Abstract
This work aims to analyze the formation of the privacy paradox, defined as the difference between the declared intention about privacy and the natural behavior, in the consumption of wearables among the practitioners of physical activities by evaluating the practitioners' risks and benefits. Wearables are electronics that combine features of wearability and intelligence. It also analyzes the influence of the privacy paradox in wearing wearables and the moderation effects of demographic variables in forming the paradox. A quantitative approach based on descriptive research was used to collect questionnaires and subsequent descriptive and variance analyses. The results show that the frequency of physical activities, wearable functionality, monthly income, and sex influence paradoxical behavior. Furthermore, evidence shows that the privacy paradox influences the habit, with signs of reducing users' paradoxical situation. As a contribution, this work brings a more general formulation of the privacy paradox metric. The metric is formed of the latent dimensions "performance expectation", "hedonic motivation", and "privacy risk". This metrical composition in three latent perspectives allows obtaining a view of the contribution of each perspective on paradoxical behavior for different classes of consumers. In the managerial aspect, it is suggested that companies, through metric, can identify the paradoxical use of their products and identify specific dimensions to be worked by communication actions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
22 June 2022
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00559-7
References
Acquisti, A. (2004). Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification. Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on electronic commerce (pp. 21–29)
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1465
Agência Brasil (Org.). (2018). Caminhada é a Atividade Física mais Praticada do Brasil: Futebol Despenca. Veja. https://veja.abril.com.br/saude/caminhada-e-a-atividade-fisica-mais-praticada-do-brasil-futeboldespenca/#:~:text=O%20levantamento%20divulgado%20nesta%20semana,metade%20(43%2C5%25). Accessed 29 Feb 2020
Alsharo, M., Alnsour, Y., & Alabdallah, M. (2020). How habit affects continuous use: evidence from Jordan’s national health information system. Informatics for Health and Social Care, 45(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538157.2018.1540423.
Anderson, C. L., & Agarwal, R. (2011). The digitization of healthcare: boundary risks, emotion, and consumer willingness to disclose personal health information. Information Systems Research, 22(3), 469–490. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0335.
Baek, M. R., Choi, H. H., & Lee, H. Y. (2015). Age-specific acceptance intention over wearable smart healthcare device. Korean Jouranl Bussiness Administration, 28(12), 3171-3189.c. https://doi.org/10.18032/kaaba.2015.28.12.3171
Barnes, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: social networking in the United States. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394.
Barth, S., & De Jong, M. D. (2017). The privacy paradox-investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior–a systematic literature review. Telematics and informatics, 34(7), 1038–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60024-6
Betzing, J. H., Tietz, M., Vom Brocke, J., & Becker, J. (2020). The impact of transparency on mobile privacy decision making. Electronic Markets, 30(3), 607–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00332-3.
Bleier, A., Goldfarb, A., & Tucker, C. (2020). Consumer privacy and the future of data-based innovation and marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37(3), 466–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.03.006.
Bölen, M. C. (2020). Exploring the determinants of users’ continuance intention in smartwatches. Technology in Society, 60, 101209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101209
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford.
Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2005). Model of adoption of technology in households: a baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS quarterly, 29, 399–426. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148690.
Chellappa, R. K., & Sin, R. G. (2005). Personalization versus privacy: an empirical examination of the online consumer’s dilemma. Information Technology and Management, 6(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-005-5879-y.
Cho, J. Y., Ko, D., & Lee, B. G. (2018). Strategic approach to privacy calculus of wearable device user regarding information disclosure and continuance intention. KSII Transactions on Internet & Information Systems, 12(7), 3356–3374. https://doi.org/10.3837/tiis.2018.07.020.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.
Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999). Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation. Organization science, 10(1), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.1.104.
Dai, J., Duan, Y., & Yang, F. (2016). An optimized privacy inference attack based on smartwatch motion sensors. 2016 IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom) and IEEE Smart Data (SmartData) (pp. 474–479). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/iThings-GreenCom-CPSCom-SmartData.2016.112
Davis, F. D., & Venkatesh, V. (2004). Toward preprototype user acceptance testing of new information systems: implications for software project management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering management, 51(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2003.822468
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x
Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0080
Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 451–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00111-3
Foxman, E. R., & Kilcoyne, P. (1993). Information technology, marketing practice, and consumer privacy: ethical issues. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12(1), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569501200111
Gimpel, H., Kleindienst, D., & Waldmann, D. (2018). The disclosure of private data: measuring the privacy paradox in digital services. Electronic Markets, 28(4), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-018-0303-8
Goldfarb, A., & Tucker, C. (2019). Digital marketing. Handbook of the economics of marketing (Vol. 1, pp. 259–290). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hem.2019.04.004
Gutierrez, A., O’Leary, S., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Calle, T. (2019). Using privacy calculus theory to explore entrepreneurial directions in mobile location-based advertising: identifying intrusiveness as the critical risk factor. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.015
Hsiao, K. L., & Chen, C. C. (2018). What drives smartwatch purchase intention? perspectives from hardware, software, design, and value. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.10.002
Jozani, M., Ayaburi, E., Ko, M., & Choo, K. K. R. (2020). Privacy concerns and benefits of engagement with social media-enabled apps: a privacy calculus perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 106260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106260
Kalantari, M. (2017). Consumers' adoption of wearable technologies: literature review, synthesis, and future research agenda. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 12(3), 274–307. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTMKT.2017.089665
Kang, H., & Jung, E. H. (2020). The smart wearables-privacy paradox: a cluster analysis of smartwatch users. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1778787
Kim, K. J., & Shin, D. H. (2015). An acceptance model for smartwatches: implications for the adoption of future wearable technology. Internet Research, 25(4), 527–541.
Kim, S. S., & Malhotra, N. K. (2005). A longitudinal model of continued IS use: an integrative view of four mechanisms underlying postadoption phenomena. Management science, 51(5), 741–755. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0326
Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: a review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security, 64, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002
Lapointe, L., & Beaudry, A. (2014). Identifying IT user mindsets: acceptance, resistance and ambivalence. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 4619–4628). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.568
Laufer, R. S., & Wolfe, M. (1977). Privacy as a concept and a social issue: a multidimensional developmental theory. Journal of social Issues, 33(3), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01880.x
Lee, S. Y., & Lee, K. (2018). Factors that influence an individual's intention to adopt a wearable healthcare device: the case of a wearable fitness tracker. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.002
Lee, J. M., & Rha, J. Y. (2016). Personalization-privacy paradox and consumer conflict with the use of location-based mobile commerce. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.056
Lee, J. M., & Rha, J. Y. (2017). Ambivalence toward personalized technology and intention to use location-based mobile commerce: the moderating role of gender. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies, 8(2), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.7903/ijecs.1526
Li, Y. (2012). Theories in online information privacy research: a critical review and an integrated framework. Decision support systems, 54(1), 471–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.010
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), 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.01.017
Li, H., Wu, J., Gao, Y., & Shi, Y. (2016). Examining individuals’ adoption of healthcare wearable devices: an empirical study from privacy calculus perspective. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 88, 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.12.010
Li, J., Ma, Q., Chan, A. H., & Man, S. S. (2019). Health monitoring through wearable technologies for older adults: smart wearables acceptance model. Applied ergonomics, 75, 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.10.006
Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention: the case of information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly, 31, 705–737. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148817
Litt, E., & Hargittai, E. (2014). A bumpy ride on the information superhighway: exploring turbulence online. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 520–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.027
Lohr, S. (2015). The healing power of your own medical records. The New York Times, 31(3), 1–8.
Lunney, A., Cunningham, N. R., & Eastin, M. S. (2016). Wearable fitness technology: a structural investigation into acceptance and perceived fitness outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.007
Morosan, C., & DeFranco, A. (2015). Disclosing personal information via hotel apps: a privacy calculus perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 47, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.03.008
Moulard, J. G., Rice, D. H., Garrity, C. P., & Mangus, S. M. (2014). Artist authenticity: how artists’ passion and commitment shape consumers’ perceptions and behavioral intentions across genders. Psychology & Marketing, 31(8), 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20719
Nascimento, B., Oliveira, T., & Tam, C. (2018). Wearable technology: what explains continuance intention in smartwatches? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 43, 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.017
Neri, M. C. (2019). As classes médias brasileiras. FGV Social. https://www.cps.fgv.br/cps/bd/papers/es106-As-Classes-Medias-Brasileiras.pdf. Accessed 29 Feb 2020
Nowak, G. J., & Phelps, J. (1995). Direct marketing and the use of individual-level consumer information: determining how and when “privacy” matters. Journal of Direct Marketing, 9(3), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.4000090307
Park, E. (2020). User acceptance of smart wearable devices: an expectation-confirmation model approach. Telematics and Informatics, 47, 101318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101318
Park, S., Chung, K., & Jayaraman, S. (2014). Wearables: fundamentals, advancements, and a roadmap for future. In M. R. Neuman (Ed.), Wearable sensors: fundamentals, implementations, and applications (pp. 1–23). Elsevier Academic Press.
