The Value of Privacy Assurance: An Exploratory Field Experiment1
Abstract
This paper reports the results of an exploratory field experiment in Singapore that assessed the values of two types of privacy assurance: privacy statements and privacy seals. We collaborated with a local firm to host the experiment on its website with its real domain name, and the subjects were not informed of the experiment. Hence, the study provided a field observation of the subjects’ behavioral responses toward privacy assurances. We found that (1) the existence of a privacy statement induced more subjects to disclose their personal information but that of a privacy seal did not; (2) monetary incentive had a positive influence on disclosure; and (3) information request had a negative influence on disclosure. These results were robust in other specifications that used alternative measures for some of our model variables. We discuss this study in relation to the extant privacy literature, most of which employs surveys and laboratory experiments for data collection, and draw related managerial implications.
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?
Decisions to disclose data can be based on a trade-off where individuals choose to exchange their private data for benefits or services that they consider important.
“suggest that decisions to disclose data can be based on a trade-off where individuals choose to exchange their private data for benefits or services that they consider important (e.g., Hann et al., 2002;Hui et al., 2007;Acquisti, 2009).”
From The privacy and control paradoxes in the context of smartphone apps (2022) · cites this paper as Hui et al., 2007
The results support the existence of the privacy paradox in the context of apps.
“These results support the existence of the privacy paradox (Barnes, 2006) in the context of apps, extending and generalizing the results reported by other studies about privacy decisions (e.g., Hann et al., 2002;Hui et al., 2007;Acquisti, 2009).”
From The privacy and control paradoxes in the context of smartphone apps (2022) · cites this paper as Hui et al., 2007
Cites
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305 · 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
Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis.
Luce, R. D. (2005) · doi:10.1037/14396-000 · Cited by 1,157 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Contemporary choice theory assumes that people make choices by maximizing a utility function that is decomposable into multiple contributors (Ben-Akiva and Lerman 1985; Luce 1959; McFadden 1986, 2001).”
BackgroundPrivacy: Recognition of a Consumer Right
Goodwin, C. (1991) · Journal of Public Policy & Marketing · doi:10.1177/074391569101000111 · Cited by 393 · see citing works
Values, personal information privacy, and regulatory approaches
Milberg, S. J., Burke, S. J., Smith, H. J., & Kallman, E. A. (1995) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/219663.219683 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Information Privacy and Marketing: What the U.S. Should (and Shouldn't) Learn from Europe
Smith, H. J. (2001) · California Management Review · doi:10.2307/41166073 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Privacy in the Digital Age: a Review of Information Privacy Research in Information Systems1
Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41409971 · Cited by 1,339 · see citing works
Bonsón Ponte, E., Carvajal-Trujillo, E., & Escobar-Rodríguez, T. (2015) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.009 · Cited by 718 · see citing works
Internet Privacy Concerns: An Integrated Conceptualization and Four Empirical Studies1
Hong, W., & Thong, J. Y. L. (2013) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2013/37.1.12 · Cited by 540 · see citing works
YOUN, S. (2009) · Journal of Consumer Affairs · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2009.01146.x · Cited by 449 · see citing works
Kehr, F., Kowatsch, T., Wentzel, D., & Fleisch, E. (2015) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12062 · Cited by 410 · see citing works
Menon, D., & Shilpa, K. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20962 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
Disclosure Antecedents in an Online Service Context: The Role of Sensitivity of Information
Mothersbaugh, D. L., Foxx, W. K., Beatty, S. E., & Wang, S. (2012) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670511424924 · Cited by 257 · see citing works
The personalization-privacy paradox: Implications for new media
Aguirre, E., Roggeveen, A. L., Grewal, D., & Wetzels, M. (2016) · Journal of Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1108/jcm-06-2015-1458 · Cited by 251 · see citing works
Investigating online information disclosure, effects of information relevance, trust and risk
Zimmer, J. C., Arsal, R. E., Al-Marzouq, M., & Grover, V. (2010) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2009.12.003 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Kim, K., & Kim, J. (2011) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2010.09.003 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Mousavizadeh, M., Kim, D. J., & Chen, R. (2016) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2016.09.011 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Zarifis, A., Kawalek, P., & Azadegan, A. (2021) · Journal of Internet Commerce · doi:10.1080/15332861.2020.1832817 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Informational privacy, consent and the “control” of personal data
Whitley, E. A. (2009) · Information Security Technical Report · doi:10.1016/j.istr.2009.10.001 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Agag, G. M., Khashan, M. A., Colmekcioglu, N., Almamy, A., Alharbi, N. S., Eid, R., Shabbir, H., & Abdelmoety, Z. H. S. (2019) · Information Technology & People · doi:10.1108/itp-12-2017-0446 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
The privacy and control paradoxes in the context of smartphone apps
Ayres-Pereira, V., Pirrone, A., Korbmacher, M., Tjostheim, I., & Böhm, G. (2022) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2022.986138 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“, 2013), and suggest that decisions to disclose data can be based on a trade-off where individuals choose to exchange their private data for benefits or services that they consider important (e.g., Hann et al., 2002; Hui et al., 2007; Acquisti, 2009).”
BackgroundResult
- Authors
- Hui, K.-L., Teo, H. H., & Lee, S.-Y. T.
- Affiliations
- City University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Department of Information Systems, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive, Singapore 117543, Singapore
- Hanyang University (KR)
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2007-03-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19-33
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W2134584038
- Cited by
- 614
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 85.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (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 › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
- Keywords
- privacy assurance, privacy policies, privacy seals, personal information disclosure, financial incentives, information requests, online privacy, consumer behavior, field experiments
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
