consumer privacy attitudes & online marketing

8/22/2019 Consumer Privacy Attitudes & Online Marketing

1/83

https://twitter.com/harris_mkt

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/harris-imran/44/1b4/bb0/

[email protected]
https://twitter.com/harris_mkthttp://uk.linkedin.com/pub/harris-imran/44/1b4/bb0/http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/harris-imran/44/1b4/bb0/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://uk.linkedin.com/pub/harris-imran/44/1b4/bb0/https://twitter.com/harris_mkt


2/83

1

Acknowledgments

This dissertation could not have been completed without hard work, perseverance and

commitment to the study. In life, you learn to appreciate the people who provide you

with help and support when you need it most, but ultimately it is you who determines

the outcomes of success or failure you achieve in life.

Id like to show gratitude towards Grant Timms, my supervisor, for his support

throughout the course of the process. Id like to also thank the participants who took

part and helped me with the research process.

(Appendix one presents a personal reflection on the process)


3/83

2

Abstract

The revolution of the internet has provided both consumers and companies with

endless opportunities of potential; the ability to share and absorb mass amounts of

information at high speeds on a global scale has never been so easy (Winer, 2001).

The capacity to collect and share mass amounts of information with ease has been

identified by many marketers as potential to reach heights of consumer profiling that

have never been achieved before (Kotler and Zaltman, 1971). This however has

resulted in consumers losing confidence in entering transactional relationships online,

hampering many organisations ability to conduct business (Malhotra et al, 2004).

The purpose of this study was to understand what the implications are of consumer

privacy attitudes towards the disclosure of personal information online and what

firms online can do to reduce the consumer apprehensions of sharing personal data.

The process of the study began with a review of the relevant literature, establishing an

understanding of privacy and the relevant dimensions within the notion that affect

consumer concerns. It was identified from the social contract theory three key

constructs are associated with consumer concerns of disclosing data; collection,

control and awareness. Thusly, the research encompassed Malhotra et als (2004)

Internet Users Information Privacy Concerns model (IUIPC), measuring consumer

attitudes towards the collection of data, control for shared data and being made

aware of the collection of personal data.

The research findings did in fact reflect respondents held general concerns for privacy

online, especially in the case of unknown entities collecting data. The majority of the

respondents were very concerned of personal data being compromised, especially so

for financial items of information. Strong attitudes were identified towards the

awareness, collection and control of personal data.


4/83

3

Contents

1.0 Background ................................................................................................................. 8

1.1 Importance of the Study .................................................................................... 9

1.2 Research Question .................................................................................................. 9

1.3 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 9

1.3.1 Sample ............................................................................................................. 9

2.0 Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 10

2.2 The States, Dimensions and Functions of Privacy ................................................ 10

2.2.1 Information Privacy........................................................................................ 12

2.3 Consumer Privacy ................................................................................................. 12

2.3.1 Consumer Privacy Concerns .......................................................................... 13

2.4 The Collection of Consumer Data Online ............................................................. 14

2.4.1 The Implications of Online Data Collection ................................................... 14

2.5 Theoretical Frameworks of Individual Attitudes and Behaviours towards Online

Information Privacy..................................................................................................... 16

2.5.1 Theory of Reasoned Action & the Theory of Reasoned Behaviour ............... 16

2.5.2 Social Contract Theory ................................................................................... 17

2.5.3 Privacy Calculus .............................................................................................. 19

2.6 Measuring Consumer Privacy Concerns (CFIP & IUIPC Models) .......................... 19

2.7 Organisational Factors of Theoretical Privacy Concerns ...................................... 20

2.7.1 Procedural Fairness Theory ........................................................................... 20

2.7.2 Social Presence Theory .................................................................................. 21

2.7.3 Social Response Theory ................................................................................. 21

2.8 Development of an Hypothesis ............................................................................ 22

2.8.1 Hypothesis ..................................................................................................... 22


5/83

4

3.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 23

3.1 Chapter Introduction ............................................................................................ 23

3.2 Research Purpose ................................................................................................. 23

3.3 Research Philosophies .......................................................................................... 23

3.4 Research Approach ............................................................................................... 25

3.5 Research Strategy ................................................................................................. 25

3.5.1 Questionnaire ................................................................................................ 27

3.5.2 Interviews ...................................................................................................... 28

3.6 Time Horizons ....................................................................................................... 29

3.7 Research Conduct ................................................................................................. 29

3.7.1 Sampling ......................................................................................................... 29

3.8 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 30

3.8.1 Data quality .................................................................................................... 30

3.8.2 Reliability........................................................................................................ 30

3.8.3 Validity ........................................................................................................... 31

3.9 Considerations ...................................................................................................... 31

3.9.1 Ethical considerations .................................................................................... 31

3.9.2 Budget Constraints ........................................................................................ 32

3.9.3 Sample Constraints ........................................................................................ 32

3.10 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................... 32

4.0 Results ....................................................................................................................... 33

4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 33

4.2 Questionnaire ....................................................................................................... 33

4.3 Summary of Respondents ..................................................................................... 34

4.3.1 Age & Gender ................................................................................................. 34


6/83

5

4.4 Exploratory Data Analysis of Internet Use, Online Privacy Concerns and

Experience ................................................................................................................... 35

4.4.1 Internet Usage ............................................................................................... 35

4.4.2 Experiences of Privacy Invasion ..................................................................... 36

4.4.3 General Concerns for Privacy Online ............................................................. 37

4.5 Central Tendency & Dispersion Measurement of Respondents Level of Privacy

Concerns Online .......................................................................................................... 38

4.5.1 Attitudes of General Privacy Concerns Online .............................................. 38

4.6 Cross Tabulation of General Privacy Concerns ..................................................... 40

4.6.1 Level of Concerns by Gender ......................................................................... 40

4.7 Internet Users Information Privacy Concerns Model: Measurement of Central

Tendency & Dispersion ............................................................................................... 42

4.8 Internet Users Information Privacy Concerns Model: Cross Tabulation by

General Concerns for Privacy ..................................................................................... 44

4.9 Semi-Structured Interviews .................................................................................. 46

4.9.1 Results ............................................................................................................ 47

4.10 Results Summary ................................................................................................ 48

5.0 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 49

5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 49

5.2 Outcomes .............................................................................................................. 50

5.2.1 Consumers Level of Concern for Privacy Scale ............................................. 50

5.2.2 Internet Users Information Privacy Concerns .............................................. 52

5.3 Summary ............................................................................................................... 53

6.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 54

6.1 Research Implications ........................................................................................... 54

6.2 Implications of the Practice .................................................................................. 55

6.3 Revisiting the Limitations ...................................................................................... 55


7/83

6

6.3.1 Sample ........................................................................................................... 55

6.3.2 Time ............................................................................................................... 55

6.3.3 IUIPC Model ................................................................................................... 55

6.4 Summary of the Study .......................................................................................... 56

7.0 Appendices ................................................................................................................ 57

Appendix One Personal Reflection .......................................................................... 57

Appendix Two Ethics Form ...................................................................................... 58

Appendix Three Questionnaire Levels of Concern .................................................. 61

Appendix Four Questionnaire General Concerns for Privacy .................................. 64

Appendix Five Questionnaire IUIPC Model .............................................................. 66

Appendix Six Participant Consent Form............................................................... 69

Appendix Seven Interview Transcripts .................................................................... 71

Transcript 1 ............................................................................................................. 72

Transcript 2 ............................................................................................................. 74

Transcript 3 ............................................................................................................. 76

8.0 References ................................................................................................................ 78


8/83

7

List of Tables and Graphs

Graphs:

Tables:

Table Title Page

1.0 Ranking Scale of Respondents Level of Privacy Concern 401.1 Top 5 Concerns for Privacy Online: Male 41

1.2 Top 5 Concerns for Privacy Online: Female 41

2.0 Internet Users Information Privacy Concerns Model:

Measurement of Central Tendency & Dispersion

42/43

2.1 Cross Tabulation: General Concern for Privacy Online & The

Importance of The right to Control Disclosed Data

45

2.2 Cross Tabulation: Frequency of Privacy Invasion & The

Importance of Being Made Aware of Disclosed Data Use

46

3.0 Semi-Structured Interview Questions 47

3.1 Responses 1 483.2 Responses 2 49

Figure Title Page

1.0 Age 35

1.1 Gender (Percentage) 35

1.2 Gender (Number) 35

1.3 Frequency of Internet Use 36

1.4 Location of Internet Use 36

1.5 Invasion of Privacy Frequency 37

1.6 General Concerns for Privacy 381.7 Concern for Information Collected by Unknown Entities 38

1.8 Concerns for Family & Friends Accessing Personal Data 38

1.9 Levels of Concern for Privacy Online 38


9/83

8

1.0 Background

Many businesses have progressed from product orientated characteristics to a more

market orientated approach (Kotler and Zaltman, 1971) and therefore many marketers

have identified the importance of understanding the consumer within a marketing

environment (Narver and Slater, 1990).

This market orientated approach has led many firms to adopt a number of techniques

(such as direct marketing) to establish marketing relationships with consumers and

sustain competitive advantage (Jaworski, 1990). Although relationship building

mechanisms bring benefits to both consumers and firms, it also carries with it a

number of problems concerning consumer apprehensions of disclosing personal data

due to the worry of privacy loss and therefore has implications to a firms ability to

conduct business (Foxman & Kilcoyne, 1993).

Authors such as White (2004) state information privacy online is of concern to

individuals due to the ease of which personal data can be shared and collected,

therefore many privacy rights advocates have called for organisations to revaluate the

nature of consumer data collection methods.

The purpose of this research is to gather an understanding of the implications of

consumer attitudes towards information privacy in the online environment. The study

will look to build upon past research that has identified a need for control, collection

and awareness of the use and obtainment of disclosed data as key areas affecting

consumer online privacy concerns.


10/83

9

1.1Importance of the Study

Consumer concerns for information privacy take on an amplified importance in the

online context, consumers willingness to disclose personal information is impacted

greatly due to the levels of high risk in the online environment. This consequentially

impacts on a firms ability to conduct business (Li, 2012).

The study therefore attempts to build an understanding of consumer attitudes

towards information privacy, as a better understanding of consumer apprehensions of

disclosing data is vital for companies to implement mechanisms that reduce these

apprehensions of disclosing personal data.

1.2 Research Question

The purpose of this research study is to gather an understanding of the implications of

consumer attitudes towards online information privacy. Therefore the research

question proposed is what are the implications of consumer privacy attitudes towards

online information privacy in the wake of invasive marketing methods?

1.3 Limitations

Some limitations of the study have occurred mainly surrounding the sample size and

time constraints.

1.3.1 Sample

Due to the time and budget constraints it was difficult to collect data from a vast range

of people, instead the study focused mainly on University students. A wider selection

of respondents would most probably give a broader range of results as factors such as

age, profession and also internet usage would vary greatly. Furthermore compared to

older generations, students are more likely to use a vast array of internet media

communications and therefore may be more comfortable in participating in online

business transactions (Baek and Morimoto, 2012), although acting as a limitation in

the study the argument can be made that this particular age group is an important

consumer within the online environment.


11/83

10

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

The subject of information privacy can be seen as very complicated area amongst

many studies such as economics, law, management, psychology, information systems

and marketing, providing various in depth perspectives (Pavlou, 2011). In terms of the

marketing perspective personal information is an important component to many

organisations and industries as there is a recognised need for greater consumer insight

in order to serve consumers with the best quality goods and services the company can

offer. Consumers also now understand that without disclosing some form of personal

information they cannot receive the best service from an organisation. The

information revolution has helped facilitate the global connection of people in more

ways than one. Consumers and companies have more power now with help from the

internet than they have done in history. However, with this new found ability to

communicate on unprecedented levels threats do occur and consumers do reflect

some worry regarding the inappropriate use, collection and distribution of their

information. In 2011 TRUSTe conducted a survey among 1,000 members of its onlineconsumer panel and found that 38% were concerned about their privacy with 23%

worried about security. This worry amongst consumers has grown and has not been

helped with recent failings by companies such as Sony and Apple who have been at

the forefront of global privacy outrages. As new data collection methods are

introduced and consumers feel their privacy online is fading, companies face a

challenge in guaranteeing their privacy policies and marketing actions reassure the

interests of customers and stakeholders.

