Cited by 2Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourDigital Marketing and Social Media

Antidote for the personalization-privacy paradox: Does algorithm transparency trigger higher ad click-through intention than algorithm literacy?

Ham, Minjeong, Lee, Sang Woo·2026·Internet Research

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigates whether the personalization–privacy paradox can be resolved under conditions not previously explored: algorithm transparency (AGT) and algorithm literacy (AGL). Design/methodology/approach: An online experiment was conducted, and a moderated-moderated mediation model was assessed. Findings: AGL reduced privacy concerns for highly personalized advertising, with literate consumers perceiving lower risks and showing higher click intention when algorithms were transparent. AGT proved more effective than literacy in resolving the personalization-privacy paradox. Research limitations/implications: This study extends privacy paradox research by identifying how algorithm-related variables (transparency and literacy) moderate the relationship between personalization level and privacy concerns through risk perception. The findings suggest new research directions examining how varying personalization levels interact with algorithmic factors influencing consumer behavior. Practical implications: Online platforms need to effectively communicate their algorithmic processes by explaining both technical operations and potential consequences of data usage. Rather than imposing penalties to reduce personalization levels, policymakers should promote AGT and enhance consumer education to help users make informed decisions about personalized advertising. Originality/value: This study highlights the importance of exploring the black box of algorithms. For academia, this study expands previous findings by presenting algorithm-related conditions that serve as potential boundary conditions to resolve the personalization-privacy paradox. For the advertising industry, this study offers practitioners and policymakers insights into algorithm operation strategies rather than regulations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/intr-08-2023-0672

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Ham, M., & Lee, S. W.
Affiliations
  • Nagoya University of Commerce and Business (JP)
  • Yonsei University (KR)
Venue
Internet Research
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2026-03-03
Pages
1-20
ISSN
  • 1066-2243 (ISSN-L)
  • 2054-5657
OpenAlex
W7132837437
Cited by
2
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
14.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Internet Research (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Science and ICT, South Korea (IITP-2025-0-01749-001)
  • National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2023S1A5A8080008)
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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
Keywords
personalization-privacy paradox, algorithmic transparency, algorithm literacy, personalized advertising, privacy concerns, risk perception, consumer behavior, algorithmic decision-making, consumer education

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