The DOI matches its Crossref record; 113 of the 113 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 10 of the 90 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review
Open accessAbstract
Also known as the privacy paradox, recent research on online behavior has revealed discrepancies between user attitude and their actual behavior. More specifically: While users claim to be very concerned about their privacy, they nevertheless undertake very little to protect their personal data. This systematic literature review explores the different theories on the phenomenon known as the privacy paradox. Drawing on a sample of 32 full papers that explore 35 theories in total, we determined that a user’s decision-making process as it pertains to the willingness to divulge privacy information is generally driven by two considerations: (1) risk-benefit evaluation and (2) risk assessment deemed be none or negligible. By classifying in accordance with these two considerations, we have compiled a comprehensive model using all the variables mentioned in the discussed papers. The overall findings of the systematic literature review will investigate the nature of decision-making (rational vs. irrational) and the context in which the privacy paradox takes place, with a special focus on mobile computing. Furthermore, possible solutions and research limitation issues will be discussed.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This systematic literature review synthesizes 32 full papers covering 35 theories to explain the privacy paradox—the discrepancy between expressed privacy concerns and actual online disclosure behavior. It organizes explanations into rational risk-benefit calculation, biased risk assessment within that calculation, and little-to-no risk assessment, arguing that decision-making is often more irrational, especially in mobile computing.
Key findings
- Across 32 full papers and 35 theories, the review clusters explanations into two main categories: (1) risk-benefit calculation and (2) little to no risk assessment; the first is subdivided into rational calculation and biased risk assessment, with five bias types (heuristics; under-/overestimation of risks and benefits; immediate gratifications; difference between judgments of risks and benefits; habit).
- The authors conclude that decision-making takes place to a greater extent on an irrational level rather than a rational one, especially for mobile computing, and that the emergence of the privacy paradox is context-dependent.
- Concrete solutions remain scarce; proposed directions include user-oriented design, privacy awareness tools, situation-specific disclaimers, security warnings, and design cues adapted to different cognitive styles.
- Only nine studies addressed mobile applications, so the review broadened its parameters to include social network sites, general online contexts, websites, and e-commerce platforms.
Methods
- Systematic literature review using electronic database searches in GoogleScholar, Scopus, IEEE, Web of Science, and ACM with the keyword “privacy paradox,” plus a manual search of reference lists.
- Inclusion criteria: full peer-reviewed papers, peer-reviewed conference papers, and published book chapters that explicitly mention and discuss the privacy paradox with a theory or theoretical concept; excluded general privacy articles, personalization privacy paradox, practical-only solutions, legal/ethical discussions, research proposals, and commentaries.
- Searches resulted in an initial item set of 110 articles; the final sample was N = 32 full papers accounting for 35 theories, which were reviewed to detect clusters and differentiate rational from irrational approaches.
Limitations
- Stated: attitude and intention are not actual behavior, and actual behavior is seldom measured in the studies; privacy concerns seem highly situation-dependent and fluent over time, yet most studies researched privacy as a stable concept or used conventional polls unsuitable for studying online privacy.
- Stated: the authors note Dienlin and Trepte’s critique that the privacy paradox may be “a relic of the past,” but they disagree and argue future research should measure actual behavior; they also state that attempts to theoretically explain and practically solve the privacy paradox are still scarce.
- Evident from text: only nine studies addressed mobile applications, so the review broadened contexts; as a systematic literature review, it synthesizes theories rather than testing them empirically and reports no pooled effect sizes.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
59 No full text of the sources · 27 No basis given · 9 Sources not found · 9 Own interpretation · 7 Partly supported · 7 Own result · 6 Own method · 3 Supported · 3 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“During information exchange, negative consequences are rationally weighed against goals and possible outcomes, aiming to maximize benefits and minimize the risks of information disclosure (Keith et al., 2013;Li, 2012;Vroom, 1964).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Keith et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.1 frames disclosure as a rational choice involving costs and benefits, and §5.3 says the study demonstrates a tradeoff between disclosure benefits and risks. But §5.3 also identifies rational decision-making as a premise of privacy calculus and notes evidence of bounded rationality, so the claim overstates rational weighing and optimization as a description of actual behavior. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not matchedcites Li, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vroom, 1964
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Within this calculation, economic benefits, personalization or convenience and social benefit tend to negate the downside of perceived risks (Wilson and Valacich, 2012).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wilson and Valacich, 2012
The “Perceived Benefits of Privacy Disclosure” section says that benefits counterbalance perceived risks and identifies economic benefits, personalization or convenience, and social or relational benefits as examples that tend to suppress the negative effect of perceived risks. The paper presents this as a finding from prior literature, which supports the citing sentence’s paraphrase. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“During online transactions for example, users disclose private information in return for small benefits, even if their general privacy concerns are contrary to this behavior (Wilson and Valacich, 2012).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.3. (Immediate) gratifications
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wilson and Valacich, 2012
The Privacy Paradox section says that users concerned about privacy disclose information for online-shopping personalization, convenience, or discounts. Perceived Benefits of Privacy Disclosure says benefits can prompt disclosure despite general privacy concerns and describes disclosure for relatively small, immediate rewards (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“If there is choice, individuals usually choose a small benefit in the short term over a larger benefit in the longer term.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.3. (Immediate) gratifications
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites O'Donoghue and Rabin, 2001 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says present-biased people tend to pursue immediate gratification and that additional options can induce procrastination. It does not establish that, whenever there is a choice, individuals usually select a smaller short-term benefit over a larger long-term one; the modeled effect depends on the options and their costs. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Loewenstein, 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A pattern emerged, making a differentiation between rational and irrational approaches for paradoxical behavior.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plainn = 32- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When examining the nature and factors of decision-making, the applied theories (N = 35) were clustered into two main categories: (1) decision-making based on a risk-benefit calculation or (2) decision-making based on prevalent benefits and little to no risk assessment.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2.1. Approaches to the privacy paradox
plainn = 35- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main focus will be on mobile applications but as only nine studies addressing the subject could be ascertained via a literature search, the parameters in which the privacy paradox might be relevant were broadened to include social network sites, general online contexts, websites and e-commerce platforms.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
hedgedn = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, bounded rationality also has an influence on the decision-making process.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2. Biased risk assessment within the risk-benefit calculation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the factors that may play a role in that cognitive process are very difficult to aggregate, calculate and compare, requiring high cognitive involvement.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quite often, individuals are unwilling to access and process all of the information necessary to make informed decisions on issues affecting privacy due to perceived or actual cognitive limitations, choosing rather to satisfy themselves with subpar solutions.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 45
- Probably not a substantial claim. 68
