Addressing the Personalization–Privacy Paradox: An Empirical Assessment from a Field Experiment on Smartphone Users1
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
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?
When information is perceived to be too personal or when people expect information to remain private, advertisers cross such a boundary or rule, which may disturb them making people feel anxious or uncomfortable.
“When information is perceived to be too personal or when they expect information to remain private (i.e., personal communication), advertisers cross such a boundary or rule, which may disturb them making people feel anxious or uncomfortable (Sutanto et al., 2013).”
From When is personalized advertising crossing personal boundaries? How type of information, data sharing, and personalized pricing influence consumer perceptions of personalized advertising (2021) · cites this paper as Sutanto et al., 2013
Communication privacy management theory and information boundary theory propose that people create rules or boundaries regarding who is denied or granted access to specific personal information.
“Communication privacy management theory (Petronio 2012) and information boundary theory (Sutanto et al., 2013) propose that people create rules or boundaries regarding who is denied or granted access to specific personal information.”
From When is personalized advertising crossing personal boundaries? How type of information, data sharing, and personalized pricing influence consumer perceptions of personalized advertising (2021) · cites this paper as Sutanto et al., 2013
Our study supports the notion that boundary conditions exist when examining the acceptance of online personalization, confirming theoretical notions from psychological ownership, communication privacy management theory, and information boundary theory.
“Our study supports the notion that boundary conditions exist when examining the acceptance of online personalization, confirming theoretical notions from psychological ownership (Pierce et al., 2003), communication privacy management theory (Petronio 2012), and information boundary theory (Sutanto et al., 2013).”
From When is personalized advertising crossing personal boundaries? How type of information, data sharing, and personalized pricing influence consumer perceptions of personalized advertising (2021) · cites this paper as Sutanto et al., 2013
A privacy-safe design enhances app usage (process gratification) and interaction with the app (content gratification) and at the same time lowers feelings of personal data being breached, eventually diminishing the privacy paradox.
“In this line, Sutanto et al. (2013) concluded that a privacy-safe design enhances app usage (process gratification) and interaction with the app (content gratification) and at the same time lowers feelings of personal data being breached, eventually diminishing the privacy paradox.”
From Putting the privacy paradox to the test: Online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources (2019) · cites this paper as Sutanto et al. (2013)
Cites
Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144 · Cited by 8,815 · see citing works
Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000) · Mass Communication and Society · doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0301_02 · Cited by 2,810 · see citing works
Solove, D. J. (2006) · University of Pennsylvania Law Review · doi:10.2307/40041279 · Cited by 1,388 · 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
Enjoyment intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people
Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Wielinga, B., & Evers, V. (2008) · Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction · doi:10.1145/1349822.1349838 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kokolakis, S. (2017) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002 · Cited by 1,229 · see citing works
Online behavioral advertising: A literature review and research agenda
Boerman, S. C., Kruikemeier, S., & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J. (2017) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/00913367.2017.1339368 · Cited by 607 · see citing works
Personalization in personalized marketing: Trends and ways forward
Chandra, S., Verma, S., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21670 · Cited by 595 · see citing works
The role of privacy fatigue in online privacy behavior
Choi, H., Park, J., & Jung, Y. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.001 · Cited by 427 · see citing works
Barth, S., de Jong, M. D. T., Junger, M., Hartel, P. H., & Roppelt, J. C. (2019) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2019.03.003 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Boerman, S. C., Kruikemeier, S., & Bol, N. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100144 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
“Based on communication privacy management theory (Petronio 2012) and information boundary theory (Sutanto et al., 2013), we expected that personalizing advertisements based on one or more of these elements would be perceived as crossing one or more boundaries.”
BackgroundInfluentialAlalwan, A. A., Baabdullah, A. M., Al-Debei, M. M., Raman, R., Alhitmi, H. K., Abu-ElSamen, A. A., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2024) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-08-2022-0339 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Wang, Y., Zhu, J., Liu, R., & Jiang, Y. (2024) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2024.102755 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Xiao, L., Lu, Q., & Guo, F. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12073036 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Exploring the privacy concerns of smartphone app users: a qualitative approach
Maseeh, H. I., Nahar, S., Jebarajakirthy, C., Ross, M., Arli, D., Das, M., Rehman, M., & Ashraf, H. A. (2023) · Marketing Intelligence & Planning · doi:10.1108/mip-11-2022-0515 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
- 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