Assessing Theories for Research on Personal Data Transparency

  • Anette SiebenkäsEmail author
  • Dirk Stelzer
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 547)


A growing number of business models are based on the collection, processing and dissemination of personal data. For a free decision about the disclosure of personal data, the individual concerned needs transparency as insight into which personal data is collected, processed, passed on to third parties, for what purposes and for what time (Personal Data Transparency, or PDT for short). The intention of this paper is to assess theories for research on PDT. We performed a literature review and explored theories used in research on PDT. We assessed the selected theories that may be appropriate for exploring PDT. Such research may build on several theories that open up different perspectives and enable various fields of study.


Personal Data Transparency Literature review Theory Information privacy Ex-ante transparency Real-time transparency Ex-post transparency 


  1. 1.
    Acquisti, A., Adjerid, I., Brandimarte, L.: Gone in 15 seconds: the limits of privacy transparency and control. IEEE Secur. Priv. 11, 72–74 (2013). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adjerid, I., Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., Loewenstein, G.: Sleights of privacy. Framing, disclosures, and the limits of transparency. In: Cranor, L.F., Bauer, L., Beznosov, K. (eds.) SOUPS Proceedings, pp. 1–17 (2013).
  3. 3.
    Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 50, 179–211 (1991). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M.: Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1980)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Altman, I.: The Environment and Social Behavior. Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding. Brooks-Cole Publishing Co., Monterey (1975)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Awad, N.F., Krishnan, M.S.: The personalization privacy paradox: an empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Q. 30, 13–28 (2006). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barth, A., Datta, A., Mitchell, J.C., Nissenbaum, H.: Privacy and contextual integrity: framework and applications. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 184–198 (2006).
  8. 8.
    Brandimarte, L., Acquisti, A., Loewenstein, G.: Misplaced confidences. Privacy and the control paradox. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 4, 340–347 (2013). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cabinakova, J., Zimmermann, C., Müller, G.: An Empirical Analysis of Privacy Dashboard Acceptance: The Google Case. In: ECIS Proceedings (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Culnan, M.J., Armstrong, P.K.: Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation. Organ. Sci. 10, 104–115 (1999). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319 (1989). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dinev, T., Bellotto, M., Hart, P., Russo, V., Serra, I., Colautti, C.: Privacy calculus model in e-commerce – a study of Italy and the United States. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15, 389–402 (2006). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dinev, T., Hart, P.: An extended privacy calculus model for E-commerce transactions. Inform. Syst. Res. 17, 61–80 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dinev, T., Xu, H., Smith, J.H., Hart, P.: Information privacy and correlates: an empirical attempt to bridge and distinguish privacy-related concepts. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22, 295–316 (2013). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eisenhardt, K.M.: Agency theory. An assessment and review. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14, 57 (1989). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischer-Hübner, S., Hoofnagle, C., Krontiris, I., Rannenberg, K., Waidner, M., Bowden, C.: Online privacy: towards informational self-determination on the internet. In: Hildebrandt, M., O’Hara, K., Waidner, M. (eds.) Digital Enlightenment Yearbook 2013, pp. 123–138. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Predicting and Changing Behavior. The Reasoned Action Approach. Psychology Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fuchs, C.: Towards an alternative concept of privacy. J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc. 9, 220–237 (2011). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Greenaway, K.E., Chan, Y.E., Crossler, R.E.: Company information privacy orientation. A conceptual framework. Inf. Syst. J. 25, 579–606 (2015). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Greenberg, J.: A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Acad. Manag. Rev. 12, 9–22 (1987). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gregor, S.: The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q. 30, 611–642 (2006). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hansen, M.: Marrying transparency tools with user-controlled identity management. In: Fischer-Hübner, S., Duquenoy, P., Zuccato, A., Martucci, L. (eds.) Privacy and Identity 2007. ITIFIP, vol. 262, pp. 199–220. Springer, Boston, MA (2008). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hansen, M.: Top 10 mistakes in system design from a privacy perspective and privacy protection goals. In: Camenisch, J., Crispo, B., Fischer-Hübner, S., Leenes, R., Russello, G. (eds.) Privacy and Identity 2011. IAICT, vol. 375, pp. 14–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hauff, S., Dytynko, O., Veit, D.: The influence of privacy dispositions on perceptions of information transparency and personalization preferences. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii Intern. Conference on System Sciences, pp. 5006–5015. AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) (2017).
  25. 25.
    Heath, J.: Contemporary privacy theory contributions to learning analytics. JLA 1, 140–149 (2014). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hildebrandt, M.: The dawn of a critical transparency right for the profiling era. In: Bus, J., Crompton, M., Hildebrandt, M., et al. (eds.) Digital Enlightenment Yearbook 2012. IOS Press, Amsterdam, Washington, D.C. (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hildén, J.: The normative shift: three paradoxes of information privacy. In: Kramp, L., et al. (ed.) Politics, Civil Society and Participation. Media and Communications in a Transforming Environment, pp. 63–73. edition lumière, Bremen (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ifenthaler, D., Schumacher, C.: Student perceptions of privacy principles for learning analytics. ETR&D-Educ. Tech. Res. 64, 923–938 (2016). Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory. An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263 (1979). Scholar
  30. 30.
    Karwatzki, S., Dytynko, O., Trenz, M., Veit, D.: Beyond the personalization–privacy paradox. Privacy valuation, transparency features, and service personalization. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 34, 369–400 (2017). Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kowatsch, T., Maass, W.: Critical privacy factors of internet of things services: an empirical investigation with domain experts. In: Rahman, H., Mesquita, A., Ramos, I., Pernici, B. (eds.) MCIS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 129, pp. 200–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  32. 32.
    Laufer, R.S., Wolfe, M.: Privacy as a concept and a social issue. A multidimensional developmental theory. J. Soc. Issues 33, 22–42 (1977). Scholar
  33. 33.
    Li, Y.: Theories in online information privacy research. A critical review and an integrated framework. Decis. Support Syst. 54, 471–481 (2012). Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lind, E.A., Tyler, T.R.: The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Plenum Pr, New York (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Milne, G.R., Gordon, M.E.: Direct mail privacy-efficiency trade-offs within an implied social contract framework. J. Public Policy Mark. 12, 206–215 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Monteleone, S.: Addressing the ‘failure’ of informed consent in online data protection: learning the lessons from behaviour-aware regulation. Syracuse J. Int. Law Commer. 43, 69–119 (2015)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Murmann, P., Fischer-Hübner, S.: Tools for achieving usable ex post transparency: a survey. IEEE Access 5, 22965–22991 (2017). Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nissenbaum, H.: Privacy as contextual integrity. Wash Law Rev. 79, 119–158 (2004)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nissenbaum, H.: Privacy in Context. Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford Law Books an Imprint of Stanford University Press, Stanford (2010)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nissenbaum, H.: A contextual approach to privacy online. Daedalus 140, 32–48 (2011). Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pardo, A., Siemens, G.: Ethical and privacy principles for learning analytics. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 45, 438–450 (2014). Scholar
  42. 42.
    Petronio, S.: Communication boundary management. A theoretical model of managing disclosure of private information between marital couples. Commun. Theory 1, 311–335 (1991). Scholar
  43. 43.
    Petronio, S.S.: Boundaries of Privacy. Dialectics of Disclosure. State University of New York Press, Albany (2002)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pollach, I.: Privacy statements as a means of uncertainty reduction in WWW interactions. J. Organ. End User Comput. 18, 23–48 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pope, J.A., Lowen, A.M.: Marketing implications of privacy concerns in the US and Canada. Direct Mark.: Int. J. 3, 301–326 (2009). Scholar
  46. 46.
    Publications Office of the European Union: General Data Protection Regulation. 2016/679 (2016)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rader, E.: Awareness of behavioral tracking and information privacy concern in Facebook and Google. In: SOUPS Proceedings, pp. 51–67. USENIX (2014)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Roeber, B., Rehse, O., Knorrek, R., Thomsen, B.: Personal data: how context shapes consumers’ data sharing with organizations from various sectors. Electron. Markets 25, 95–108 (2015). Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rowe, F.: What literature review is not. Diversity, boundaries and recommendations. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 23, 241–255 (2014). Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rust, R.T., Kannan, P.K., Peng, N.: The customer economics of internet privacy. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 30, 455–464 (2002). Scholar
  51. 51.
    Simon, H.A.: A behavioral model of rational choice. Q. J. Econ. 69, 99 (1955). Scholar
  52. 52.
    Simon, H.A.: Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioural Science. Palgrave Macmillan UK (1966)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Spence, M.: Job market signaling. Q. J. Econ. 87, 355 (1973). Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stutzman, F., Capra, R., Thompson, J.: Factors mediating disclosure in social network sites. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27, 590–598 (2011). Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sutton, R.I., Staw, B.M.: What theory is not. Admin. Sci. Quart. 40, 371 (1995). Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tavani, H.T.: Philosophical theories of privacy. Implications for an adequate online privacy policy. Metaphilosophy 38, 1–22 (2007). Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tavani, H.T.: Informational privacy. Concepts, theories, and controversies. In: Himma, K., Tavani, H.T. (eds.) The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, pp. 131–164. Wiley, Hoboken (2008).
  58. 58.
    Tavani, H.T., Moor, J.H.: Privacy protection, control of information, and privacy-enhancing technologies. SIGCAS Comput. Soc. 31, 6–11 (2001). Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tene, O., Polonetsky, J.: To track or “do not track”. Advancing transparency and individual control in online behavioral advertising. Minn. JL Sci. Tech. 13, 281 (2012)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty. Heuristics Biases. Sci. 185, 1124–1131 (1974). Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981). Scholar
  62. 62.
    Walker, K.L.: Surrendering information through the looking glass: transparency, trust, and protection. J. Public Policy Mark. 35, 144–158 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Warren, S.D., Brandeis, L.D.: The right to privacy. Harvard Law Rev. 4, 193 (1890). Scholar
  64. 64.
    Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future. Writing a Literature Review. MIS Q. 26, xiii–xxiii (2002)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    World Economic Forum: Rethinking Personal Data: A New Lens for Strengthening Trust. Cologny/Geneva (2014)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Zhang, B., Xu, H.: Privacy nudges for mobile applications: effects on the creepiness emotion and privacy attitudes. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pp. 1676–1690. ACM, San Francisco (2016).

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fachgebiet Informations- und WissensmanagementTechnische Universität IlmenauIlmenauGermany

Personalised recommendations