Schomakers, E. M., Lidynia, C., & Ziefle, M. (2020). All of me? users' preferences for privacy-preserving data markets and the importance of anonymity. Electronic Markets, 30(3), 649–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00404-9
Sharma, S., & Crossler, R. E. (2014). Disclosing too much? situational factors affecting information disclosure in social commerce environment. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 13(5), 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.06.007
Shin, M. S., & Lee, Y. J. (2015). A study on the influential factors of purchase intention of wrist wearable device. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 15(5), 498–506. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2015.15.05.498
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly, 35, 989–1015. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409970
Solove, D. J. (2005). A taxonomy of privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154, 477. https://doi.org/10.2307/40041279
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 differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 278–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.006
Trepte, S., Scharkow, M., & Dienlin, T. (2020). The privacy calculus contextualized: the influence of affordances. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.022
Udoh, E. S., & Alkharashi, A. (2016). December). Privacy risk awareness and the behavior of smartwatch users: a case study of Indiana University students. 2016 Future Technologies Conference (FTC) (pp. 926–931). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FTC.2016.7821714
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., & Ackerman, P. L. (2000). A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 83(1), 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2896
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36, 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
Wang, T., Duong, T. D., & Chen, C. C. (2016). Intention to disclose personal information via mobile applications: a privacy calculus perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 531–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.03.003
Wang, H., Tao, D., Yu, N., & Qu, X. (2020). Understanding consumer acceptance of healthcare wearable devices: an integrated model of UTAUT and TTF. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 139, 104156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104156
Williams, M., Nurse, J. R., & Creese, S. (2017). Privacy is the boring bit: user perceptions and behaviour in the internet-of-things. 2017 15th Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST) (pp. 181–18109). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/PST.2017.00029
Williams, M., Nurse, J. R., & Creese, S. (2019). (Smart) Watch out! encouraging privacy-protective behavior through interactive games. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 132, 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.07.012.
Wu, M. C., & Kuo, F. Y. (2008). An empirical investigation of habitual usage and past usage on technology acceptance evaluations and continuance intention. ACM SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 39(4), 48–73. https://doi.org/10.1145/1453794.1453801
Xu, H., Teo, H. H., Tan, B. C., & Agarwal, R. (2009). The role of push-pull technology in privacy calculus: the case of location-based services. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(3), 135–174. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260305.
Xu, H., Luo, X. R., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2011). The personalization privacy paradox: an exploratory study of decision making process for location-aware marketing. Decision Support Systems, 51(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.017.
Xue, Y. (2019). A review on intelligent wearables: uses and risks. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(4), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.173
Yang, H., Yu, J., Zo, H., & Choi, M. (2016). User acceptance of wearable devices: an extended perspective of perceived value. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 256–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.08.007.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of consumer research, 12(3), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1086/208520
Zhao, L., Lu, Y., & Gupta, S. (2012). Disclosure intention of location-related information in location-based social network services. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(4), 53–90. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415160403
Zhu, M., Wu, C., Huang, S., Zheng, K., Young, S. D., Yan, X., & Yuan, Q. (2021). Privacy paradox in mHealth applications: an integrated elaboration likelihood model incorporating privacy calculus and privacy fatigue. Telematics and Informatics, 61, 101601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101601.
Zukowski, T., & Brown, I. (2007). Examining the influence of demographic factors on internet users’ information privacy concerns. Proceedings of the 2007 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT research in developing countries (pp. 197–204). https://doi.org/10.1145/1292491.1292514
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Reima Suomi
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gonçalves, R., de Figueiredo, J. Effects of perceived risks and benefits in the formation of the consumption privacy paradox: a study of the use of wearables in people practicing physical activities. Electron Markets 32, 1485–1499 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00541-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00541-3