Cited by 46

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

“Talk to me, I’m secure”: investigating information disclosure to AI chatbots in the context of privacy calculus

Meng, Xiaoxiao, Liu, Jiaxin·2025·Online Information Review

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to explain the privacy paradox, wherein individuals, despite privacy concerns, are willing to share personal information while using AI chatbots. Departing from previous research that primarily viewed AI chatbots from a non-anthropomorphic approach, this paper contends that AI chatbots are taking on an emotional component for humans. This study thus explores this topic by considering both rational and non-rational perspectives, thereby providing a more comprehensive understanding of user behavior in digital environments. Design/methodology/approach: Employing a questionnaire survey (N = 480), this research focuses on young users who regularly engage with AI chatbots. Drawing upon the parasocial interaction theory and privacy calculus theory, the study elucidates the mechanisms governing users’ willingness to disclose information. Findings: Findings show that cognitive, emotional and behavioral dimensions all positively influence perceived benefits of using ChatGPT, which in turn enhances privacy disclosure. While cognitive, emotional and behavioral dimensions negatively impact perceived risks, only the emotional and behavioral dimensions significantly affect perceived risk, which in turn negatively influences privacy disclosure. Notably, the cognitive dimension’s lack of significant mediating effect suggests that users’ awareness of privacy risks does not deter disclosure. Instead, emotional factors drive privacy decisions, with users more likely to disclose personal information based on positive experiences and engagement with ChatGPT. This confirms the existence of the privacy paradox. Research limitations/implications: This study acknowledges several limitations. While the sample was adequately stratified, the focus was primarily on young users in China. Future research should explore broader demographic groups, including elderly users, to understand how different age groups engage with AI chatbots. Additionally, although the study was conducted within the Chinese context, the findings have broader applicability, highlighting the potential for cross-cultural comparisons. Differences in user attitudes toward AI chatbots may arise due to cultural variations, with East Asian cultures typically exhibiting a more positive attitude toward social AI systems compared to Western cultures. This cultural distinction—rooted in Eastern philosophies such as animism in Shintoism and Buddhism—suggests that East Asians are more likely to anthropomorphize technology, unlike their Western counterparts (Yam et al., 2023; Folk et al., 2023). Practical implications: The findings of this study offer valuable insights for developers, policymakers and educators navigating the rapidly evolving landscape of intelligent technologies. First, regarding technology design, the study suggests that AI chatbot developers should not focus solely on functional aspects but also consider emotional and social dimensions in user interactions. By enhancing emotional connection and ensuring transparent privacy communication, developers can significantly improve user experiences (Meng and Dai, 2021). Second, there is a pressing need for comprehensive user education programs. As users tend to prioritize perceived benefits over risks, it is essential to raise awareness about privacy risks while also emphasizing the positive outcomes of responsible information sharing. This can help foster a more informed and balanced approach to user engagement (Vimalkumar et al., 2021). Third, cultural and ethical considerations must be incorporated into AI chatbot design. In collectivist societies like China, users may prioritize emotional satisfaction and societal harmony over privacy concerns (Trepte, 2017; Johnston, 2009). Developers and policymakers should account for these cultural factors when designing AI systems. Furthermore, AI systems should communicate privacy policies clearly to users, addressing potential vulnerabilities and ensuring that users are aware of the extent to which their data may be exposed (Wu et al., 2024). Lastly, as AI chatbots become deeply integrated into daily life, there is a growing need for societal discussions on privacy norms and trust in AI systems. This research prompts a reflection on the evolving relationship between technology and personal privacy, especially in societies where trust is shaped by cultural and emotional factors. Developing frameworks to ensure responsible AI practices while fostering user trust is crucial for the long-term societal integration of AI technologies (Nah et al., 2023). Originality/value: The study’s findings not only draw deeper theoretical insights into the role of emotions in generative artificial intelligence (gAI) chatbot engagement, enriching the emotional research orientation and framework concerning chatbots, but they also contribute to the literature on human–computer interaction and technology acceptance within the framework of the privacy calculus theory, providing practical insights for developers, policymakers and educators navigating the evolving landscape of intelligent technologies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/oir-06-2024-0375

