• ISSN: 2148-2225 (online)

Ulaştırma ve Lojistik Kongreleri

alphanumeric journal

The Journal of Operations Research, Statistics, Econometrics and Management Information Systems

Why Do Consumers Behave Differently in Personal Information Disclosure and Self-Disclosure? The Role of Personality Traits and Privacy Concern

bib

Erdem Özkan, Ph.D.


Abstract

The aim of this study is to explain differences between consumers' personal information disclosure to companies (IDC behavior) and self-disclosure in social media (SDM behavior) based on personality traits, privacy concern and types of disclosed personal information. The population consisted of consumers who are 18 and over, have one or more social media accounts, and live in Turkey. The data were collected via the online survey method and analyzed by structural equation modeling. As a result of the analyses, it was found that consumers' IDC behavior and SDM behavior differ from each other depending on the disclosed personal information. It was also found that the personality traits have direct and indirect effects on both consumers' personal information disclosure and their self-disclosure in social media, and the privacy concern was the main reason for indirect effects. Accordingly, each of these disclosure behaviors was affected by different personality traits, and the dominant traits shape them. In conclusion, it has been determined that the personality traits and privacy concern have significant roles in the differences between IDC behavior and SDM behavior.

Keywords: Consumer Behavior, Information Disclosure, Personal Information, Personality Traits, Privacy Concern, Self-Disclosure, Structural Equation Modeling

Jel Classification: M31

Tüketiciler Kişisel Bilgilerini İşletmelerle ve Kişilerle Paylaşırken Niçin Farklı Davranırlar? Kişilik Özellikleri ve Gizlilik Endişesinin Rolü

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, tüketicilerin kişisel bilgilerini doğrudan işletmelerle paylaşma davranışları (IDC davranışı) ile sosyal medyada işletmeler dışındaki kişilerle paylaşma davranışları (SDM davranışı) arasındaki farklılıkları kişilik özellikleri, gizlilik endişesi ve paylaşılan bilgi türü açısından açıklamaktır. Çalışmanın anakütlesini Türkiye’de yaşayan, bir veya daha fazla sosyal medya hesabı olan, 18 yaş ve üzerindeki tüketiciler oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın verileri çevrimiçi anket yöntemi kullanılarak toplanmış ve yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ile analiz edilmiştir. Analizler sonucunda, tüketicilerin IDC davranışları ile SDM davranışlarının paylaşılan bilgilere bağlı olarak farklılık gösterdiği bulunmuştur. Kişilik özelliklerinin her iki bilgi paylaşma davranışını da hem doğrudan hem de dolaylı olarak etkilediği, dolaylı etkilerin ise gizlilik endişesi aracılığıyla meydana geldiği bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca bilgi paylaşma davranışlarının her birinin farklı kişilik özelliklerinden etkilendiği ve baskın olan kişilik özelliklerinin farklı davranışların doğmasına neden olduğu bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak kişilik özelliklerinin ve gizlilik endişesinin IDC davranışı ve SDM davranışı arasındaki farklılıklarda önemli rollere sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Bilgi Paylaşımı, Gizlilik Endişesi, Kendini İfşa, Kişilik Özellikleri, Kişisel Bilgi, Tüketici Davranışı, Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi

Suggested citation

Özkan, E. (). Why Do Consumers Behave Differently in Personal Information Disclosure and Self-Disclosure? The Role of Personality Traits and Privacy Concern. Alphanumeric Journal, 6(2), 257-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.460158

References

  • Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509–514.
  • Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), i-171.
  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
  • Awad, N. F., & Krishnan, M. S. (2006). The personalization privacy paradox: An empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 13–28.
  • Baek, T. H., & Morimoto, M. (2012). Stay away from me. Journal of Advertising, 41(1), 59–76.
  • Bansal, G., Zahedi, F. M., & Gefen, D. (2010). The impact of personal dispositions on information sensitivity, privacy concern and trust in disclosing health information online. Decision Support Systems, 49(2), 138–150.
  • Bansal, G., Zahedi, F. M., & Gefen, D. (2016). Do context and personality matter? Trust and privacy concerns in disclosing private information online. Information & Management, 53(1), 1–21.
  • Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.
  • Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1&2), 9–30.
  • Baumgartner, H. (2002). Toward a personology of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 286–292.
  • Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011). Privacy in the digital age: A review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 1017–1041.
  • Beldad, A., de Jong, M., & Steehouder, M. (2011). A comprehensive theoretical framework for personal information-related behaviors on the internet. The Information Society, 27(4), 220–232.
  • Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729–750.
  • Benson, V., Saridakis, G., & Tennakoon, H. (2015). Information disclosure of social media users. Information Technology & People, 28(3), 426–441.
  • Bibby, P. A. (2008). Dispositional factors in the use of social networking sites: Findings and implications for social computing research. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 5075 LNCS, pp. 392–400).
  • Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & Ter Weel, B. (2008). The economics and psychology of personality traits. Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 972–1059.
  • Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(4), 476–506.
  • Caudill, E. M., & Murphy, P. E. (2000). Consumer online privacy: Legal and ethical issues. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 7–19.
  • Chauvin, B., Hermand, D., & Mullet, E. (2007). Risk perception and personality facets. Risk Analysis, 27(1), 171–185.
  • Chellapa, R., & Sin, R. G. (2005). Personalisation vs. privacy: an empirical examination of the online consumers’ dilemma. Information Technology and Management, 6(2–3), 181–202.
  • Choi, D., Oh, I.-S., & Colbert, A. E. (2015). Understanding organizational commitment: A meta-analytic examination of the roles of the five-factor model of personality and culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1542–1567.
  • Clarke, R. (1999). Internet privacy concerns confirm the case for intervention. Communications of the ACM, 42(2), 60–67.
  • Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
  • Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Model (NEO-FFI) Professional manual. Odesa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
  • Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80.
  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39.
  • Galton, F. (1884). The measurement of character. Fortnightly Review, 36, 179–185.
  • Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.
  • Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42.
  • Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In Workshop On Privacy In The Electronic Society (pp. 71–80).
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
  • Hajli, N., & Lin, X. (2016). Exploring the security of information sharing on social networking sites: The role of perceived control of information. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1), 111–123.
  • Hallam, C., & Zanella, G. (2017). Online self-disclosure: The privacy paradox explained as a temporally discounted balance between concerns and rewards. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 217–227.
  • Hollenbaugh, E. E., & Ferris, A. L. (2014). Facebook self-disclosure: Examining the role of traits, social cohesion, and motives. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 50–58.
  • Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
  • Hui, K.-L., Tan, B. C. Y., & Goh, C.-Y. (2006). Online information disclosure: Motivators and measurements. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 6(4), 415–441.
  • John, O. P., & Naumann, L. P. (2010). Surviving two critiques by block? The resilient big five have emerged as the paradigm for personality trait psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 21(1), 44–49.
  • Kassarjian, H. H. (1971). Personality and consumer behavior: A Review. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(4), 409.
  • Kiffin-Petersen, S. A., Jordan, C. L., & Soutar, G. N. (2011). The big five, emotional exhaustion and citizenship behaviors in service settings: The mediating role of emotional labor. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 43–48.
  • Korzaan, M. L., & Boswell, K. T. (2008). The Influence of personality traits and information privacy concerns on behavioral intentions. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 48(4), 15–24.
  • Krasnova, H., Spiekermann, S., Koroleva, K., & Hildebrand, T. (2010). Online social networks: Why we disclose. Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 109–125.
  • LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 326–336.
