How Values Shape Concerns about Privacy for Self and Others Research-in-Progress
Tawfiq Alashoor Georgia State University 35 Broad Street Northwest Atlanta, GA, USA
[email protected]
Mark Keil Georgia State University 35 Broad Street Northwest Atlanta, GA, USA
[email protected]
Leigh Anne Liu Georgia State University 35 Broad Street Northwest Atlanta, GA, USA
[email protected]
Jeff Smith Miami University 800 E. High St. Oxford, OH, USA
[email protected] Abstract
In this globally connected world, maintaining information privacy has become an issue to both individuals and societies. People from different cultural backgrounds not only perceive the importance of privacy differently but also may differ in terms of how they assess the sensitivity of private information, which might consequently affect their disclosure behaviors. Studying privacy concerns through cultural-values has received some attention but several gaps exist that call for further investigations. In this research-in-progress, we extend this research area by adopting Schwartz’s theory to study the critical roles that personal and social values play in shaping concerns about privacy. Specifically, we plan to examine the impact of values on concerns about privacy for both self and others, and how these concerns influence self-disclosure behaviors. We aim to test our research model in different cultures (U.S., Europe, and Asia) while accounting for different contexts (social networks, online retail websites, and health websites). Keywords: privacy concerns, personal privacy, others’ privacy, Schwartz’s values, information sensitivity, self-disclosure
Introduction With the world now increasingly connected through the Internet, network companies (i.e. Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon) have become globally powerful considering the enormous amount of public and private data they possess. This fact has raised privacy concerns in both social and political contexts (Greenwald, 2014; Rachman, 2015). In addition, members of various cultures not only perceive the importance of privacy differently but also differ in terms of how they assess the sensitivity of private information they share via Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Because cultural differences between countries have a significant impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of ICTs (Srite & Karahanna, 2006), it is imperative to understand the impact of these cultural differences with respect to privacy, which is of growing importance in the globally connected world. A recent research stream (e.g., Bansal, Zahedi, & Gefen, 2008; Krasnova, Veltri, & Günther, 2012; Li, 2011; Lowry, Cao, & Everard, 2011; Smith, Dinev, & Xu, 2011) has broadened our understanding about how individuals from different cultures value and react to privacy issues. For instance, Dinev et al. (2006) found that Italians have a different understanding of the privacy concept which makes them less concerned about information privacy but more concerned about potential risk. Lowry et al. (2011) found that individuals who score higher in the collectivism and uncertainty avoidance scales express higher concerns about information privacy. Nonetheless, many questions remain unanswered considering the complexity of the relationships between cultural values and privacy concerns (Li, 2011). More importantly, given that much of the prior research in this area has relied on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions which were intended for use at the country level rather than the individual level, there is a need for a more granular approach to measuring culture and its influence on privacy-related behaviors (Li, 2011; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Srite & Karahanna, 2006; Taras, Kirkman, & Steel, 2010). To address this gap, we adopt Schwartz’s theory, which was developed to study cultural values at the individual level, to examine the critical roles that personal and social values play with respect to concerns about information privacy and related outcomes (e.g. self-disclosure). Culture at the individual level refers to the set of values individuals hold (Bagchi & Kirs, 2009). Schwartz et al. (2012) present a theory of basic values that encompasses personal and social values. While prior research has shown that these values are associated with various types of worries in different life domains (Schwartz et al., 2012; Schwartz, 2012; Schwartz, Sagiv, & Boehnke, 2000), the impact of these values on individuals’ privacy concerns has not been investigated. By adopting Schwartz’s theory, we extend previous research and provide novel contributions. First, it has been shown that the basic values theorized by Schwartz (1992) and refined by Schwartz et al. (2012) are more appropriate than Hofstede’s values for studies at the individual level, where most cultural privacy research resides (Schwartz, 2006; Schwartz, 2012; Bagchi & Kirs, 2009). Second, a number of studies have supported the significant contribution of Schwartz’s values in explaining ICTs use (Bagchi & Kirs, 2009; Nedelko, Cirnu, Stănescu, & Potocan, 2013). Hence, it can be argued that Schwartz’s values can also explain ICT-related factors such as privacy concerns and self-disclosure behaviors. Third, one of the main principles of Schwartz’s theory considers the notion of anxiety. For instance, a set of values (i.e., conservation) aim to cope with anxiety, threat, and worries whereas other values (i.e., openness to change) express anxiety-free dispositions. Li, Sarathy, and Xu (2011) defined general privacy concerns as “an individual’s general tendency to worry about information privacy” (p. 437). Drawing on prior work on values and worries (Schwartz et al., 2000), we argue that Schwartz’s values will explain privacy concerns, as a type of worry, and self-disclosure behaviors. In summary, this study will adopt the theory of basic individual values as a lens to examine the impact of personal and social values on privacy concerns, which in turn impact self-disclosure behaviors— one of the most-often considered “outcome” constructs in this research domain (Li, 2011; Smith et al., 2011). The near-all-inclusive set of values and the insensitivity of this theory to any particular culture (Schwartz, 2006; Schwartz, 2012) make it an apt theoretical underpinning to answer the proposed research question: RQ: What is the impact of personal and social values on privacy concerns, and how do such concerns in turn influence self-disclosure behaviors? This paper is organized as follows. The first section illustrates Schwartz’s theory and its value dimensions. The subsequent section discusses privacy concerns as a type of micro (i.e. concerns for self) and macro
worry (i.e. concerns for others). Next, we propose a research model that theoretically links values and privacy concerns. Then, we discuss the impact of privacy concerns on self-disclosure and the proposed moderating effect of information sensitivity. We conclude by proposing methods for empirically testing the proposed model and discussing the anticipated contribution of this study.
The Theory of Basic Individual Values Values are defined “as trans-situational goals, varying in importance that serve as guiding principles in the life of a person or group” (Schwartz et al, 2012, p. 664). Values can be interpreted as “what is important to us in life” (Schwartz, 2012, p. 3), and the trade-off among relevant and competing values is what guides an individual in pursuing a particular goal (Schwartz, 2012). Although individual values are organized into a coherent system that shapes and explains individuals’ decisions, attitudes, and behaviors (Schwartz et al., 2012), some values are compatible with one another (e.g., security and conformity), whereas others are contradictory (e.g., power and benevolence) (Schwartz, 2006; Schwartz et al., 2012). Individuals do pursue conflicting values at different times and in different contexts but not in a single act (Schwartz, 2012). Table 1, adapted from Cieciuch, Schwartz, and Vecchione (2013), lists the conceptual definitions for the 10 basic and the 19 refined values according to personal and social foci. Personal focus values, which include openness to change and self-enhancement, emphasize independence, readiness for change, and one’s own interest. Social focus values, which include conservation and self-transcendence, emphasize self-restriction, resistance to change, and bypassing one’s own interests for the interests and welfare of other people. In the next section, we explore the linkage between individual values (as categorized in Table 1) and privacy concerns.
Values and Privacy Concerns Several antecedents, from individual characteristics to information contingences, impact individuals’ concerns about information privacy (Li, 2011; Smith et al. 2011). The privacy concerns construct has been defined in different ways. However, most conceptualizations refer to concerns about organizational practices (i.e. collection, secondary usage, control, errors, improper access, and awareness) in dealing with one’s own information (Hong & Thong, 2013; Malhotra, Kim, & Agarwal, 2004; Smith, Milberg, & Burke, 1996). A plethora of research has shown that Internet users are concerned about the privacy of their personal information and that such concerns influence self-disclosure and protective behaviors (Li, 2011; Smith et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the exclusive emphasis on conceptualizing and operationalizing privacy concerns as related to personal information is not theoretically exhaustive, as one’s concern about privacy of others can also explain behavioral factors such as self-disclosure (Baruh & Cemalcilar, 2014). For instance, individuals who respect the privacy of others are more likely to take into consideration protecting others’ privacy when revealing something relevant to them. Drawing upon Schwartz’s et al. (2000) work on the relationships between values and worries, this study will examine the impact of personal values on both concern about personal privacy and concern about others’ privacy. What makes individuals worry about something in life can be explained by the level of importance they devote to values pertaining to that object. Schwartz et al. (2000) explored this notion and conducted correlational analyses between the values structure (as seen in Table 1) and both micro worries (i.e. worries pertaining to the self or others with whom one identifies closely) and macro worries (i.e. worries pertaining to external object such as society and world1. Using cross-cultural samples, Schwartz et al. (2000) found variations in patterns linking values and worries:
Self-enhancement and conservation values correlate positively with micro worries. Self-transcendence and openness to change values correlate negatively with micro worries. Self-enhancement and openness to change values correlate negatively with macro worries. Self-transcendence and conservation values correlate positively with macro worries.
1 Some examples of Schwartz’s et al. (2000, p. 311) micro worries include “things not working out in my studies or job” and “ my getting cancer”; macro worries include “worsening destruction of environment” and “many people in my country living in poverty.”
Table 1. The Basic and Refined Value Theory (adapted from Cieciuch et al., 2013) 10 basic values
Self-Enhancement
The refined theory: 19 values
Conceptual definition Social status and prestige, control, or dominance over people and resources
(Schwartz et al., 2012)
Power–dominance Power through exercising control over people
Power–resources Power through control of material and social resources
Power
Face Security and power through maintaining one’s public image and avoiding humiliation
Achievement Hedonism
Openness to Change
Personal Focus Values
(Schwartz, 1992, 2012)
Self-direction
Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself Independent thought and action – choosing, creating, and exploring
Achievement* Hedonism* Self-direction–thought Freedom to cultivate one’s own ideas and abilities
Self-direction–action Freedom to determine one’s own actions
Stimulation
Security
Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life
Stimulation*
Safety, harmony and stability of society, relationships, and self
Security–personal Safety in one’s immediate environment
Security–societal
Conservation
Tradition
Tradition Maintaining and preserving cultural, family, or religious traditions
Humility Recognizing one’s insignificance in the larger scheme of things
Conformity
Self-Transcendence
Social Focus Values
Safety and stability in the wider society Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provides
The restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses that are likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and of nature
Conformity–rules Compliance with rules, laws, and formal obligations
Conformity–interpersonal Avoidance of upsetting or harming other people
Universalism–concern Commitment to equality, justice, and protection for all people
Universalism–nature
Universalism
Preservation of the natural environment
Universalism–tolerance Acceptance and understanding of those who are different from oneself
Benevolence
Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact
Benevolence–dependability Being a reliable and trustworthy member of the ingroup
Benevolence–caring Devotion to the welfare of in-group members
* Definitions for hedonism, achievement, and stimulations were not changed in the refined theory.
According to Cambridge Dictionaries Online, concern is defined as “a worried feeling, or a state of anxiety” (Concern, n.d.). Malhotra et al. (2004), and others (Li et al., 2011) maintain that general privacy concerns refer to the tendency of an Internet user to worry about information privacy. In addition, concern about one’s own informational privacy is conceived as a micro worry as it pertains to concerns about personal information, whereas concern about privacy of others is a macro worry as the object of interest is others, (i.e., external entities to the self).
Research Model and Hypotheses Based on the above discussion, this study proposes a research model on values, privacy concern, and selfdisclosure, depicted in Figure 1. In addition to including self-disclosure as an outcome variable of privacy concerns, the model considers sensitivity of information as a moderator of the relationships between privacy concerns and self-disclosure. According to Schwartz et al. (2000, p. 318): “The associations of values with worries should depend upon the extent to which the values concern the interests of self or the interests of others.” Capitalizing on this distinction between how people regard themselves versus others, we examine the influence of values on concern about privacy for both self and others. The next section discusses the theoretical links between personal and social values and privacy concerns.
Figure 1. Research Model
Personal Focus Values Self-Enhancement Self-enhancement pertains to the differential pursuit of self-interests against the interests of others and is very relevant to the distinction between concern about personal privacy and the concern about privacy of others (Schwartz et al., 2000). Basic self-enhancement values include power, achievement, and hedonism. Power values (i.e., dominance, resources, and face) emphasize self-interests regardless of the interests of others. According to the definition in Table 1, power values relate to the acquisition of social status and prestige, control, or dominance over people and resources. Hence, power can be the most self-centered of the self-enhancement values (Schwartz et al., 2000). However, the first-order dimensions of power (i.e., dominance, resources, and face) may vary in terms of their relevance to concern about personal privacy. For instance, the dominance dimension may not relate to concern about one’s own privacy as it only pertains to power through having control over people. On the other hand, individuals are, in general, concerned about invasion of their personal privacy because of its negative consequences to their public
image (i.e., face) (Bruin, 2010). Further, individuals may tend to treat privacy as a resource, which can be exchanged for goods, services, and remuneration (Acquisti, John, & Loewenstein, 2013). Achievement values also express self-interests but in the service of meeting social standards and gaining social approval, so pursuit of achievement values cannot entirely overlook the interests of others. However, invasion of one’s information privacy can pose a threat to pursuing achievement values. For example, employers obtain access to potential candidates’ social media accounts to check whether they disclose unprofessional material before inviting them for interviews (Breznitz, Murphree, & Goodman, 2011; Bruin, 2010; Career Builder, 2013). Monitoring candidates’ posts on social media, whether these posts are shared privately or publicly, therefore, may pose a threat to achievement values, such as, succeeding at getting a job. Hedonism focuses on self-indulgence and sensual gratification, with an attendant lack of interest in others. It has been shown that intrusions on an individual’s privacy have a positive impact on personal privacy concerns (Jiang, Heng, & Choi, 2013). Therefore, the threat of privacy invasion could hinder and individual’s exercising his or her hedonic preferences (i.e., pleasure and self-gratification). As the values of power, achievement, and hedonism promote self-enhancement goals, situations posing threats to these values are likely to activate cognitive awareness and affective experience related to such threats (Schwartz et al., 2000). Thus, we suggest that the more important self-enhancement values are, the more attention is paid to threats associated with the violation of personal privacy. Therefore, we postulate that self-enhancement (power {face and resources}, achievement, and hedonism) is positively associated with concern about personal privacy. In contrast, interests of others are relatively unimportant to individuals emphasizing self-enhancement values (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). In addition, the more an individual values self-interested goals, the less he or she pays attention to the problems of others (Schwartz et al., 2000). Accordingly, we hypothesize that self-enhancement (power {face, resources, and dominance2}, achievement, and hedonism) is negatively associated with concern about others’ privacy. H1: Self-enhancement values will be positively associated with concern about personal privacy. H2: Self-enhancement values will be negatively associated with concern about others' privacy. Openness to Change Openness to change values (self-direction and stimulation) express freedom to cultivate one’s ideas and abilities (self-direction-thought), determine one’s own actions (self-direction-action), and pursue interesting and novel things (stimulation) (Schwartz et al., 2012). Individuals who give high priority to openness values are less likely to care about uncertainty regarding personal outcomes or to conceive uncertain situations as threatening (Schwartz et al., 2000). Similarly, they are less likely to care about uncertain situations regarding others’ outcomes. In the digital age of ubiquitous utilization of users’ information, there are people who welcome the new openness associated with disclosure and sharing of personal information online, but there are others who do not accept such change and object to losing control of online privacy (Alashoor, 2014; Madden et al., 2013). Accordingly, it is posited that individuals who value openness (self-thought, self-direction, and stimulation) are less likely to be concerned about both personal and others’ privacy. H3: Openness to change values will be negatively associated with concern about personal privacy. H4: Openness to change values will be negatively associated with concern about others’ privacy.
Social Focus Values Conservation In contrast to openness, basic conservation values (security, tradition, conformity) pertain to compliance with standards, traditions, and security of the society and self. Security values emphasize the importance individuals place on security and certainty to avoid physical and psychological ambiguity and risk (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994). Security values include both the security of the individual and the society (Schwartz et Whereas power-dominance may not be related to concern about personal privacy, it can be argued that individuals emphasizing control over people would be less concerned about the privacy of others because controlling others’ private information is ostensibly a means to have control over them.
2
al., 2012). Personal security, a conservation value, is relevant to protection of online personal information. Correlations between this dimension and privacy concerns are expected. In fact, research has shown that protection behaviors such as using anti-virus software, firewalls, and falsifying personal information result from concerns about privacy (Baruh & Cemalcilar, 2014; Jiang et al., 2013; Miltgen & PeyratGuillard, 2014; Sheehan & Hoy, 1999). Put differently, Internet users attempt to reduce their privacy concerns by implementing security mechanisms. Similarly, individuals who care about security of others (security-societal) are also likely to be concerned about privacy of others. The other conservation values are inter-related but distinctive (Schwartz et al., 2012). Tradition values pertain to preserving and maintaining cultural, religious, or family traditions. Humility values emphasize being satisfied with what one owns and avoiding drawing attention to the self. Conformity-rules values are about compliance with laws, rules, and people who have authority. Conformity-interpersonal refers to avoidance of upsetting others. Recent studies have shown that individuals from collectivist countries, in which tradition and conformity are highly promoted, are less reluctant to disclose information (Miltgen & Peyrat-Guillard, 2014) than individuals from individualist countries but they are still concerned about privacy (Lowry et al., 2011). This is not surprising as sharing information promotes the nature of collectivistic cultures but at the same time imposes difficulties in maintaining privacy. Invasions of privacy may lead to violations of sanctioned traditions and law. For instance, Facebook has allegedly been accused of invading the privacy of a young woman by sharing her homosexual orientation information with her friends, including her religious father, when she was added to a Facebook page that represents homosexual interests (Fowler, 2012). This incident resulted in significant problems for her as it was upsetting to her father, violating local culture, religious and family traditions, and drawing attention to her as a homosexual. Similarly, revealing information posted online about use of prohibited materials might lead to law breaking (Hurwitz, Nugent, Halper, & Kaufman, 2013). Therefore, it is argued that individuals who value conservation (tradition, conformity-rules, conformity-interpersonal, and humility) are likely to be concerned about their personal privacy. Similarly, it is also argued that these values will be associated with concern about others’ privacy as their conceptualizations also reflect a societal level. H5: Conservation values will be positively associated with concern about personal privacy. H6: Conservation values will be positively associated with concern about others’ privacy. Self-Transcendence Self-transcendence values (universalism and benevolence) promote pursuit of enhancing others’ goals and well-being. Universalism values (concern, nature, and tolerance) emphasize concern, understanding, and acceptance of a broad circle, such as the society, world, and nature. (Because universalism-nature refers to preservation of the natural environment which is not related to the Internet domain and privacy context, it will not be included in this study.) On the other hand, benevolence values (dependability and caring) emphasize concern for others with whom an individual has frequent contact, such as family and friends. Benevolence-caring values pertain to practical and emotional needs of others, whereas benevolence-dependability values pertain to being loyal, trustworthy, and reliable when called upon (Schwartz et al., 2012). Given that self-transcendence values call for transcending the interests of self for others, it is likely that pursuit of these values will be associated positively with macro worries and negatively with micro worries (Schwartz et al. 2000). Accordingly, individuals who value universalism and benevolence are likely to be concerned about others’ privacy. In contrast, giving a higher priority to these values may inhibit the development of concerns about personal privacy. In fact, Schwartz et al. (2000) found strong support for a negative relationship between self-transcendence and several micro worries and for a positive relationship between self-transcendence and several macro worries. Therefore, it is postulated that selftranscendence values (concern, tolerance, dependability, and caring) will be positively associated with concern about privacy of others and negatively associated with concern about personal information. H7: Self-transcendence values will be negatively associated with concern about personal privacy. H8: Self- transcendence values will be positively associated with concern about others’ privacy.
Self-Disclosure The privacy literature asserts the significant role of privacy concerns in determining self-disclosure behaviors. Self-disclosure is an online behavioral reaction pertaining to voluntary disclosure of personal information to online companies, friends, and strangers. Some scholars refer to it as “the breadth and depth of the revelations a user makes” (Krasnova, Spiekermann, Koroleva, & Hildebrand, 2010, p. 111). Information disclosed by Internet users is considered a valuable organizational resource as organizations are able to utilize such information to create a strategic advantage (Hurwitz et al., 2013; Manyka et al., 2011; Schmarzo, 2013). Numerous empirical studies have shown that concern about personal and others’ privacy negatively impact self-disclosure behaviors (Alashoor, 2014; Baruh & Cemalcilar, 2014; Dinev & Hart, 2006; Jiang et al., 2013; Krasnova et al., 2012; Sheehan & Hoy, 1999). However, prior research has not provided insights about the indirect effect of values on self-disclosure. Accordingly, this study will replicate these hypotheses and postulate that privacy concerns about personal and others’ information are negatively associated with self-disclosure. H9: Concern about personal privacy will be negatively associated with self-disclosure. H10: Concern about others’ privacy will be negatively associated with self-disclosure.
Moderators and Control Variables It has been shown that information sensitivity plays a key role in willingness to disclose information. Previous research has shown that information sensitivity increases risk beliefs, and decreases trusting beliefs and willingness to disclose personal information (Malhotra et al., 2004; Taddicken, 2014). Individuals should be more concerned about privacy when confronted with disclosing sensitive information (e.g., annual income, current debt, and annual mortgage payment) than when requested to give out less sensitive information (e.g., name, age, interest, and favorite food). Similarly, individuals should be more apprehensive about disclosing sensitive information about others (telephone number, email, and political orientation) than when asked to disclose less sensitive information about others (name, gender, and favorite food). Thus, it is posited that sensitive (insensitive) information may positively (negatively) moderate or strengthen (weaken) the negative relationship between privacy concerns and self-disclosure. H11: The negative relationship between concern about personal privacy and self-disclosure is moderated by information sensitivity. H12: The negative relationship between concern about others’ privacy and self-disclosure is moderated by information sensitivity. Demographic variables such as age, gender, education, and income influence people’s socialization patterns and learning experiences (Schwartz, 2006). Explained variations by demographic variables have also been supported in the privacy literature (Acquisti & Gross, 2006; Fogel & Nehmad, 2009; Hargittai & Litt, 2013; Park, 2010). Accordingly, this study will control for age, gender, education, and income, in addition to privacy awareness and previous privacy experience as suggested by previous research (Xu, Dinev, Smith, & Hart, 2011).
Method Xu et al. (2011) emphasize the context-specific nature of privacy-related decision making, meaning that individuals’ behaviors toward privacy differ depending on the context. For instance, compared to online retail websites users, Social Network Sites (SNS) users may have higher perceived control over the personal information they share (Xu et al., 2011). SNS provide privacy control features by which users can limit access to their personal information, and this could be one reason that SNS users differ in terms of perceived privacy control (Xu et al., 2011). In this study, we will conduct a pilot test with a small U.S. sample to test and adjust our adapted measures to different contexts (i.e., SNS, online retail websites, health websites). Then, a probability sampling method will be used to collect data via online survey for each context. For example, Facebook will be used to represent the SNS context. Facebook is the most popular SNS in the U.S. with 71% of American adults using this network, according to the most recent statistics (Duggan, Ellison, Lampe, Lenhart, & Madden, 2015). To measure personal and social values,
Schwartz’s et al. (2012) value survey will be used. Items measuring concern about personal and others’ privacy will be adapted from Dinev and Hart (2006) and Baruh and Cemalcilar (2014), respectively. With regard to self-disclosure and information sensitivity, subjects will be randomly assigned to a set of questions pertaining to disclosure behaviors on Facebook. In particular, a group of subjects will be asked whether they have disclosed less sensitive information about themselves, and another group will be asked whether they have disclosed more sensitive information about themselves. Similar assignment will be followed regarding disclosing information about others on Facebook. The scales for less and more sensitive items will be adapted from Miller, Berg, and Archer (1983) and Taddicken (2014). Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), a second-generation causal modeling statistical technique, will be used to test the proposed research model. Considering the variations found among different cultures in Schwartz’s work, after we have collected data in the U.S., we plan to extend the external validity of our proposed model by testing it in other cultures in Asia and Europe.
Anticipated Contribution The study is expected to contribute to the privacy literature in several ways. First, the investigation of personal values in the context of online privacy represents a major and novel theoretical contribution to the privacy literature, which is expected to provide insight into privacy concerns by examining individuals’ intrinsic motivations. Second, the study will examine privacy concerns across multiple contexts in order to shed light on possible differences in privacy perceptions and disclosure behaviors across a variety of contexts. The study also has significant policy and practical implications. By elucidating how worries about privacy of the self and others relate to basic human values, the research will help public policy makers to develop privacy policies that take these values into consideration. Finally, business practitioners, especially those that rely on users’ disclosed information, will be in a better position to understand the dynamics of users’ disclosure behaviors and the significant roles that personal values, privacy concerns, and sensitivity of information play in determining disclosure behaviors. This will ultimately help them to promote appropriate disclosure of information that is useful and pertinent to their business while adopting practices that will mitigate privacy concerns.
References Acquisti, A., and Gross, R. 2006. “Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the facebook,” in Privacy Enhancing Technology, G. Danezis and P. Golle (eds.), Cambridge, UK: 6th International Workshop, pp. 36-58. Acquisti, A., John, L. K., & Loewenstein, G. 2013. “What is privacy worth?,” The Journal of Legal Studies (42:2), pp. 249-274. Alashoor, T. 2014. “Social networking websites and information privacy in the big data era,” (Master’s thesis), Penn State Harrisburg, Capital College, PA. Bagchi, K., & Kirs, P. 2009. “The impact of Schwartz's cultural value types on ICT use: A multi-national individual-level analysis,” in ICIS 2009 Proceedings. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2009/205 Bansal, G., Zahedi, F. M., and Gefen, D. 2010. “The impact of personal dispositions on information sensitivity, privacy concern and trust in disclosing health information online,” Decision Support Systems (49:2), pp. 138-150. Baruh, L., & Cemalcılar, Z. 2014. “It is more than personal: Development and validation of a multidimensional privacy orientation scale,” Personality and Individual Differences (70), pp. 165-170. Bilsky, W., & Schwartz, S. H. 1994. “Values and personality,” European Journal of Personality (8:3), pp. 163-181. Breznitz, D., Murphree, M., & Goodman, S. 2011. “Ubiquitous data collection: Rethinking privacy debates,” Computer (44:6), pp. 100-102. Bruin, B. D. 2010. “The liberal value of privacy,” Law and Philosophy (29:5), pp. 505-534. Career Builder. 2013. “More employers finding reasons not to hire candidates on social media,” CareerBuilder, LCC. Retrieved from http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?sd=6%2f26%2f2013&sit eid=cbpr&sc_cmp1=cb_pr766_&id=pr766&ed=12%2f31%2f2013 Cieciuch, J., Schwartz, S. H., & Vecchione, M. 2013. “Applying the refined values theory to past data: What can researchers gain?,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology (44:8), pp. 1215-1234. Concern. n.d. in Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Retrieved March 22, 2015, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/concern Dinev, T., and Hart, P. 2006. “An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions,” Information Systems Research (17:1), pp. 61-80,100. Dinev, T., Bellotto, M., Hart, P., Russo, V., Serra, I., & Colautti, C. 2006. “Privacy calculus model in ecommerce - a study of Italy and the united states,” European Journal of Information Systems (15:4), pp. 389-402. Duggan, M., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. 2015. “Frequency of social media use,” The Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/frequencyof-social-media-use-2/ Fogel, J., and Nehmad, E. 2009. “Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns,” Computers in Human Behavior (25:1), pp. 153-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.006 Fowler, G. A. 2012. “When the most personal secrets get outed on Facebook,” The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444165804578008740578200224 Greenwald, G. 2014. No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the U.S.A., and the U.S. Surveillance State, New York: Metropolitan Books. Hargittai, E., & Litt, E. 2013. “New strategies for employment? Internet skills and online privacy practices during people's job search,” Security & Privacy, IEEE (11:3), pp. 38-45. Hong, W., and Thong, J. Y. L. 2013. “Internet privacy concerns: An integrated conceptualization and four empirical studies,” MIS Quarterly (37:1), pp. 275-298. Hurwitz, J., Nugent, A., Halper, F., and Kaufman, M. 2013. Big Data for Dummies, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Jiang, Z., Heng, C. S., & Choi, B. C. 2013. “Research note - privacy concerns and privacy-protective behavior in synchronous online social interactions,” Information Systems Research (24:3), pp. 579-595.
Krasnova, H., Spiekermann, S., Koroleva, K., and Hildebrand, T. 2010. “Online social networks: Why we disclose,” Journal of Information Technology (25:2), pp. 109-125. Krasnova, H., Veltri, N. F., and Günther, O. 2012. Self-disclosure and privacy calculus on social networking sites: The role of culture: Intercultural dynamics of privacy calculus,” Business and Information Systems Engineering (4:3), pp. 127-135. Li, H., Sarathy, R., & Xu, H. 2011. “The role of affect and cognition on online consumers' decision to disclose personal information to unfamiliar online vendors,” Decision Support Systems (51:3), pp. 434-445. Li, Y. 2011. “Empirical studies on online information privacy concerns: Literature review and an integrative framework,” Communications of the Association for Information Systems (28:28), pp. 453-496. Lowry, P. B., Cao, J., & Everard, A. 2011. “Privacy concerns versus desire for interpersonal awareness in driving the use of self-disclosure technologies: The case of instant messaging in two cultures,” Journal of Management Information Systems (27:4), pp. 163-200. Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Duggan, M., Smith, A., & Beaton, M. 2013. “Teens, social media, and privacy,” The Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/teens-social-media-and-privacy/ Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., and Agarwal, J. 2004. “Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model,” Information Systems Research (15:4), pp. 336-355. Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., & Byers, A. H. 2011. Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity (McKinsey Global Institute Report). Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com /insights/business_technology Miller, L. C., Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. 1983. “Openers: Individuals who elicit intimate self-disclosure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (44:6), pp. 1234-1244. Miltgen, C. L., and Peyrat-guillard, D. 2014. “Cultural and generational influences on privacy concerns: A qualitative study in seven European countries,” European Journal of Information Systems (23:2), pp. 103-125. Nedelko, Z., Cirnu, C. E., Stănescu, I., & Potocan, V. 2013. “The impact of personal values on readiness to use ict in e-learning process,” Journal of Advanced Distributed Learning Technology (1:1), pp. 36-49. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. 2002. “Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses,” Psychological bulletin (128:1), pp. 372. Park, J. 2010. “Differences among university students and faculties in social networking site perception and use: Implications for academic library services,” The Electronic Library (28:3), pp. 417-431. Rachman, G. 2015. “The political storm over the Googleplex: Concern about government is mixed with anxiety about commercial use of data,” Financial Times. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b2eeb470-ecca-11e4-b82f-00144feab7de.html#axzz3YiqqRo9B Schmarzo, B. 2013. Big Data: Understanding How Data Powers Big Business, Indianapolis, Indiana: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Schwartz, S. H. 1992. “Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries,” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, M. Zanna (ed.), New York, NY: Academic Press, 25, pp. 1–65. Schwartz, S. H. 1994. “Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?,” Journal of Social Issues (50:4), pp. 19-45. Schwartz, S. H. 2006. “Basic human values: Theory, measurement, and applications,” Revue Franc¸aise de Sociologie (47:4), pp. 249-288. Schwartz, S. H. 2012. “An Overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values,” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture (2:1), pp. 1-20. Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O., & Konty, M. 2012. “Refining the theory of basic individual values,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (103:4), pp. 663-688. Schwartz, S. H., Sagiv, L., & Boehnke, K. 2000. “Worries and values,” Journal of Personality (68:2), pp. 309-346. Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M.G. 1999. “Flaming, complaining, abstaining: How online users respond to privacy concerns,” Journal of Advertising (28:3), pp. 37-52.
Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., and Xu, H. 2011. “Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review,” MIS Quarterly (35:4), pp. 989-1015. Smith, H. J., Milberg, S. J., & Burke, S. J. 1996. “Information privacy: Measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices,” MIS Quarterly (20:2), pp. 167-196. Srite, M., & Karahanna, E. 2006. “The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance,” MIS quarterly (30:3), pp. 679-704. Taddicken, M. 2014. “The ‘Privacy paradox’ in the social web: The impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance on different forms of Self‐Disclosure1,” Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication (19:2), pp. 248-273. Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. 2010. “Examining the impact of culture's consequences: A threedecade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede's cultural value dimensions,” The Journal of Applied Psychology (95:3), pp. 405-439. Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, J., & Hart, P. 2011. “Information privacy concerns: Linking individual perceptions with institutional privacy assurances,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems (12:12), pp. 798-824.
