Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-09
Can Stress Put Digital Privacy at Risk? Evidence from a Controlled Experiment Examining the Impact of Acute Stress on Privacy Decisions on a Simulated Social Network Site
Internet and Communication Technologies (ICTs) can foster efficient communication and knowledge acquisition, but there are also tradeoffs in terms of risks to one’s privacy. Previous research, including work with the privacy calculus framework, indicates that factors such as perceived risks and benefits of using ICTs, ICT trust, and general privacy concerns can influence individuals’ digital privacy-related decisions. One pervasive psychological factor that may potentially alter such privacy-related behaviors is acute stress. Acute stress can promote risk-seeking behaviors and a tendency to prefer immediate rewards over delayed, greater value rewards. However, the effect of acute stress in the applied context of privacy decision making is relatively unknown. Participants (N = 143) in this study were randomly assigned to either an acute stress task (socially evaluated cold pressor task) or an active control task (lukewarm water alone). Results revealed that acute stress condition increased information disclosure, as indexed by accepting more online cookies, sharing one’s location more frequently, and revealing greater willingness to self-disclose personal information. In addition, the impact of individuals’ levels of perceived risk and benefits, trust, and privacy concern on privacy decision making was examined. However, none of these constructs consistently influenced privacy decisions over and above the effect of stress. Overall, our findings suggest that acute stress has robust, independent influence on privacy decision making.
PorcelliAJ, DelgadoMR. Stress and decision making: Effects on valuation, learning, and risk-taking. Curr Opin Behav Sci, 2017; 14:33–39; doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.11.015
4.
CulnanMJ, ArmstrongPK. Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 1999; 10(1):104–115; doi: 10.1287/orsc.10.1.104
5.
DinevT, HartP. An extended privacy calculus model for E-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 2006; 17(1):61–80; doi: 10.1287/isre.1060.0080
6.
ChangCW, HeoJ. Visiting theories that predict college students’ self-disclosure on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014; 30:79–86; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.059
7.
BaruhL, SecintiE, CemalcilarZ. Online privacy concerns and privacy management: A meta-analytical review. J Commun, 2017; 67(1):26–53; doi: 10.1111/jcom.12276
8.
XuF, MichaelK, ChenX. Factors affecting privacy disclosure on social network sites: An integrated model. Electron Commer Res, 2013; 13(2):151–168; doi: 10.1007/s10660-013-9111-6
9.
ZhouT, LiH. Understanding mobile SNS continuance usage in China from the perspectives of social influence and privacy concern. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014; 37:283–289; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.008
10.
KnijnenburgBP, BulgurcuB. Designing alternative form-autocompletion tools to enhance privacy decision making and prevent unintended disclosure. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact, 2022; 30(6):1–42; doi: 10.1145/3610366
11.
CacioppoJT, PettyRE, KaoCF, et al.Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986; 51(5):1032–1043; doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1032
12.
WangL, HuHH, YanJ, et al.Privacy calculus or heuristic cues? The dual process of privacy decision making on Chinese social media. JEIM, 2020; 33(2):353–380; doi: 10.1108/JEIM-05-2019-0121
13.
ZhuM, WuC, HuangS, et al.Privacy paradox in mHealth applications: An integrated elaboration likelihood model incorporating privacy calculus and privacy fatigue. Telematics and Informatics, 2021; 61:101601; doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2021.101601
14.
GuJ, XuYC, XuH, et al.Privacy concerns for mobile app download: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Decision Support Systems, 2017; 94:19–28; doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2016.10.002
15.
ByrneKA, CornwallAC, WorthyDA. Acute stress improves long-term reward maximization in decision-making under uncertainty. Brain Cogn, 2019; 133:84–93; doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2019.02.005
16.
ByrneKA, PetersC, WillisHC, et al.Acute stress enhances tolerance of uncertainty during decision-making. Cognition, 2020; 205:104448; doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104448
17.
DickersonSS, KemenyME. Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A Theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychol Bull, 2004; 130(3):355–391; doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355
18.
SchwabeL, HaddadL, SchachingerH. HPA axis activation by a socially evaluated cold-pressor test. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 2008; 33(6):890–895; doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.03.001
19.
StarckeK, BrandM. Effects of stress on decisions under uncertainty: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull, 2016; 142(9):909–933; doi: 10.1037/bul0000060
20.
