skip to main content
research-article

Achieving a Balance Between Privacy Protection and Data Collection: : A Field Experimental Examination of a Theory-Driven Information Technology Solution

Published: 01 March 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Companies face a trade-off between creating stronger privacy protection policies for consumers and employing more sophisticated data collection methods. Justice-driven privacy protection outlines a method to manage this trade-off. We built on the theoretical lens of justice theory to integrate justice provision with two key privacy protection features, negotiation and active-recommendation, and proposed an information technology (IT) solution to balance the trade-off between privacy protection and consumer data collection. In the context of mobile banking applications, we prototyped a theory-driven IT solution, referred to as negotiation, active-recommendation privacy policy application, which enables customer service agents to interact with and actively recommend personalized privacy policies to consumers. We benchmarked our solution through a field experiment relative to two conventional applications: an online privacy statement and a privacy policy with only a simple negotiation feature. The results showed that the proposed IT solution improved consumers’ perceived procedural justice, interactive justice, and distributive justice and increased their psychological comfort in using our application design and in turn reduced their privacy concerns, enhanced their privacy awareness, and increased their information disclosure intentions and actual disclosure behavior in practice. Our proposed design can provide consumers better privacy protection while ensuring that consumers voluntarily disclose personal information desirable for companies.

Abstract

Companies face a trade-off between creating stronger privacy protection policies for consumers and employing more sophisticated data collection methods. Justice-driven privacy protection outlines a method to manage this trade-off. We built on the theoretical lens of justice theory to integrate justice provision with key privacy protection features and conceptualized the extent to which these features affect privacy concerns and information disclosure behavior. Notably, we proposed an information technology (IT) solution to balance the trade-off between privacy protection and consumer data collection. In the context of mobile banking applications, we prototyped a theory-driven IT solution, referred to as negotiation, active-recommendation privacy policy application, which enables customer service agents to interact with and actively recommend personalized privacy policies to consumers. We benchmarked our solution through a field experiment relative to two conventional applications: a non-negotiation privacy policy application (only a nonnegotiable privacy statement is posted) as a base method and a negotiation, non-active-recommendation privacy policy application (only a negotiation feature is integrated with the privacy policy). The results showed that the proposed negotiation, active-recommendation privacy policy application decreased privacy concerns and increased consumers’ information disclosure intentions and actual disclosure behavior. A post hoc analysis corroborated these findings, indicating that our design enhanced perceived procedural justice, interactional justice, and distributive justice among consumers and made them feel comfortable to disclose their personal information. Likewise, companies would be able to collect additional personal information from consumers, thereby contributing to a privacy-friendly environment. We discuss contributions and the implications of our proposed IT solution for consumers, companies, developers, and public policy officials.

References

[1]
Ackerman MS, Cranor LF, Reagle J (1999) Privacy in e-commerce: Examining user scenarios and privacy preferences. Proc. 1st ACM Conf. Electronic Commerce (ACM, New York), 1-8.
[2]
Acquisti A, Adjerid I, Balebako RH, Brandimarte L, Cranor LF, Komanduri S, Leon P, et al. (2017) Nudges for privacy and security: Understanding and assisting users’ choices online. ACM Comput. Surveys 50(3):1–41.
[3]
Almuhimedi H, Schaub F, Sadeh N, Adjerid I, Acquisti A, Gluck J, Cranor L, Agarwal Y (2015) Your location has been shared 5,398 times! A field study on mobile app privacy nudging. Proc. 33rd Annual ACM Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (ACM, New York), 787–796.
[4]
Ashworth L, Free C (2006) Marketing dataveillance and digital privacy: Using theories of justice to understand consumers’ online privacy concerns. J. Bus. Ethics 67(2):107–123.
[5]
Bansal G, Zahedi FM, Gefen D (2016) Do context and personality matter? Trust and privacy concerns in disclosing private information online. Inform. Management 53(1):1–21.
[6]
Bélanger F, Crossler RE (2011) Privacy in the digital age: A review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Quart. 35(4):1017–1041.
[7]
Blau P (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life (Wiley, New York).
[8]
Brandimarte L, Acquisti A, Loewenstein G (2013) Misplaced confidences: Privacy and the control paradox. Soc. Psych. Personal. Sci. 4(3):340–347.
[9]
Chai S, Bagchi-Sen S, Morrell C, Rao HR, Upadhyaya SJ (2009) Internet and online information privacy: An exploratory study of preteens and early teens. IEEE Trans. Professional Commun. 52(2):167–182.
[10]
Chin DN (2007) Information filtering, expertise and cognitive load BT. Schmorrow DD, Reeves LM, eds. Foundations of Augmented Cognition (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg), 75–83.
[11]
Choi BCF, Kim SS, Jiang Z (2016) Influence of firm’s recovery endeavors upon privacy breach on online customer behavior. J. Management Inform. Systems 33(3):904–933.
[12]
Chen SM, Tan JM (1994) Handling multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set theory. Fuzzy Sets Systems 67(2):163–172.
[13]
Culnan MJ (1995) Consumer awareness of name removal procedures: Implications for direct marketing. J. Direct Marketing 9(2):10–19.
[14]
Culnan MJ, Armstrong PK (1999) Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organ. Sci. 10(1):104–115.
[15]
Culnan MJ, Bies RJ (2003) Consumer privacy: Balancing economic and justice considerations. J. Soc. Issues 59(2):323–342.
[16]
Das A, Degeling M, Smullen D, Sadeh Norman (2018) Personalized privacy assistants for the internet of things: Providing users with notice and choice. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 17(3):35–46.
[17]
Dinev T, Hart P (2006) An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Inform. Systems Res. 17(1):61–80.
[18]
Dwork C (2008) Differential privacy: A survey of results. Agrawal M, Du D, Duan Z, Li A, eds. Internat. Conf. Theory Appl. Models Comput. (Springer, Berlin), 1–19.
[19]
EPIC and Junkbusters (2000) An assessment of P3P and internet privacy. Accessed September 16, 2020, https://epic.org/reports/prettypoorprivacy.html.
[20]
Gefen D (2000) E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega 28(5):725–737.
[21]
Gemalto (2018) Data breaches compromised 3.3 billion records in the first half of 2018. Accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.gemalto.com/press/Pages/Data-Breaches-Compromised-3-3-Billion-Records-in-First-Half-of-2018.aspx.
[22]
Ghazinour K, Razavi AH, Barker K (2014) A model for privacy compromisation value. Procedia Comput. Sci. 37:143–152.
[23]
Grimm R, Rossnagel A (2000) Can P3P help to protect privacy worldwide? Proc. 2000 ACM Workshops Multimedia (ACM, New York), 157–160.
[24]
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.
[25]
Holmvall CM, Sidhu J (2007) Predicting customer service employees’ job satisfaction and turnover intentions: The roles of customer interactional injustice and interdependent self-construal. Soc. Justice Res. 20(4):479–496.
[26]
Hui KL, Teo HH, Lee SYT (2007) The value of privacy assurance: An exploratory field experiment. MIS Quart. 31(1):19–33.
[27]
Internet Law Research Center (2016) China personal information security and privacy report. Accessed December 10, 2020, http://www.199it.com/archives/540836.html.
