An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0080

References

  • Ackerman M. S., Cranor L. F., Reagle J. Privacy in e-commerce: Examining user scenarios and privacy preferences. Proc. 1st ACM Conf. E-commerce, EC’99 (1999) Denver, COCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ajzen I.Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior (1988) (Dorsey Press, Chicago, IL) Google Scholar
  • Ajzen I., Fishbein M.Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior (1980) (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
  • Altman I.The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory and Crowding (1975) (Brookes, Monterey, CA) Google Scholar
  • Anderson J. C., Gerbing S. W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psych. Bull. (1998) 103(3):411–423CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Anderson J. C., Narus J. A. A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. J. Marketing (1990) 54(1):42–58CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bagozzi R. P.Causal Models in Marketing (1980) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
  • Bentler P. M., Bonett D. G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psych. Bull. (1980) 88(3):588–606CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Blakeney R. N. A transactional view of the role of trust in organizational communication. Trans. Anal. J. (1986) 16(1):95–98Google Scholar
  • Bollen K. A.Structural Equations with Latent Variables (1989) (Wiley, New York) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Brief A. P., Aldag R. J. The intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy: Toward conceptual clarity. Acad. Management (1977) 2(3):496–500Google Scholar
  • Budnitz M. E. Privacy protection for consumer transactions in electronic commerce: Why self-regulation is inadequate. South Carolina Law Rev. (1998) 49:847–886Google Scholar
  • Byrne B.Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS (1998) (Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Mahwah, NJ) Google Scholar
  • Cheung C., Lee M. Trust in Internet shopping: Instrument development and validation through classical and modern approaches. J. Global Inf. Management (2001) 9(3):23–35CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Chiles T. H., McMackin J. F. Integrating variable risk preferences, trust, and transaction cost economics. Acad. Management Rev. (1996) 21(1):73–99CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Chin W. W., Gopal A. Adoption intention in GSS: Relative importance of beliefs. DATA BASE (1995) 26(2, 3):42–64CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Culnan M. J. “How did they know my name?” An exploratory investigation of consumer attitudes toward secondary information use. MIS Quart. (1993) 17(3):341–363CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Culnan M. J. Protecting privacy online: Is self-regulation working? J. Public Policy Marketing (2000) 19:20–29CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Culnan M. J., Armstrong P. Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organ. Sci. (1999) 10(1):104–115LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Culnan M. J., Bies R. J. Consumer privacy: Balancing economic and justice considerations. J. Soc. Issues (2003) 59(2):323–342CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Davis F. D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. (1989) 13(3):319–340CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Davis F. D., Bagozzi R. P., Warshaw P. R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Sci. (1989) 35(8):982–1003LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Dinev T., Hart P. Internet privacy concerns and their antecedents—Measurement validity and a regression model. Behav. Inform. Tech. (2004) 23(6):413–422CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dinev T., Hart P. Internet privacy concerns and social awareness as determinants of intention to transact. Internat. J. Electronic Commerce (2006) . ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  • Etzioni A.The Limits of Privacy (1999) (Basic Books, New York) Google Scholar
  • Fornell C., Larcker D. F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable measurement error. J. Marketing Res. (1981) 18:39–50CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fox S.Trust and Privacy Online: Why Americans Want to Rewrite the Rules (2000) (The Pew Internet & American Life Project). Accessed on April 18, 2005 http://www.pewinternet.orgGoogle Scholar
  • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Self-regulation and privacy online. (1999) . Report to Congress http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/07/privacy99.pdfGoogle Scholar
  • Gabarro J.The Dynamics of Taking Charge (1987) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
  • Ganesan S. Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. J. Marketing (1994) 58:1–19CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gefen D. Electronic commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega (2000) 28(5):725–737CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gefen D., Karahanna E., Straub D. W. Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quart. (2003) 27(1):51–90CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gefen D., Straub D. W., Boudreau M. C. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Comm. AIS (2000) 4(Article 7):1–80Google Scholar
  • Giddens A.The Consequences of Modernity (1990) (Polity Press, Cambridge, U.K) Google Scholar
  • Giddens A.Modernity and Self-Identity (1991) (Polity Press, Cambridge, U.K) Google Scholar
  • Glazer R. Marketing in an information-intensive environment: Strategic implications of knowledge as an asset. J. Marketing (1991) 55(4):1–20CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Goodwin C. Privacy: Recognition of a consumer right. J. Public Policy Marketing (1991) 10(1):149–166CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hart P., Saunders C. Power and trust: Critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic data interchange. Organ. Sci. (1998) 8(1):23–42LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Iacono S., Kling R., Kling R. Computerization movements and tales of technological utopianism. Computerization and Controversy (1996) (Academic Press, San Diego, CA) 85–105CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Igbaria M., Iivari J., Maragahh H. Why do individuals use computer technology? A Finnish case study. Inform. Management (1995) 29(5):227–238CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Jarvenpaa S. L., Tractinsky N., Vitale M. Consumer trust in an Internet store. Inform. Tech. Management (2000) 1:45–71CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Jarvenpaa S. L., Tractinsky N., Saarinen L., Vitale M. Consumer trust in an Internet store: A cross-cultural validation. J. Comput.-Mediated Comm. (1999) 5(2):44–71Google Scholar
  • Joreskog K., Sorbom D.LISREL VIII Scientific Software (1993) (Chicago, IL)Google Scholar
  • Kling R., Kling R. Hopes and horrors: Technological utopianism and anti-utopianism in narratives of computerization. Computerization and Controversy (1996) (Academic Press, San Diego, CA) 40–58CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kling R., Allen J. P., Lyon D., Zureik E. How the marriage of management and computing intensifies the struggle for personal privacy. Computers, Surveillance and Privacy (1996) (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN) 104–131Google Scholar
  • Koufteros X. A. Testing a model of full production: A paradigm for manufacturing research using structural equation modeling. J. Oper. Management (1999) 17:467–488CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Laufer R. S., Wolfe M. Privacy as a concept and a social issue: A multidimensional developmental theory. J. Soc. Issues (1977) 33(3):22–42CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lee M., Turban E. Trust in b-to-c electronic commerce: A proposed research model and its application. Internat. J. Electronic Commerce (2001) 6(1):75–91CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Malhotra N. K., Kim S. S., Agarwal J. Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inform. Systems Res. (2004) 15(4):336–355LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Maslow A. H.Motivation and Personality (1954) (Harper and Row, New York) Google Scholar
  • Mason R. O. Four ethical issues of the information age. MIS Quart. (1986) 10(1):4–12CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Mayer R., Davis J. H., Schoorman F. D. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Management Rev. (1995) 20(3):709–734CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • McGregor D.The Professional Manager (1967) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
  • McKnight D. H., Choudhury V., Kacmar C. Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative topology. Inform. Systems Res. (2002) 13(3):334–359LinkGoogle Scholar
  • McLain D. L., Hackman Z. K. Trust, risk, and decision-making in organizational change. Public Admin. Quart. (1999) 23(2):152–176Google Scholar
  • Milberg S. J., Smith H. J., Burke S. J. Information privacy: Corporate management and national regulation. Organ. Sci. (2000) 11(1):35–37LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Milberg S. J., Burke S. J., Smith H. J., Kallman E. A. Values, personal information privacy, and regulatory approaches. Comm. ACM (1995) 38(12):65–74CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Milne G. R., Culnan M. J. Strategies for reducing online privacy risks: Why consumers read (or don’t read) online privacy notices. J. Interactive Marketing (2004) 18(3):15–29CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Mishra A. K., Kramer R. M., Tyler T. R. Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (1996) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) 261–287CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Miyazaki A. D., Fernandez A. Internet privacy and security: An examination of online retailer disclosures. J. Public Policy Marketing (2000) 19(1):54–63CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Mullen M. R., Milne G. R., Didow N. Determining cross-cultural metric equivalence in survey research: A statistical test. Adv. Internat. Marketing (1996) 8:145–157Google Scholar
  • O’Brien T. Officials worried over a sharp rise in identity theft. New York Times (2000) April 3):1Google Scholar
  • Orlikowski W., Iacono S. Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Inform. Systems Res. (2001) 12(2):121–134LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Pavlou P. A. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce—Integrating trust and risk, with the technology acceptance model. Internat. J. Electronic Commerce (2003) 7(3):69–103Google Scholar
  • Pavlou P. A., Gefen D. Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust. Inform. Systems Res. (2004) 15(1):37–59LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Petronio S. Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of managing disclosure of private information between marital couples. Comm. Theory (1991) 1:311–335CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Petronio S.Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure (2002) (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J.-Y., Podsakoff N. P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psych. (2003) 88(5):879–903CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Preston J. Judge strikes down section of patriot act allowing secret subpoenas of Internet data. New York Times (2004) September 30):26Google Scholar
