The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Internet Users’ Information Privacy-Protective Responses: A Taxonomy and a Nomological MODEL1
Abstract
Although Internet users are expected to respond in various ways to privacy threats from online companies, little attention has been paid so far to the complex nature of how users respond to these threats. This paper has two specific goals in its effort to fill this gap in the literature. The first, so that these outcomes can be systematically investigated, is to develop a taxonomy of information privacy-protective responses (IPPR). This taxonomy consists of six types of behavioral responses—refusal, misrepresentation, removal, negative word-of-mouth, complaining directly to online companies, and complaining indirectly to third-party organizations— that are classified into three categories: information provision, private action, and public action. Our second goal is to develop a nomological model with several salient antecedents—concerns for information privacy, perceived justice, and societal benefits from complaining—of IPPR, and to show how the antecedents differentially affect the six types of IPPR. The nomological model is tested with data collected from 523 Internet users. The results indicate that some discernible patterns emerge in the relationships between the antecedents and the three groups of IPPR. These patterns enable researchers to better understand why a certain type of IPPR is similar to or distinct from other types of IPPR. Such an understanding could enable researchers to analyze a variety of behavioral responses to information privacy threats in a fairly systematic manner. Overall, this paper contributes to researchers’ theory-building efforts in the area of information privacy by breaking new ground for the study of individuals’ responses to information privacy threats.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3150783 · Cited by 12,222
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377701400320 · Cited by 10,390
A Reliability Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291170 · Cited by 7,330
Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81 · Cited by 5,550
Resnick, P., Kuwabara, K., Zeckhauser, R., & Friedman, E. (2000) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/355112.355122 · Cited by 2,190 · cited 1×
“Negative word-of-mouth communication is expected to damage the reputation of online companies and reduce their future sales (Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundInformation 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
Privacy Concerns and Consumer Willingness to Provide Personal Information
Phelps, J., Nowak, G., & Ferrell, E. (2000) · Journal of Public Policy & Marketing · doi:10.1509/jppm.19.1.27.16941 · Cited by 1,027
Privacy as a Concept and a Social Issue: A Multidimensional Developmental Theory
Laufer, R. S., & Wolfe, M. (1977) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01880.x · Cited by 993
An Empirical Examination of the Concern for Information Privacy Instrument
Stewart, K. A., & Segars, A. H. (2002) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.13.1.36.97 · Cited by 734
The Value of Privacy Assurance: An Exploratory Field Experiment1
Hui, K.-L., Teo, H. H., & Lee, S.-Y. T. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148779 · Cited by 614
Stone, E. F., Gueutal, H. G., Gardner, D. G., & McClure, S. (1983) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.3.459 · Cited by 387
TRUSTe: an online privacy seal program
Benassi, P. (1999) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/293411.293461 · Cited by 267
Cited by
Information Privacy Research: an Interdisciplinary Review1
Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41409970 · Cited by 2,013
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
Kokolakis, S. (2017) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002 · Cited by 1,229
A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems
Nickerson, R. C., Varshney, U., & Muntermann, J. (2013) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2012.26 · Cited by 1,143
Angst, C. M., & Agarwal, R. (2009) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/20650295 · Cited by 1,043
Metadata
- Authors
- Son, J.-Y., & Kim, S. S.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2008-09-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 503-529
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W2131703669
- Cited by
- 609
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 69.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
