Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2016-03
Do Smartphone Power Users Protect Mobile Privacy Better than Nonpower Users? Exploring Power Usage as a Factor in Mobile Privacy Protection and Disclosure
This study examines how consumers' competence at using smartphone technology (i.e., power usage) affects their privacy protection behaviors. A survey conducted with smartphone users shows that power usage influences privacy protection behavior not only directly but also indirectly through privacy concerns and trust placed in mobile service providers. A follow-up experiment indicates that the effects of power usage on smartphone users' information management can be a function of content personalization. Users, high on power usage, are less likely to share personal information on personalized mobile sites, but they become more revealing when they interact with nonpersonalized mobile sites.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Pew Research Center. (2014) Mobile technology fact sheet. www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet (accessed Oct.25, 2014).
2.
ParkYJ, JangSM. Understanding privacy knowledge and skill in mobile communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014; 38:296–303.
3.
Federal Trade Commission. (2013) Mobile privacy disclosure: building trust through transparency. www.ftc.gov/reports/mobile-privacy-disclosures-building-trust-through-transparency-federal-trade-commission (accessed on Apr.29, 2014).
4.
BoylesJ, SmithA, MaddenM. (2012). Privacy and data management on mobile devices. www.pewinternet.org/2012/09/05/privacy-and-data-management-on-mobile-devices (retrieved Jun.22, 2015).
5.
BhargavaHK, FengJ. American online's Internet access service: how to deter unwanted customers. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2004; 4:35–48.
6.
MaratheSS, SundarSS, BijvankMN, et al. (2007) Who are these power users anyway? Building a psychological profile. Paper presented at the 57th annual conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
7.
SundarSS, MaratheSS. Personalization versus customization: the importance of agency, privacy, and power usage. Human Communication Research, 2010; 36:298–322.
8.
WarschauerM.Demystifying the digital divide. Scientific American, 2003; 289:42–47.
9.
RobertsDF, FoehrGF, RideoutV. (2005) Generation M: media in the lives of 8–18 year-olds. http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/generation-m-media-in-the-lives-of-8-18-year-olds-report.pdf (accessed Nov.1, 2014).
10.
McAlearneyAS, SchweikhartSB, MedowMA. Doctors' experience with handheld computers in clinical practice: qualitative study. British Medical Journal, 2004; 328:1162–1165.
11.
HeirmanW, WalraveM, PonnetK. Predicting adolescents' disclosure of personal information in exchange for commercial incentives: an application of an extended theory of planned behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2013; 16:81–87.
12.
SchwaigKS, SegarsAH, GroverV, et al.A model of consumers' perceptions of the invasion of information privacy. Information & Management, 2013; 50:1–12.
13.
YounS.Determinants of online privacy concern and its influence on privacy protection behaviors among young adolescents. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 2009; 43:389–418.
14.
BellurS, SundarSS. How can we tell when a heuristic has been used? Design and analysis strategies for capturing the operation of heuristic. Communication Methods and Measures, 2014; 8:116–137.
15.
SundarSS, KangH, WuM, et al. (2013) Unlocking the privacy paradox: do cognitive heuristics hold the key? In Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’13): ACM New York, NY. pp. 811–816.
16.
ZhangB, WuM, KangH, et al. (2014) Effects of security warnings and instant gratification cues on attitudes toward mobile websites. In Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’14): ACM New York, NY. pp. 111–114.
17.
JoinsonAN, ReipsU, BuchananT, et al.Privacy, trust, and self-disclosure online. Human-Computer Interaction, 2010; 25:1–24.
18.
TaddeiS, ContenaB. Privacy, trust and control: which relationships with online self-disclosure?. Computers in Human Behavior, 2013; 29:821–826.
19.
MoscardelliD, Listin-HeyesC. Consumer socialization in a wired world: the effects of Internet use and parental communication on the development of skepticism to advertising. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practices, 2005; 13:62–75.
20.
ShinW, HuhJ, FaberRJ. Developmental antecedents to children's responses to online advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 2012; 31:719–740.
21.
MylonasA, KastaniaA, GritzalisD. Delegate the smartphone user? Security awareness in smartphone platforms. Computers & Security, 2013; 34:47–66.
22.
NorbergPA, HorneDR, HorneDA. The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 2007; 41:100–127.
23.
YounS.Parental influence and teens' attitude toward online privacy protection. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 2003; 42:362–388.
24.
PanY, ZinkhanG. Exploring the impact of online privacy disclosure on consumer trust. Journal of Retailing, 2006; 82:331–338.
25.
HayesAF. (2012) PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. www.processmacro.org/download.html (accessed on Nov.1, 2014).
26.
KalyanaramanS, SundarSS. The psychological appeal of personalized online content in Web portals: does customization affect attitudes and behavior?. Journal of Communication, 2006; 56:110–132.
27.
ChellappaR, SinR. Personalization versus privacy: an empirical examination of the online consumer's dilemma. Information Technology and Management, 2005; 6:181–202.
28.
AlpertSR, KaratJ, KaratCM, et al.User attitudes regarding a user-adaptive eCommerce web site. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 2003; 13:373–396.
29.
HoSY.The attraction of Internet personalization to Web users. Electronic Markets, 2006; 16:41–50.
30.
JeonW, KimJ, LeeY, et al. (2011) A practical analysis of smartphone security. In: Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Human Interface and the Management of Information: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 311–320.
31.
MontgomeryA, SmithMD. Prospects for personalization on the Internet. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 2009; 23:130–137.
32.
XuH, LuoX, CarrollJM, et al.The personalization privacy paradox: an exploratory study of decision making process for location-aware marketing. Decision Support Systems, 2011; 51:42–52.
33.
KeithM, ThompsonS, HaleJ, et al.Information disclosure on mobile devices: re-examining privacy calculus with actual user behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2013; 71:1163–1173.
34.
CulnanMJ, ArmstrongPK. Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation. Organizational Science, 1999; 10:104–115.
35.
CulnanMJ, BiesRJ. Consumer privacy: balancing economic and justice considerations. Journal of social issues, 2003; 59:323–342.
36.
DinevT, HartP. An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 2006; 17:61–80.
37.
MetzgerMJ.Communication privacy management in electronic commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007; 12:335–361.
38.
YiY, JeonH. Effects of loyalty programs on value perception, program loyalty, and brand loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2003; 31:229–240.