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A user's ability to access all the relevant information is bounded by nature, leading to a situation where the risks are deemed to be outweighed by benefits (Deuker, 2010).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Deuker, 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3 says users have limited ability to access and process decision-relevant information, and that their processing and reasoning capabilities are restricted by nature. But it says bounded rationality can lead to either over- or underestimation of privacy risks; it does not establish that limited access itself causes users to judge benefits as outweighing risks. The separate discussion of immediate gratification says benefits can lead users to underestimate privacy risks. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In such instances, personalization, convenience, economic benefits and social advantages will suppress the perception of risks while over-emphasizing the perceived benefits of privacy disclosure (Wilson and Valacich, 2012).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Wilson and Valacich, 2012Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Perceived Benefits of Privacy Disclosure” (page not provided), the paper identifies economic, personalization or convenience, and social benefits as factors that tend to counteract the negative effect of perceived risks. It hypothesizes that these benefits increase perceived benefits of disclosure, but does not say that the benefit types themselves suppress the perception of risks or necessarily cause benefits to be over-emphasized; its risk-perception hypothesis concerns benefit immediacy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Even if people theoretically have all of the necessary privacy-relevant information, they are unable to make proper sense of all of the information.This leads to the application of simplified mental models that are often favor the benefits (Pötzsch, 2009).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Pötzsch, 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Consider cognitive boundaries” section says that even with all privacy-relevant information available, people cannot use it all to make a rational decision and instead apply a simplified mental model. Section 3.2, “Balancing Values,” says privacy costs can become less salient while benefits are advertised. It does not establish that the simplified mental models themselves often favor benefits or that the cognitive limitation causes that preference. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Thus, individuals tend to heavily discount the low probability of high future risks (e.g.identity theft), resulting in a preference for almost instantaneous benefits (Acquisti, 2004;Acquisti and Grossklags, 2005;Deuker, 2010;Flender and Müller, 2012;Hughes-Roberts, 2013).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.3. (Immediate) gratifications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Acquisti, 2004 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Acquisti and Grossklags, 2005 source
- Partly supportedcites Deuker, 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section on immediate gratification says that immediate benefits can lead users to underestimate future privacy risks, and Section 3 says users give less weight to privacy threats that arise later. The copy does not characterize those risks as low-probability but high-impact, establish that they are heavily discounted, or give identity theft as an example. No page numbers were provided. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Quite often, individuals encounter self-control problems due to immediate gratifications (present bias) which leads to behavior that may backfire in the long run.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Supportedcites O'Donoghue and Rabin, 2001 source
Section II describes self-control problems as arising from the pursuit of immediate gratification in ways a person’s long-run self would not appreciate. The Introduction also explains that present-biased preferences give current well-being extra weight over future well-being. (LLM, conf=0.93)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“If there is a choice, individuals usually choose a small benefit in the short term over a larger benefit in the longer term.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Laibson, 1997 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes a high short-term discount rate and gives an example of postponing savings to avoid an immediate sacrifice. That supports a preference for near-term benefits in some circumstances, but the paper does not establish that individuals usually choose a smaller near-term benefit over a larger later one whenever offered that choice. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“(2a) value of desired goals outweighs risks assessed.Additionally, this process is largely determined by in-and out-group considerations, (2b) the privacy valuation failed, and (2c) a knowledge deficiency eventuates as a result of incomplete information.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2.1. Approaches to the privacy paradox
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we determined that a user's decision-making process as it pertains to the willingness to divulge privacy information is generally driven by two considerations: (1) risk-benefit evaluation and (2) risk assessment deemed be none or negligible.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the majority of the analyzed studies showed a markedly different tendency as the theories to explain the privacy paradox can be characterized by the non-rational processes of decision-making.Here, the risk assessment within the risk-benefit calculation is biased by internal or external forces.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The previously discussed theories show that the decision process as it pertains to information disclosure is guided by rational cost-benefit calculations where benefits outweigh risks.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quite often, users are not consciously aware of such a bias and as a consequence, choose benefits while ignoring accompanied risks.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3. Risk-benefit calculation guiding decision-making processes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These searches resulted in an item set of 110 articles.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Category (1b) can be further divided into five different types of biases influencing the calculation process: (I) heuristics, (II) under-and/or overestimation of risks and benefits, (III) (immediate) gratifications, (IV) difference between judgments of risks and benefits, and (V) habit.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2.1. Approaches to the privacy paradox
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Drawing on a sample of 32 full papers that explore 35 theories in total”
- Also stated in: § 2. Method · plain
“This eventually resulted in a final sample of N = 32 full papers that accounted for 35 theories in total.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Abstract
plainn = 32- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § 2. Method · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the majority of theories centered around a given cost-benefit calculation, with most favoring benefits over costs.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plainn = 32- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both calculation processes ultimately lead to paradoxical behavior eventually.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2.1. Approaches to the privacy paradox
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The risk-benefit calculation category can be further divided into (1a) a largely rational calculation of risks and benefits whereas benefits outweigh risks, and (1b) a calculation process but risk assessment is biased and benefits are prevalent as a result.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2.1. Approaches to the privacy paradox
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other cases, the risk-benefit assessment is not completely rationally calculated, rather subject to and influenced by factors such as time constraints, immediate gratification or optimistic bias.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3. Risk-benefit calculation guiding decision-making processes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of research into the privacy paradox considers general internet activities with a focus on e-commerce and social networking activities in particular.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 1.1. The privacy paradox
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These biases are often nonconscious but play a major part in the eventual decision-making.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2. Biased risk assessment within the risk-benefit calculation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, a decision is usually rapidly derived without an orderly subsequent analysis of the situation.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2. Biased risk assessment within the risk-benefit calculation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, heuristics can lead to biases and an approach that has been successful in the past is no guarantee that it will prove suitable in another situation.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, most studies have researched privacy as a stable concept (Xu et al., 2010) or used conventional polls that are not suitable for studying online privacy (Baek, 2014).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.6. Research limitations
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Xu et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baek, 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, heuristics hinder individuals from developing new ideas and alternative solutions.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Privacy concerns seem to be highly situation-dependent and can be described as a fluent concept that changes over time.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.6. Research limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The systematic literature brought three decision-making categories effecting information privacy to light.First, decisionmaking can be divided into either a rational calculation of risk and benefits, or an irrational risk-benefit calculation characterized by biased risk assessment.”
