Abstract
PurposeThe privacy paradox refers to the situation where users of online services continue to disclose personal information even when they are concerned about their privacy. One recent study of Facebook users published in Internet Research concludes that laziness contributes to the privacy paradox. The purpose of this study is to challenge the laziness explanation. To do so, we adopt a cognitive dispositions perspective and examine how a person’s external locus of control influences the privacy paradox, beyond the trait of laziness.Design/methodology/approachA mixed method approach is adopted. We first develop a research model which hypothesises the moderating effects of both laziness and external locus of control on privacy issues. We quantitatively test the research model through a two-phase survey of 463 Facebook users using the Hayes PROCESS macro. We then conduct a qualitative study to verify and develop the findings from the quantitative phase.FindingsThe privacy paradox holds true. The findings confirm the significant influence of external locus of control on the privacy paradox. While our quantitative findings suggest laziness does not affect the association between privacy concerns and self-disclosure, our qualitative data does provide some support for the laziness explanation.Originality/valueOur study extends existing research by showing that a person’s external locus of control provides a stronger explanation for the privacy paradox than the laziness perspective. As such, this study further reveals the boundary conditions on which the privacy paradox exists for some users of social networking sites, but not others. Our study also suggests cognitive dissonance coping strategies, which are largely absent in prior investigations, may influence the privacy paradox.
Reference76 articles.
1. Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification,2004
2. Privacy and rationality in individual decision making;IEEE Security and Privacy,2005
3. Beyond the privacy paradox: objective versus relative risk in privacy decision making;MIS Quarterly,2018
4. Work outcomes and job design for contract versus permanent information systems professionals on software development teams;MIS Quarterly,2001
5. Attewell, P. and Rule, J. (1991), “Survey and other methodologies applied to IT impact research: experiences from a comparative study of business computing”, in Kraemer, K. (Ed.), The Information Systems Research Challenge: Survey Research Methods, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, pp. 299-315.