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
10 of 90 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged · 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- 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)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 35Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe 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
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- 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)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 32Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 32Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 797
Privacy Barriers in Health Monitoring: Scoping Review
Sun, L., Yang, B., Kindt, E. J., & Chu, J. (2024) · JMIR Nursing · doi:10.2196/53592 · Cited by 20
“But there can also be positive effects if researchers use a patient’s or an older adult’s motivation to mitigate the dissonance to change their behaviors [105].”
BackgroundAlkhalifah, A., & Bukar, U. A. (2022) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.847184 · Cited by 17
“Instead, external pressures such as time restrictions, quick gratification, or optimistic bias impact on the decision, leading to acceptance of the advantages while ignoring the risks (66, 67).”
BackgroundRevealing Cumulative Risks in Online Personal Information: A Data Narrative Study
Nicol, E., Briggs, J., Moncur, W., Htait, A., Carey, D., Azzopardi, L. A., & Schäfer, B. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555214 · Cited by 17
“In line with the literature, four participants expressed a lack of agency, overwhelm or resignation [10, 38], or feeling unable to manage and where necessary remove information [59].”
BackgroundGeneral data protection regulation: a study on attitude and emotional empowerment
Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., RANA, O. F., & Ranjan, R. K. (2023) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2023.2285341 · Cited by 22
“Cost-bene fi t analysis underpins privacy-compliant and privacy-com-promising behaviour (Barth and de Jong 2017; Carrascal et al. 2013; Hann et al. 2007; Huberman, Adar, and Fine 2005; Kokolakis 2017).”
'Phone apps know a lot about you!'
Yap, C. E. L., & Lee, J.-J. (2020) · ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC) · doi:10.1145/3392063.3394420 · Cited by 22
“The high cognitive effort needed for one to make a rational decision about informational privacy, and the lure of immediate gratifications of seemingly “free” online services cause individuals to make biased risk assessments in privacy disclosure [5].”
BackgroundPersonal Information Management Systems: A User-Centric Privacy Utopia?Preprint
Janssen, H., Cobbe, J., & Singh, J. P. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3779655 · Cited by 17
Li, H., Liu, Y., Guo, Q., Shi, M., Zhang, P., & Kim, S. B. (2025) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems13040275 · Cited by 19
Tauro, D., Panniello, U., & Pellegrino, R. (2021) · The International Journal on Media Management · doi:10.1080/14241277.2021.1960532 · Cited by 24
“This trade-off between personalization benefits and privacy concerns is known as the personalization-privacy paradox, driven by users having the opportunity to share personal information in exchange for personalized services (Barth & De Jong, 2017; Sutanto, Palme, Tan, & Pang, 2013).”
BackgroundCao, J., Abhinaya, S. B., Das, A., & Emami-Naeini, P. (2024) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp54263.2024.00222 · Cited by 17
“P1 showed a state of mind that is inconsistent with his VR parenting practice, demonstrating privacy paradox [92], [93].”
BackgroundRózsa, Z., Ferenčáková, L., Zàmek, D., & Firstová, J. (2024) · Oeconomia Copernicana · doi:10.24136/oc.2956 · Cited by 26
Self-Assessment of Driving Style and the Willingness to Share Personal Information
Pugnetti, C., & Elmer, S. (2020) · Journal of risk and financial management · doi:10.3390/jrfm13030053 · Cited by 16
The evolutionary and disruptive potential of Industrie 4.0
Winter, J. (2020) · Hungarian Geographical Bulletin · doi:10.15201/hungeobull.69.2.1 · Cited by 18
A proxy for privacy uncovering the surveillance ecology of mobile apps
Lai, S. S., & Flensburg, S. (2020) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951720942543 · Cited by 20
“Other studies have focused on regular people’s understandings and strategies towards protecting their personal data and have for instance identified a disconnect between people’s concerns and their actual behaviour (commonly referred to as the privacy paradox (Barth and de Jong, 2017)).”
BackgroundChilling effects and the stock market response to the Snowden revelations
Rosso, M., Nasir, A., & Farhadloo, M. (2020) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444820924619 · Cited by 15
“In surveying four of the largest reviews of the recent privacy literature (Barth and De Jong, 2017; Bélanger and Crossler, 2011; Kokolakis, 2017; Smith et al., 2011), one notices that research specifically on government surveillance makes up a small portion of the total.”
BackgroundLavie, D., Pollicino, O., & Valletti, T. (2025) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2023.0421 · Cited by 15
Data Privacy and Smart Home Energy Appliances: A Stated Choice Experiment
Du, H., Han, Q., Yang, D., de Vries, B., & van Houten, T. (2022) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21448 · Cited by 14
“Utility maximization suggests that an individual makes a risk-benefit analysis where the negative consequences are rationally weighed against outcomes, and people aim to minimize information disclosure risks and maximize potential benefits [10].”
BackgroundEmpowering Users Regarding the Sensitivity of their Data in Social Networks through Nudge Mechanisms
Alemany, J., del Val, E., & García‐Fornes, A. (2020) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2020.310 · Cited by 15
“Although users state that they are concerned about their privacy [5, 6], there are works that highlight the difference between users’ attitude and their actual behavior towards privacy [7, 8].”
BackgroundŠťastný, V., Chvál, M., & Walterová, E. (2021) · International Journal of Educational Development · doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102351 · Cited by 15
Desimpelaere, L., Hudders, L., & de Sompel, D. V. (2021) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2021.101602 · Cited by 15
Serrano, M. J. H., Arellano, P. R., Ortuño, R. A. C., & Larrea, B. G. (2021) · Revista Latina de Comunicación Social · doi:10.4185/rlcs-2021-1528 · Cited by 16
Personal data concern, behavioral puzzle and uncertainty in the age of digital surveillance
Park, Y. J. (2021) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2021.101748 · Cited by 15
Krpan, D., & Urbaník, M. (2021) · Behavioural Public Policy · doi:10.1017/bpp.2021.40 · Cited by 16
Digital natives aren’t concerned much about privacy, or are they?
Maier, E., Doerk, M., Reimer, U., & Baldauf, M. (2023) · i-com · doi:10.1515/icom-2022-0041 · Cited by 17
“This contradiction has been extensively discussed by other researchers such as Solove [6], Winegar and Sunstein [40] and Barth and De Jong [7].”
BackgroundMethodAvuglah, B. K., Owusu-Ansah, C. M., Tachie‐Donkor, G., et al. (2020) · College & Research Libraries · doi:10.5860/crl.81.6.997 · Cited by 14
Design Evolution of a Tool for Privacy and Security Protection for Activists Online: Cyberactivist
Tadic, B., Rohde, M., Randall, D. W., & Wulf, V. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2041894 · Cited by 14
“This paper recognizes the growing importance of data privacy and cyber security in the context of ICT and social media, and identifies a mismatch between overall concerns and actual behavior (cf. the “ privacy paradox, ” described by Barth & De Jong, 2017) as highlighted by the data collected from our interviews (Tadi…”
BackgroundLaban, G., & Araujo, T. (2022) · International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (HAI) · doi:10.1145/3527188.3561929 · Cited by 14
“, [8, 10, 13, 35, 43]) that addressed online marketing procedures under the frameworks of social exchange theory [40] and privacy paradox [7], where users evaluate an exchange based on cost and reward cues [29, 40, 54–56].”
Sharenting in Digital Society: Exploring the Prospects of an Emerging Moral Panic
Ugwudike, P., Lavorgna, A., & Tartari, M. (2023) · Deviant Behavior · doi:10.1080/01639625.2023.2254446 · Cited by 14
“…the agency of sharenters but recognize that depicting parents as willful privacy violators motivated to exercise their agency purely by self-interest, reductively ignores other explanations, e.g., connecting with family and friends (Brosch 2018), and the “privacy paradox” (Barth and De Jong 2017).”
BackgroundConsumer privacy decision-making in digital era: an integrative review and taxonomy
Sun, Z., Pan, G., Yang, R., Zang, G., & Zhou, J. (2024) · Aslib Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1108/ajim-12-2023-0526 · Cited by 14
Vitale, F. M., Chen, J., Odom, W., & McGrenere, J. (2020) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3357236.3395457 · Cited by 19
“Boundaries appear in studies on data management [75, 93–95, 101], collaboration [96, 98], communication [19,20,69], privacy [3,6,77,78], and personal possessions (both physical [8,22,31,88] and digital [61,62,73,100]).”