- Also stated in: § 4.1. Categories of decision making in the context of information privacy · plain
“The third category of decision-making describes processes in which negligible or no risk assessment takes place.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.1. Categories of decision making in the context of information privacy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § 4.1. Categories of decision making in the context of information privacy · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Attitude and intention are not actual behavior and actual behavior is seldom measured in the studies.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.6. Research limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This observation has not been researched to date, despite the fact that this might play an inherent role in solving the privacy paradox problem.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.5. The special case of mobile computing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, research on this tendency is still scarce and should not be neglected when looking for solutions.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.5. The special case of mobile computing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“attempts to theoretically explain and practically solve the problem of the privacy paradox are still scarce”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, only full, peer-reviewed papers, peer-reviewed conference papers and published book-chapters were included.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Articles that dealt with privacy issues and concerns in general were not included.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An electronic database literature search was conducted in GoogleScholar, Scopus, IEEE, Web of Science and ACM.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk-benefit calculation plays a major role in the context of information privacy, known as the freedom to decide with whom, how and to what extent personal data is shared (Li et al., 2010).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Li et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“While users claim to be very concerned about their privacy, they nevertheless undertake very little to protect their personal data.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
“This discrepancy between the expressed concern and the actual behavior of users is a phenomenon known as the privacy paradox: users claim to be very concerned about their privacy but do very little to protect their personal data.”
- Also stated in: § 1.1. The privacy paradox · boosted
“Known as the privacy paradox, it is a documented fact that users have a tendency towards privacy-compromising behavior online which eventually results in a dichotomy between privacy attitudes and actual behavior (Acquisti, 2004;Barnes, 2006).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Abstract
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only the subject articles in which the phenomenon of privacy paradox was explicitly mentioned and discussed were considered eligible.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Hence, intention and actual behavior are positively influenced by expected benefits (e.g. using an app) but also negatively affected by associated costs (e.g.possible data usage by third parties) (Culnan and Armstrong, 1999).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Culnan and Armstrong, 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The cognitive style of decision-making during risk-benefit calculations is both analytical and conscious and can be described as 'logical, cause and effect, rule-based, hierarchical, sequential, process-oriented, slower to implement but quicker to change, high effort, oriented toward delayed action, conscious, and experienced actively with the individual aware of and in control of the process' (p.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Novak and Hoffman, 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, a manual search of reference lists was conducted to identify additional papers that may have been missed by the electronic database search.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Extraversion and agreeableness increased perceived benefits from the use of mobile applications, regardless of the cultural environment.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pentina et al., 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only articles that discussed the privacy paradox explicitly with the aid of a theory or theoretical concept were included in the final sample.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 2. Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Quite often, the perceived benefits outweigh the perceived risks, which eventually leads to the neglecting of privacy concerns that often results in the disclosure of information in exchange for social or economic benefit (Privacy Calculus Theory; Culnan and Armstrong, 1999).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Culnan and Armstrong, 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The stronger the intention, the more likely it is that a person will engage in a certain behavior.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Here, the decision-making process is based on three beliefs: (1) valence (emotional attitude towards a particular outcome and the allure of receiving a reward); (2) expectancy (self-confidence to do s.th.); and (3) instrumentality (perception of the probability of gaining reward).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vroom, 1964
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thus, privacy concerns are considered but most individuals are unable to address them adequately (Phelan et al., 2016).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Phelan et al., 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the context of social networking sites, teenagers in particular operate under bounded rationality and risk assessment takes place according to personal experiences pertaining to privacy invasion and not hypothetically in advance (Jia et al., 2015).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jia et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The stronger such attitudes, perceived control and the compliance with social norms are, the more likely it is that an individual will engage in a certain behavior.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ajzen, 1985 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Based on a subjective belief system, an individual chooses a certain behavior over another because of the expected outcome of maximizing benefits while minimizing costs (Expectancy Theory; Vroom, 1964).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vroom, 1964
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The experiential processes are 'associative, emotional, low effort, rapid to implement but slow to change, parallel, immediate, outcome-oriented, holistic, preconscious and experienced passively with the process opaque to the individual' (p.57, Novak and Hoffman, 2008).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2. Biased risk assessment within the risk-benefit calculation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Novak and Hoffman, 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Individuals constantly try to rationally maximize benefits but decision-making can only be rational within the limits of cognitive ability and available time (Theory of Bounded Rationality; Simon, 1982).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Simon, 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Fundamentalists for example (those highly concerned about data sharing with third parties and unwilling to place ongoing trust in particular organizations) expressed higher privacy valuation than those with a more pragmatic stance (concerned about data-sharing practices but willing to engage in privacy calculus activities), or unconcerned individuals (willing to share data, also with third parties”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Motiwalla et al., 2014
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Intense intuitive concern may be overruled (but not reduced) by less intense concerns resulting from conscious consideration.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kahneman, 2003 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Privacy concerns did not have any influence on the adoption and use of mobile applications.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pentina et al., 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, from their subjective point of view, the decision process may well appear rational (Flender and Müller, 2012).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Flender and Müller, 2012 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Taking the intentional perspective of a given rational behavior into account, the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) states that an individual's behavioral intention depends on the attitude towards a certain behavior and the subjective norms.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985) takes this a step further as behavioral intention is influenced by existing attitudes about desired outcomes, social norms and the evaluation of the risk-benefit of that outcome (perceived behavioral control).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ajzen, 1985 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Actual control may be the missing variable that could explain the discrepancy between intention and behavior.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.1. Risk-benefit calculation guided by rationality
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Also Sundar et al. (2013) found that privacy disclosure behavior in an online context is determined heuristically rather than systematically, which leads to a positive attitude towards information disclosure.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sundar et al., 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, being in a good mood lets people evaluate targets or situations as more positive than they may be.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schwarz, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We would argue that the technical processes underlying mobile computing exceed the comprehension of most users.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.3. Emergence of the privacy paradox is context-dependent
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Individuals tend to underestimate their own risk of privacy invasion while overestimating the chances that others will experience adverse events.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.2. Under-and/or overestimation of risks and benefits
