Laziness as an explanation for the privacy paradox
A longitudinal empirical investigation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12420693 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jakob Wirth (0000-0002-9886-7950, University of Bamberg, corresponding author), Christian Maier (0000-0001-8328-2493, University of Bamberg), Sven Laumer (0000-0002-9430-5774, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg), Tim Weitzel (0000-0002-2130-3540, University of Bamberg) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 24-54 |
| Publication date | 2021-05-25 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Internet Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1066-2243 • E-ISSN: 2054-5657 |
| Publisher | Emerald Publishing Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1108/intr-10-2019-0439 |
| OpenAlex | W3164709935 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 97 |
Purpose “Smart devices think you're “too lazy” to opt out of privacy defaults” was the headline of a recent news report indicating that individuals might be too lazy to stop disclosing their private information and therefore to protect their information privacy. In current privacy research, privacy concerns and self-disclosure are central constructs regarding protecting privacy. One might assume that being concerned about protecting privacy would lead individuals to disclose less personal information. However, past research has shown that individuals continue to disclose personal information despite high privacy concerns, which is commonly referred to as the privacy paradox. This study introduces laziness as a personality trait in the privacy context, asking to what degree individual laziness influences privacy issues. Design/methodology/approach After conceptualizing, defining and operationalizing laziness, the authors analyzed information collected in a longitudinal empirical study and evaluated the results through structural equation modeling. Findings The findings show that the privacy paradox holds true, yet the level of laziness influences it. In particular, the privacy paradox applies to very lazy individuals but not to less lazy individuals. Research limitations/implications With these results one can better explain the privacy paradox and self-disclosure behavior. Practical implications The state might want to introduce laws that not only bring organizations to handle information in a private manner but also make it as easy as possible for individuals to protect their privacy. Originality/value Based on a literature review, a clear research gap has been identified, filled by this research study
Computer security · Context (archaeology · Empirical research · Epistemology · Information privacy · Internet privacy · Laziness · Personally identifiable information · Privacy by Design · Private information retrieval · Computer Science · Information and Cyber Security · Privacy, Security, and Data Protection · Psychology · Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Privacy vs convenience
Systematic review of survey scales measuring information privacy concerns on social network sites
Seeing the forest and the trees
Beyond lazy; external locus of control as an alternative explanation for the privacy paradox
Consumer vulnerability
Small businesses and e-government participation
Privacy in the Digital Age
Theories in online information privacy research
Are Individual Differences Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies?
Bias, Discrimination, and Obesity
Set like plaster? Evidence for the stability of adult personality.
Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour
Privacy and human behavior in the age of information
Quitting the use of a habituated hedonic information system
A Longitudinal Model of Continued Is Use
What Do Systems Users Have to Fear? Using Fear Appeals to Engender Threats and Fear that Motivate Protective Security Behaviors1
The Consequences of Technostress for End Users in Organizations
A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology
Personality, Modernity, and the Storied Self
Data Collection in the Digital Age
Research Note —How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model to Technology Acceptance and Use
Technostress creators and job outcomes
Dispositional Factors in Internet Use
Impact of Technostress on End-User Satisfaction and Performance
Vroom's expectancy models and work-related criteria
Integrating Technology Addiction and Use
A Practical Guide To Factorial Validity Using PLS-Graph
Assimilation of Enterprise Systems
Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis
PLS-Sem
User Acceptance of Information Technology
Common method biases in behavioral research
A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling
When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology
Learned helplessness in humans
Preparing for information‐age conflict
The Privacy Paradox
Internet privacy concerns and their antecedents - measurement validity and a regression model
Privacy and rationality in individual decision making
Privacy practices of Internet users
The Biggest Lie on the Internet
Mobile internet and consumer happiness
Internet research
What do conscientious people do? Development and validation of the Behavioral Indicators of Conscientiousness (BIC)
Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in‐depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors
A Six-Factor Structure of Personality-Descriptive Adjectives
Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations
The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits
Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2024 (2) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |