The current study investigated the relationship between acceptance of advertising and of services that collect personal information. Survey respondents were presented with a questionnaire asking about their agreement with various forms of advertising, and were also presented with scenarios describing mobile and TV-based services. The results showed that adding collection of personal information to the services had less of an impact on the ratings of respondents who were more accepting of advertisements inserted into applications (software, games and MP3s) or presented on mobile devices. These results suggest that acceptance of advertising could be an indicator of privacy sensitivity, and could be used to personalize privacy management in part based on individual differences in sensitivity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AcquistiA.FriedmanA.TelangR. (2006). Is There a Cost to Privacy Breaches? An Event Study. Paper presented at the Twenty Seventh International Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee, WI.
2.
BakerW. E.LutzR. J. (2000). An Empirical Test of an Updated Relevance-Accessibility Model of Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 29(1), 1-14.
3.
BarwiseP.StrongC. (2002). Permission-based mobile advertising. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(1), 14-24.
ChellappaR. K.SinR. G. (2005). Personalization versus Privacy: An Empirical Examination of the Online Consumer’s Dilemma. Inf. Technol. and Management, 6(2-3), 181-202.
6.
DarkeP. R.RitchieO. J. B. (2007). The Defensive Consumer: Advertising Deception, Defensive Processing, and Distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 114-127.
7.
DinevT.HartP. (2006). An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E- Commerce Transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61-80.
8.
DucoffeR.CurloE. (2000). Advertising value and advertising processing. Journal of Marketing Communications, 6(4), 247-262.
9.
DuttonW. H.ShepherdA. (2003). Trust in the Internet: The Social Dynamics of an Experience Technology (Research Report).
10.
FangY. (2010). The Death of the Privacy Policy? Effective Privacy Disclosures After In re Sears. Berkeley Technical Legal Journal, 671.
11.
GefenD. (2000). E-Commerce: The Role of Familiarity and Trust. Omega: The international Journal of Management Science, 28(6), 727-737.
12.
GraeffT. R.HarmonS. (2002). Collecting and Using Personal Data: Consumers’ Awareness and Concerns. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(4), 302-318.
13.
GüntherO.SpiekermannS. (2005). RFID and the Perception of Control: The Consumer’s View. Communications of the ACM, 48(9), 73-76.
14.
HannI.-H.HuiK.-L.LeeT. S.PngI. P. L. (2002). Online Information Privacy: Measuring the Cost-Benefit Trade-Off. Paper presented at the 23rd International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, Spain.
15.
HurwitzJ. (2011). The Influence of Trust and Privacy Risk-taking on User Acceptance of Electronic Services that Collect Personal Information. Paper presented at the 2011 Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
16.
HurwitzJ. (in press). User Choice, Privacy Sensitivity, and Acceptance of Personal Information Collection. In GutwirthS.PoulletY.De HertP.LeenesR. (Eds.), European Data Protection: Coming of Age?Springer.
17.
InstituteP. (2005). National Survey on Data Security Breach Notification. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from http://bit.ly/FOokLD
18.
JohnD. R. (1999). Consumer Socialization of Children: A Retrospective Look at Twenty-Five Years of Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 183-213.
19.
JuntunenA. (2001). Audience Members’ Goals of Media Use and Processing of Advertisements. Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki, Finland.
20.
KlasnjaP.ConsolvoS.ChoudhuryT.BeckwithR.HightowerJ. (2009). Exploring Privacy Concerns about Personal Sensing. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Pervasive Computing, Nara, Japan.
21.
LeppäniemiKarjaluotoSaloSinisalo. (2005). Factors affecting consumer choice of mobile phones: two studies from Finland. Journal of Euromarketing, 14(3), 59-82.
22.
LwinM.WirtzJ.WilliamsJ. D. (2007). Consumer online privacy concerns and responses: a power–responsibility equilibrium perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 572-585.
23.
ManeesoonthornC.FortinD. (2006). Texting Behaviour and Attitudes Toward Permission Mobile Advertising: An Empirical Study of Mobile Users’ Acceptance of SMS for Marketing Purposes. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 1(1), 66-72.
24.
McCoyS.EverardA.PolakP.GallettaD. F. (2007). The Effects of Online Advertising. Communications of the ACM, 50(3), 84-88.
25.
PaineC.ReipsU.-D.StiegerS.JoinsonA.BuchananT. (2007). Internet users’ perceptions of ‘privacy concerns’ and ‘privacy actions’. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud., 65(6), 526-536.
26.
RohmA. J.SultanF. (2006). An Exploratory Cross-Market Study of Mobile Marketing Acceptance. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 1(1), 4-12.
27.
SchlosserA. E.ShavittS.KanferA. (2000). Survey of Internet users’ attitudes toward Internet advertising. Communication Abstracts, 23(2).
28.
TNS. (2008). 2008Study: Consumer Attitudes about Behavioral Targeting.
29.
WardS.BridgesK.ChittyB. (2005). Do Incentives Matter? An Examination of On-line Privacy Concerns and Willingness to Provide Personal and Financial Information. Journal of Marketing Communications, 11(1), 21.
30.
XuH.TeoH.-H.TanB. C. Y. (2005). Predicting the Adoption of Location-Based Services: The Role of Trust and Perceived Privacy Risk. Paper presented at the Twenty-Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
31.
YangS.WangY.WangK.-l. (2009). The influence of information sensitivity compensation on privacy concern and behavioral intention. SIGMIS Database, 40(1), 38-51.