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In reference to cognitive heuristics and mental shortcuts, Kehr et al. (2015) concluded that the privacy paradox may result from misleading situational cues which bias cognitive valuation processes (e.g.affective thinking) and the prevalence of situation-specific considerations as compared to generic attitudes (Extension to the Privacy Calculus Theory).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kehr et al., 2015 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Eventually, privacy disclosure intention is determined by situational cues even if dispositional attitudes regarding privacy behavior are different to intention.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kehr et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The study of Kehr et al. (2015) showed that privacy decisions are driven by situation-specific privacy assessment, general dispositions (i.e.general privacy concerns, institutional trust) and affect-based heuristics (quite often subconscious processes).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kehr et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Cues-Filtered-Out Theory (Sproull andKiesler, 1986, 1991) implies that individuals disclose more personal data in computermediated communication settings compared to face-to-face settings due to the absence of social and contextual cues leading to disclosure of information online despite general privacy concerns (Pötzsch et al., 2010).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sproull and Kiesler, 1986, 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pötzsch et al., 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Being in a positive mood positively influences privacy protection attitude, whereas being in a negative mood increases risk perception (Kehr et al., 2014).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kehr et al., 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Furthermore, judgments are based on feelings of ease or difficulty, as situation or targets that are easy to process are evaluated as more likely to be of less risk and more valuable.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schwarz, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Considering interpersonal relationships, social life is more than individual acts, yet it is determined by social forces such as traditions, institutions and moral codes.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“When considering emotional factors during decision-making processes, individuals rely upon their feelings (mood, meta-cognition, emotion and body sensation), which generally leads to accurate responses but not always (Feeling-as-Information Theory; Schwarz, 2011).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schwarz, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, such protection measures are not easily accessible while downloading and installing apps, suggesting that the majority of users do not possess the expertise nor the experience to engage in what would be considered appropriate protective behavior.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.3. Emergence of the privacy paradox is context-dependent
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Mental short-cuts allow individuals to come to decisions quickly while suppressing any urge to think about the next action (Cognitive Heuristics; Tversky and Kahneman, 1975).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.1. Heuristics
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tversky and Kahneman, 1975 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This makes it even harder to overcome the privacy paradox as the desire to own a particular app seems to outweigh potential risks all too often.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.5. The special case of mobile computing
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Furthermore, individuals tend to organize their use of mobile applications according to goal orientation, with users showing a higher susceptibility to accepting privacy and security intrusions (e.g. a banking app) when compared to less important applications (e.g. a gaming app) (Shklovski et al., 2014).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.5. The special case of mobile computing
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shklovski et al., 2014 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This situation, in combination with low transparency as it pertains to data usage by provider companies, eventually leads to misinformation and misinterpretation of how third parties will utilize users' information and data disclosure despite privacy concerns (Young and Quan-Haase, 2013).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.3.3. Knowledge deficiency due to incomplete information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Young and Quan-Haase, 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to Oetzel and Gonja (2011), the contradictory behavior of privacy protection occurs because privacy, as a concept, is not yet integrated into an individual's social representation.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.3.2. Privacy valuation failed
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Oetzel and Gonja (2011) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“By doing so, users become aware of the consequences of sharing information at a social privacy level but not at an institutional privacy level.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.3.3. Knowledge deficiency due to incomplete information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Young and Quan-Haase, 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This implies that users are lacking in privacy protection knowledge, at both the technological and legal levels; leading to misinterpretation of the likelihood of actual privacy violations and to inaccurate predictions of future hazards (Acquisti and Grossklags, 2005).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.3.3. Knowledge deficiency due to incomplete information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Acquisti and Grossklags, 2005 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Quinn (2016) found that habit (habit was identified as one out of nine uses and gratifications) probably inhibits engagement in privacy management tools on social networks, despite increased experience with social networking, which eventually leads to a disconnection between privacy concerns and behaviors.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 3.2.5. Habit
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Quinn (2016) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Self-presentation (impression management) is the process by which individuals try to control the impression the make on others.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Leary and Kowalski, 1990 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Rule-of-thumb strategies play an important role in decision”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tversky and Kahneman, 1975 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The privacy paradox may result from misleading situational cues which bias the cognitive valuation processes (e.g.affective thinking) and the prevalence of situation-specific considerations as compared to generic attitudes.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Culnan and Armstrong, 1999 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“But heuristics can lead to biases as something that has been applicable in the past, is not necessarily suitable in another situation.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tversky and Kahneman, 1975 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Users express a desire for transparency and information control but are not able to act according to their needs for privacy (Shklovski et al., 2014).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 4.5. The special case of mobile computing
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shklovski et al., 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Individuals feel indirect pressure to change their own behavior in order to conform to an admired peer group.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Crutchfield, 1955 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Individuals rely on their feelings (mood, meta-cognition, emotion and body sensation) in decision-making processes, often leading to accurate responses but sometimes not.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schwarz, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Users' participation in SNs consists of three phases: initial use, exploratory use and managed use.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hu and Ma, 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as decision-making in a mobile environment is subject to environmental and circumstantial factors different from those encountered during desktop computing”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“there are two explanations for the privacy paradox: Either individuals act on their intuitive concern without assessing the risks due to incomplete understanding of it (no considered concern takes place) or high considered concern may be overridden by low considered concern”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kahneman, 2003 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“System I is fast and automatic but is vulnerable to influences that inhibit the rational decision-making process (produces intuitive concern for instance), whereas System II is rational and responsible for reasoning (produces considered concern, for instance).”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kahneman, 2003 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Behavior is a result of conscious choices with the purpose to maximize gain and minimize loss.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > 5. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vroom, 1964
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Individuals have a tendency to underestimate the likelihood of experiencing adverse events.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Irwin, 1953 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Privacy is a dynamic process of interaction regulation with others.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Altman, 1975
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This explains partly the privacy paradox as people do not engage in protective behavior because they fail to value data protection adequately.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Meynhardt, 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Individuals do not process information in a rational way.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kahneman and Tversky, 1979 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The intention to disclose personal information is based on a rational risk-benefit calculation as perceived benefits are weighed against risk probability.”
