{"title":"超越懒惰;外部控制作为隐私悖论的另一种解释","authors":"Eoin Whelan, Michael Lang, Martin Butler","doi":"10.1108/intr-04-2023-0282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The privacy paradox refers to the situation where users of online services continue to disclose personal information even when they are concerned about their privacy. One recent study of Facebook users published in Internet Research concludes that laziness contributes to the privacy paradox. The purpose of this study is to challenge the laziness explanation. To do so, we adopt a cognitive dispositions perspective and examine how a person’s external locus of control influences the privacy paradox, beyond the trait of laziness.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>A mixed method approach is adopted. We first develop a research model which hypothesises the moderating effects of both laziness and external locus of control on privacy issues. We quantitatively test the research model through a two-phase survey of 463 Facebook users using the Hayes PROCESS macro. We then conduct a qualitative study to verify and develop the findings from the quantitative phase.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The privacy paradox holds true. The findings confirm the significant influence of external locus of control on the privacy paradox. While our quantitative findings suggest laziness does not affect the association between privacy concerns and self-disclosure, our qualitative data does provide some support for the laziness explanation.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>Our study extends existing research by showing that a person’s external locus of control provides a stronger explanation for the privacy paradox than the laziness perspective. As such, this study further reveals the boundary conditions on which the privacy paradox exists for some users of social networking sites, but not others. Our study also suggests cognitive dissonance coping strategies, which are largely absent in prior investigations, may influence the privacy paradox.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":54925,"journal":{"name":"Internet Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond lazy; external locus of control as an alternative explanation for the privacy paradox\",\"authors\":\"Eoin Whelan, Michael Lang, Martin Butler\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/intr-04-2023-0282\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>The privacy paradox refers to the situation where users of online services continue to disclose personal information even when they are concerned about their privacy. One recent study of Facebook users published in Internet Research concludes that laziness contributes to the privacy paradox. The purpose of this study is to challenge the laziness explanation. To do so, we adopt a cognitive dispositions perspective and examine how a person’s external locus of control influences the privacy paradox, beyond the trait of laziness.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>A mixed method approach is adopted. We first develop a research model which hypothesises the moderating effects of both laziness and external locus of control on privacy issues. We quantitatively test the research model through a two-phase survey of 463 Facebook users using the Hayes PROCESS macro. We then conduct a qualitative study to verify and develop the findings from the quantitative phase.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>The privacy paradox holds true. The findings confirm the significant influence of external locus of control on the privacy paradox. While our quantitative findings suggest laziness does not affect the association between privacy concerns and self-disclosure, our qualitative data does provide some support for the laziness explanation.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>Our study extends existing research by showing that a person’s external locus of control provides a stronger explanation for the privacy paradox than the laziness perspective. As such, this study further reveals the boundary conditions on which the privacy paradox exists for some users of social networking sites, but not others. Our study also suggests cognitive dissonance coping strategies, which are largely absent in prior investigations, may influence the privacy paradox.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":54925,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internet Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internet Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-04-2023-0282\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internet Research","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-04-2023-0282","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的 隐私悖论是指在线服务用户即使担心自己的隐私,也会继续披露个人信息的情况。最近发表在《互联网研究》(Internet Research)上的一项针对 Facebook 用户的研究认为,懒惰是造成隐私悖论的原因之一。本研究的目的是质疑 "懒惰 "的解释。为此,我们从认知倾向的角度出发,研究除了懒惰这一特质之外,个人的外部控制源是如何影响隐私悖论的。我们首先建立了一个研究模型,假设懒惰和外部控制感对隐私问题都有调节作用。我们使用 Hayes PROCESS 宏,分两个阶段对 463 名 Facebook 用户进行了调查,对研究模型进行了定量检验。然后,我们进行了一项定性研究,以验证和发展定量阶段的研究结果。研究结果证实了外部控制源对隐私悖论的重大影响。虽然我们的定量研究结果表明,懒惰并不影响隐私关注与自我披露之间的关联,但我们的定性数据确实为懒惰的解释提供了一些支持。原创性/价值我们的研究扩展了现有的研究,表明与懒惰观点相比,个人的外部控制源为隐私悖论提供了更有力的解释。因此,本研究进一步揭示了隐私悖论存在于社交网站某些用户而非其他用户身上的边界条件。我们的研究还表明,认知失调应对策略可能会影响隐私悖论,而这在之前的研究中基本没有涉及。
Beyond lazy; external locus of control as an alternative explanation for the privacy paradox
Purpose
The privacy paradox refers to the situation where users of online services continue to disclose personal information even when they are concerned about their privacy. One recent study of Facebook users published in Internet Research concludes that laziness contributes to the privacy paradox. The purpose of this study is to challenge the laziness explanation. To do so, we adopt a cognitive dispositions perspective and examine how a person’s external locus of control influences the privacy paradox, beyond the trait of laziness.
Design/methodology/approach
A mixed method approach is adopted. We first develop a research model which hypothesises the moderating effects of both laziness and external locus of control on privacy issues. We quantitatively test the research model through a two-phase survey of 463 Facebook users using the Hayes PROCESS macro. We then conduct a qualitative study to verify and develop the findings from the quantitative phase.
Findings
The privacy paradox holds true. The findings confirm the significant influence of external locus of control on the privacy paradox. While our quantitative findings suggest laziness does not affect the association between privacy concerns and self-disclosure, our qualitative data does provide some support for the laziness explanation.
Originality/value
Our study extends existing research by showing that a person’s external locus of control provides a stronger explanation for the privacy paradox than the laziness perspective. As such, this study further reveals the boundary conditions on which the privacy paradox exists for some users of social networking sites, but not others. Our study also suggests cognitive dissonance coping strategies, which are largely absent in prior investigations, may influence the privacy paradox.
期刊介绍:
This wide-ranging interdisciplinary journal looks at the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the internet. Recent issues have focused on online and mobile gaming, the sharing economy, and the dark side of social media.