making can only be rational within the limits of cognitive ability and available time (Theory of Bounded Rationality; Simon, 1982).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Simon, 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Fundamentalists for example (those highly concerned about data sharing with third parties and unwilling to place ongoing trust in particular organizations) expressed higher privacy valuation than those with a more pragmatic stance (concerned about data-sharing practices but willing to engage in privacy calculus activities), or unconcerned individuals (willing to share data, also with third parties”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Motiwalla et al., 2014
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Intense intuitive concern may be overruled (but not reduced) by less intense concerns resulting from conscious consideration.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kahneman, 2003 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Privacy concerns did not have any influence on the adoption and use of mobile applications.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pentina et al., 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, from their subjective point of view, the decision process may well appear rational (Flender and Müller, 2012).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Flender and Müller, 2012 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Taking the intentional perspective of a given rational behavior into account, the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) states that an individual's behavioral intention depends on the attitude towards a certain behavior and the subjective norms.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985) takes this a step further as behavioral intention is influenced by existing attitudes about desired outcomes, social norms and the evaluation of the risk-benefit of that outcome (perceived behavioral control).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ajzen, 1985 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Actual control may be the missing variable that could explain the discrepancy between intention and behavior.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Also Sundar et al. (2013) found that privacy disclosure behavior in an online context is determined heuristically rather than systematically, which leads to a positive attitude towards information disclosure.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sundar et al., 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, being in a good mood lets people evaluate targets or situations as more positive than they may be.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schwarz, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We would argue that the technical processes underlying mobile computing exceed the comprehension of most users.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.3. Emergence of the privacy paradox is context-dependent
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Individuals tend to underestimate their own risk of privacy invasion while overestimating the chances that others will experience adverse events.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.2. Under-and/or overestimation of risks and benefits
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In reference to cognitive heuristics and mental shortcuts, Kehr et al. (2015) concluded that the privacy paradox may result from misleading situational cues which bias cognitive valuation processes (e.g.affective thinking) and the prevalence of situation-specific considerations as compared to generic attitudes (Extension to the Privacy Calculus Theory).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kehr et al., 2015 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Eventually, privacy disclosure intention is determined by situational cues even if dispositional attitudes regarding privacy behavior are different to intention.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kehr et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The study of Kehr et al. (2015) showed that privacy decisions are driven by situation-specific privacy assessment, general dispositions (i.e.general privacy concerns, institutional trust) and affect-based heuristics (quite often subconscious processes).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kehr et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Cues-Filtered-Out Theory (Sproull andKiesler, 1986, 1991) implies that individuals disclose more personal data in computermediated communication settings compared to face-to-face settings due to the absence of social and contextual cues leading to disclosure of information online despite general privacy concerns (Pötzsch et al., 2010).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sproull and Kiesler, 1986, 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pötzsch et al., 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Being in a positive mood positively influences privacy protection attitude, whereas being in a negative mood increases risk perception (Kehr et al., 2014).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kehr et al., 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Furthermore, judgments are based on feelings of ease or difficulty, as situation or targets that are easy to process are evaluated as more likely to be of less risk and more valuable.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schwarz, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Considering interpersonal relationships, social life is more than individual acts, yet it is determined by social forces such as traditions, institutions and moral codes.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“When considering emotional factors during decision-making processes, individuals rely upon their feelings (mood, meta-cognition, emotion and body sensation), which generally leads to accurate responses but not always (Feeling-as-Information Theory; Schwarz, 2011).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schwarz, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, such protection measures are not easily accessible while downloading and installing apps, suggesting that the majority of users do not possess the expertise nor the experience to engage in what would be considered appropriate protective behavior.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.3. Emergence of the privacy paradox is context-dependent
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Mental short-cuts allow individuals to come to decisions quickly while suppressing any urge to think about the next action (Cognitive Heuristics; Tversky and Kahneman, 1975).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tversky and Kahneman, 1975 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This makes it even harder to overcome the privacy paradox as the desire to own a particular app seems to outweigh potential risks all too often.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.5. The special case of mobile computing
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Furthermore, individuals tend to organize their use of mobile applications according to goal orientation, with users showing a higher susceptibility to accepting privacy and security intrusions (e.g. a banking app) when compared to less important applications (e.g. a gaming app) (Shklovski et al., 2014).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.5. The special case of mobile computing