  • Li, X., & Santhanam, R. (2011). Will it be disclosure or fabrication of personal information? an examination of persuasion strategies on prospective employees. In H. Nemati (Ed.), Pervasive information security and privacy developments: Trends and advancements (pp. 231–254). Hershey: IGI Global.
  • Li, Y. (2014). A multi-level model of individual information privacy beliefs. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 13(1), 32–44.
  • Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151–173.
  • Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300.
  • Lowry, P. B., Cao, J., & Everard, A. (2011). Privacy concerns versus desire for interpersonal awareness in driving the use of self-disclosure technologies: the case of instant messaging in two cultures. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(4), 163–200.
  • Lu, Y., Tan, B., & Hui, K.-L. (2004). Inducing customers to disclose personal information to internet businesses with social adjustment benefits. In ICIS 2004 Proceedings. Paper 45 (pp. 571–582).
  • Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing research: An applied orientation (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.
  • Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336–355.
  • Mason, R. (1986). Four ethical issues of the information age. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 10(1), 5–12.
  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. J. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
  • Milne, G. R., Pettinico, G., Hajjat, F. M., & Markos, E. (2017). Information sensitivity typology: Mapping the degree and type of risk consumers perceive in personal data sharing. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 51(1), 133–161.
  • Moore, K., & McElroy, J. C. (2012). The influence of personality on Facebook usage, wall postings, and regret. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 267–274.
  • Morosan, C., & DeFranco, A. (2015). Disclosing personal information via hotel apps: A privacy calculus perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 47, 120–130.
  • Nguyen, M., Bin, Y. S., & Campbell, A. (2012). Comparing online and offline self-disclosure: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(2), 103–111.
  • Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(6), 574–583.
  • Özkan, E., & Tolon, M. (2015). The Effects of information overload on consumer confusion: An examination on user generated content. Bogazici Journal, 29(1), 27–51.
  • Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 3–29.
  • Pavlou, P. A. (2011). State of the information privacy literature: Where are we now and where should we go? MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 977–988.
  • Pentina, I., Zhang, L., Bata, H., & Chen, Y. (2016). Exploring privacy paradox in information-sensitive mobile app adoption: A cross-cultural comparison. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 409–419.
  • Phelps, J., Nowak, G., & Ferrell, E. (2000). Privacy concerns and consumer willingness to provide personal information. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 27–41.
  • Posey, C., Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., & Ellis, T. S. (2010). Proposing the online community self-disclosure model: the case of working professionals in France and the U.K. who use online communities. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 181–195.
  • Ryckman, R. M. (2012). Theories of personality (10th ed.). Belmont, USA: Cengage Learning.
  • Sharma, S., & Crossler, R. E. (2014). Disclosing too much? Situational factors affecting information disclosure in social commerce environment. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 13(5), 305–319.
  • Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M. G. (2000). Dimensions of privacy concern among online consumers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 62–73.
  • Shibchurn, J., & Yan, X. (2015). Information disclosure on social networking sites: An intrinsic-extrinsic motivation perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 103–117.
  • Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989–1016.
  • Smith, H. J., Milberg, S. J., & Burke, S. J. (1996). Information privacy: Measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 167–196.
  • Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 2(4), 338–346.
  • Xu, H., Luo, X. (Robert), Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2011). The personalization privacy paradox: An exploratory study of decision making process for location-aware marketing. Decision Support Systems, 51(1), 42–52.

Volume 6, Issue 2, 2018

2018.06.02.STAT.02

alphanumeric journal

Volume 6, Issue 2, 2018

Pages 257-276

Received: July 22, 2018

Accepted: Sept. 30, 2018

Published: Dec. 30, 2018

Full Text [626.7 KB]

2018 Özkan, E.

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence, which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Creative Commons Attribution licence

scan QR code to access this article from your mobile device

Contact Us

Faculty of Transportation and Logistics, Istanbul University
Beyazit Campus 34452 Fatih/Istanbul/TURKEY

Bahadır Fatih Yıldırım, Ph.D.
editor@alphanumericjournal.com
+ 90 (212) 440 00 00 - 13219

alphanumeric journal

alphanumeric journal has been publishing as "International Peer-Reviewed Journal" every six months since 2013. alphanumeric serves as a vehicle for researchers and practitioners in the field of quantitative methods, and is enabling a process of sharing in all fields related to the operations research, statistics, econometrics and management informations systems in order to enhance the quality on a globe scale.