Cited by 23Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

Reconciling the Personalization-Privacy Paradox: Exploring Privacy Boundaries in Online Personalized Advertising

Open access
Zhu, Yu-Qian, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Kanjanamekanant, Kritsapas, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Chiu, Yi-Te, Victoria University of Wellington·2023·Journal of the Association for Information Systems

Abstract

To reconcile the personalization-privacy paradox, we adopt the privacy as a state view and define privacy as a state of information boundary rule-following. We further identify five types of boundaries underlying some of the important implicit rules of maintaining privacy: communication channel, platform, device, temporal, and purpose boundaries. Using an online vignette survey, we investigated how each of these boundary types affected users’ privacy perceptions when they were subjected to personalized advertisements. Using fixed- and random-effects models, we investigated how violating different boundary rules leads to changes in perceived privacy. Our results show that all five boundary types are significant predictors of perceived privacy within individuals. The communication channel, device, and business versus private purpose are significant predictors of perceived privacy across the whole sample. Temporal boundaries and platform boundaries failed to achieve statistical significance when evaluated simultaneously with the other factors across the whole sample. This means that for each individual, observing the rules of these five boundary types leads to higher perceived privacy than not observing these conditions. Taken as a whole, observing communication channel, device, and business versus private purpose boundaries also leads to higher averages of perceived privacy across the whole sample. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed based on the results

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 · 10.17705/1jais.00775

Cites

9 of 9 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
Zhu, Y.-Q., National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Kanjanamekanant, K., National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Chiu, Y.-T., & Victoria University of Wellington
Affiliations
  • National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (TW)
  • Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
Venue
Journal of the Association for Information Systems
Published
2023
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
294-316
ISSN
1536-9323 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4313589900
Cited by
23
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2
FWCI
7.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
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 › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
personalization-privacy paradox, perceived privacy, privacy boundaries, temporal boundaries

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