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shklovski et al., 2014 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This situation, in combination with low transparency as it pertains to data usage by provider companies, eventually leads to misinformation and misinterpretation of how third parties will utilize users' information and data disclosure despite privacy concerns (Young and Quan-Haase, 2013).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.3.3. Knowledge deficiency due to incomplete information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Young and Quan-Haase, 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to Oetzel and Gonja (2011), the contradictory behavior of privacy protection occurs because privacy, as a concept, is not yet integrated into an individual's social representation.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.3.2. Privacy valuation failed
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Oetzel and Gonja (2011) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“By doing so, users become aware of the consequences of sharing information at a social privacy level but not at an institutional privacy level.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.3.3. Knowledge deficiency due to incomplete information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Young and Quan-Haase, 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This implies that users are lacking in privacy protection knowledge, at both the technological and legal levels; leading to misinterpretation of the likelihood of actual privacy violations and to inaccurate predictions of future hazards (Acquisti and Grossklags, 2005).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.3.3. Knowledge deficiency due to incomplete information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Acquisti and Grossklags, 2005 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Quinn (2016) found that habit (habit was identified as one out of nine uses and gratifications) probably inhibits engagement in privacy management tools on social networks, despite increased experience with social networking, which eventually leads to a disconnection between privacy concerns and behaviors.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.5. Habit
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Quinn (2016) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Self-presentation (impression management) is the process by which individuals try to control the impression the make on others.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Leary and Kowalski, 1990 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Rule-of-thumb strategies play an important role in decision”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tversky and Kahneman, 1975 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The privacy paradox may result from misleading situational cues which bias the cognitive valuation processes (e.g.affective thinking) and the prevalence of situation-specific considerations as compared to generic attitudes.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Culnan and Armstrong, 1999 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“But heuristics can lead to biases as something that has been applicable in the past, is not necessarily suitable in another situation.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tversky and Kahneman, 1975 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Users express a desire for transparency and information control but are not able to act according to their needs for privacy (Shklovski et al., 2014).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.5. The special case of mobile computing
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shklovski et al., 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Individuals feel indirect pressure to change their own behavior in order to conform to an admired peer group.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Crutchfield, 1955 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Individuals rely on their feelings (mood, meta-cognition, emotion and body sensation) in decision-making processes, often leading to accurate responses but sometimes not.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schwarz, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Users' participation in SNs consists of three phases: initial use, exploratory use and managed use.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hu and Ma, 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as decision-making in a mobile environment is subject to environmental and circumstantial factors different from those encountered during desktop computing”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“there are two explanations for the privacy paradox: Either individuals act on their intuitive concern without assessing the risks due to incomplete understanding of it (no considered concern takes place) or high considered concern may be overridden by low considered concern”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kahneman, 2003 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“System I is fast and automatic but is vulnerable to influences that inhibit the rational decision-making process (produces intuitive concern for instance), whereas System II is rational and responsible for reasoning (produces considered concern, for instance).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kahneman, 2003 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Behavior is a result of conscious choices with the purpose to maximize gain and minimize loss.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vroom, 1964
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Individuals have a tendency to underestimate the likelihood of experiencing adverse events.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Irwin, 1953 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Privacy is a dynamic process of interaction regulation with others.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Altman, 1975
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This explains partly the privacy paradox as people do not engage in protective behavior because they fail to value data protection adequately.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Meynhardt, 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Individuals do not process information in a rational way.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kahneman and Tversky, 1979 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The intention to disclose personal information is based on a rational risk-benefit calculation as perceived benefits are weighed against risk probability.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Culnan and Armstrong, 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no unilaterally accepted theory used to explain online behavior when it comes to information disclosure, nor is there a consensus on the mental processes users rely upon when deciding whether to disclose information or not.
“To our knowledge, there is not one unilaterally accepted theory used to explain the online behavior of users when it comes to information disclosure, nor is there a consensus on the mental processes users rely upon when deciding whether to disclose information or not.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Individuals recognize their needs and how to satisfy them.
“This assumes that individuals recognize their needs and how to satisfy them.”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Researchers have argued that the privacy paradox exists because privacy attitudes are often based on beliefs about privacy in general that do not correspond to attitudes toward privacy in specific circumstances (for reviews, see Barth & de Jong, 2017; Li, 2011).”