[28]
Karwatzki S, Dytynko O, Trenz M, Veit D (2017) Beyond the personalization–privacy paradox: Privacy valuation, transparency features, and service personalization. J. Management Inform. Systems 34(2):369–400.
[29]
Knijnenburg BP, Kobsa A, Saldamli G (2012) Privacy in mobile personalized systems: The effect of disclosure justifications. Proc. 8th Sympos. Usable Privacy Security (ACM, New York).
[30]
Kumaraguru P, Cranor LF (2005) Privacy indexes: A survey of Westin’s studies. Institute for Software Research International Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
[31]
Kwon OA (2010) A pervasive P3P-based negotiation mechanism for privacy-aware pervasive e-commerce. Decision Support Systems 50(1):213–221.
[32]
Kwon OA, Lee Y, Sarangib D (2011) A galois lattice approach to a context-aware privacy negotiation service. Expert Systems Appl. 38(10):12619–12629.
[33]
Lan R, Fan JL (2009) TOPSIS decision-making method on three parameters interval-valued fuzzy sets. Systems Engrg. Theory Practice 29(5):129–136.
[34]
Li Y (2014) A multi-level model of individual information privacy beliefs. Electronic Commerce Res. Appl. 13(1):32–44.
[35]
Lin T (2019) Valuing intrinsic and instrumental preferences for privacy. Preprint, submitted June 25, 2020, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3406412.
[36]
Lin J, Liu B, Sadeh N, Hong JI (2014) Modeling users’ mobile app privacy preferences: Restoring usability in a sea of permission settings. Proc. 10th Sympos. Usable Privacy Security (ACM, New York), 199–212.
[37]
Liu B, Andersen MS, Schaub F, Almuhimedi H, Zhang S, Sadeh N, Acquisti A, Agarwa Y (2016) Follow my recommendations: A personalized privacy assistant for mobile app permissions. Zurko ME, Consolvo S, Smith M, eds. Proc. 12th USENIX Conf. Usable Privacy Security (USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA), 27–41.
[38]
Liu Y (2014) User control of personal information concerning mobile-app: Notice and Consent? Comput. Law Security Rev. 30(5):521–529.
[39]
Lyons V, Werff VD, Lynn T (2016) Ethics as pacemaker: Regulating the heart of the privacy-trust relationship: A proposed conceptual model. 37th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (AIS, Atlanta), 1–12.
[40]
Malhotra NK, Kim SS, Agarwal J (2004) Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inform. Systems Res. 15(4):336–355.
[41]
McDonald AM, Cranor LF (2008) The cost of reading privacy policies. J. Law Policy Inform. Soc. 4(3):540–565.
[42]
Meinert DB, Peterson DK, Criswell JR, Crossland MD (2006) Privacy policy statements and consumer willingness to provide personal information. J. Electronic Commerce Organ. 4(1):1–17.
[44]
Nyheim P, Xu S, Zhang L, Mattila AS (2015) Predictors of avoidance toward personalization of restaurant smartphone advertising: A study from the millennials’ perspective. J. Hospitality Tourism Tech. 6(2):145–159.
[45]
Pavlou PA (2011) State of the information privacy literature: Where are we now and where should we go? MIS Quart. 35(4):977–988.
[46]
Preibusch S (2006) Implementing privacy negotiations in e-commerce. Zhou X, Li J, Shen HT, Kitsuregawa M, Zhang Y, eds. Frontiers of WWW Research and Development—APWeb 2006 (Springer, Berlin), 604–615.
[47]
Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Communication and Persuasion (Springer, New York), 1–24.
[49]
Sharma S, Crossler RE (2014) Disclosing too much? Situational factors affecting information disclosure in social commerce environment. Electronic Commerce Res. Appl. 13(5):305–319.
[50]
Smith HJ, Dinev T, Xu H (2011) Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS Quart. 35(4):989–1015.
[51]
Smith HJ, Milberg SJ, Burke SJ (1996) Information privacy: Measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quart. 20(2):167–196.
[52]
Smullen D, Feng Y, Zhang S, Sadeh N (2020) The best of both worlds: Mitigating trade-offs between accuracy and user burden in capturing mobile app privacy preferences. Proc. Privacy Enhancing Tech. (Sciendo, Warsaw), 195–215.
[53]
Son JY, Kim SS (2008) Internet users’ information privacy-protective responses: A taxonomy and a nomological model. MIS Quart. 32(3):503–529.
[54]
Sparks BA, McColl-Kennedy JR (2001) Justice strategy options for increased customer satisfaction in a services recovery setting. J. Bus. Res. 54(3):209–218.
[55]