BackgroundZhou, C., Li, K., & Teng, C. (2021) · Aslib Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1108/ajim-04-2021-0121 · Cited by 14
A Taxonomy of user-perceived privacy risks to foster accountability of data-based services
Jakobi, T., von Grafenstein, M., Smieskol, P., & Stevens, G. (2022) · Journal of Responsible Technology · doi:10.1016/j.jrt.2022.100029 · Cited by 18
Eilat, R., Eliaz, K., & Mu, X. (2021) · Theoretical Economics · doi:10.3982/te4390 · Cited by 15
“Equation (16) yields that xi can take at most two values x and x, with x x̂ x.”
BackgroundInfluentialSun, Z., Zang, G., Wang, Z., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1109093 · Cited by 14
“This is consistent with the findings of Barth and De Jong (17).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialMohan, S., & Jenkins, J. (2025) · Oxford Open Digital Health · doi:10.1093/oodh/oqaf011 · Cited by 17
“Barth and de Jong [51] state that this contrasting behaviour can be explained by theprivacy paradox phenomenon,whereusers value the technology’s popularity and usability over the risk of personal data abuse.”
Online Student Privacy in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of the Research
Kularski, C. M., & Martin, F. (2021) · American Journal of Distance Education · doi:10.1080/08923647.2021.1978784 · Cited by 13
“They categorized the articles and identified theoretical frameworks into rational risk-benefit-calculations, biased risk-benefit calculations and negligible risk consideration categories (Barth & de Jong, 2017).”
BackgroundInfluential'Surprised, Shocked, Worried'}: User Reactions to Facebook Data Collection from Third Parties
Arias-Cabarcos, P., Khalili, S., & Strufe, T. (2023) · Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies · doi:10.56553/popets-2023-0023 · Cited by 20
Inference with non-probability samples and survey data integration: a science mapping study
Salvatore, C. (2023) · METRON · doi:10.1007/s40300-023-00243-6 · Cited by 13
“It is still a niche theme, and few authors discuss the privacy paradox, which refers to the discrepancy between what respondents claim and their actual behavior with regard to online behavior and personal data protection [9].”
BackgroundThe Role of Privacy Obstacles in Privacy Paradox: A System Dynamics Analysis
Arzoglou, E., Kortesniemi, Y., Ruutu, S., & Elo, T. (2023) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems11040205 · Cited by 23
“…last couple of decades, privacy researchers have provided several possible explanations for the privacy paradox, focusing mainly on people’s (in)ability to evaluate the potential benefits and costs of privacy decisions, which are affected by heuristics, cognitive biases, and social factors [11–13].”
BackgroundLiao, J., & Li, R. (2023) · Journal of Innovation & Knowledge · doi:10.1016/j.jik.2023.100427 · Cited by 13
Study on the Behavioral Motives of Algorithmic Avoidance in Intelligent Recommendation Systems
Cheng, X. Y., & Peng, G. (2024) · Journal of Global Information Management · doi:10.4018/jgim.352857 · Cited by 18
Karpiuk, M., Melchior, C., & Kaczmarek, K. (2024) · PRAWO i WIĘŹ · doi:10.36128/priw.vi50.907 · Cited by 19
Stević, A., Schmuck, D., Koemets, A., Hirsch, M., Karsay, K., Thomas, M. F., & Matthes, J. (2021) · Communications · doi:10.1515/commun-2020-0037 · Cited by 16
“However, a systematic review concluded that users often do not behave according to their views on privacy (Barth and de Jong, 2017).”
BackgroundChildren designing privacy warnings: Informing a set of design guidelines
Dempsey, J., Sim, G., Cassidy, B., & Ta, V.-T. (2021) · International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100446 · Cited by 13
Leveraging privacy profiles to empower users in the digital society
Ruscio, D. D., Inverardi, P., Migliarini, P., et al. (2024) · Automated Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10515-024-00415-2 · Cited by 13
“• By means of an empirical evaluation, we show that self-assessment about privacy attitudes given by users does not reflect the way they act in practice.”
Wadle, L.-M., Martin, N., & Ziegler, D. (2019) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3314183.3323672 · Cited by 14
Mordini, E. (2018) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2017.1409840 · Cited by 13
de Chaves, S. A., & Benitti, F. B. V. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3715903 · Cited by 15
Lai, S. S., & Flensburg, S. (2020) · MedieKultur Journal of media and communication research · doi:10.7146/mediekultur.v36i69.121018 · Cited by 12
Holdren, J., Surkan, K. J., & Downing, A. (2023) · Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · doi:10.17294/2330-0698.1968 · Cited by 12
Mustafa, M., Asad, A. M., Hassan, S., Haider, U., Durrani, Z., & Krombholz, K. (2023) · ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) · doi:10.1145/3576915.3623087 · Cited by 12
“It was important to understand the incentive participants had to use social media in order to address the conditions which lead to the creation of the privacy paradox [8].”
BackgroundYang, M., Feng, L., Zhou, H., Chen, S., Lim, M. K., & Tseng, M. (2024) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/imds-09-2023-0623 · Cited by 12
Khatri, B., Singh, R. K., Arora, S., Khan, S. A., & Naim, A. (2024) · Advances in logistics, operations, and management science book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-0669-7.ch008 · Cited by 12
Learning Personalized Privacy Preference from Public Data
Wang, W., & Li, B. (2024) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2023.0318 · Cited by 12
“Prior literature has documented that life activities and habits such as habitual pastimes of relaxing and entertainment and shopping habits are likely to be related to privacy decisions (Phelps et al. 2000, Quinn 2016, Barth and De Jong 2017).”
BackgroundNational Identity and the Limits of Platform Power in the Global Economy
Girard, T. (2024) · International Studies Quarterly · doi:10.1093/isq/sqae090 · Cited by 13
Virtue Ethics as a Solution to the Privacy Paradox and Trust in Emerging Technologies
Bilal, A., Wingreen, S. C., & Sharma, R. (2020) · International Conference on Information Science and Systems (ICISS) · doi:10.1145/3388176.3388196 · Cited by 12
“Barth & De Jong [6] recommended, after conducting an in-depth literature review on the privacy paradox, that it is time to focus on unconscious decision-making along with rational conscious decision-making, to further understand the theoretical underpinnings and the other hidden elements behind the…”
BackgroundInfluentialPredicting smartphone location-sharing decisions through self-reflection on past privacy behavior
Wiśniewski, P., Safi, M. I., Patil, S., et al. (2020) · Journal of Cybersecurity · doi:10.1093/cybsec/tyaa014 · Cited by 12
“This widely acknowledged “privacy paradox” [5, 6] has made it difficult to predict user behavior based on stated privacy preferences.”
BackgroundSoK: Managing Longitudinal Privacy of Publicly Shared Personal Online Data
Schnitzler, T., Mirza, S., Dürmuth, M., & Pöpper, C. (2020) · Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies · doi:10.2478/popets-2021-0013 · Cited by 12
“Recent research on the privacy paradox has revealed discrepancies between users’ preferences and their actual behavior [8, 23, 98].”
BackgroundModeling the hidden mediating relationships between SNS privacy and SNS impression construction
Gadgil, G., Prybutok, G. T., Peak, D. A., & Prybutok, V. R. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106941 · Cited by 13
Ostendorf, S., & Brand, M. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.996512 · Cited by 15
Awareness of Indirect Information Disclosure on Social Network Sites
Padyab, A. M., Päivärinta, T., Ståhlbröst, A., & Bergvall‐Kåreborn, B. (2019) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305118824199 · Cited by 14
“One factor that leads to the privacy paradox is the users’ lack of awareness of possibilities to protect their privacy due to incomplete information about how institutions use or misuse their information (Barth & de Jong, 2017; Raynes-Goldie, 2010).”
BackgroundThe Privacy Paradox of Utilizing the Internet of Things and Wi-Fi Tracking in Smart Cities
ten Berg, K., Spil, T. A. M., & Effing, R. (2019) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20671-0_25 · Cited by 12
“The study of Barth and de Jong (2017) described the same constructs and added some more like; Awareness.”
InfluentialGovernment and corporate surveillance: moral discourse on privacy in the civil sphere
Connor, B. T., & Doan, L. (2019) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2019.1629693 · Cited by 14
Barev, T. J., Schwede, M., & Janson, A. (2021) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2021.500 · Cited by 13
“, by disclosing personal information [5].”
BackgroundInfluentialINFLUENCE OF TRUST AND CONSPIRACY BELIEFS ON THE DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL DATA ONLINE
Zimaitis, I., Urbonavičius, S., Degutis, M., & Kaduškevičiūtė, V. (2022) · Journal of Business Economics and Management · doi:10.3846/jbem.2022.16119 · Cited by 11
Franzen, D., Müller-Birn, C., & Wegwarth, O. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637309 · Cited by 13
Frangopoulou, M. S., van der Laan, L. N., & Ebbers, W. E. (2024) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102616 · Cited by 12
Sharing images of children on social media: British motherhood influencers and the privacy paradox
Baxter, K., & Czarnecka, B. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0314472 · Cited by 16
Μαγρίζος, Σ., Campora, M., Lamprinakos, G., Giovanis, A. N., & Christofi, M. (2025) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2025.2520594 · Cited by 11
“Hence, the understanding and risk concerns of privacy policies are still insufficient motives to proactively conduct measures to protect personal privacy resulting in a paradox (Barth and de Jong 2017).”
Motivators and Demotivators of Consumers' Smart Voice Assistant Usage for Online Shopping
Gelibolu, M., & Mouloudj, K. (2025) · Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.3390/jtaer20030152 · Cited by 6
“Furthermore, the study contributes to the literature on the privacy paradox [91,92] and privacy resignation [50,51], two key concepts explaining why individuals continue to engage with digital platforms despite harboring privacy concerns.”
Srivastava, D. K., & Roychoudhury, B. (2021) · Journal of Global Information Technology Management · doi:10.1080/1097198x.2021.1954416 · Cited by 13
“While users claim to be very concerned about their privacy, they, however, undertake very little effort to protect their personal data (Barth & De Jong, 2017; Kokolakis, 2017; Wu, 2019).”
BackgroundLow on trust, high on use: Datafied media, trust and everyday life
Mathieu, D., & Hartley, J. M. (2021) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517211059480 · Cited by 11
“This finding can be compared with the privacy paradox (Barth and de Jong, 2017), which shows that, despite being concerned with their privacy, citizens do little to protect themselves about privacy breaches and risks.”
ResultDimodugno, M., Hallman, S., Plaisent, M., & Bernard, P. (2021) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2090/1/012017 · Cited by 14
“Personal information is vital for e-commerce companies because it allows them to use big data analysis and uncover customers' shopping behavior [13, 14, 15].”
BackgroundPrivacy paradox resolution in mHealth: the moderating effect of rationality degree
Zhu, G. F., Li, F., Yan, Y., & Guenis, H. (2023) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-03-2023-0119 · Cited by 11
Privacy perception and user behavior in the mobile ecosystem
Furini, M., Mirri, S., Montangero, M., et al. (2019) · EAI International Conference on Smart Objects and Technologies for Social Good (GOODTECHS) · doi:10.1145/3342428.3342690 · Cited by 11
“This is in line with what is called the privacy paradox, a term used to indicate discrepancies between user attitude and their actual behavior, well-studied in online profiling systems and social media contexts (e.g., [7]).”
BackgroundGhosh, C., & Eastin, M. S. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50309-3_25 · Cited by 11
Avoiding the Privacy Paradox Using Preference-Based Segmentation: A Conjoint Analysis Approach
Kuzmanović, M., & Savic, G. (2020) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics9091382 · Cited by 11
“Providing a detailed review of studies related to the gap between the stated privacy concerns and actual online behavior, Barth and de Jong [12] conclude that the privacy paradox deserves far more research attention.”
BackgroundUmbach, R., Singh, A., & Walker, A. M. (2023) · Journal of Online Trust and Safety · doi:10.54501/jots.v2i1.114 · Cited by 12
Dimitrovski, D., Joukes, V., & Scott, N. (2024) · Journal of Sustainable Tourism · doi:10.1080/09669582.2024.2309202 · Cited by 10
“Over the years numerous authors have interpreted this theory in different contexts, such as housing and society (Sandstedt & Westin, 2015), informatics (barth & De Jong, 2017), and tourism (Nilsson, 2007).”
Where you go is who you are: a study on machine learning based semantic privacy attacks
Wiedemann, N., Janowicz, K., Raubal, M., & Kounadi, O. (2024) · Journal Of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-024-00888-8 · Cited by 12
“Even though awareness for (location) privacy has increased in recent years [2], this is oftentimes not reflected in user behavior, which has been termed the “privacy paradox” [7, 68].”
