2. and regulatory laws (Milberg et al.

2.      Conceptual foundation and research hypothesis

 

A.     The IUIPC model

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we
conceptualize IUIPC (internet users’ information privacy concerns) as the
degree to which an Internet user is concerned about online marketers’ collection
of personal information, the user’s control over the collected information, and
the user’s awareness of how the collected information is used. This model is
build using the trust-risk framework (McKnight et al. 1998) and the reasoned
action paradigm (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). The purpose of this model is to serve
as a tool for analyzing reactions of online consumers to various privacy
threats on the Internet.

 

                                           
i.           
concern for information privacy
(CFIP)

 

 

As defined
earlier, Information privacy refers to “the claim of individuals, groups,
or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent
information about them is communicated to others” (Westin 1967, p. 7). The
practical boundary of information privacy in real life varies with numerous factors p1 including
industry sectors, cultures, and regulatory laws (Milberg et al. 1995, Culnan
and Bies 2003, Andrews 2002). Consumers regard the release of personal
information as a risky transaction because they become vulnerable to a
company’s potential opportunistic behaviors (Milne and Gordon 1993, Laufer and
Wolf 1977). Obviously, an individual’s privacy concerns will be influenced by
these external conditions. However, an individual’s perceptions of such
external conditions will also vary with personal characteristics p2 and
past experiences (Donaldson and Dunfee 1994). That framework explains why people
often have different
opinions about what is fair and what is not fairp3 
concerning a firm’s collection and use of their personal information. Consumer’s
concerns about information privacy cannot be fully understood without investigating
how individuals define what defines a fair trade. That is why this study
introduces the concept of benefit, that impacts individual perception on that
matter. However, we can already introduce a limit to this theory: dimensionality
in what is a fair trade in information privacy is neither absolute nor static,
since perceptions of advocates, consumers, and scholars could shift over time.

 

 

 

 

                                         
ii.           
The personal disposition

COLLECTIONp4 

The
very act of data collection, whether it is legal or illegal, is the starting
point of various information privacy concerns. We define collection, the first
dimension of IUIPC, as the degree to which a person is concerned about the
amount of individual-specific data possessed by others relative to the value of
benefits received (exchange theory).

Here
we introduce the notion of equitable exchange, that can be defined as follow: consumers
give up some information in return for something of value after evaluating the
costs and benefits associated with the particular transaction. Thus, individuals
will be reluctant to release their personal information if they expect negative
outcomes (Cohen 1987).p5  Phelps
et al. (2000) found that most respondents (85.6%) wanted to limit the
amount of personal information collected by marketers.p6  According
to the principle of procedural justice, individuals view procedures as fair
when they are vested with control of the procedures p7 (Thibaut
and Walker 1975, Tyler 1994).

CONTROL

the
Internet technologies offer flexible ways for consumers to control their
personal information in an organization’s database. As see previously, P3P
platform became common tools that people expect to find while navigating
online. Consequently, lack of such control will increase online consumers’
privacy concerns.

The
issue of control becomes more pronounced when a large potential exists for opportunistic
behavior and breach of the social contract in a relational exchangep8 . Control
is especially important in the information privacy context because consumers
take high risks in the submission of personal information, as it is difficult
for them to know precisely what will be the use of their data. Phelps et al.
(2000) found that most people (84%) wanted to have more control over the use of
personal data to restrict unwanted commercial advertisements. Nowak and Phelps
(1995) also demonstrated that people were less worried about data collection
when they explicitly give permission to firms or are given the choice to opt-out.
Here arises the question of how individuals exercise control. As an active
component of information privacy, it is often exercised through approval,
modification, and opportunity to opt-in or opt-out. Individual’s concerns for
information privacy center on whether the individual has control over personal
information as manifested by the existence of voice (i.e., approval,
modification) or exit (i.e., opt-out) (Caudill and Murphy 2000).

 

 

 

AWARENESS

Foxman
and Kilcoyne (1993) argued that information privacy p9 exists
only when a person is (1) given control over personal information and (2)
informed about data collection and other issues. Awareness is a passive dimension of information privacy. It refers to the degree to which a
consumer is concerned about his/her awareness of organizational information privacy
practices (Culnan 199512 , Foxman and Kilcoyne 1993).

This
awareness factor incorporates two types of justices—interactional and
informational justice. Interactional justice includes issues of transparency
and propriety of information made during the enactment of procedures. Violating
interactional justice leads to decreased perceptions of fairness (Bies and Moag
1986, Greenberg 199013). Perceptions of fairnessp10  increased with the specificity of
information used to provide justification (Shapiro et al. 1994). According to
Hoffman et al. (1999), a majority of Web users (69%) refused to reveal personal
information to online firms because they were not sure how the data would be
used. Similarly, Phelps et al. (2000) showed that about 50% of the respondents
in their survey study were looking for more information and transparency about
how organizations used individual-specific data.

 

 p1Factors : industry sectors, cultures, laws

 p2Extenal conditions :personal characteristics/ past experiences

 

 p3Different opinion

 

 p4Impact de Fbk

 p5Outcome of the transaction

 p6LIMIT PERSO INFO               toujours
vrai ?

 p7Control of the procedures

 p8Opportunistic behavior : different industry

 p9Definition information privacy

 p10Fairness in the relationship