2.2 The States, Dimensions and Functions of Privacy

Alan Westin (1967) identified, within the concept of privacy, four states are present:

Intimacy, Solitude, Reserve and Anonymity. He believed that each condition

contributes to the make-up of privacy respectively, for example intimacy is the state of

preserving seclusion within a small unit such as family whereas anonymity is the cause

of being in a wider environment such as the public whilst being granted the ability to


12/83

11

remain unknown, or free from identification. Furthermore four functions of privacy

were also discovered; personal autonomy, self-evaluation, emotional release and

limited communication (Westin, 1967). These functions provide an individual with

many social and emotional benefits such as the ability to act with independence

through the function of personal autonomy, and also allowing someone the space to

relieve pressures through the function of emotional release (Lanier & Saini, 2008;

Shils, 1959; Goffman 1959). Clarke (1997) proposed a definition of privacy, which was:

The interest that individuals have in sustaining a personal space, free from

interference by other people and organisations

This classification of privacy ensued Clarke to note a number of dimensions within the

concept:

Privacy of The Person: Concerned with the privacy of a persons body such as

samples of DNA being taken without consent.

Privacy of Personal Behaviour: This dimension highlights the issues concerning

the discretion ofa persons behaviour within society such as their sexualorientation or religious belief.

Privacy of Personal Communications: This calls for the need to limit

surveillance of a persons communication channels. The last decade has seen

technological communications become so advanced that the issue has become

especially prevalent.

Privacy of Personal Data: The most common dimension within the marketing

environment, deals with a persons personal data and the need for individuals

to possess some form of control over the dissemination of this data. Also

known as information privacy.

(Clarke, 1997)


13/83

12

This review will focus mainly on Information Privacy or Privacy of an individuals

Personal Data, as most studies conducted concerning consumer privacy has focused

on this paradigm.

2.2.1 Information Privacy

Clarkes (1997) study of privacy and the dimensions that make up the complex notion

identified information privacy as a key dimension of the notion of privacy. This has led

other authors to also focus on the key dimension of information privacy. Burgoon et al

(1989) makes note that the function of information privacy resonates with an

individuals right to exercise some control over how data about the self will be used

and shared with other people or firms. DeCew (1997) has identified accessibility

privacy as a dimension that overlaps with information privacy in situations where the

attempted collection of information consists of gaining access to an individual. This

led DeCew (1997) to identify expressive privacy whereby individualsprotect a realm

for expressing ones self-identity or personhood through speech or activity. It protects

the ability to decide to continue or to modify ones behaviour when the activity in

question helps define oneself as a person, shielded from interference, pressure and

coercion from government or from other individuals

2.3 Consumer Privacy

Although there are many different delineations of the concept of information privacy,

many authors agree on an important element within the construct of the notion, the

need for control over the potential secondary use of a persons personal information

(Belanger et al, 2002). Goodwin (1991) published a study integrating behavioural

literature and public policies surrounding privacy with consumer concerns of the

concept. He defined consumer privacy as:

the consumers ability to control (a) presence of other people in the environment

during a market transaction or consumption behaviour and (b) dissemination of

information related to or provided during such transactions or behaviours to those who

were (Goodwin, 1991)


14/83

13

His proposed definition of consumer privacy encompassed two main elements; the

first being the social dimensions of privacy touching upon the ability to have some

control over the presence of others within the consumers environment during a

transaction, such as the number of interferences from other marketers and also the

presence of other consumers (Lanier & Saini, 2008; Milne & Gordon 1993). The second

part of the definition relates to the marketing and professional use of the information,

provided by the consumer, and the ability to control unwarranted intrusions into their

personal environment (Mascarenhas, 2003). Other studies have developed another

important dimension of consumer privacy (Foxman & Kilcoyne, 1993) noting the

importance of consumer knowledge within the make-up of consumer privacy,

referring to the level of which firms inform consumers about the information practices

and their privacy rights with regards to the submitting of personal data (Nowak &

Phelps, 1997).

2.3.1 Consumer Privacy Concerns

Privacy concerns have been present in the marketplace for decades, organisations

such as supermarkets, magazine companies, financial entities, insurance companies

and even medical firms have understood the data they gather from their consumers

holds a great deal of value to the firm itself and also to other organisations (Milne,

2000). The common practice of data collection within most industries has been

integrated and amplified in alignment with technological advances, allowing the mass

storage of digitised consumer information (Mascarenhas, 2003). Consequently, this

has resulted in high levels of concern for many consumers and their privacy. Phelps et

al (2000) note, high levels of privacy concerns from an individual are most notable

when a consumer has been alerted to the unsolicited use of their personal data.

Consumers usually become aware of unsolicited use of their personal data when they

receive promotions related to recent transactions (Lanier & Saini, 2008). Interestingly

however, Nowak & Phelps (1995) found that when organisations seek permission to

use a persons data, consumers feel less concerned about their privacy. Understanding

privacy concerns has resulted in many organisations identifying the need to alert

consumers of the firms information practices through the use of opt-out or opt-in

instruments and privacy policies (Milne & Rohm, 2000).


15/83

14

2.4 The Collection of Consumer Data Online

Increasingly marketers have identified the responsibility and risk involved when

unveiling new products or services to uncertain market environments, recognising the

competitive need for sophisticated research and planning on the wants, needs,

attitudes and behaviour of potential customers (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971; Foxman &

Kilcoyne, 1993). This has resulted in many marketers using a broad variety of

techniques to accumulate consumer data and create databases of information which

hold a great deal of commercial value (Milne, 2000). Winer (2001) has noted that the

information technology revolution and the World Wide Web has presented an

opportunity to business which allows them to choose how they communicate with

their customers in ways which werent previously conceivable. The ability to interact

directly to requests made and serve the customer with a highly interactive tailored

experience has allowed organisations to create, improve and sustain long term

relationships (Nowak and Phelps, 1992; Winer, 2001).

2.4.1 The Implications of Online Data Collection

However, the arrival of the internet has also introduced many consumer privacy

concerns with regards to the various pieces of information online shopping leaves

behind such as search history, comparison-shopping, purchasing and post-purchase

information (Claudil & Murphy, 2000). Collection of such data can lead to identifying a

consumers favoured selection of specific products, brands, retailers and also personal

habits and interests (Sheehan & Hoy, 2000). Issues occur when organisations identify

this as an opportunity to facilitate the process of unsanctioned collection, illicit use,

cross-matching, disclosure and sale of personal information as an outcome of

consumer activity online (Mascarenhas, 2003; Lee et al, 2011). Christiansen (2011)

identified a number of circumstances of online disclosures that create privacy

concerns; one of which was involuntary disclosure the method of collecting data and

tracking behaviour of online users without notifying them. A tool frequently adopted

for this is the use of cookies, this technology functions by persistently tracking a user

whilst they visit and click through different websites, consequently building a user

profile from the data collected (Vega, 2010). Another tool that follows a similar trend

to cookies is Deep Packet Inspection (DPI); this method produces a rather more


16/83

15

detailed profile of consumers and involves the reading and analysing of packets of

information resultant of online user activity (Stecklow and Sonne, 2010). The method

of web scraping, a rather questionable act of data collection, comprises collection of

personal details shared by users on forum discussions and social media sites for the

purpose of creating personal profiles of particular users; most information collected

using this method is shared on private member only networks and is intended to be

confidential (Angwin and Stecklow, 2010). A recent example of this use of data

collection appeared in 2010 when the healthcare website patientslikeme.com noticed

an intruder had accessed one of the sites discussion boards and with the use of

sophisticated software was scraping all of the messages on the forum, it was later

identified that the intruder was part of Nielsen Co, a private New York media-research

firm (Angwing and Stecklow, 2010). Digital-device fingerprinting is one of the most

criticised forms of tracking, the method works by collecting transmitted information

from connected devices such as details of the operating system and browser versions,

these signals are then shaped into a unique persistent fingerprint for specific devices;

this indicator is used for similar purposes as the cookie technology of targeting and

frequency capping (Angwin and Valentino-DeVries, 2010). With so many opportunities

of data collection available to marketers, there has never been a time where detailed,

accurate well informed personal profiles of consumers can be built and consequently

sold amongst companies (Mascarenhas, 2003). Franzak (2003) calls attention to

customers adopting feelings of insecurity with regards to the application of invasive

methods of data collection and the acquiescence of control over the methods. Privacy

violations transpire when firms use its customers information for uses of which the

customer did not sanction at the time when personal data was submitted (Nakra,

2001). Consumer Privacy concerns have been present much before the introduction of

the internet, however the ease of which mass information can be collected and

disseminated without consent is the reason why it has become a much spoken about

topic (Ho, 1999).


17/83

16

2.5 Theoretical Frameworks of Individual Attitudes and

Behaviours towards Online Information Privacy

Several studies have been written and developed from a variety of theoretical

backgrounds regarding the growing concerns of individuals information privacy in the

online environment (Belanger, 2011; Li, 2011; Pavlou, 2011). Many theories illustrated

by a number of researchers highlight the foundation of consumer privacy concerns

online and the consequential behavioural attitudes to share personal data during an

online transaction (Li, 2012).

2.5.1 Theory of Reasoned Action & the Theory of Reasoned

Behaviour

Fishbein and Ajzen, (1995) conducted research of social psychology identifying the

relationship between a persons behavioural intention towards certain conduct and

the likelihood ofthe individual acting in alignment with that conduct. A persons

behavioural intention can be used to predict an individuals attitude towards the

specified behaviour and environmental perceptions (Peace et al, 2003); this is known

as the theory of reasoned action (TRA). The theory of reasoned action functions on the

basis of a persons intention of a particular behaviour, intentions are encompassed by

attitude and subjective norms (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980). The attitude of an individual is

established as the comprehensive evaluation of a behaviour, which in turn is

determined by the individuals belief of the behavioural outcome and the expected

occurrence or effect of the outcome (Li, 2011). The subjective norms on the other

hand represent a persons judgement of the social norms carried by others, and the

importance of avoiding or embracing these actions (Li, 2011). From the theory ofreasoned action, Ajzen (1991) identified the development of the theory of reasoned

behaviour (TRB) which encompassed the belief that an individuals free-willed

behaviour relies on both motivation and ability, the motivation is driven by the

subjective norms, attitude and the perceived behavioural control. Furthermore Li

(2011) gives the example that an individuals attitude of sharing personal data is driven

by the anticipated benefits and risks of the sharing behaviour, the corresponding


18/83

17

strengths of the two beliefs within a specific environment determines a persons

attitude.

2.5.2 Social Contract Theory

Many authors have identified the Social Contact Theory as another component of the

origins of privacy concerns (Milne & Gordon, 1993; Donaldson et al, 1994). Li (2011)

highlights that this theory shows when an individual facilitates their personal data to

an online retailer, it not only encompass a monetary exchange but also involves a

social exchange (creating relationships) and therefore a social contract is created,

which is defined as the understood responsibilities of the individuals involved, making

it a critical element ofpreventing the online merchant taking advantage of consumers

personal data. The theory falls in alignment with Hoffman et als (1999) argument that

when individuals make an online transaction they cannot do so anonymously,

therefore they look to establish a social exchange involving a social contract and an

economic contract to limit the possible risks attached to the purchase. Culnan &

Armstrong (1999) also make the important note that it is important for online

businesses to ensure their websites are presented in a manner that will supress

consumer privacy apprehensions, because if a potential customer perceives the

website will not fully engage in a social contract they will most likely not engage in an

exchange relationship. As Culnan & Bies (2003) have found when applying the Social

Contract framework in a transactional environment between a merchant and a

consumer, the consumer enters a cost-benefit evaluation at the point of exchanging

their personal data. Many researchers have identified that this evaluation, known as

the trade-off evaluation or risk-benefit analysis, conducted by the consumer is

based on the potential benefits of sharing personal data weighed against the

competing factor of the possible dissemination of this data (negative outcomes) (Dinev

et al, 2008; Milne & Gordon, 1993). This common approach adopted by consumers is

known as the privacy calculus (Li, 2011).

Control of Personal Data

Many studies centring on the social contract theory identify the close relationship it

has with the notion of procedural justice, also known as due process (Tyer, 1994;Gilliland, 1993). Procedural justice is identified as the element of fairness and


19/83

18

transparency in the conduct of certain procedures, which also encompass the

individuals ability to have some control over the procedures (Tyler, 1994; Malhotra et

al, 2004). This essentially means consumers will call for the need of some control to

have a prevalent effect on a firms information practices that they dont think is

appropriate (Malhotra et al, 2004). Lanier and Saini (2008) note that a consumers

desire for control is especially important in the online environment as the likelihood of

personal data being used for unprincipled benefits is high and will consequently break

many social contract established. Alge (2001) also states that when individuals

exchange personal data, they do so in a highly risky environment (online) and

therefore the mechanisms behind a social contract need to establish enough control

for the consumer to manipulate the dissemination of their data. This has led Claudill

and Murphy (2002) to suggest consumer concerns for privacy, focus on how much

control they have over their personal data through mechanisms of exit and approval.

Some studies have recognised individual needs for control of the use and

dissemination of personal data (Malhotra et al, 2004). Authors such as Phelps et al

(2002) have established in their study consumers have called for a requirement of

more control in order to limit unwanted marketing communications online.

Collection of Personal Data

Data collection is one of the fundamental principles of consumer privacy concerns and

is at the core of many organisational objectives in an e-commerce environment

(Mascarenhas, 2003). In the context of consumer privacy concerns, collection can be

understood as the extent of which an individual is apprehensive regarding the volume

of personal data required in relation to the possible outcomes achieved in providing

personal data (Culnan and Bies, 2003). Malhotra et al (2004) summarise a fair

exchange as the process in which individuals provide personal data in exchange for a

service or product once they have assessed the exchange will be beneficial to them. If

the assessment results in negative outcomes as a result of the exchange, consumers

will avoid the situation (Cohen, 1987).

Awareness of Information Practices

As many studies have sought to define privacy in the context of the consumer

(Goodwin, 1991; Clarke, 1999; Lanier & Saini, 2008) citing control of personal data as a


20/83

19

key construct, some authors suggest the consumer also needs to hold some degree of

awareness of the collection of data (Foxman & Kilcoyne, 1993). Awareness differs from

control with the respect that its a slightly mellow element of information privacy, as it

is concerned with the level of which a consumer is aware of a firms information

privacy practices (Malhotra et al, 2004; Culnan, 1995). Sheehan & Hoy (2000) note

awareness compliments the control element of the social contract theory but is very

different from control in practice.

2.5.3 Privacy Calculus

Laufer and Wolfe (1977) conducted research into the concept of privacy and the issues

surrounding it and attempted to apply a multidimensional theory on the notion. Hann

et al (2007) state from this research one can identify that in an organisational

environment individuals carry out a calculus of behaviour in examining the positive

and negative consequences of providing personal data. Many studies particularly

identify the consumers need to carry out a risk-benefit analysis with regards to the

exchange of some social or economic benefit, a review of all the components linked to

the exchange situation is extremely beneficial in order to measure whether personal

data shared will be used appropriately and not carry any negative implications (Culnan

& Armstrong, 1999; Xu et al, 2009). Li (2012) makes the important observation that

although many studies highlight the benefit and risk factors that affect the intention to

disclose personal data and the privacy calculus, authors who are generally

implementing the privacy calculus theory do so in alignment with other theoretical

frameworks such as the expectancy theory and utility maximisation theory which

consequently provide a richer understanding of the mechanics of the privacy calculus.

2.6 Measuring Consumer Privacy Concerns (CFIP & IUIPC

Models)

One of the earliest studies that attempted to understand privacy concerns amongst

individuals was Smith et als (1996) approach which resulted in the development of

the Concern for Information Privacy model (CFIP) which was of a latent construct

nature. The model measured four distinct factors; collection, secondary use, errors and

unauthorised access, noting these factors as the dimensions that consisted of an


21/83

20

individuals concern for privacy (Smith et al, 1996). However the limitation of this

model was its unintended use to be applied in an online context. Therefore Malhotra

et al (2004) identified the need to develop a model that could measure information

privacy concerns within the online environment. The Internet Users Information

Privacy Concerns model (IUIPC) was the consequential outcome, the higher-order

construct scale works on the basis of the Social Contract Theory and measures the

three dimensions of Control, Collection and Awareness (Malhotra et al, 2004).

Buchanan et al (2006) have also administered a study, in the field of psychology, in

attempt to measure privacy attitudes online; however their attempted research was

focused on identifying general concerns for privacy. It encompasses the use of a 16

point scale that measures different types of general online concerns respondents may

have, each response is measured using a 5 point Likert Scale of awareness. It also

looked to understanding the actions individuals were taking to protect privacy, using

the constructs ofGeneral Caution and Technical Protection (Buchanan et al, 2006).

2.7 Organisational Factors of Theoretical Privacy Concerns

Many studies have established an individuals assessment of the risks and advantages

associated with certain behavioural motivations. These behaviours have consequently

required organisations to adopt certain practices that positively influence a

consumers behavioural beliefs of the risk and benefits associated with privacy

concerns.

2.7.1 Procedural Fairness Theory

Culnan and Armstrong (1999) state, many organisations make use of procedural

fairness with their use of Fair Information Practices (FIP). Lind and Tyler (1988) make

mention of procedural fairness as the individuals perception ofan activity, of which

they are involved in, is carried out so in fair circumstances. Furthermore, in order to

achieve high levels of procedural fairness perceptions organisations must ensure

consumers have, to some degree, the ability to control the outcomes of a

transactional activity (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Culnan and Armstrong, 1999; Folger and

GreenBerg, 1985). Within the context of personal information sharing, the procedural

fairness theory identifies that individuals are open to sharing their personal data and


22/83

21

consequently allow the dissemination of this information but only when there exists

procedures (such as FIP) that safeguard ones privacy (Culnan and Armstrong, 1999).

2.7.2 Social Presence Theory

Sheehan and Hoy (2000) found a factor driving an individuals concern for security and

information privacy online is the situation of the seller and buying being physically

separate from each other during a transaction. Short et al (1976) identify an

individuals need for intimacy and psychological closeness is related to the concept of

social presence, this notion functions in alignment with the social dimensions of

online marketing interactions (Pavlou et al, 2007). Authors such as Kumar and

Benbasar (2002) further identify the social presence theory relates to the reduction of

perceived social distances between the consumer and the merchant, therefore e-

commerce platforms should look to achieve a close relationship with consumers in

order to reduce concerns of sharing personal data. Studies such as Tu, (2002) however

have found the implementation of a social actor provides little reassurance to the

consumer.