§ The privacy paradox -Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior -A systematic literature review > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Culnan and Armstrong, 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no unilaterally accepted theory used to explain online behavior when it comes to information disclosure, nor is there a consensus on the mental processes users rely upon when deciding whether to disclose information or not.
“To our knowledge, there is not one unilaterally accepted theory used to explain the online behavior of users when it comes to information disclosure, nor is there a consensus on the mental processes users rely upon when deciding whether to disclose information or not.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Individuals recognize their needs and how to satisfy them.
“This assumes that individuals recognize their needs and how to satisfy them.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Researchers have argued that the privacy paradox exists because privacy attitudes are often based on beliefs about privacy in general that do not correspond to attitudes toward privacy in specific circumstances (for reviews, see Barth & de Jong, 2017; Li, 2011).”
From Privacy Cynicism and its Role in Privacy Decision-Making (2024) · cites this paper as Barth & de Jong, 2017
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This seemingly paradoxical behavior can be explained by various psychological processes that take place during decision-making: (a) Users perform a risk-benefit calculation, guided by rationality, (b) they do show concerns but these concerns are overridden by factors such as desirability of the app, time constraints, or promised gratifications, or (c) they act on their intuition without assessing”
From Putting the privacy paradox to the test: Online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources (2019) · cites this paper as Barth and De Jong, 2017
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Research into online privacy shows that users are interested in privacy protection but that their privacy concerns rarely translate into actual behavior (Barth and De Jong, 2017;Joinson et al., 2010;Tsai et al., 2006).”
From Putting the privacy paradox to the test: Online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources (2019) · cites this paper as Barth and De Jong, 2017
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Several studies reported the privacy paradox in the context of SNSs and e-commerce (for reviews, see Barth and de Jong, 2017;Kokolakis, 2017).”
From The privacy and control paradoxes in the context of smartphone apps (2022) · cites this paper as Barth and de Jong, 2017
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,720 · cited 2×
“According to Prospect Theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979), decision-making processes take place in two stages.”
BackgroundTversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
(1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 25,810
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
(1984) · Cited by 21,166
From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I. (1985) · Action Control · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 · Cited by 19,057 · cited 4×
“The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985) takes this a step further as behavioral intention is influenced by existing attitudes about desired outcomes, social norms and the evaluation of the risk-benefit of that outcome (perceived behavioral control).”
BackgroundInfluentialA BEHAVIORAL MODEL OF RATIONAL CHOICE
Simon, H. A. (1955) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884852 · Cited by 15,877 · cited 3×
“Some have explained this paradoxical behavior from a rational perspective by arguing that users weigh the cost-benefit ratio of online information disclosure both consciously and rationally (Simon, 1955).”
BackgroundInfluential(1964) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,439
Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting
Laibson, D. (1997) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355397555253 · Cited by 6,122 · cited 2×
“Extended Two-Component Model of Self-Presentation Online (based on Leary and Kowalski, 1990) Self-presentation (impression management) is the process by which individuals try to control the impression the make on others.”
BackgroundMethod
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–600 of 797
Media users’ and professionals’ responses to personal data receipts: A mixed methods study
Buggenhout, N. V., & den Broeck, W. V. (2022) · Information Polity · doi:10.3233/ip-211500 · Cited by 2
“There are few viable solutions to span the gap between user intention and behaviour (Barth & de Jong, 2017).”
PriMe: A Novel Privacy Measuring Framework for Online Social Networks
Hassanpour, A., & Yang, B. (2022) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) · doi:10.1109/asonam55673.2022.10068701 · Cited by 2
“Moreover, another issue called the privacy paradox has been observed in users’ online behavior [10][11].”
BackgroundCollective Data Protection Litigation
Wörle, K., & Gstrein, O. J. (2024) · European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance · doi:10.1163/22134514-bja10070 · Cited by 2
Techniques and Tools for Trainers and Practitioners
Oldham, M., & McAlpine, A. (2019) · Advances in information security, privacy, and ethics book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7847-5.ch006 · Cited by 2
Alsulami, M. M., & Al-Aama, A. Y. (2020) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers9020034 · Cited by 2
Beyond Moral Coupling: Analysing Politics of Privacy in the Era of Surveillance
Heikkilä, H. (2020) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.v8i2.2875 · Cited by 4
“…2008), the interpretation predominating in surveys is that discrepancies between attitudes and informed actions reflect shortcomings in rationality among users, suggesting that users are unwittingly compliant with surveillance forces that may abuse them (Barth & de Jong, 2017, pp. 1038–1040).”
BackgroundDesigning Effective Privacy Nudges in Digital Environments: A Design Science Research Approach
Barev, T. J., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-64823-7_37 · Cited by 2
“The issue arising is that people value their privacy while they do not always protect it; this phenomenon is known as the Privacy Paradox [2].”
BackgroundLATE ADOPTION OF PREVENTIVE MEASURES OF ONLINE PRIVACY IN MEXICAN AND COLOMBIAN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
Gastelú, C. A. T. (2021) · Problems of Education in the 21st Century · doi:10.33225/pec/21.79.162 · Cited by 3
Briazu, R. A., Floccia, C., & Hanoch, Y. (2021) · Technology Mind and Behavior · doi:10.1037/tmb0000051.supp · Cited by 2
The Cultural Context of Personal Data Disclosure DecisionsPreprint
Wawra, D. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4048250 · Cited by 2
Intransitivity of Consumer Preferences for PrivacyPreprint
Tomaino, G., Wertenbroch, K., & Walters, D. J. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3920884 · Cited by 2
Avuglah, B. K., Owusu-Ansah, C. M., Tachie‐Donkor, G., et al. (2020) · doi:10.31730/osf.io/3q6fa · Cited by 2
Mike, N. (2023) · doi:10.14267/phd.2023003 · Cited by 2
Yang, Y., & Huang, Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v13i01.3267 · Cited by 1
Soberanía digital: un debate abierto y tres problemas políticos
Suárez-Gonzalo, S. (2023) · Quaderns de Filosofia · doi:10.7203/qfia.10.2.26464 · Cited by 1
“Además, gran parte de la investigación parte de la idea de que, los comportamientos de las personas en el ámbito digital responden a un cálculo irracional donde los beneficios suelen superar a los riesgos percibidos (Barth y de Jong 2017).”
