FlashPolling privacy: the discrepancy of intention and action in location-based poll participation
Abstract
Predicting users' behaviour from attitudes and intentions provides inexpensive means for studying behaviour on a large scale. The underlying assumption for this is that intention correlates with behaviour. However, recent privacy literature questions the assumption that there is such a correlation. With this paper, we add to the debate by presenting a study comparing intention and behaviour using a location-based mobile participation application. We find no correlation between hypothetical and actual participation, but find that intention to participate differs from actual participation both by frequency and by what the participants (state that they would) participate in. We also find that the most prominent reason for not installing the app and participating in the field study seems to have been privacy concern.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Individuals tend to concentrate on actual benefits rather than on previously stated concerns and calculated future risks with regard to issues such as location tracking by service providers via location-based mobile applications.
“Individuals tend to concentrate on actual benefits rather than on previously stated concerns and calculated future risks with regard to issues such as location tracking by service providers via location-based mobile applications (Poikela et al., 2015).”
From The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review (2017) · cites this paper as Poikela et al., 2015
The technological context of mobile apps adds various factors to the privacy calculus that are beyond the user's control such as near continuous tracking.
“The technological context of mobile apps adds various factors to the privacy calculus that are beyond the user's control such as near continuous tracking (Poikela et al., 2015).”
From The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review (2017) · cites this paper as Poikela et al., 2015
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587 · see citing works
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737 · see citing works
An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions
Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0080 · Cited by 2,640 · see citing works
The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior
Albarracin, D., Johnson, B. T., & Zanna, M. P. (2014) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410612823-13 · Cited by 1,933 · see citing works
The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors
NORBERG, P. A., HORNE, D. R., & HORNE, D. A. (2007) · Journal of Consumer Affairs · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x · Cited by 1,526 · see citing works
A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States
Barnes, S. B. (2006) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394 · Cited by 1,336 · see citing works
Personalization versus Privacy: An Empirical Examination of the Online Consumer’s Dilemma
Chellappa, R. K., & Sin, R. G. (2005) · Information Technology and Management · doi:10.1007/s10799-005-5879-y · Cited by 1,043 · see citing works
Comparing Data from Online and Face-to-face Surveys
Duffy, B., Smith, K., Terhanian, G., & Bremer, J. (2005) · International Journal of Market Research · doi:10.1177/147078530504700602 · Cited by 569 · see citing works
Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification
Acquisti, A. (2004) · Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on Electronic commerce · doi:10.1145/988772.988777 · Cited by 561 · see citing works
E-privacy in 2nd generation E-commerce
Spiekermann, S., Großklags, J., & Berendt, B. (2001) · ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC) · doi:10.1145/501158.501163 · Cited by 454 · see citing works
Privacy calculus model in e-commerce – a study of Italy and the United States
Dinev, T., Bellotto, M., Hart, P., Russo, V., Serra, I., & Colautti, C. (2006) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000590 · Cited by 390 · see citing works
Do I Do What I Say?: Observed Versus Stated Privacy Preferences
Connelly, K., Khalil, A., & Yong, L. (2007) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74796-3_61 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barth, S., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2017) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013 · Cited by 798 · see citing works
“The technological context of mobile apps adds various factors to the privacy calculus that are beyond the user’s control such as near continuous tracking (Poikela et al., 2015).”
BackgroundJozani, M., Ayaburi, E., Ko, M., & Choo, K.-K. R. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106260 · Cited by 303 · see citing works
Barth, S., de Jong, M. D. T., Junger, M., Hartel, P. H., & Roppelt, J. C. (2019) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2019.03.003 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Jahari, S. A., Hass, A., Hass, D., & Joseph, M. (2022) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.2029 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Virtue Ethics as a Solution to the Privacy Paradox and Trust in Emerging Technologies
Bilal, A., Wingreen, S. C., & Sharma, R. (2020) · International Conference on Information Science and Systems (ICISS) · doi:10.1145/3388176.3388196 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
An information system to ease the creation and deployment of context-aware, location-based surveys
Scaffidi, C. P. (2016) · Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI) · doi:10.1109/cisti.2016.7521560 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Poikela, M., Schmidt, R., Wechsung, I., & Möller, S.
- Affiliations
- Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers - UbiComp '15
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2015
- Pages
- 813-818
- OpenAlex
- W2033147418
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 2.43
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Keywords
- privacy concerns, intention-behavior gap, location-based services, user participation, fieldwork
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