From Privacy Cynicism and its Role in Privacy Decision-Making (2024) · cites this paper as Barth & de Jong, 2017
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This seemingly paradoxical behavior can be explained by various psychological processes that take place during decision-making: (a) Users perform a risk-benefit calculation, guided by rationality, (b) they do show concerns but these concerns are overridden by factors such as desirability of the app, time constraints, or promised gratifications, or (c) they act on their intuition without assessing”
From Putting the privacy paradox to the test: Online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources (2019) · cites this paper as Barth and De Jong, 2017
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Research into online privacy shows that users are interested in privacy protection but that their privacy concerns rarely translate into actual behavior (Barth and De Jong, 2017;Joinson et al., 2010;Tsai et al., 2006).”
From Putting the privacy paradox to the test: Online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources (2019) · cites this paper as Barth and De Jong, 2017
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Several studies reported the privacy paradox in the context of SNSs and e-commerce (for reviews, see Barth and de Jong, 2017;Kokolakis, 2017).”
From The privacy and control paradoxes in the context of smartphone apps (2022) · cites this paper as Barth and de Jong, 2017
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,720 · cited 2×
“According to Prospect Theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979), decision-making processes take place in two stages.”
BackgroundTversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
(1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 25,810
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
(1984) · Cited by 21,166
From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I. (1985) · Action Control · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 · Cited by 19,057 · cited 4×
“The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985) takes this a step further as behavioral intention is influenced by existing attitudes about desired outcomes, social norms and the evaluation of the risk-benefit of that outcome (perceived behavioral control).”
BackgroundInfluentialA BEHAVIORAL MODEL OF RATIONAL CHOICE
Simon, H. A. (1955) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884852 · Cited by 15,877 · cited 3×
“Some have explained this paradoxical behavior from a rational perspective by arguing that users weigh the cost-benefit ratio of online information disclosure both consciously and rationally (Simon, 1955).”
BackgroundInfluential(1964) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,439
Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting
Laibson, D. (1997) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355397555253 · Cited by 6,122 · cited 2×
“Extended Two-Component Model of Self-Presentation Online (based on Leary and Kowalski, 1990) Self-presentation (impression management) is the process by which individuals try to control the impression the make on others.”
BackgroundMethod
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Citizens Versus the Internet: Confronting Digital Challenges With Cognitive Tools
Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2020) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100620946707 · Cited by 479
Willingness to provide personal information: Perspective of privacy calculus in IoT services
Kim, D., Park, K., Park, Y., & Ahn, J. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.022 · Cited by 314
Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims
Brundage, M., Avin, S., Wang, J., Belfield, H., Krueger, G., Hadfield, G., Khlaaf, H., Yang, J., Toner, H., Fong, R., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.07213 · Cited by 306
“, a concern for personal privacy) because other factors such as convenience and brand loyalty also play a role in influencing their behavior [127].”
BackgroundJozani, M., Ayaburi, E., Ko, M., & Choo, K.-K. R. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106260 · Cited by 303
Yi, J., Gao, Y., & Yoo, C. (2019) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102108 · Cited by 263
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 260
Self-citationGutiérrez, A., O’Leary, S., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Calle, T. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.015 · Cited by 213
Saura, J. R., Soriano, D. R., & Saldaña, P. E. Z. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.052 · Cited by 237
Digital Health Innovation: Exploring Adoption of COVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing Apps
Sharma, S., Singh, G., Sharma, R., Jones, P. K., Kraus, S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2020.3019033 · Cited by 185
“Barth and De Jong [11] found the decision-making process to be irrational with individuals giving minimal to no consideration to privacy risk factors.”
BackgroundConceptualization and operationalization: utility of communication privacy management theory
Petronio, S., & Child, J. T. (2019) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.009 · Cited by 235
“How can we make sense of the current status of privacy? Some researchers frame the notion of privacy as paradoxical [2] others use the concept of privacy calculus [3].”
BackgroundDo you mind if I ask you a personal question? How AI service agents alter consumer self-disclosure
Kim, T. W., Jiang, L., Duhachek, A., Lee, H., & Garvey, A. (2022) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/10946705221120232 · Cited by 177
“Also, research on the “ privacy paradox ” identi fi ed that individuals are highly concerned about data privacy whereas little effort is taken by consumers to protect the privacy of their personal data (Barth and De Jong 2017).”