BackgroundNavigating Online Privacy: Insights from Cybersecurity Expert
Lubis, M., Safitra, M. F., Fakhrurroja, H., et al. (2024) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2024.03.137 · Cited by 1
Exploring Determinants of Parental Engagement in Online Privacy Protection: A Qualitative Approach
Lieberknecht, A.-K. (2024) · European Symposium on Usable Security (EuroUSEC) · doi:10.1145/3688459.3688476 · Cited by 2
Gozali, M. R. A., Revel, D., & Christian, C. (2024) · International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech) · doi:10.1109/icimtech63123.2024.10780832 · Cited by 1
Teenagers’ Digital Security: Sociological Analysis
Ушкин, С. Г., Koval, E. A., & Martynova, M. D. (2025) · Integration of Education · doi:10.15507/1991-9468.029.202501.114-131 · Cited by 1
Public Services in Digital Transition: The Driving Force of Customer Experience
Pol, H., Besseling, E., Timmerman, T., van Steenbergen, M., & van Grondelle, J. (2025) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2025.2488149 · Cited by 5
“This is consistent with previous research on the privacy paradox: the phenomenon that customers are worried about their privacy but at the same time leave there personal data behind on all different kinds of internet sites and social media (Bandara et al., 2020; Barth & Jong, 2017).”
Do people around the world care where their data are stored?
Prince, J. T., & Wallsten, S. (2025) · Information Economics and Policy · doi:10.1016/j.infoecopol.2025.101132 · Cited by 1
Characteristic and Observational Information Disclosure on Social Networking Sites
Robin, R., & van der Veen, R. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-2424-1.ch001 · Cited by 1
Autonomy over authority: the role of autonomous motivation in law compliance
Tovmasyan, A., Onitiu, D., Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Weinstein, N. (2025) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/s11031-025-10155-9 · Cited by 2
“They mirror previous research from law on the “pri-vacy paradox” suggest that there is a discrepancy between users expressing concern over their privacy online and their actual behavior online (Barth & De Jong, 2017; Solove, 2021 ).”
Improving Personal Data Protection Interaction in Digital Identity Wallets: A User-Centric Analysis
de Chaves, S. A., & Benitti, F. B. V. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-04999-5_13 · Cited by 1
Farooq, A., Salminen, J. O., Dahabiyeh, L., Javed, Y., & Jansen, B. J. J. (2025) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.103103 · Cited by 1
“Subjective (and descriptive) norms have been shown to serve as precursors to privacy concerns (Masur et al., 2021; Nov & Wattal, 2009) and to privacy behaviors (Barth & de Jong, 2017).”
Libertas: Privacy-Preserving Collaborative Computation for Decentralised Personal Data Stores
Zhao, R., Goel, N., Agrawal, N., Zhao, J., Stein, J., Albayaydh, W. S., Verborgh, R., Binns, R., Berners‐Lee, T., & Shadbolt, N. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757490 · Cited by 12
“Aside from discussions of the concept of privacy, there is also a related debate about ‘privacy paradox’ [11, 13, 45, 60], where users’ stated privacy preferences may diverge from their actual behaviour and their willingness to utilise privacy controls, especially in social media and e-commerce…”
Public Participation in China's State‐Created ICT Spaces: Explaining Participation Patterns
Rabe, W., Bondes, M., Abels, C. M., & Kostka, G. (2025) · Regulation & Governance · doi:10.1111/rego.70090 · Cited by 2
Reklam Profesyonellerinin Gözünden Veriye Dayalı Reklamcılığın Bugünü ve Geleceği
Kaya, E. F., & Yıldız, S. (2025) · İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi · doi:10.47998/ikad.1755301 · Cited by 1
Smoliński, P. R., Januszewicz, J., Pawłowska, B., et al. (2025) · Journal of Business Strategy · doi:10.1108/jbs-03-2025-0063 · Cited by 1
Santos, B., Borges, A. P., Rodrigues, P., & Vieira, E. (2025) · Review of Marketing Science · doi:10.1515/roms-2025-0075 · Cited by 1
“This strengthens brand loyalty and allays consumer fears (Ameen et al. 2022; Barth and de Jong 2017; Bleier and Eisen-beiss 2015).”
Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence in Cybersecurity
Chen, J., Garcia, K. R., Zhang, Y. “., Dudley, L. E., & Warren, A. D. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-8440-0_99-1 · Cited by 1
Liu, H., Wang, T., Xiao, Y., & Pan, G. (2025) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2025.104686 · Cited by 1
The Attitude-Behavior Gap in Technology Adoption: A Consumer Behavior Perspective on HRIS Use
Sofi, F., & Al‐Fattal, A. (2026) · Platforms · doi:10.3390/platforms4010001 · Cited by 1
“For example, the “privacy paradox” highlights how individuals claim to value data privacy yet continue to disclose personal information online [37,38].”
Qi, X., Xu, L., Cai, S., Zhou, L., Zhao, P. F., Zhang, Y., & Yan, R. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-40327-7 · Cited by 1
Convenience vs. Control: A Qualitative Study of Youth Privacy with Smart Voice Assistants
Campbell, M., Clark, T. D., Jasem, M. S. A., et al. (2026) · IEEE Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC) · doi:10.1109/ccwc67433.2026.11393734 · Cited by 1
“Construct–Theme Pathway actions [6], [24], [25].”
Suárez-Gonzalo, S., Peiruza-Parga, J., & Fernández-Ardèvol, M. (2026) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.11500 · Cited by 1
“…a rational calculation of the risks and benefits of using digital technologies, which influences the likelihood of engaging in digital protection practices or leads to non‐protective behaviours (Barth & de Jong, 2017; Dienlin, 2023), including among older people (Gupta & Chennamaneni, 2018).”
