Privacy vs convenience
Understanding intention-behavior divergence post-GDPR
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21563445 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Julia Helena Zhang (0000-0002-3293-5316, University of Oulu, corresponding author), Timo Koivumäki (0000-0002-9559-6913, University of Oulu), Dominic Chalmers (0000-0001-5626-3692, Adam Smith Institute) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 160 |
| Pages | 108382 |
| Publication date | 2024-11-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Computers in Human Behavior (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0747-5632 • E-ISSN: 1873-7692 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108382 |
| OpenAlex | W4401027390 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 43 |
The privacy paradox describes a scenario in which individuals express privacy concerns but still share private data online. We explore how the paradox can be understood following the introduction of the European Union's landmark GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) legislation. Through qualitative interviews with online platform users, we find that individuals are concerned about personal data but remain constrained in their privacy self-management. In this context of limited perceived control, users' privacy attitudes are guided by anticipated value from using the platform and the convenience of privacy protection measures. Our study also highlights the role of peer influence on users' privacy choices, specifically through micro- and macro-network effects. We identify that (1) users move to privacy-protecting platforms to align with their social network, or because of information disseminated within their networks; and (2) users remain on platforms offering minimal privacy protection despite privacy concerns due to presence of their entire peer network. These findings provide a unified view on Privacy Paradox post-GDPR, bringing together a more comprehensive range of influences on individual-level privacy dynamics. Our research underscores the need for policymakers to streamline and standardize data protection measures lest the intentions of GDPR be undermined. We also highlight the need to go beyond a reliance on privacy self-management by better regulating the architecture of data management and enforcing principles of privacy by design and default
Business · Computer security · Data Protection Act 1998 · European union · FTC Fair Information Practice · General Data Protection Regulation · Information privacy · Information privacy law · Internet privacy · Privacy by Design · Privacy policy · Privacy software · Computer Science · Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data · Privacy, Security, and Data Protection · Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
The Right to Privacy Revisited
Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour
Ii. More Than Just Convenient
Privacy and human behavior in the age of information
Explaining the privacy paradox
Do Student Samples Provide an Accurate Estimate of the General Public?
Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research
Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research
Unpacking the privacy–personalisation paradox in GDPR-2018 regulated environments
The personalisation-privacy paradox
Privacy Cynicism and its Role in Privacy Decision-Making
The role of privacy fatigue in online privacy behavior
Privacy Protection Strategies on Facebook
Privacy cynicism
Facebook privacy settings
Data capitalism and the user
Laziness as an explanation for the privacy paradox
Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in‐depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors
We Care About Different Things
A Cross-Cultural Perspective on the Privacy Calculus
On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 3 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |