From Contextualizing to Context Theorizing: Assessing Context Effects in Privacy Research

References

• Acquisti A (2009) Nudging privacy: The behavioral economics of personal information. IEEE Security Privacy 7(6):82–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Acquisti A, Gross R (2009) Predicting Social Security numbers from public data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(27):10975–10980.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Acquisti A, Grossklags J (2005) Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security Privacy 3(1):26–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Acquisti A, Brandimarte L, Loewenstein G (2015) Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science 347(6221):509–514.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Acquisti A, Brandimarte L, Loewenstein G (2018) Privacy and human behavior in the information age. Selinger E, Polonetsky J, Tene O, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Privacy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom), 184–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Acquisti A, Brandimarte L, Loewenstein G (2020) Secrets and likes: The drive for privacy and the difficulty of achieving it in the digital age. J. Consumer. Psych. 30(4):736–758.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Acquisti A, John LK, Loewenstein G (2013) What is privacy worth? J. Legal Stud. 42(2):249–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Acquisti A, Taylor C, Wagman L (2016) The economics of privacy. J. Econom. Literature 54(2):442–492.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adjerid I, Pe’er E, Acquisti A (2018) Beyond the privacy paradox: Objective vs. relative risk in privacy decision making. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 42(2):465–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arellano M (2003) Panel Data Econometrics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Avgerou C (2019) Contextual explanation: Alternative approaches and persistent challenges. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 43(3):977–1006.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bansal G, Zahedi F (2008) The moderating influence of privacy concern on the efficacy of privacy assurance mechanisms for building trust: A multiple-context investigation. Proc. Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (Association for Information Systems).Google Scholar
• Baruh L, Secinti E, Cemalcilar Z (2017) Online privacy concerns and privacy management: A meta-analytical review. J. Comm. 67(1):26–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bearse PM, Bozdogan H, Schlottmann AM (1997) Empirical econometric modelling of food consumption using a new informational complexity approach. J. Appl. Econometrics 12(5):563–592.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belanger F, Hiller JS, Smith WJ (2002) Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: The role of privacy, security, and site attributes. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 11(3-4):245–270.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Mullainathan S (2001) Do people mean what they say? implications for subjective survey data. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(2):67–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bond T, Fox CM (2015) Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences (Routledge, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyd D, Hargittai E (2010) Facebook privacy settings: Who cares? First Monday 15(2010):8.Google Scholar
• Child D (2006) The Essentials of Factor Analysis, 3rd ed. (Bloomsbury Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Cook TD, Campbell DT (1976) Design and conduct of quasi-experiments and true experiments in field settings. Dunnette MD, ed. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Rand McNally, Chicago), 223–326.Google Scholar
• Cooperman A, Smith G, Alper B, Ritchey K (2014) Religion and electronic media: One-in-five Americans share their faith online. Accessed March 1, 2020, https://www.pewforum.org/2014/11/06/religion.Google Scholar
• Cronbach LJ (1957) The two disciplines of scientific psychology. Amer. Psych. 12(11):671–684.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B 39(1):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dienlin T, Trepte S (2015) Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? an in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 45(3):285–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dinev T, Hart P, Mullen MR (2008) Internet privacy concerns and beliefs about government surveillance–an empirical investigation. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 17(3):214–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Finch WH, Hernández Finch ME (2020) Modeling of self-report behavior data using the generalized covariates in a uniform and shifted binomial mixture model: An empirical example and Monte Carlo simulation. Psych. Methods 25(1):113–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gates GW (2011) How uncertainty about privacy and confidentiality is hampering efforts to more effectively use administrative records in producing us national statistics. J. Privacy Confidentiality, https://doi.org/10.29012/jpc.v3i2.599.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldfarb A, Tucker C (2012) Shifts in privacy concerns. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(3):349–353.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hagenaars JA, McCutcheon AL (2002) Applied Latent Class Analysis (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoffmann CP, Lutz C, Ranzini G (2016) Privacy cynicism: A new approach to the privacy paradox. Cyberpsychology 10(4):7.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hollander EP (1958) Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psych. Rev. 65(2):117–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hong W, Thong JY (2013) Internet privacy concerns: An integrated conceptualization and four empirical studies. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 37(1):275–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hunter JE, Schmidt FL (2004) Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings (Sage, Los Angeles).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iannario M (2010) On the identifiability of a mixture model for ordinal data. Metron 68(1):87–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iannario M (2012) Modelling shelter choices in a class of mixture models for ordinal responses. Statist. Methods Appl. 21(1):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iannario M, Manisera M, Piccolo D, Zuccolotto P (2020) Ordinal data models for no-opinion responses in attitude survey. Sociol. Methods Res. 49(1):250–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jawahar I, Williams CR (1997) Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psych. 50(4):905–925.Crossref, Google Scholar
• John LK, Acquisti A, Loewenstein G (2011) Strangers on a plane: Context-dependent willingness to divulge sensitive information. J. Consumer Res. 37(5):858–873.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johns G (1991) Substantive and methodological constraints on behavior and attitudes in organizational research. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 49(1):80–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johns G (2006) The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Acad. Management Rev. 31(2):386–408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson VE, Albert JH (2006) Ordinal Data Modeling, Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences (Springer Science & Business Media, New York).Google Scholar
• Kozlowski SW, Klein KJ (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. Kozlowski SW, Klein KJ, eds. Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), 3–90.Google Scholar
• Krosnick JA, Holbrook AL, Berent MK, Carson RT, Michael Hanemann W, Kopp RJ, Cameron Mitchell R, et al. (2002) The impact of “no opinion” response options on data quality: Non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public Opinion Quart. 66(3):371–403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Le H, Schmidt FL (2006) Correcting for indirect range restriction in meta-analysis: Testing a new meta-analytic procedure. Psych. Methods 11(4):416–438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leavitt K, Mitchell TR, Peterson J (2010) Theory pruning: Strategies to reduce our dense theoretical landscape. Organ. Res. Methods 13(4):644–667.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lipka M (2015) Religious ‘nones’ are not only growing, they’re becoming more secular. URL https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/11/religious.Google Scholar
• Madden M, Rainie L, Zickuhr K, Duggan M, Smith A (2014) Public perceptions of privacy and security in the post-Snowden era. Technical report, Pew Research Center, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Malhotra NK, Kim SS, Agarwal J (2004) Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inform. Systems Res. 15(4):336–355.Link, Google Scholar
• Manisera M, Zuccolotto P (2014) Modeling” don’t know” responses in rating scales. Pattern Recognition Lett. 45:226–234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marreiros H, Tonin M, Vlassopoulos M, Schraefel M (2017) “Now that you mention it”: A survey experiment on information, inattention and online privacy. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 140:1–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McLachlan GJ, Peel D (2004) Finite Mixture Models (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Meyer RD, Dalal RS, Hermida R (2010) A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. J. Management 36(1):121–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer RD, Kelly ED, Bowling NA (2020) Situational strength theory: A formalized conceptualization of a popular idea. Rauthmann JF, Sherman RA, Funder DC, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Psychological Situations (Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom), 79–95.Google Scholar
• Mischel W (1977) The interaction of person and situation. Magnusson D, Endler NS, eds. Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ), 333–352.Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research (National Academies Press, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Nissenbaum H (2004) Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Rev. 79:119.Google Scholar
• Nissenbaum H (2009) Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piccolo D (2003) On the moments of a mixture of uniform and shifted binomial random variables. Quaderni Statistica 5(1):85–104.Google Scholar
• Piccolo D, Simone R (2019) The class of CUB models: Statistical foundations, inferential issues and empirical evidence. Statist. Methods Appl. 28(3):389–435.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pierce JR, Aguinis H (2013) The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. J. Management 39(2):313–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pinchot JL, Paullet KL (2012) What’s in your profile? Mapping Facebook profile data to personal security questions. Issues Inform. Systems 13(1):284–293.Google Scholar
• Powell EE, Baker T (2014) It’s what you make of it: Founder identity and enacting strategic responses to adversity. Acad. Management J. 57(5):1406–1433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Punzo G, Castellano R, Buonocore M (2018) Job satisfaction in the “big four” of Europe: Reasoning between feeling and uncertainty through CUB models. Soc. Indicators Res. 139(1):205–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rader E (2014) Awareness of behavioral tracking and information privacy concern in Facebook and Google. Proc. 10th Sympos. Usable Privacy Security, 51–67.Google Scholar
• Reynolds B, Venkatanathan J, Gonçalves J, Kostakos V (2011) Sharing ephemeral information in online social networks: Privacy perceptions and behaviours. IFIP Conf. Human-Comput. Interaction.Google Scholar
• Rousseau DM, Fried Y (2001) Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. J. Organ. Behav. 22(1):1–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT (2002) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, 2nd ed. (Houghton Mifflin, Boston).Google Scholar
• Sheehan KB (1999) An investigation of gender differences in on-line privacy concerns and resultant behaviors. J. Interactive Marketing 13(4):24–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sheehan KB, Hoy MG (1999) Flaming, complaining, abstaining: How online users respond to privacy concerns. J. Advertising 28(3):37–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith HJ, Dinev T, Xu H (2011) Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 35(4):989–1016.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith HJ, Milberg SJ, Burke SJ (1996) Information privacy: Measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 20(2):167–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Solove DJ (2002) Conceptualizing privacy. Calif. Law Rev. 90:1087.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spector PE, Jex SM, Chen PY (1995) Relations of incumbent affect-related personality traits with incumbent and objective measures of characteristics of jobs. J. Organ. Behav. 16(1):59–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sweeney L (2000) Simple demographics often identify people uniquely. Health 671:1–34.Google Scholar
• Teicher H (1954) On the factorization of distributions. Ann. Math. Statist. 25(4):769–774.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Bavel JJ, Mende-Siedlecki P, Brady WJ, Reinero DA (2016) Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113(23):6454–6459.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vrieze SI (2012) Model selection and psychological theory: A discussion of the differences between the AIC and the BIC. Psych. Methods 17(2):228–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wittes B, Liu JC (2015) The privacy paradox: The privacy benefits of privacy threats. Reprot, Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Xie JL, Johns G (1995) Job scope and stress: Can job scope be too high? Acad. Management J. 38(5):1288–1309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xu H, Teo HH, Tan B (2005) Predicting the adoption of location-based services: The role of trust and perceived privacy risk. Proc. Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems.Google Scholar
• Xu H, Teo HH, Tan BC, Agarwal R (2012) Effects of individual self-protection, industry self-regulation, and government regulation on privacy concerns: A study of location-based services. Inform. Systems Res. 23(4):1342–1363.Link, Google Scholar