Klütsch, J., Kreuder, A., Haehn, L., Kuck, I., Böffel, C., Frick, U., & Schlittmeier, S. J. (2026) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106746 · Cited by 1
I Disclose, Therefore I Exist: Time, Control, and True Self Expression in Social Networking Sites
Gavriilidou, O., & Gritzalis, S. (2026) · Psychology International · doi:10.3390/psycholint8020029 · Cited by 1
“…between individuals’ concerns about privacy and their actual privacy-related practices (Acquisti & Gross, 2006; Beresford et al., 2012; Berendt et al., 2005; Braunstein et al., 2011; Brown, 2001; Norberg et al., 2007; Tufekci, 2008; Zafeiropoulou, 2014; Barth & de Jong, 2017; Gerber et al., 2018).”
Roshith, V., Peter, R., Mona, A. E., Lawrence, S. J., Narayanan, K. B., & Yusaira, F. (2026) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2026.1787042 · Cited by 5
Wang, Y., & Khan, M. I. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01144-w · Cited by 1
“The widespread use of opaque or manip-ulative consent interfaces—frequently incorporating “dark patterns” designed to nudge or coerce user decisions—fur - ther undermines the legitimacy of consent and contravenes fundamental principles of autonomy and transparency [ 1, 29, 48, 67, 68].”
Linking corporate digital responsibility and customer citizenship behavior
Im, A. Y., Chen, H., & Lee, H. (2026) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-09-2025-1439 · Cited by 1
Motara, Y. M., & van der Schyff, K. (2018) · South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists · doi:10.1145/3278681.3278687 · Cited by 1
"Privacy is the Boring Bit": User Perceptions and Behaviour in the Internet-of-Things
Williams, M., Nurse, J. R. C., & Creese, S. (2018) · Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1807.05761 · Cited by 1
“In a 2017 review, Barth and Jong [18] also concluded that irrationality is present.”
BackgroundAmaryllis : A User-Centric Information System for Automated Privacy Policy Analysis
Dombetzki, L., Kecht, C., Kratsch, W., & Rau, D. (2020) · ERef Bayreuth (University of Bayreuth) · Cited by 1
Maple, C. R., Epiphaniou, G., & Bottarelli, M. (2021) · Computer Fraud & Security · doi:10.1016/s1361-3723(21)00063-4 · Cited by 1
Liao, T., & Fite, H. (2021) · AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research · doi:10.5210/spir.v2021i0.12200 · Cited by 1
“With each instance of data breaches, corporate misuse of data, and advanced tracking programs, users are confronted with how much to continue engaging with these platforms, how to improve them, and where responsibility lies (Hargittai & Marwick, 2016; Barth & de Jong, 2017).”
BackgroundAn Empirical Study of the Factors of Teleworking and the Moderating Effect of Work Colleague Support
Choi, Y. (2022) · International Journal of e-Collaboration · doi:10.4018/ijec.296429 · Cited by 1
Grill, K. (2022) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003205425-23 · Cited by 1
Crocker, T., Whitlow, C., Cooper, H., Patrick, C., Padilla, A., Jammal, M., & Ince, R. (2022) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci11100442 · Cited by 2
“Despite respondents’ overwhelming confidence in their ability to use the computer and internet, we found similar reports in the existing literature that discrepancies exist between perceived digital skills and privacy behavior (Hargittai and Litt 2013; Barth and de Jong 2017).”
ResultKwasniok, S., & Heyne, D. (2022) · HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik · doi:10.1365/s40702-022-00913-5 · Cited by 1
Privacy on the Internet: An Empirical Study of Poles’ Attitudes
Mider, D. (2022) · Applied Cybersecurity & Internet Governance · doi:10.5604/01.3001.0016.1459 · Cited by 2
Assessing User Understanding, Perception and Behaviour with Privacy and Permission Settings
Alshomrani, N., Furnell, S., & He, Y. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-35822-7_36 · Cited by 1
Translating Commercial Health Data Privacy Ethics into Change
Spector‐Bagdady, K., & Price, W. N. (2023) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2023.2263286 · Cited by 1
“People are willing to freely share personal data in exchange for other kinds of benefits—including convenience, economic, or reputa-tional—which “suppress the perception of risks while over-emphasizing the perceived benefits of privacy disclosure” (Barth and de Jong 2017).”
BackgroundCassens, M., & Zeller, C. (2023) · Psychotherapie Forum · doi:10.1007/s00729-023-00239-7 · Cited by 1
Ashok, G., & Veerababu, D. (2023) · Contemporary Voice of Dalit · doi:10.1177/2455328x231206919 · Cited by 1
The Self-perception Debate: Do social media and platforms need better regulation?
Chang, R. (2024) · SHS Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/shsconf/202418704001 · Cited by 1
“The privacy paradox, as examined by Barth and De Jong, highlights the discrepancy between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior [3] .”
BackgroundPurpose of Mobility Data Usage and Risk Assessment: POSMO Ethical Data Market Case
Yatsenko, O. (2024) · IEEE Conference on Information Technology and Data Science (CITDS) · doi:10.1109/citds62610.2024.10791347 · Cited by 1
“…your data 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)” (Barth, S., & De Jong, M. D., 2017).”
Privacy perceptions and the role of countermeasures on the usage of in-app commerce
Keesal, C., Σταθοπούλου, Α., & Gadzinski, G. (2025) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2025.2469657 · Cited by 3
“In the context of e-commerce, privacy calculus has been used to explain how people make decisions, including privacy and cyber security decisions (Barth and de Jong 2017; Wang, Duong, and Chen 2016).”
Tang, Z. R., & Chen, L. (2025) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-01-2024-0033 · Cited by 2
Henshall, B. I., Grimes, H. A., Davis, J., & East, C. E. (2025) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2025.104375 · Cited by 1
Instagram: Risk Habituation, Optimism Bias and Privacy Paradox
Barclay, F. P., & Harilal, H. (2025) · Media Watch · doi:10.1177/09760911251371299 · Cited by 1
“Pötzsch (2009) and Barth and De Jong (2017) had also presented privacy-protecting behaviour as a balancing act between the costs and benefits of disclosure of personal data.”