KrasnovaH, SpiekermannS, KorolevaK, et al.Online social networks: Why we disclose. Journal of Information Technology, 2010; 25(2):109–125; doi: y10.1057/jit.2010.6
21.
WemmSE, WulfertE. Effects of acute stress on decision making. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback, 2017; 42(1):1–12; doi: 10.1007/s10484-016-9347-8
22.
SchwabeL, SchächingerH. Ten years of research with the socially evaluated cold pressor test: Data from the past and guidelines for the future. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 2018; 92:155–161; doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.03.010
23.
StarckeK, BrandM. Decision making under stress: A selective review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 2012; 36(4):1228–1248; doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.003
24.
MalhotraNK, KimSS, AgarwalJ. Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model. Information Systems Research, 2004; 15(4):336–355; doi: 10.1287/isre.1040.0032
25.
CheungC, LeeZWY, ChanTKH. Self-disclosure in social networking sites. Internet Research, 2015; 25(2):279–299; doi: 10.1108/intr-09-2013-0192
26.
BhattacherjeeA. Individual trust in online firms: Scale development and initial test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2002; 19(1):211–241; doi: 10.1080/07421222.2002.11045715
27.
JarvenpaaSL, KnollK, LeidnerDE. Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 1998; 14(4):29–64; doi: 10.1080/07421222.1998.11518185
28.
BuchananT, PaineC, JoinsonAN, et al.Development of measures of online privacy concern and protection for use on the Internet. J Am Soc Inf Sci, 2006; 58(2):157–165; doi: 10.1002/asi.20459
29.
GrossR, AcquistiA, HeinzHJ. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society - WPES ’05, pp. 71–80. doi: 10.1145/1102199.1102214
30.
BauerJM, BergstrømR, Foss-MadsenR. Are you sure, you want a cookie? – The effects of choice architecture on users’ decisions about sharing private online data. Computers in Human Behavior, 2021b;120:106729; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106729
31.
KulykO, HiltA, GerberN, et al. (2018). “This Website Uses Cookies”: Users’ perceptions and reactions to the cookie disclaimer. Proceedings 3rd European Workshop on Usable Security, London, England. 10.14722/eurousec.2018.23012
32.
SmitEG, Van NoortG, VoorveldHA. Understanding online behavioural advertising: User knowledge, privacy concerns and online coping behaviour in Europe. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014; 32:15–22; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.008
33.
ZafeiropoulouAM, MillardDE, WebberC, et al. (2013). Unpicking the privacy paradox: Can structuration theory help to explain location-based privacy decisions? Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference, 13, 463–472. 10.1145/2464464.2464503
34.
JourardSM, LasakowP. Some factors in self-disclosure. J Abnorm Psychol, 1958; 56(1):91–98.
35.
BahiratP, WillemsenM, HeY, et al. (2021, May). Overlooking context: How do defaults and framing reduce deliberation in smart home privacy decision-making? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors In Computing Systems, 1-18. 10.1145/3411764.3445672
36.
OeiNY, EveraerdWT, ElzingaBM, et al.Psychosocial stress impairs working memory at high loads: An association with cortisol levels and memory retrieval. Stress, 2006; 9(3):133–141; doi: 10.1080/10253890600965773
37.
SchoofsD, WolfOT, SmeetsT. Cold pressor stress impairs performance on working memory tasks requiring executive functions in healthy young men. Behav Neurosci, 2009; 123(5):1066–1075; doi: 10.1037/a0016980
38.
DoerrJM, DitzenB, StrahlerJ, et al.Reciprocal relationship between acute stress and acute fatigue in everyday life in a sample of university students. Biol Psychol, 2015; 110:42–49; doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.06.009
39.
ChoiH, ParkJ, JungY. The role of privacy fatigue in online privacy behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 2018; 81:42–51; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.001
40.
LeeAR, SonSM, KimKK. Information and communication technology overload and social networking service fatigue: A stress perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 55:51–61; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.011
41.
NamaraM. (2022). Evaluating privacy adaptation presentation methods to support social media users in their privacy-related decision-making process.
42.
LiY, HuangZ, WuYJ, et al.Exploring how personality affects privacy control behavior on social networking sites. Front Psychol, 2019; 10:1771; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01771
43.
SindermannC, SchmittHS, KarglF, et al.Online privacy literacy and online privacy behavior–the role of crystallized intelligence and personality. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2021; 37(15):1455–1466; doi: 10.1080/10447318.2021.1894799
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