BackgroundTudoran, A. A. (2024) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-01-2023-0029 · Cited by 12
A dimensionalised privacy behaviour model: an empirical test of a conceptual proposition
Epstein, D., & Quinn, K. (2025) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2443523 · Cited by 12
“As such, the context of social media facilitates excessive personal information sharing despite privacy concerns (Barth and de Jong 2017; Baruh, Secinti, and Cemalcilar 2017), and often in the absence of knowledge on how such information will be used.”
Cao, B., & Wen, C. (2025) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2025.102263 · Cited by 12
Li, S., Yang, Y., Han, C., Sun, Y., Attar, R. W., & Gupta, B. B. (2025) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2025.102951 · Cited by 12
Arora, S., & Bawa, A. (2021) · Journal of Internet Commerce · doi:10.1080/15332861.2021.1947741 · Cited by 11
“Ironically, while users are concerned about intrusion of their privacy by PMC, they take negligible actions to protect their data (Barth and De Jong 2017).”
BackgroundTshiani, V. M., & Tanner, M. (2018) · Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning · doi:10.28945/3992 · Cited by 9
Security: Human Nature and Behaviour
Corradini, I. (2020) · Studies in systems, decision and control · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-43999-6_2 · Cited by 13
It’s now or never! Future discounting in the application of the online privacy calculus
Lünich, M., Marcinkowski, F., & Kieslich, K. (2021) · Cyberpsychology Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace · doi:10.5817/cp2021-3-11 · Cited by 10
“…on the online privacy paradox and the privacy calculus, which incorporates approaches from behavioral economics that address human decision-making under circumstances of incomplete information, bounded rationality, and perceptual bias (Barth & de Jong, 2017; Gerber et al., 2018; Kokolakis, 2017).”
BackgroundRoberts, C., Herzing, J. M. E., Piazza, J. S., Abbet, P., & Gática-Pérez, D. (2022) · Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology · doi:10.1093/jssam/smac018 · Cited by 10
Ye, S., & Ho, K. K. W. (2018) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2018.1544275 · Cited by 10
Wang, Y., Zheng, D., & Fang, Y. (2023) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-09-2022-0745 · Cited by 13
Situational privacy: theorizing privacy as communication and media practice
Möller, J. E. (2024) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1093/ct/qtae011 · Cited by 10
Privacy Concerns and Data Donations: Do Societal Benefits Matter?
Alashoor, T., Keil, M., Jiang, Z. J., & Saffarizadeh, K. (2024) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2024/16853 · Cited by 9
The privacy paradox in interactions with service robots in the workplace
Hannig, M., Stock, R., & Knof, M. (2025) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585192.2024.2445135 · Cited by 10
“In addition, the existence of the privacy paradox depends on the context in which a technology is used (Barth & De Jong, 2017).”
Yamamoto, M., Xu, S., Kee, K. F., & Li, W. (2025) · Journal of Trust Research · doi:10.1080/21515581.2024.2445505 · Cited by 10
“People use AI-based applications, not necessarily because they trust AI’s capabilities but because they perceive the benefits of using AI exceeding the costs (Barth & de Jong, 2017).”
Stakeholder interactions and ethical imperatives in big data and AI development
Brodny, J., & Tutak, M. (2025) · Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity · doi:10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100491 · Cited by 20
Grimme, S. A., Spoerl, S. M., Jung, F., & Koelle, M. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713702 · Cited by 10
Duong, B. Q., Lee, J., Ayaburi, E. W. Y., & Jin, S. S. (2021) · Journal of the Southern Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/3jsis.00015 · Cited by 8
Privacy Personas for IoT-Based Health Research: A Privacy Calculus Approach
Maus, B., Olsson, C. M., & Salvi, D. (2021) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2021.675754 · Cited by 10
“While most studies using privacy calculus are situated in domains, such as e-commerce or social networks (15), the approach has been also investigated within healthcare (41).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPrivacy Calculus Theory in the Digital Government Context: The Case of Taiwan’s New eID Policy
Huang, Z., & Huang, T.-Y. (2022) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/08944393221117500 · Cited by 11
I do. Do I? – Understanding User Perspectives on the Privacy Paradox
Jung, F., von Holdt, K., Krüger, R., Meyer, J., & Heuten, W. (2022) · International Academic Mindtrek Conference (Mindtrek) · doi:10.1145/3569219.3569358 · Cited by 9
“Many users express concerns about their (online) privacy and the use of their personal data [9, 35].”
BackgroundInfluential
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
