The Privacy Paradox in HCI: Calculus Behavior in Disclosing PII Online

  • Cheryl BoothEmail author
  • Shuyuan Mary Ho
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11589)


The Privacy Paradox is an information privacy behavioral phenomenon wherein individuals are aware that the personally identifiable information (PII) they disclose in an online transaction may be compromised, yet disclose it nonetheless. One explanation that has been given for this phenomenon is that the decision to disclose information online is informed by a risk/reward analysis, referred to as Privacy Calculus. However, the broad privacy calculus framework does not necessarily provide insight into specifically how an individual assesses either risk or reward. In our study, we evaluate several behavioral factors in an effort to assess whether and to what extent each informs or influences an individual’s risk assessment when deciding whether to disclose or withhold their PII in a given online transaction. Specifically, we report findings from a recent survey we administered, examining factors included in three different behavioral models. Results from this survey were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis, which provided insights as to the salience of each variable vis-à-vis online information behavior. Of the factors included in our study, our results surfaced four variables – perceived trustworthiness, perceived vulnerability, “cyber” self-efficacy, and perceived controllability – that appear to be particularly salient in an individual’s decision to withhold or disclose PII online.


Information privacy Human computer interaction Personally identifiable information (PII) Information privacy behavior Privacy paradox 


  1. 1.
    Warren, S.D., Brandeis, L.D.: The right to privacy. Harv. Law Rev. 4(5), 194–220 (1890)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Office of E-Government and Information Technology, M-06-19: Reporting Incidents Involving Personally Identifiable Information and Incorporating the Cost for Security in Agency Information Technology Investments, O.o.M.a. Budget, Editor, Washington, D.C (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gandy, O.H.: The Panopic Sort: A Political Economy of Personal Information. Westview Press, Boulder (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pew Research Center, Public Perceptions of Privacy and Security in the Post-Snowden Era. Pew Research Center (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norberg, P.A., Horne, D.R., Horne, D.A.: The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. J. Consum. Aff. 41(1), 100–126 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Culnan, M.J., Bies, R.J.: Consumer privacy: balancing economic and justice considerations. J. Soc. Issues 59(2), 323–342 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laufer, R.S., Wolfe, M.: Privacy as a concept and a social issue: a multidimensional developmental theory. J. Soc. Issues 33(3), 22–42 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dinev, T., Hart, P.: An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Inf. Syst. Res. 17(1), 61–80 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith, H.J., Dinev, T., Xu, H.: Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Q. 35(4), 989–1015 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bauer, R.A.: Consumer behavior as risk taking. In: Cox, D.F. (ed.) Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, pp. 23–33. Harvard University, Boston (1967)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S., Agarwal, J.: Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): the construct, the scale and a causal model. Inf. Syst. Res. 15(4), 336–355 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Featherman, M.S., Pavlou, P.A.: Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 59, 451–474 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith, H.J., Milberg, S.J., Burke, S.J.: Information privacy: measuring individuals’ cocnerns about organizational practices. MIS Q. 20(2), 167–196 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deutsch, M.: Trust and Suspicion. J. Conflict Resolut. 2(4), 265–279 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deutsch, M.: Trust and suspicion: theoretical notes. In: The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes, pp. 143–176. Yale University Press, New Haven (1973)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ben-Ner, A., Putterman, L.: Trusting and trustworthiness. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 81, 523–551 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., LePine, J.A.: Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationship with risk taking and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 92(4), 909–927 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hardin, R.: Trustworthiness. Ethics 107(1), 26–42 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hosmer, L.T.: Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20(2), 379–403 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zand, D.E.: Trust and managerial problem solving. Adm. Sci. Q. 17(2), 229–239 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ajzen, I.: Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32(4), 665–683 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Allport, G.W.: Attitudes. In: Murchison, C. (ed.) A Handbook of Social Psychology, pp. 799–844. Clark University Press, Worcester (1935)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fishbein, M. (ed.): Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. Wiley, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cialdini, R.B., Trost, M.R.: Social influence: social norms, conformity, and compliance. In: Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T., Lindzey, G., Aronson, E. (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology, pp. 151–192. McGraww-Hill Companies, Inc., New York (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ajzen, I.: Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire: conceptual and methodological considerations (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thompson, B.: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. American Psychological Association, Washington (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guttman, L.: Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis. Psychometrika 19(2), 149–161 (1954)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kaiser, H.F.: The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 23(3), 187–200 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations