Cited by 412Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourDigital Marketing and Social Media

Addressing the Personalization–Privacy Paradox: An Empirical Assessment from a Field Experiment on Smartphone Users1

Sutanto, Juliana, Palme, Elia, Tan, Chuan-Hoo, Phang, Chee Wei·2013·MIS Quarterly

Abstract

Privacy has been an enduring concern associated with commercial information technology (IT) applications, in particular regarding the issue of personalization. IT-enabled personalization, while potentially making the user computing experience more gratifying, often relies heavily on the user’s personal information to deliver individualized services, which raises the user’s privacy concerns. We term the tension between personalization and privacy, which follows from marketers exploiting consumers’ data to offer personalized product information, the personalization–privacy paradox. To better understand this paradox, we build on the theoretical lenses of uses and gratification theory and information boundary theory to conceptualize the extent to which privacy impacts the process and content gratifications derived from personalization, and how an IT solution can be designed to alleviate privacy concerns. Set in the context of personalized advertising applications for smartphones, we propose and prototype an IT solution, referred to as a personalized, privacy-safe application, that retains users’ information locally on their smartphones while still providing them with personalized product messages. We validated this solution through a field experiment by benchmarking it against two more conventional applications: a base non-personalized application that broadcasts non-personalized product information to users, and a personalized, non-privacy safe application that transmits user information to a central marketer’s server. The results show that (compared to the non-personalized application), while personalized, privacy-safe or not increased application usage (reflecting process gratification), it was only when it was privacy-safe that users saved product messages (reflecting content gratification) more frequently. Follow-up surveys corroborated these nuanced findings and further revealed the users’ psychological states, which explained our field experiment results. We found that saving advertisements for content gratification led to a perceived intrusion of information boundary that made users reluctant to do so. Overall our proposed IT solution, which delivers a personalized service but avoids transmitting users’ personal information to third parties, reduces users’ perceptions that their information boundaries are being intruded upon, thus mitigating the personalization–privacy paradox and increasing both process and content gratification.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25300/misq/2013/37.4.07

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sutanto, J., Palme, E., Tan, C.-H., & Phang, C. W.
Affiliations
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Newscron Ltd., Via Maderno 24, Lugano, Switzerland
  • City University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Fudan University (CN)
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2013-12-01
Volume
37
Issue
4
Pages
1141-1164
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
OpenAlex
W76789258
Cited by
412
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1
FWCI
56.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
Keywords
personalization-privacy paradox, privacy concerns, personalized advertising, smartphones, uses and gratifications theory

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