BackgroundKozyreva, A., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Hertwig, R., Lewandowsky, S., & Herzog, S. M. (2021) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-021-00787-w · Cited by 191
“The inconsistency between people ’ s privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors has been coined the “ privacy paradox ” (e.g., Acquisti et al., 2015; Barth and de Jong, 2017; Kokolakis, 2017; Norberg et al., 2007; but see Dienlin and Trepte, 2015 and meta-analysis by Baruh et al., 2017).”
BackgroundResultUnderstanding the Strategic Consequences of Customer Privacy Concerns: A Meta-Analytic Review
Okazaki, S., Eisend, M., Plangger, K. A., de Ruyter, K., & Grewal, D. (2020) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2020.05.007 · Cited by 148
From concerns to benefits: A comprehensive study of ChatGPT usage in education
Jo, H. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00471-4 · Cited by 146
“The concept of privacy concern refers to an individual’s anxiety or worry about the potential misuse or improper handling of personal data (Barth & de Jong, 2017).”
BackgroundExplicating the privacy paradox: A qualitative inquiry of online shopping consumers
Bandara, R. J., Fernando, M., & Akter, S. (2019) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101947 · Cited by 150
Mousavi, R., Chen, R., Kim, D. J., & Chen, K. (2020) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2020.113323 · Cited by 156
Fox, G., Clohessy, T., van der Werff, L., Rosati, P., & Lynn, T. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106806 · Cited by 147
“…have investigated the privacy calculus as an antecedent to behavioral reactions in various domains including personal information disclosure online (Barth & De Jong, 2017; Choi, Wu, Yu, & Land, 2018), willingness to disclose personal information to the Internet of Things (IoT) devices (Kim et al.,…”
BackgroundA meta-analysis to explore privacy cognition and information disclosure of internet users
Yu, L., Li, H., He, W., Wang, F., & Jiao, S. (2019) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.09.011 · Cited by 136
Mazurek, G., & Małagocka, K. (2019) · Journal of Management Analytics · doi:10.1080/23270012.2019.1671243 · Cited by 143
Consumer Consent and Firm Targeting After GDPR: The Case of a Large Telecom Provider
de Matos, M. G., & Adjerid, I. (2021) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2021.4054 · Cited by 124
Information disclosure in e-commerce: A systematic review and agenda for future research
Kolotylo-Kulkarni, M., Xia, W., & Dhillon, G. S. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.006 · Cited by 124
How Data Protection Regulation Affects Startup Innovation
Martin, N., Matt, C., Niebel, C., & Blind, K. (2019) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-019-09974-2 · Cited by 118
Zimmermann, B. M., Fiske, A., Prainsack, B., Hangel, N., McLennan, S., & Buyx, A. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/25525 · Cited by 109
“Likewise, Barth and Jong [72] suggested that the privacy paradox, in which people share some information willingly but are reluctant to share information with others, was relying on risk-benefit assessment (see also [60]).”
BackgroundZhao, J., Wang, G., Dally, C., Slovák, P., Edbrooke-Childs, J. H., Kleek, M. G. V., & Shadbolt, N. (2019) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300336 · Cited by 141
“…with incentives put in place by apps and platforms to get people to share their data, have yielded the so-called ‘privacy paradox’, a behaviour studied in teenagers [14] and adults [11] alike, in which individuals act in ways contrary to their stated privacy preferences and concerns [37, 38, 62].”
BackgroundMombeuil, C. (2020) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102127 · Cited by 104
Consumers’ acceptance of domestic Internet-of-Things: The role of trust and privacy concerns
Jaspers, E. D. T., & Pearson, E. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.043 · Cited by 102
Privacy Concerns and Self-Disclosure in Private and Public Uses of Social Media
Gruzd, A., & Hernández-García, Á. (2018) · Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2017.0709 · Cited by 97
“In future work, we would like to examine how different types of heuristic rules and biases that users might have 27,50 may interact with the process of risk-benefit assessment when disclosing online.”