2.7.3 Social Response Theory

Studies carried out by Wang et al (2007) have identified that individuals will share

personal data when they acknowledge that other parties, such as consumers and

organisations, also share data similar to that of the individual. Lee et al (2008) state,

when an individual decides to share personal data a social exchange relationship is

formed between the merchant and consumer, which works on the basis that the one

receiving the private data should in return disclose information of a similar nature.

Therefore a firms online marketing platform may work in alignment with these factors

by aiming to implement reciprocal relationships with individuals to gather richer

consumer information (Li, 2012).


23/83

22

2.8 Development of an Hypothesis

There is a phenomenal amount of research and discussion established regarding

consumer concerns in the online environment. Many authors have identified the

consumers need for control over personal data as a defining factor of sharing data (Li,

2012; Culnan and Armstrong, 1999) amongst other factors such as awareness of

information use and fair practice conduct of the firm (Sheehan and Hoy, 2000).

The purpose of the research is to understand the attitudes held by consumers relating

to their ability to control the dissemination of their data, their attitudes towards

awareness of personal data collection and also their attitudes towards the use of their

personal information i.e. online advertising and personal email relating to offering.

2.8.1 Hypothesis

H1: Consumers will respond positively for the need for control of personal data.

H2: Consumers will respond positively for the need for organisations to make clear

their intended use of personal data.


24/83

23

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Chapter Introduction

In order to proceed with the research question proposed, an exploration into research

methods that will aid the cause for a conclusion needed to be established. This

chapter will discuss the approach adopted to tackle the research question and also

justifications for the strategy.

3.2 Research Purpose

The literature identified a growing concern for online information privacy amongst

consumers; many consumers fell apprehensive towards the sharing of personal data

with online organisations due to the high risk involved. Consumer apprehensions

towards sharing data consequently has negative impacts on an organisations ability to

conduct business.

The research therefore aimed to develop an understanding of the level of concerns

consumers have towards the disclosure of personal data by exploring the key areas of

the Social Contract Theory, which found Control, Collection and Awareness to be at

the heart of consumer privacy concerns. Saunders et al (2012) define research that

aims to gather insights from a topic of interest as an exploratory study, noting studies

of this nature are especially useful to clarify an understanding of a problem.

3.3 Research Philosophies

The nature of the study called for the need to develop new knowledge with regards to

the notion, dimensions and states of privacy and how an individuals need for privacy

effects the decision to disclose personal information in a transactional environment.

Furthermore the research question focused on the concerns for privacy on an online

platform, as this channel of communication has been the focus of much debate.

Saunders et al (2012), notes that the research philosophy is the development of

knowledge in a particular field, more specifically the research philosophy implemented

is considered as the assumption of the writers view of the world. Johnson and Clarke

note there is a great deal of importance in understanding the philosophical


25/83

24

commitments one makes with regards to the strategy adopted as this will impact on

the ability to not only carry out certain research methods but also how an

understanding of the research is achieved.

The studys characteristics meant that to understand concerns consumers hold

towards disclosure of information, data regarding their attitudes towards certain

situations of information disclosure was the most suitable form of research strategy.

Thus akin to a positivist approach, as Gill and Johnson (2010) note this form of

research philosophy embraces the position of the natural scientist where the

collection of data about a distinct reality is subjected to analyses in order to achieve

formal generalisations of regularities and causal relationships within the findings.

Furthermore due to the limitations of budget and time constraints, another appealing

component of the positivist philosophy is the cheap nature and value-free stance that

can be taken. The value-free assumption plays on the basis that the researcher is value

neutral, having no value judgements, this has created some criticisms that a value-free

outcome becomes totally objective (Crotty, 1998). This stance also has an element of

independence, Remenyi et al (1998) write that researchers arent dependent on

anyone nor does the subject of research have any considerable effect on an outcome.

The initial stages of the research gathered a simple broad understanding of consumer

concerns of information disclosure; this then left room to further interrogate the

research initially gathered to gain a richer understanding of consumer apprehensions.

Some authors believe that the positivism approach overlooks the emotional human

element, a component which cannot be ignored (Johnson, 2002). Instead positivist

researchers use a highly structured methodology to assist with the interrogation of

data. Arguments note that the strategy is limited and has disadvantages as the

intricacies of social areas of business makes it very difficult to approach people being

detached from their social contexts (Saunders et al, 2010). Measuring consumer

concerns through a quantitative method did limit the depth of the data gathered, as

the study aims to understand attitudes it is important to implement an interpretivist

attitude too. The interpretivism approach advocates the need for the researcher to

understand the differences between people in our roles as social actors (Easterby-


26/83

25

Smith et al, 2012). Mixes between qualitative and quantitative methods are highly

appropriate to gain a greater understanding of the study.

3.4 Research Approach

The aim of the research is to understand the levels of concern consumers have with

regards to the sharing of their personal data. Therefore in order to measure concerns

it was important to apply a research technique that could gather a vast number of

responses in a simple informative manner. Saunders et al (2012) notes quantitative

research is usually conducted in alignment with positivism.

Within the literature an important origin of consumer privacy identified was the Social

Contract Theory, therefore the research approach worked on the basis to test this

theoretical framework by using the three key components, Collection, Control and

Awareness in a quantitative manner to measure consumer attitudes towards

situations related these three constructs. Saunders et al (2012) note that the research

design will be influenced by either two approaches identified as Deductive and

Inductive, deductive being the approach where propositions developed in

accordance with theory are tested and analysed to find if the theory is true or false.

The deductive approach within research allows the search and explanation of causal

relationships to be identified between different concepts and variables (Saunders et al,

2012).

3.5 Research Strategy

As the study encompassed the need to understand consumer attitudes towards online

information privacy, the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods proved vital

in the aim to, firstly develop an initial understanding of online privacy concerns linked

to the theory of Social Contract and then secondly through the use of qualitative

research, gain a richer understanding of consumer concerns for privacy and disclosure

of data online.

As the nature of the approach is Deductive, Saunders et al (2012) note the common

strategy adopted in alignment with deductive research is the survey strategy

whereby research is designed in accordance with who what and how many type of


27/83

26

questions. The survey strategy served as an appropriate tool when gathering

respondents levels of concerns and attitudes as these emotions are usually gathered

by asking the question how? and what?. Furthermore Saunders et al (2012) note,

surveys that usually adopt questionnaires help facilitate the collection of standardised

data from a large population in very economical circumstances.