Yang, Y. (2020) · Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) · doi:10.17615/f5ef-jb58 · Cited by 1
Lischka, H. M., & Kenning, P. H. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-17291-6_84 · Cited by 1
Understanding Privacy-Focused Technology Use Among Generation Y
Agozie, D. Q., Nat, M. C., & Edu, S. A. (2020) · Advances in information quality and management · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-2610-1.ch004 · Cited by 1
A User-Centered Approach to Digital Household Risk Management
Paupini, C., Giannoumis, G. A., & Gjøsæter, T. (2020) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50732-9_12 · Cited by 1
“Furthermore, even when the purpose to reduce data disclosure is present, due to the unfamiliarity of the average person the actual disclosure considerably exceeds intention [18, 22].”
BackgroundPrivacy Concerns and Mobile App Store
Mak, B. L., & Jin, L. (2021) · International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management · doi:10.1142/s021987702150019x · Cited by 1
Understanding the Landscape of Online Deception
Hage, H., Aı̈meur, E., & Guedidi, A. (2020) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-7291-7.ch003 · Cited by 2
Lischka, H. M., & Kenning, P. H. (2019) · Springer Reference Wirtschaft · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-17345-6_84-1 · Cited by 1
Westin, F., Hundlani, K., & Chiasson, S. (2022) · European Symposium on Usable Security (EuroUSEC) · doi:10.1145/3549015.3555672 · Cited by 1
“The paradox has received a range of explanations [1, 5], from privacy calculus where users may decide that the rewards of disclosing outweigh the costs [22], to positive-affect-inducing user interfaces leading users to underestimate privacy risk [43].”
BackgroundPrivacy perceptions and the use of tools for its protection in Uruguay
Etcheverry, L., Jackson, M., Scrollini, F., et al. (2023) · Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito · doi:10.19092/reed.v10.686 · Cited by 1
OECD (2019) · OECD eBooks · doi:10.1787/c285121d-en · Cited by 1
Sources of error in mobile survey data collection
Wenz, A. (2018) · Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) · Cited by 1
Garz, S., Xavier Giné, A., Karlan, D., Mazer, R., Sanford, C., & Zinman, J. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3750236 · Cited by 1
“Two other important issues that we mostly ignore, are the family of issues around data security, privacy and property rights (Barth and de Jong 2017; Waldman 2018) and malfunctioning financial advice markets (D’Acunto and Rossi 2021; Gomes, Haliassos, and Ramadorai forthcoming).”
BackgroundAn Onto-Epistemological Critique of Information Privacy ResearchPreprint
Xu, H., & Zhang, N. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3938986 · Cited by 1
Øverby, H. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27739-9_1619-1 · Cited by 1
Briceno, D., Longin, L., & Poquet, O. (2025) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/gtqrn_v1 · Cited by 1
More Than Mere Mediators: Examining Determinants of Parental Privacy Management Behaviors
Lieberknecht, A.-K., Löbner, S., & Tronnier, F. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790856
“In contrast to the well-established “privacy paradox,” where concern rarely translates into action [9], within the context of our study, parental concern was generally linked to greater protective behaviors on all measured dimensions: Parental Mediation Child , Parental Child Data Disclosures , and…”
Jun, J., Choi, Y. J., Han, J., & Lee, S. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790981
Yang, Y., Wang, Z., Ma, R., & Schaub, F. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790881
Is the Privacy Paradox in Fact Rational?Preprint
Agi, B., & Jullien, N. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3109695
A Business Framework for Evaluating Trust in IoT Technology
Zhao, F., & Danneman, B. (2019) · Women in engineering and science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15705-0_4
Privacy vs. Utility: An Enhanced K-coRated
Xiang, Z., Haddad, G. E., & Aı̈meur, E. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-24289-3_42
Privacy Concern in Mobile Payment: A Diary Study on Users’ Perception of Information Disclosure
Zhang, J., & Luximon, Y. (2019) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-27928-8_149
mHealth: Privacidade e Fatores Humanos
Silva, W. N. (2019) · Simpósio Brasileiro de Sistemas Colaborativos (SBSC) · doi:10.5753/sbsc.2019.7797
Rossmann, C., & Jöckel, S. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-27902-8_13
Digitale Transformation: Digitalisierungsdilemma und Vertrauenskrise
Müller, G. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-56262-8_1
Gómez‐Barroso, J. L. (2020) · Revista Española de Sociología · doi:10.22325/fes/res.2020.12
Agent based negotiation for incentive driven privacy preserving information sharing
Razeghi, Y. (2019) · eResearch@Ozyegin
マーケティング・リサーチ活動に対する消費者同意の予備的考察―同意の不本意さの観点から―
福田, 康. (2019) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · doi:10.11287/jmda.19.1
Measures of Privacy Protection on Social Environments
Alemany, J. (2020) · doi:10.4995/thesis/10251/151456
Investigating the Antecedents and Role of Usage Fatigue on Online Commerce Usage Decrease
Agozie, D. Q., Nat, M. C., & Edu, S. A. (2020) · International Journal of E-Business Research · doi:10.4018/ijebr.2020100101
Budzanowska-Drzewiecka, M. (2021) · Zarządzanie Mediami · doi:10.4467/23540214zm.21.017.13412
Interrogating Digital Rhetorical Privacy on Direct-to-Consumer Genetics Websites
Woods, C. (2021) · ISU Red - Research and eData (Illinois State University) · doi:10.30707/etd2021.20211012065807416671.999946 · Cited by 1
Privacy Paradox: When Does Hiding in Plain Sight Work?Preprint
Mayskaya, T., & Nikandrova, A. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3855663
What Drives Information Disclosure in Social Networking Sites
Arslan, F., Bagchi, K. K., & Udo, G. G. (2021) · International Journal of Information Security and Privacy · doi:10.4018/ijisp.2022010119
Shin, B., & Kim, G. (2022) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2022.586
Techniques and Tools for Trainers and Practitioners
Oldham, M., & McAlpine, A. (2021) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-3554-0.ch021
PRIVACY CONCERNS OF DIGITAL NATIVES: DIGITAL ABOVE ALL?
(2019) · IADIS INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON WWW/INTERNET · doi:10.33965/ijwi_2019171101
“A systematic review of the literature on this phenomenon is provided by Barth and de Jong (2017).”
Background
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