BackgroundMpinganjira, M., & Maduku, D. K. (2018) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.037 · Cited by 101
Ranzini, G., Newlands, G., & Lutz, C. (2020) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120978376 · Cited by 131
Cheng, X., Hou, T., & Mou, J. (2021) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2021.103450 · Cited by 96
Masur, P. K. (2020) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.v8i2.2855 · Cited by 108
“…(e.g., Baruh, Secinti, & Cemalcilar, 2017; Park, 2013), how privacy concerns relate to privacy protection behaviors (for overviews, see e.g., Barth & de Jong, 2017; Kokolakis, 2017), or how policies, laws, or regulations should be formulated in order to protect individuals’ privacy (e.g.,…”
BackgroundInvestigating individual privacy within CBDC: A privacy calculus perspective
Jabbar, A., Geebren, A., Hussain, Z., Dani, S., & Ul‐Durar, S. (2022) · Research in International Business and Finance · doi:10.1016/j.ribaf.2022.101826 · Cited by 101
Wagner, K., Nimmermann, F., & Schramm‐Klein, H. (2019) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2019.169 · Cited by 90
“Different to previous studies [4, 7, 20, 65] H7 is not supported as well.”
BackgroundResultKreps, S. E., George, J., Lushenko, P., & Rao, A. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288109 · Cited by 108
“Indeed, people may rely on AI-enabled technologies not so much because they trust these capabilities but because they perceive that the anticipated benefits [20] of adopting AI-enabled technologies will exceed the expected costs [21] of doing so.”
BackgroundThe privacy paradox and its implications for learning analytics
Tsai, Y., Whitelock‐Wainwright, A., & Gašević, D. (2020) · International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) · doi:10.1145/3375462.3375536 · Cited by 92
“Different from existing studies, this paper draws upon theories of privacy paradox and contextual integrity [2, 22, 24] to understand elements in risk-benefit assessments that students may undertake”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialChérif, E., Bezaz, N., & Mzoughi, M. (2021) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114146 · Cited by 88
Said, N., Potinteu, A. E., Brich, I. R., Buder, J., Schumm, H., & Huff, M. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107855 · Cited by 103
Mastering the challenge of balancing self-disclosure and privacy in social media
Krämer, N. C., & Schäwel, J. (2019) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.003 · Cited by 87
A longitudinal analysis of the privacy paradox
Dienlin, T., Masur, P. K., & Trepte, S. (2021) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448211016316 · Cited by 94
“There also exist several systematic literature105 reviews on the privacy paradox (Barth and Jong, 2017; Gerber et al., 2018; Kokolakis,106 2017).”
BackgroundHome IoT resistance: Extended privacy and vulnerability perspective
Lee, H. (2020) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2020.101377 · Cited by 86
How Artificial Intelligence Constrains the Human Experience
Valenzuela, A., Puntoni, S., Hoffman, D., Castelo, N., De Freitas, J., Dietvorst, B., Hildebrand, C., Huh, Y. E., Meyer, R., Sweeney, M. E., et al. (2024) · Journal of the Association for Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/730709 · Cited by 81
“As noted by Barth and de Jong (2017), among the numerous explanations offered for the privacy paradox, the most parsimonious is that it re fl ects a bias in the intuitive cost-bene fi t calculations people undertake when deciding whether to provide information online.”
BackgroundLewandowsky, S., Dennis, S. J., Perfors, A., Kashima, Y., White, J. P., Garrett, P. M., Little, D. R., & Yesilada, M. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245740 · Cited by 84
Kronemann, B., Kizgin, H., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023) · Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC · doi:10.1108/sjme-10-2022-0213 · Cited by 117
Urbonavičius, S., Degutis, M., Zimaitis, I., Kaduškevičiūtė, V., & Škare, V. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.031 · Cited by 85
Fernandes, T., & Pereira, N. (2021) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2021.101717 · Cited by 91
Gong, X., Zhang, K. Z. K., Chen, C., Cheung, C. M. K., & Lee, M. (2019) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-03-2018-0132 · Cited by 79
How much is privacy worth around the world and across platforms?
Prince, J. T., & Wallsten, S. (2022) · Journal of Economics & Management Strategy · doi:10.1111/jems.12481 · Cited by 80
Unfolding the privacy paradox among mobile social commerce users: a multi-mediation approach
Ooi, K., Hew, J.-J., & Lin, B. (2018) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2018.1465997 · Cited by 79
“As explained by Barth and de Jong (2017), privacy paradox refers to the discrepancy between privacy attitudes and actual behaviour, and they further illustrated an example in which users are willing to share their private information for retail values and personalised services although they are…”
BackgroundStill Creepy After All These Years:The Normalization of Affective Discomfort in App Use
Seberger, J. S., Shklovski, I., Swiatek, E., & Patil, S. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3502112 · Cited by 79
“In 2017, Barth and de Jong [13] identifed no fewer than thirteen ways of understanding or rationalizing the privacy paradox.”