Therefore the use of this method was especially important due to the time constraints

the study had to gather data, questionnaires served as a good method of collecting

data from a vast number of respondents; however Silverman (2000) states

quantitative methods do not allow the research to be evaluated in great depth.

Easterby-Smith et al (2012) understand that quantitative methods are an important

part of the research process identifying what features best give a story of the data and

then search for patterns within the data to develop conclusions of the studys

research. This simple process of summarizing and developing conclusions allowed the

research findings to be illustrated efficiently. Qualitative methods generally study the

meanings and relationships of participant (Saunders et al, 2012) and served as a

relevant tool to pull out in depth insights of consumer concerns for privacy established

in the quantitative phase.

As the strategic method integrates two methods of research, the timing within the

process conducted a sequential mixed method research approach as two phases of

data collection and analysis needed to be established. Sequential mixed methods

research is conducted with more than one phase of data collection and analysis and

allows the ability to further understand or elaborate on a preliminary set of findings

(Saunders et al, 2012). The double-phase research design adopted was the sequential

explanatory approach, whereby the quantitative data methods are followed by

qualitative research to gain further insight (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). The

chosen research strategy is directed by firstly the aim of the research question, which

is to gain an understanding of consumer privacy attitudes towards online marketing

methods, secondly the research philosophy of which this adheres to, thirdly the

approach adopted and finally the purpose of the research.


28/83

27

3.5.1 Questionnaire

The nature of this study called for the use of a closed end questionnaire which

encompassed the use of ordinal variables, this data collection method presents the

respondent with predefined answers to choose from.

The questionnaire was designed in accordance with Malhotra et als (2004) IUIPC

model of measuring privacy attitudes specifically focusing on the dimensions of

Control, Awareness and Collection of personal data online. Questions were designed in

accordance of each dimension. Secondly, the questionnaire also looked to build upon

Buchanan et als (2006) 16 point scale to measure respondents general privacy

concerns online. The questionnaire implemented a 5 point Likert Scale to measure

both the respondent attitudes towards control, awareness and collection and also

their general concern for privacy online. The First stage of measuring attitude using

the IUIPC scale was done so with a level of agreement Likert Scale the second phase

used a level of concern Likert Scale.

Justifications

As the study takes on an explanatory research approach it called for the use of

questionnaires. Saunders et al (2009) state the use of questionnaires allows the

researcher to retrieve data quickly and efficiently, Robson (2002) further state that the

use of standardised questions allows the respondent interpretations to follow a similar

trend. The use of questionnaires was also used to create an initial understanding of

consumer privacy attitudes which would then be investigated further through the use

of qualitative research to drive a richer understanding; Saunders et al (2009) also write

that questionnaires can be used in a multiple-methods research design to compliment

other more exploratory methods of research. Easterby-Smith et al (2012) make note of

the great importance of designing the questionnaire in a manner that can be easily

read and also analysed, uses of the Likert scale allow both the respondent and

researcher to efficiently carry out their required actions. Also basing the survey on

existing models of research reinforces the reliability of the collection method (Bell,

2005).


29/83

28

3.5.2 Interviews

To gain a richer understanding of consumer privacy attitudes a semi-structured

interview was also conducted following on from the questionnaires. The objective of

the interview was to further discuss the reasons behind privacy concerns online.

Saunders et al (2009) define semi-structured interviews as the process where a list of

themes and questions are established by the researcher; furthermore the loose

structure of the interview leaves room for omitting certain questions in regards to the

interview (Easterby-Smith et al, 2012). Therefore this method allowed the interview to

be integrated from the basis of the questionnaire, as the theme of the interview was

based upon the social contract theory. The participants were selected from those who

agreed to take part with further questioning, which was asked within the

questionnaire, this was prompted as the need to ask respondents who are interested

in the subject matter will in turn gain richer insight as Stokes and Bergin (2006) note

the researcher should look for people who understand the research subject to some

degree.

Justifications

Many authors identify a variety of different types of interview (Healey, 1991; Robson,

2002; Saunders et al, 2012) all of which note that interviews take either a highly formal

structured approach or adopt the opposite which consists of an informal unstructured

design. Although, Easterby-Smith et al (2012) identify that a correct single approach

doesnt exist but the form of research being implemented holds an important role

when deciding which type of interview design to choose. Saunders et al (2009) defines

the two interview approaches as structured and semi-structured. Regarding the first

approach (structured interviews) the authors write it takes on a predetermined

standardised basis, each question is read out and the interview process sticks by the

set questions rarely moving away from them. The semi-structured interviews though

take on a slightly relaxed approach; the researcher covers pre-established themes and

questions which may vary with each interview (Saunders et al, 2009). Furthermore

Denscombe (2003) writes that the semi-structured format allows the researcher to

take on more control over the nature of the responses and the length of the answers,

something which isnt quite so prevalent in structured interviews.


30/83

29

3.6 Time Horizons

The planning of the research needed to be measured carefully, and consequently the

research study took on a cross-sectional approach. The basis of the research was

conducted amongst consumers privacy attitudes towards online marketing methods;

this was done so at one point in time. Saunders et al (2012) refer to cross-sectional

time horizons as the study of a certain occurrence at particular time. With the study

making use of a mixed method approach, time was of the essence as the gathering of

both forms of quantitative and qualitative required a lot of time. Three weeks were set

to reach a total of 113 respondents via the questionnaire and 3 semi-structured

interviews completed. Also time was set to analyse the research gathered. Hague et al

(2004) note that thorough planning before beginning an academic research study

should be carried out to limit the chances of missing deadlines, furthermore although

good quality research can be achieved during a short period of time some quality will

be affected negatively.

