International Journal of Marketing and Business Communication

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

The Role of Privacy in Smartphone Apps Usage


Affiliations
1 Professor of Marketing and Quantitative Methods, Saint Leo University, United States
2 Associate Professor of Marketing & Interdisciplinary Business, The College of New Jersey, United States
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


We studied the importance of online privacy of personal data and security on smartphone apps among undergraduate students. In latent class regression analysis, our independent variables were gender, app usage, and knowledge. A two-cluster solution found evidence of the privacy paradox. Privacy was important, but they spent significant time in location-based apps, which gather data about them and erode their privacy. In both clusters, knowledge, as measured through studying, positively related to privacy concerns. Surprisingly, gender was not statistically significant.

Keywords

Online Privacy Latent Class Regression, Smartphone Apps
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Acquisti, A. (2004). Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification. ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, New York.

  • Acquisti, A., & Grossklags, J. (2005). Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security & Privacy, 2, 24-30.

  • Auxier, B., Rainie, L., Anderson, M., Perrin, A., Kumar, M., & Turner, E. (2019). Americans and privacy: Concerned, confused and feeling lack of control over their personal information, Pew Research Center, November 15. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-andprivacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-ofcontrol-over-their-personal-information/

  • Baek, Y. M. (2014). Solving the privacy paradox: A counter-argument experimental approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 33-42.

  • Susanne Barth, S., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2017). The privacy paradox - Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior - A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 1038-1058.

  • Barnes, S. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9). Retrieved from https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/issue/ view/203

  • Barth, S., de Jong, M. D. T., Junger, M., Hartel, P. H., & Roppelt, J. C. (2019). Putting the privacy paradox to the test: Online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources. Telematics and Informatics, 41, 55-69.

  • Baruh, L., Secinti, E. & Cemalcilar, Z. (2017). Online privacy concerns and privacy management: A metaanalytical review, Journal of Communication, 67, 26-53.

  • Blair, I. (2020). Mobile app download and usage statistics.Retrieved from https://buildfire.com/app-statistics/

  • Boyles, J. L., Smith, A., & Madden, M. (2012). Privacy and data management on mobile devices. Retrieved from http://www.privacylives.com/wp-content/uploads /2012/09/PIP_MobilePrivacyManagement-092012.pdf

  • Cho, H., Lee, J. S., & Chung S. (2010). Optimistic bias about online privacy risks: Testing the moderating effects of perceived controllability and prior experience.Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 987-995.

  • Debatin, B., Lovejoy J. P., Horn A. K., & Hughes B.N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 83-108.

  • Egelman, S., Felt, A. P., & Wagner, D. (2013). Choice architecture and smartphone privacy: There’s a price for that. In R. Böhme (Ed.), The Economics of Information Security and Privacy (pp. 211-236). Heidelberg: Springer.

  • Fife, E., & Orjuela, J. (2012). The privacy calculus: Mobile apps and user perceptions of privacy and security. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 4(11), 1-10.

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

  • Gerber, N., Gerver, P., & Volkamer, M. (2018). Explaining the privacy paradox: A systematic review of literature investigating privacy attitude and behavior. Computers & Security, 77, 226-261.

  • Gu, J., Xu, Y., Xu, H., Zhang, C., & Ling, H. (2017).Privacy concerns for mobile app download: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Decision Support Systems, 94, 19-28.

  • Hallam, C., & Zanella, G. (2017). Online self-disclosure: The privacy paradox explained as a temporally discounted balance between concerns and rewards.Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 217-227.

  • Hargittai, E. (2009). An update on survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science Computer Review, 27(1), 130-137.

  • Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Ranzini, G. (2016). Privacy cynicism: A new approach to the privacy paradox. Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(4).

  • Hui, K.-L., Tan, B. C. Y., & Goh, C.-Y. (2006). Online information disclosure: Motivators and measurements.

  • ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT), 6(4), 415-441.

  • Jensen, C., Potts, C., & Jensen, C. (2005). Privacy practices of internet users: Self-reports versus observed behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(1), 203-227.

  • Jiang, Z., Heng, C. S., & Choi, B. C. F. (2013).Privacy concerns and privacy-protective behavior in synchronous online social interactions. Information Systems Research, 24(3), 579-595.

  • Kelley, P. G., Cranor, L. F., & Sadeh, N. (2013). Privacy as part of the app decision-making process. CHI Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 11.

  • Kim, G. S., Park, S.-B., & Oh, J. (2008). An examination of factors influencing consumer adoption of short message service (SMS). Psychology & Marketing, 25(8), 769-786.

  • Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computer & Security, 64, 122-134.

  • Lee, N., & Kwon, O. (2015). A privacy-aware feature selection method for solving the personalizationprivacy paradox in mobile wellness healthcare services.Expert Systems with Applications, 42(5), 2764-2771.

  • Li, Y. (2012). Theories in online information privacy research: A critical review and an integrated framework. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 471-481.

  • Malik, A., Hiekkanen, K., & Nieminen, M. (2016).Privacy and trust in Facebook photo sharing: Age and gender differences. Program Electronic Library and information Systems, 50(4), 462-480.

  • Marwick, A., & Boyd, D. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1051-1067.

  • Olmstead, K., & Atkinson, M. (2015). Apps permissions in the Google Play store. In Pew Research Center, October. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/interactives/ apps-permissions/

  • Pentina, I., Zhang, L., Bata, H., & Chen, Y. (2016).Exploring privacy paradox in information-sensitive mobile app adoption: A cross-cultural comparison. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 409-419.

  • Pew Research Center. (2014). Public perceptions of privacy and security in the post-snowden era. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/11/12/public -privacy-perceptions/

  • Privacy Right Clearinghouse. (2013). Mobile health and fitness apps: What are the privacy risks? Retrieved from https://www.privacyrights.org/ mobile-health-and-fitness-appswhat-are-privacy-risks

  • Rajivan, P., & Camp, L. J. (2016). Influence of privacy attitude and privacy cue framing on Android app choices, Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), Denver, Colorado.

  • Sheng, H., Nah, F. F.-H., & Siau, K. (2008). An experimental study on ubiquitous commerce adoption: Impact of personalization and privacy concerns.Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(6), 15.

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G.(2002). The affect heuristic: The psychology of intuitive judgment. In: T. Gilovich, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and Biases (pp. 397-420), Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

  • Staddon, J., Acquisti, A., & LeFevre, K. (2013).Self-reported social network behavior: Accuracy predictors and implications for the privacy paradox. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Social Computing.

  • Statistica.com (2020). Leading shopping apps in the Google Play Store in the United States in March 2020, by number of downloads. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/819732/leading -google-play-shopping-usa-downloads/ Statista.com (2020b). Number of available applications in the Google Play Store from December 2009 to March 2020. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/ statistics/266210/number-of-available-applications-inthe-google-play-store/

  • Sun, Y., Wang, N., Shen, X. L., & Zhang, J. X. (2015). Location information disclosure in location-based social network services: Privacy calculus, benefit structure, and gender difference. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 278-292.

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson, Boston.

  • Tsay-Vogel, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli N. (2018). Social media cultivating perceptions of privacy: A 5-year analysis of privacy attitudes and self-disclosure behaviors among Facebook users. New Media and Society, 20(1), 141-161.

  • Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2005). Latent gold 4.0 user’s guide: Statistical innovations inc. Belmont, Massachusetts.

  • Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193-220.

  • Wedel, M., & Wagner, K. A. (2000). Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological foundations (2nd ed.). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and freedom. Atheneum, New York: Atheneum Press.

  • Wilson, D., & Valacich, J. S. (2012). Unpacking the privacy paradox: Irrational decision-making within the privacy calculus. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Information Systems,

  • December 16-19.

  • Wottrich, V. M., van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Smit, E. G. (2018). The privacy trade-off for mobile app downloads: The roles of app value, intrusiveness, and privacy concerns. Decision Support Systems, 106, 44-52.

  • Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341-352.

  • Zhou, T. (2013). Examining continuous usage of locationbased services from the perspective of perceived justice. Information Systems Frontiers, 15, 141-150.


Abstract Views: 139

PDF Views: 0




  • The Role of Privacy in Smartphone Apps Usage

Abstract Views: 139  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Stephen L Baglione
Professor of Marketing and Quantitative Methods, Saint Leo University, United States
Louis A Tucci
Associate Professor of Marketing & Interdisciplinary Business, The College of New Jersey, United States

Abstract


We studied the importance of online privacy of personal data and security on smartphone apps among undergraduate students. In latent class regression analysis, our independent variables were gender, app usage, and knowledge. A two-cluster solution found evidence of the privacy paradox. Privacy was important, but they spent significant time in location-based apps, which gather data about them and erode their privacy. In both clusters, knowledge, as measured through studying, positively related to privacy concerns. Surprisingly, gender was not statistically significant.

Keywords


Online Privacy Latent Class Regression, Smartphone Apps

References