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Auter, 2000, Development and validation of a parasocial interaction measure: the audience-persona interaction scale, Communication Research Reports, 17, 79, 10.1080/08824090009388753 · DOI
  2. Başer, 2023, ‘Yes, it's cute, but how can I be sure it's safe or not?’ Investigating the intention to use service robots in the context of privacy calculus, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40, 1, 10.1080/10447318.2023.2254617 · DOI
  3. Bol, 2018, Understanding the effects of personalization as a privacy calculus: analyzing self-disclosure across health, news, and commerce contexts, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23, 370, 10.1093/jcmc/zmy020 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bond, 2021, The development and influence of parasocial relationships with television characters: a longitudinal experimental test of prejudice reduction through parasocial contact, Communication Research, 48, 573, 10.1177/0093650219900632 · DOI
  5. Bonus, 2021, The impact of moral expectancy violations on audiences’ parasocial relationships with movie heroes and villains, Communication Research, 48, 550, 10.1177/0093650219886516 · DOI
  6. Bouhia, 2022, Drivers of privacy concerns when interacting with a chatbot in a customer service encounter, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 40, 1159, 10.1108/ijbm-09-2021-0442 · DOI
  7. Brandtzaeg, 2022, My AI friend: how users of a social chatbot understand their human-AI friendship, Human Communication Research, 48, 404, 10.1093/hcr/hqac008 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Chatterjee, 2023, Acceptance of social robot and its challenges: from privacy calculus perspectives, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 196, 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122862 · DOI
  9. Cheng, 2020, How do AI-driven chatbots impact user experience? Examining gratifications, perceived privacy risk, satisfaction, loyalty, and continued use, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 64, 592, 10.1080/08838151.2020.1834296 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Church, 2017, Privacy and pleasure: a paradox of the hedonic use of computer-mediated social networks, Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 121, 10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.040 · DOI
  11. Dibble, 2015, Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationship: conceptual clarification and a critical assessment of measures, Human Communication Research, 42, 21, 10.1111/hcre.12063 · DOI
  12. Dienlin, 2023, A longitudinal analysis of the privacy paradox, New Media and Society, 25, 1043, 10.1177/14614448211016316 · DOI
  13. Dinev, 2006, An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions, Information Systems Research, 17, 61, 10.1287/isre.1060.0080 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Fernandes, 2023, Privacy concerns with COVID-19 tracking apps: a privacy calculus approach, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 40, 181, 10.1108/jcm-03-2021-4510 · DOI
  15. Folk, 2023, Cultural variation in attitudes towards social chatbots, 10.31234/osf.io/wc895 · DOI
  16. Fornell, 1981, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39, 10.2307/3151312 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Fu, 2023, How do risks and benefits affect user’ privacy decisions? An event-related potential study on privacy calculus process, Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1052782 · DOI
  18. Giles, 2002, Parasocial interaction: a review of the literature and a model for future research, Media Psychology, 4, 279, 10.1207/s1532785xmep0403_04 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Gupta, 2023, From ChatGPT to ThreatGPT: impact of generative AI in cybersecurity and privacy, IEEE Access, 11, 80218, 10.1109/access.2023.3300381 · DOI
  20. Guzman, 2020, Artificial intelligence and communication: a human-machine communication research agenda, New Media and Society, 22, 70, 10.1177/1461444819858691 · DOI
  21. Hallam, 2017, Online self-disclosure: the privacy paradox explained as a temporally discounted balance between concerns and rewards, Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 217, 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.033 · DOI
  22. Han, 2018, Understanding adoption of intelligent personal assistants: a parasocial relationship perspective, Industrial Management and Data Systems, 118, 618, 10.1108/imds-05-2017-0214 · DOI
  23. Han, 2021, The concealing effect of media dependence: does higher parasocial interaction with social robots lead to increased loneliness among users?, Chinese Journal of Journalism and Communication, 43, 25, 10.13495/j.cnki.cjjc.2021.09.002 · DOI
  24. Hauff, 2021, Individual costs and societal benefits: the privacy calculus of contact-tracing apps, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 40, 171, 10.1108/jcm-03-2021-4559 · DOI
  25. Hayes, 2013, Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach
  26. Hew, 2017, Generating travel-related contents through mobile social tourism: does privacy paradox persist?, Telematics and Informatics, 34, 914, 10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.001 · DOI
  27. Jozani, 2020, Privacy concerns and benefits of engagement with social media-enabled apps: a privacy calculus perspective, Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106260 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Kavitha, 2024, Beyond text: ChatGPT as an emotional resilience support tool for Gen Z-A sequential explanatory design exploration, E-learning and Digital Media, 10.1177/20427530241259099 · DOI
  29. Kezer, 2022, Getting the privacy calculus right: analyzing the relations between privacy concerns, expected benefits, and self-disclosure using response surface analysis, Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 16, 10.5817/cp2022-4-1 · DOI
  30. Kim, 2023, Chatbot advertising as a double-edged sword: the roles of regulatory focus and privacy concerns, Journal of Advertising, 52, 504, 10.1080/00913367.2022.2043795 · DOI
  31. Kronemann, 2023, How AI encourages consumers to share their secrets? The role of anthropomorphism, personalization, and privacy concerns and avenues for future research, Spanish Journal of Marketing-ESIC, 27, 3, 10.1108/sjme-10-2022-0213 · DOI
  32. Lau, 2014, Developing and validating of a perceived ICT literacy scale for junior secondary school students: pedagogical and educational contributions, Computers and Education, 78, 1, 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.016 · DOI
  33. Laufer, 1977, Privacy as a concept and a social issue: a multidimensional developmental theory, Journal of Social Issues, 33, 22, 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01880.x · DOI · Paper page
  34. Lee, 2022, Do parasocial relationships and the quality of communication with AI shopping chatbots determine middle-aged women consumers' continuance usage intentions?, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 21, 842, 10.1002/cb.2043 · DOI
  35. Li, 2023, Determinants affecting consumer trust in communication with AI chatbots: the moderating effect of privacy concerns, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 35, 1, 10.4018/joeuc.328089 · DOI
  36. Li, 2023, Mechanisms influencing privacy disclosure behavior in young adults’ WeChat usage: the mediating role of privacy utilitarianism, Journalism and Communication Review, 76, 87, 10.14086/j.cnki.xwycbpl.2023.01.007 · DOI
  37. Lim, 2022, No secrets between the two of us: privacy concerns over using AI agents, Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 16, 10.5817/cp2022-4-3 · DOI
  38. Liu, 2021, Research on face recognition and privacy in China—based on social cognition and cultural psychology, Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.809736 · DOI
  39. Liu, 2023, Chatbots or humans? Effects of agent identity and information sensitivity on users' privacy management and behavioral intentions: a comparative experimental study between China and the United States, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40, 5632, 10.1080/10447318.2023.2238974 · DOI
  40. Lu, 2020, A meta-analysis to explore privacy cognition and information disclosure of internet users, International Journal of Information Management, 51, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.09.011 · DOI
  41. Lund, 2023, Information literacy, data literacy, privacy literacy, and ChatGPT, Human Technology, 19, 163, 10.14254/1795-6889.2023.19-2.2 · DOI
  42. McClain, 2024, Americans' use of ChatGPT is ticking up, but few trust its election information, Pew Research Center
  43. Meng, 2021, Emotional support from AI chatbots: should a supportive partner self-disclose or not?, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26, 207, 10.1093/jcmc/zmab005 · DOI
  44. Najjar, 2021, Users' affect and satisfaction in a privacy calculus context, Online Information Review, 45, 577, 10.1108/oir-02-2019-0054 · DOI
  45. Pentina, 2016, Exploring privacy paradox in information-sensitive mobile app adoption: a cross-cultural comparison, Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 409, 10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.005 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Rubin, 1987, Development of parasocial interaction relationships, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 31, 279, 10.1080/08838158709386664 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Rubin, 1985, Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing, Human Communication Research, 12, 155, 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00071.x · DOI
  48. Sah, 2023, The role of consumers' privacy awareness in the privacy calculus for IoT services, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40, 1, 10.1080/10447318.2023.2184102 · DOI
  49. Schomakers, 2022, The role of privacy in the acceptance of smart technologies: applying the privacy calculus to technology acceptance, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 38, 1276, 10.1080/10447318.2021.1994211 · DOI
  50. Schramm, 2008, The PSI-process scales: a new measure to assess the intensity and breadth of parasocial processes, Communications, 33, 385, 10.1515/comm.2008.025 · DOI
  51. Trepte, 2017, A cross-cultural perspective on the privacy calculus, Social Media+ Society, 3, 10.1177/2056305116688035 · DOI
  52. Tukachinsky, 2010, Para-romantic love and para-friendships: development and assessment of a multiple parasocial relationships scale, American Journal of Media Psychology, 3, 73
  53. Willems, 2023, AI-driven public services and the privacy paradox: do citizens really care about their privacy?, Public Management Review, 25, 2116, 10.1080/14719037.2022.2063934 · DOI
  54. Wu, 2023, A brief overview of ChatGPT: the history, status quo and potential future development, IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 10, 1122, 10.1109/jas.2023.123618 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Wu, 2024, Unveiling security, privacy, and ethical concerns of ChatGPT, Journal of Information and Intelligence, 2, 102, 10.1016/j.jiixd.2023.10.007 · DOI
  56. Xie, 2023, Friend, mentor, lover: does chatbot engagement lead to psychological dependence?, Journal of Service Management, 34, 806, 10.1108/josm-02-2022-0072 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Xu, 2009, The role of push-pull technology in privacy calculus: the case of location-based services, Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 135, 10.2753/mis0742-1222260305 · DOI
  58. Xu, 2013, Factors affecting privacy disclosure on social network sites: an integrated model, Electronic Commerce Research, 13, 151, 10.1007/s10660-013-9111-6 · DOI
  59. Yam, 2023, Cultural Differences in people's Reactions and applications of robots, algorithms, and artificial intelligence, Management and Organization Review, 19, 859, 10.1017/mor.2023.21 · DOI
  60. Youn, 2021, ‘In AI we trust?’ The effects of parasocial interaction and technopian versus luddite ideological views on chatbot-based customer relationship management in the emerging ‘feeling economy’, Computers in Human Behavior, 119, 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106721 · DOI
  61. Zhang, 2020, Privacy management and self-disclosure on social network sites: the moderating effects of stress and gender, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25, 236, 10.1093/jcmc/zmaa004 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Meng, X., & Liu, J.
Affiliations
College of Arts and Media, Tongji University , ,
Venue
Online Information Review
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2025-02-26
Volume
49
Issue
5
Pages
933-954
ISSN
  • 1468-4527
  • 1468-4535
Cited by
46
References
11
Language
en

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