  • Rice R. E.Accessing and Browsing Information and Communication (2001) (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rice R. E., Shook D. E. Access to, usage of, and outcomes from an electronic messaging system. ACM Trans. Office Inform. Systems (1988) 6(3):255–276CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rice R. E., McCreadie M., Chang S. L.Accessing the Browsing—Information and Communication (2001) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rindfleish T. C. Privacy, information technology, and health care. Comm. ACM (1997) 40(8):92–100CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rosen J.The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America (2000) (Random House, New York) Google Scholar
  • Rousseau D., Sitkin R., Burt R., Camerer C. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Management Rev. (1998) 23(3):393–404CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Segars A. H., Grover V. Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quart. (1993) 17(4):517–529CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Smith H. J. Privacy policies and practices: Inside the organizational maze. Comm. ACM (1993) 36(12):105–122CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Smith H. J., Milberg S. J., Burke S. J. Information privacy: Measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quart. (1996) 20(2):167–196CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Stewart K. A., Segars A. H. An empirical examination of the concern for information privacy instrument. Inform. Systems Res. (2002) 13(1):36–49LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Stone E. F., Stone D. L., Rowland K. M., Ferris G. R. Privacy in organizations: Theoretical issues, research findings, and protection mechanisms. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (1990) 8(JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) 349–411Google Scholar
  • Straub D., Boudreau M.-C., Gefen D. Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Comm. AIS (2004) 13(Article 24):380–427Google Scholar
  • Swan J., Trawick I., Rink D., Roberts J. Measuring dimensions of purchaser trust of industrial salespeople. J. Personal Selling Sales Management (1988) 8:1–9Google Scholar
  • Sweat J. Privacy paradox: Customers want control—and coupons. Informationweek (2000) 781(April):52Google Scholar
  • Tan Y., Thoen W. Toward a generic model of trust for electronic commerce. Internat. J. Electronic Commerce (2001) 5(2):61–71Google Scholar
  • Taylor S., Todd P. A. Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Inform. Systems Res. (1995) 6(2):144–176LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Teo T. S. J., Lim V. K. G., Lai R. Y. C. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage. Omega (1999) 27(1):25–37CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tolchinsky P. D., McCuddy M., Adams J., Ganster D. C., Woodman R., Fromkin H. L. Employee perceptions of invasion of privacy: A field simulation experiment. J. Appl. Psych. (1981) 66(3):308–313CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Torkzadeh G., Dhillon G. Measuring factors that influence the success of Internet commerce. Inform. Systems Res. (2002) 13(2):187–204LinkGoogle Scholar
  • University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Internet report: Surveying the digital future. (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004) . http://ccp.ucla.edu/pages/internet-report.aspGoogle Scholar
  • van der Heijden H. Factors influencing the usage of websites: The case of a generic portal in The Netherlands. Inform. Management (2002) 40(6):541–549CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • van der Heijden H. User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quart. (2004) 28(4):695–704CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • van Eerde W., Thierry H. Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psych. (1996) 81(5):575–586CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Venkatesh V. Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quart. (1999) 23(2):239–260CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inform. Systems Res. (2000) 11(4):342–365LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Venkatesh V., Davis F. D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Sci. (2000) 46:186–204LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Venkatesh V., Morris M. G., Davis G. B., Davis F. D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quart. (2003) 27(3):425–478CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Vroom V. H.Work and Motivation (1964) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
  • Wald M. L. Threats and responses: The airlines; U.S. wants all air traveler files for security test. New York Times (2004) September 22):1Google Scholar
  • Webster J., Martocchio J. J. Microcomputer playfulness: Development of a measure with workplace implication. MIS Quart. (1992) 16(2):201–226CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Werts C. E., Linn R. L., Jöreskog K. G. Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educ. Psych. Measurement (1974) 34:25–33CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Westin A. F.Privacy and Freedom (1967) (Atheneum, New York) Google Scholar
  • Westin A. F. Testimony before U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Hearing on “Opinion surveys: What consumers have to say about information privacy.”. (2001) . (May 8) http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/05082001Hearing209/Westin309.htmGoogle Scholar
  • Yates J. F., Stone E. R., Yates J. F. Risk appraisal. Risk-Taking Behavior (1992) (John Wiley, Chichester, U.K.) 49–85Google Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.