BackgroundInfluentialPrivacy Cynicism and its Role in Privacy Decision-Making
van Ooijen, I., Segijn, C. M., & Opree, S. J. (2024) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/00936502211060984 · Cited by 81
“Researchers have argued that the privacy paradox exists because privacy attitudes are often based on beliefs about privacy in general that do not correspond to attitudes toward privacy in specific circumstances (for reviews, see Barth & de Jong, 2017; Li, 2011).”
BackgroundTseng, H., Ibrahim, F., Hajli, N., Nisar, T. M., & Shabbir, H. A. (2022) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121592 · Cited by 77
Gouthier, M. H. J., Nennstiel, C., Kern, N., & Wendel, L. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.034 · Cited by 91
Schroeder, T., Haug, M., & Gewald, H. (2022) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/28025 · Cited by 79
“More recently, a study by Barth and De Jong [40] focused on privacy-related human factors.”
BackgroundMcKee, K. M., Dahl, A. J., & Peltier, J. W. (2024) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.2199 · Cited by 75
“In particular, we contribute to the literature by highlighting the internal cognitive tensions influencing consumers' attitudes and behavioral intentions related to brands and their marketing efforts (Barth & de Jong, 2017; Lee & Rha, 2016).”
InfluentialGutiérrez, A., Punjaisri, K., Desai, B., Alwi, S. F. S., O’Leary, S., Chaiyasoonthorn, W., & Chaveesuk, S. (2023) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103272 · Cited by 100
Youn, S., & Shin, W. (2019) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2019.02.001 · Cited by 74
Desimpelaere, L., Hudders, L., & de Sompel, D. V. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106382 · Cited by 75
Data Protection in AI Services
Meurisch, C., & Mühlhäuser, M. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3440754 · Cited by 88
“most convincing of them is probably the privacy calculus: Users decide whether to disclose personal data on the basis of a risk-benefit calculation, in which the benefits are ultimately preferred to the risks [15].”
BackgroundData Privacy in Retail: Navigating Tensions and Directing Future Research
Martin, K. D., & Palmatier, R. W. (2020) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2020.10.002 · Cited by 75
Griggio, C. F., Nouwens, M., & Klokmose, C. N. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3502032 · Cited by 83
“While users generally express that privacy concerns are extremely important to them [4], in reality they often make pragmatic choices based on risk-beneft intuitions [49, 63], resulting in a discrepancy between users’ ideal privacy and security preferences and their behavior when choosing and using digital technologie…”
BackgroundUser self-disclosure on social network sites: A cross-cultural study on Facebook’s privacy concepts
Oghazi, P., Schultheiss, R., Chirumalla, K., Kalmer, N. P., & Rad, F. F. (2019) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.006 · Cited by 78
Breaking the Privacy Paradox: The Value of Privacy and Associated Duty of Firms
Martin, K. E. (2019) · Business Ethics Quarterly · doi:10.1017/beq.2019.24 · Cited by 69
“Importantly, the researchers equate the disclosure of information to “pri-vacy compromising behavior” (Barth and de Jong 2017) in validating the privacy paradox.”
Li, P., Cho, H., & Goh, Z. H. (2019) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2019.04.006 · Cited by 70
Exploring User Expectations of Proactive AI Systems
Meurisch, C., Mihale-Wilson, C., Hawlitschek, A., Giger, F., Müller, F., Hinz, O. F., & Mühlhäuser, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3432193 · Cited by 74
“Such incentives are potentially more likely to motivate people to participate in such a ‘time-consuming’ study, install the study tool on their personal device, and provide their data (consistent with the privacy paradox [6]).”