Spears JL (2013) The effects of notice vs. awareness: An empirical examination of an online consumer’s privacy risk treatment. Proc. 46th Hawaii Internat. Conf. System Sci. (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC), 3229–3238.
[56]
Squicciarini AC, Bertino E, Ferrari E, Ray I (2006) Achieving privacy in trust negotiations with an ontology-based approach. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput. 3(1):13–30.
[57]
Taddei S, Contena B (2013) Privacy, trust and control: Which relationships with online self-disclosure? Comput. Human Behav. 29(3):821–826.
[58]
Thibaut JW, Walker L (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis (L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ).
[59]
Thompson L (2014) Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, 6th ed. (Pearson, London).
[60]
Turow J (2003) Americans online privacy: The system is broken. Report, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
[61]
Wang SC, Wu JH (2014) Proactive privacy practices in transition: Toward ubiquitous services. Inform. Management 51(1):93–103.
[62]
Westin AF (1967) Privacy and Freedom (Atheneum, New York).
[63]
Wijesekera P, Baokar A, Tsai L, Reardon J, Egelman S, Wagner D, Beznosov K (2017) The feasibility of dynamically granted permissions: Aligning mobile privacy with user preferences. 38th IEEE Sympos. Security Privacy (IEEE, New York), 1077–1093.
[64]
Xie E, Teo HH, Wan W (2006) Volunteering personal information on the internet: Effects of reputation, privacy notices, and rewards on online consumer behavior. Marketing Lett. 17(1):61–74.
[65]
Xu ZS (2007) An interactive procedure for linguistic multiple attribute decision making with incompletely weight information. Fuzzy Optim. Decision Making 6(1):17–27.
[66]
Xu H, Teo HH, Tan BC, Agarwal R (2009) The role of push-pull technology in privacy calculus: The case of location-based services. J. Management Inform. Systems 26(3):135–174.
[67]
Xu H, Teo HH, Tan BC, Agarwal R (2012) Effects of individual self-protection, industry self-regulation, and government regulation on privacy concerns: A study of location-based services. Inform. Systems Res. 23(4):1342–1363.
[68]
Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Inform. Sci. 8(3):199–249.
[69]
Zhao L, Lu Y, Gupta S (2012) Disclosure intention of location-related information in location-based social network services. Internat. J. Electronic Commerce 16(4):53–90.
[70]
Zhou T (2016) The effect of perceived justice on LBS users’ privacy concern. Inform. Development 32(5):1730–1740.
[71]
Zhu J, Liu S, Wang H (2007) Aggregation approach of two kinds of three-point interval number comparison matrix in group decision making. Acta Automatica Sinica 33(3):297–301.

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. Achieving a Balance Between Privacy Protection and Data Collection: A Field Experimental Examination of a Theory-Driven Information Technology Solution
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Information & Contributors

          Information

          Published In

          cover image Information Systems Research
          Information Systems Research  Volume 33, Issue 1
          March 2022
          404 pages
          ISSN:1526-5536
          DOI:10.1287/isre.2022.33.issue-1
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Publisher

          INFORMS

          Linthicum, MD, United States

          Publication History

          Published: 01 March 2022
          Accepted: 09 June 2021
          Received: 21 January 2020

          Author Tags

          1. electronic commerce
          2. mobile commerce
          3. privacy protection
          4. privacy policy
          5. justice theory
          6. privacy concerns
          7. information disclosure

          Qualifiers

          • Research-article

          Contributors

          Other Metrics

          Bibliometrics & Citations

          Bibliometrics

          Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
          Reflects downloads up to 21 Jan 2025

          Other Metrics

          Citations

          Cited By

          View all

          View Options

          View options

          Media

          Figures

          Other

          Tables

          Share

          Share

          Share this Publication link

          Share on social media