CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 44Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionInformation and Cyber SecurityTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Determinants of Behavioral Responses to Online Privacy: The Effects of Concern, Risk Beliefs, Self-Efficacy, and Communication Sources on Self-Protection Strategies

Hichang, Cho·2010·Journal of Information Privacy and Security
DOI 10.1080/15536548.2010.10855879
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study identifies the underlying dimensions of privacy protection behavior and examines how it is selectively influenced by central theoretical constructs such as affect/attitude (operationalized here as privacy concern), cognitive beliefs (risk beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs), and external factors (communication effects) pertaining to online privacy. The findings reveal three unique dimensions of privacy protection behavior (i.e., opt-out, proactive, and use of privacy enhancing technologies [PET]). The results, based on survey data (n = 836), reveal that privacy concerns, risk beliefs, and self efficacy have a significant impact on self-protective action, though their impact varies across the types of behavioral strategy. While opt-out and proactive protection strategies were mainly influenced by privacy concern, the use of PET was directly influenced by risk beliefs (perceived vulnerability) and self-efficacy beliefs. Communication factors figured as an antecedent to risk beliefs (personal- and societal-level risk judgments). The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15536548.2010.10855879

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • RCT posits that behavioral intentions are shaped by two cognitive processes: threat appraisal and coping appraisal.

    “RCT posits that behavioral intentions are shaped by two cognitive processes: threat appraisal and coping appraisal (Cho 2010;Li 2012;Youn 2009).”

    From Bridging risk and retention: risk coping with privacy and hallucination in AI (2026) · cites this paper as Cho 2010

  • Cho (2010) found that privacy concern was significantly associated with opting out, proactive protection, and use of privacy-enhancing technologies, while self-efficacy primarily influenced adoption of privacy-enhancing tools.

    “His findings showed that privacy concern was significantly associated with all three behavior types, while self-efficacy primarily influenced the adoption of privacy-enhancing tools (e.g., cookie deletion).”

    From Bridging risk and retention: risk coping with privacy and hallucination in AI (2026) · cites this paper as Cho 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hichang, C.
Venue
Journal of Information Privacy and Security
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2010-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
3-27
ISSN
  • 1553-6548 (ISSN-L)
  • 2333-696X
DOI
10.1080/15536548.2010.10855879
OpenAlex
W2326655689
Cited by
44
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Information Privacy and Security (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
online privacy, privacy protection behavior, privacy concerns, risk beliefs, self-efficacy, privacy-enhancing technologies, perceived susceptibility, communication sources, 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.

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