BackgroundLünich, M. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-36368-0 · Cited by 68
Role played by social factors and privacy concerns in autonomous vehicle adoption
Ljubi, K., & Groznik, A. (2022) · Transport Policy · doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.12.013 · Cited by 70
Information privacy concerns and demographic characteristics: Data from a Korean media panel survey
Lee, H., Wong, S. F., Oh, J., & Chang, Y. (2019) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.002 · Cited by 74
The chilling effects of algorithmic profiling: Mapping the issues
Büchi, M., Fosch-Villaronga, E., Lutz, C., Tamò-Larrieux, A., Velidi, S., & Viljoen, S. (2020) · Computer Law & Security Review · doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105367 · Cited by 97
Garz, S., Xavier Giné, A., Karlan, D., Mazer, R., Sanford, C., & Zinman, J. (2020) · Annual Review of Financial Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-financial-071020-012008 · Cited by 77
Rodríguez-Priego, N., Porcu, L., Prados‐Peña, M. B., & Almendros, E. C. (2023) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103284 · Cited by 79
Leitão, R. (2019) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/07370024.2019.1685883 · Cited by 72
“Previous work has shown that private versus public boundaries on social media are unclear to users (Barth & de Jong, 2017; Yu et al., 2018), who may be sharing information more widely than expected (Barnes, 2006; Mondal, Messias, Ghosh, Gummadi, & Kate, 2017).”
BackgroundThemes and Research Directions in Privacy-Sensitive Robotics
Rueben, M., Aroyo, A. M., Lutz, C., Schmölz, J., Cleynenbreugel, P. V., Corti, A., Agrawal, S., & Smart, W. D. (2018) · IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (ARSO) · doi:10.1109/arso.2018.8625758 · Cited by 63
“sciences [50][51][52] and more particularly in communication and information systems [53].”
BackgroundAlraja, M. N. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121256 · Cited by 70
The Philosophy of Online Manipulation
Jongepier, F., & Klenk, M. (2022) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003205425 · Cited by 75
Privacy concern and its consequences: A meta-analysis
Kim, Y., Kim, S. H., Peterson, R. A., & Choi, J. (2023) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122789 · Cited by 78
Merits and Pitfalls of Social Media as a Platform for Recruitment of Study Participants
Oudat, Q., & Bakas, T. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/47705 · Cited by 62
“Several studies have indicated that many participants shy away from entering any personal information onto social media sites out of concern that their information may be leaked to third parties and misused [19].”
The Privacy Paradox by Proxy: Considering Predictors of Sharenting
Bhroin, N. N., Dinh, T., Thiel, K., Lampert, C., Staksrud, E., & Ólafsson, K. (2022) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.v10i1.4858 · Cited by 65
“Previous research on the privacy paradox has typically focused on individual motivations, concerns, and practices imple‐ mented to manage privacy (Barth & de Jong, 2017; Harigattai & Marwick, 2016).”
BackgroundAlashoor, T., Keil, M., Smith, H. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2022) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2022.1182 · Cited by 73
Privacy Protection in Tourism: Where We Are and Where We Should Be Heading For
Tussyadiah, I. P., Li, S., & Miller, G. A. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-05940-8_22 · Cited by 65
Personal information management systems: a user-centric privacy utopia?
Janssen, H., Cobbe, J., & Singh, J. P. (2020) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2020.4.1536 · Cited by 65
Discerning the effect of privacy information transparency on privacy fatigue in e-government
Agozie, D. Q., & Kaya, T. (2021) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2021.101601 · Cited by 58
Critical roles of knowledge and motivation in privacy research
Brough, A. R., & Martin, K. D. (2019) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.021 · Cited by 66
Fox, G. (2020) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24369 · Cited by 63
Iftikhar, A., Shiraz, M., Hayat, B., Idrees, M., Sajid, A., Ullah, R., Ayub, N., & Kim, K. (2021) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics10151811 · Cited by 56
“Likewise, there is a need for a validation tool to check that the policy created in the standard language correctly reflects the policy creator’s intentions (i.e., that the policy language is semantically equivalent to the users’ intentions) [83].”
