Reconciling the Personalization-Privacy Paradox: Exploring Privacy Boundaries in Online Personalized Advertising
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194 · see citing works
Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271 · Cited by 2,520 · see citing works
Putting Time in Perspective: A Valid, Reliable Individual-Differences Metric
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (2015) · Time Perspective Theory; Review, Research and Application · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07368-2_2 · Cited by 2,147 · see citing works
Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation
Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.1.104 · Cited by 1,870 · see citing works
The role of data privacy in marketing
Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-016-0495-4 · Cited by 902 · see citing works
Xu, H., Luo, X. (., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2011) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.017 · Cited by 708 · see citing works
The online disinhibition effect
Suler, J. (2005) · International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies · doi:10.1002/aps.42 · Cited by 640 · see citing works
Gerber, N., Gerber, P., & Volkamer, M. (2018) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.002 · Cited by 511 · see citing works
Social media: A contextual framework to guide research and practice.
McFarland, L. A., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0039244 · Cited by 414 · see citing works
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
- Publisher
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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