BackgroundInfluentialMofokeng, T. E. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16182 · Cited by 119
“This result fails to support e-commerce literature [8,117] that shows a negative significant influence of PC on CT [82,118]. confirmed that consumers who have greater concerns about and valuation of privacy place greater emphasis on privacy violations in forming trust beliefs [119]. showed that…”
ResultDigital Contact Tracing for Pandemic Response
Kahn, J. P. (2020) · Johns Hopkins University Press eBooks · doi:10.1353/book.75831 · Cited by 56
A review on visual privacy preservation techniques for active and assisted living
Ravi, S., Climent-Pérez, P., & Flórez‐Revuelta, F. (2023) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-023-15775-2 · Cited by 66
Virtual influencers and data privacy: Introducing the multi-privacy paradox
Liyanaarachchi, G., Mifsud, M., & Viglia, G. (2024) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114584 · Cited by 64
Privacy is the Boring Bit: User Perceptions and Behaviour in the Internet-of-Things
Williams, M., Nurse, J. R. C., & Creese, S. (2017) · 2017 15th Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST) · doi:10.1109/pst.2017.00029 · Cited by 53
“In a 2017 review, Barth and Jong [18] also concluded that irrationality is present.”
BackgroundPrivacy Perception when Using Smartphone Applications
Furini, M., Mirri, S., Montangero, M., & Prandi, C. (2020) · Mobile Networks and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11036-020-01529-z · Cited by 53
Uses and gratifications of photo sharing on Instagram
Menon, D. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102917 · Cited by 52
Cooper, D. A., Yalcin, T., Nistor, C., Macrini, M., & Pehlivan, E. (2021) · Journal of Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1108/jcm-04-2021-4577 · Cited by 57
Ostendorf, S., Müller, S. M., & Brand, M. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.543388 · Cited by 63
“However, individuals still seem to protect their personal information deficiently by ignoring potential long-term risks or underestimating their likelihood of occurrence (e.g., Debatin et al., 2009; Aivazpour et al., 2017; Barth and de Jong, 2017; Díaz Ferreyra et al., 2019).”
BackgroundThe effects of different personal data categories on information privacy concern and disclosure
Chua, H. N., Ooi, J. S., & Herbland, A. (2021) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2021.102453 · Cited by 55
Shen, N., Sequeira, L., Silver, M. P., Carter-Langford, A., Strauss, J., & Wiljer, D. (2019) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/13306 · Cited by 52
“Receiving the best care possible may also supersede the need for their personal risk assessment [72].”
The impact of telematics on the insurability of risks
Eling, M., & Kraft, M. (2020) · The Journal of Risk Finance · doi:10.1108/jrf-07-2019-0129 · Cited by 60
Youth Trust in Social Media Companies and Expectations of Justice
Schoenebeck, S. Y., Scott, C. F., Hurley, E. G., Chang, T., & Selkie, E. M. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449076 · Cited by 50
“It may also reflect a version of the privacy paradox, where people express dissatisfaction with technology practices, but still choose to use those technologies for a variety of reasons [3].”
BackgroundCynicism as strength: Privacy cynicism, satisfaction and trust among social media users
Khan, M. I., Loh, J. M. I., Hossain, A., & Talukder, M. J. H. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107638 · Cited by 49
Driving Factors of Generative AI Adoption in New Product Development Teams from a UTAUT Perspective
Xia, Y., & Chen, Y. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2375686 · Cited by 58
“Users compare the risks and benefits to decide whether to adopt GenAI (Barth & de Jong, 2017; Kehr et al., 2014).”
O’Connell, J., Abbas, M., Beecham, S., Buckley, J., Chochlov, M., Fitzgerald, B. F., Glynn, L. G., Johnson, K., Laffey, J. G., McNicholas, B., et al. (2021) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/27753 · Cited by 49
“The outcome of the literature search shown in Figure 1 and Multimedia Appendix 5 [14-17,22,23,25,26,32,34,37, 38,40-42,44,47-173] contains a description of the included studies and their source (indexed literature search, gray literature, references search).”
BackgroundResult
Metadata
- Authors
- Barth, S., & de Jong, M. D. T.
- Affiliations
- University of Twente (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Barth, Susanne
- ORCID
- Barth, Susanne
- Venue
- Telematics and Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-11
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1038-1058
- ISSN
- 0736-5853 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2609588687
- Semantic Scholar
- 42b1fa77452e085c3b7c0564b907d3f8e21cf7e2
- Cited by
- 798
- References
- 109
- Citations by year
- 2026: 94 · 2025: 128 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 107 · 2022: 105 · 2021: 103 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 61 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 20.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Telematics and Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- NWO (628.001.011)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › User Authentication and Security Systems
- Keywords
- privacy paradox, privacy concerns, online behavior, privacy preservation, personal information disclosure, risk-benefit assessment, risk assessment, privacy decision-making, mobile computing, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-19, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-19 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