3.7 Research Conduct

3.7.1 SamplingThe nature of the study leaves room for the ability to test a wide range of people,

however due to the time constraints and the practical implications of this it was

important to select a sample. A number of researchers highlight that the practice of

choosing a sample leads to the possibility of gathering detailed accurate research,

identifying a small number of people also creates the opportunity of spending more

time designing a means of collecting data (Henry, 1990; Saunders et al, 2009). There

are two types of sampling identified by Saunders et al (2009), probability sampling and

non-probability sampling; these two techniques involve key differences as probability

sampling involves the means to answer research questions that require the need to

estimate characteristics of a population statistically. Non-probability sampling

however is compounded by the inability to know the probability of each case being

chosen and also the impossible nature of answering questions to address objectives

that need statistical conclusions. For this study a cluster sampling technique was

administered and the sample chosen was University students attending the University


31/83

30

of Northampton. Although this sample may have many implications contributing to

the restrictive stance it holds, students are one of the main internet and smart-phone

users and are an important segment to consider.

3.8 Data Analysis

3.8.1 Data quality

It is crucial to this study that the quality of data is of a high standard to ensure that a

successful conclusive end can be achieved. Quality of data can be split into two main

areas the reliability and validity of data.

3.8.2 ReliabilityThe reliability of the research is referred to the degree of which the data collection

methods and consequently the analytical processes can create consistent findings

(Easterby-Smith et al, 2012). Robson (2002) notes four components that may have

implications to the reliability of the research data; Participant Error, Participant Bias,

Observer Error and Observer Bias. To limit the effects of participant bias within the

study it was important to conduct the questionnaires at a time of the respondents

convenience, to achieve this amongst students, places of study were avoided as this

environment was an inappropriate location to disrupt. Instead the use of online

questionnaires was utilised as this method of collection allowed the participant to not

only choose a time but they were also given the ability to choose the environment to

complete the survey. All physical forms of the survey were distributed by asking the

possible respondents first if they would like to participate. The steps taken to avoid a

participant bias were to grant the respondent with the option of anonymity. The risk

of observer error didnt apply to the closed questions nature of the questionnaire

nevertheless the interviews conducted were open ended and subject to influence, the

threat to reliability however was reduced with the implementation of predetermined

questions asked word for word with the only time an additional question would be

asked was if there arose an opportunity to develop better insight, and also if the

answers were straying away from the relevant topic.


32/83

31

3.8.3 Validity

Easterby-Smith et al write the validity of a research project is the extent of which the

findings provide an accurate representation of the concepts they are supposed to be

describing. Saunders et al (2009) has noted the key areas that pose a threat to the

research validity as History, Testing, Instrumentation, Mortality, Maturation and

Ambiguity.

In relation to the study, maturation posed a threat to the validity with regards to the

time between the respondents answering the questionnaire and then taking part with

an interview, during this time a great deal of information of online marketing data

collection methods could be learnt and directly impact the respondents view. To

minimise this occurrence, the interview was conducted within two days of receiving

the respondents questionnaire to limit the amount of external influence.

Instrumentation carries the possibility of affecting the research results via the

measurement tool used. In the instance of the study makes use of semi-structured

interviews, this called for the collection of information to be done so objectively and

thus the questions of the interview were predetermined.

3.9 Considerations

3.9.1 Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations are an important area to note within the make-up of the

research, Saunders et al (2009) note that the ethical concerns will emerge through the

planning stages and refers to the appropriateness of the researchers behaviour

towards those participating. When conducting research an option to grant anonymity

was given to the participants, as Saunders et al (2009) note this non-maleficence is

seen as the cornerstone of ethical issues. A summary of the research purpose was also

presented for the participant to gain an understanding of the research they were

partaking in. For classification purposes the survey asked for the respondents age and

gender; however each participant was informed that the purposes of the research

would not consist of the dissemination of personal data. Furthermore the only

instances that a name and contact details was required was when the respondent was

asked if they would be want to be involved in further study (semi-structured


33/83

32

interviews). To allow the participants to withdraw their information, a reference code

was given with a contact email; this allowed respondents to simply ask for the removal

of their data.

3.9.2 Budget Constraints

The financial constraints impeded the research study somewhat with regards to

travelling, this only impacted on the sample size as the ability to travel across the

country to survey a wider source of cases was not achievable.

3.9.3 Sample Constraints

The sample constraints consequently resulted in the data being slightly biased towards

a certain demographic of internet users, as University Students all share similar online

activities. Although this market of online consumers are a vital audience to consider,

the scope of the data analysis could have been a lot more in depth if different

demographics were also targeted for the research.

3.10 Chapter Summary

The overall purpose of the methodology is to test the hypothesis through firstly a

quantitative method involving questionnaires to quickly establish an understanding;

secondly the process of qualitative research encompassing semi-structured interviews

was explored to gain a richer understanding of the research topic.


34/83

33

4.0 Results

4.1 Introduction

This section assembles the key research findings, obtained from both the

questionnaires and the semi-structured interviews, an analysis of the key findings

obtained from the questionnaires will be presented. The results section mainly focuses

on the questionnaire results and some insight in the key understandings gathered

from the interviews.

4.2 Questionnaire

The questionnaires made up the quantitative phase of the study, as stated in the

methodology, and were designed in accordance with Malhotra et als (2004) privacy

scale the Internet Users Information Privacy Concerns model (IUIPC) to measure

consumer attitudes with regards to three main constructs; Control, Collection and

Awareness. Furthermore the questionnaire also looked to gather some data on

respondents Internet usage and also their experience of privacy invasion online.

Additionally the questionnaire also implemented Buchanan et als (2006) 16 point

scale to measure the general privacy concerns people have on the internet.

The questionnaire used a five point Likert awareness scale (1=strongly disagree and

5=strongly agree) in accordance with the IUIPC model to measure consumer attitudes

on Control, Awareness and Collection of personal data. A five point Likert concern scale

(1=not at all concerned and 5=extremely concerned) was applied to measure

respondents general concern for privacy online. In total 113 questionnaires were

completed by a sample of University students attending the University of

Northampton.


35/83

34

4.3 Summary of Respondents

4.3.1 Age & Gender

The sample of which the data was collected from consisted of University students

attending the University of Northampton, the survey was administered online once a

pilot study was completed which was conducted offline to five University Students.

The Pilot Study identified some items were unclear to the respondents and was

therefore amended.

All surveys were completed online. The

average age of the sample was 21.

Males (59%) were the majority

gender represented in the study,

compared to Females (41%).


36/83

35

4.4 Exploratory Data Analysis of Internet Use, Online Privacy

Concerns and Experience

4.4.1 Internet Usage

How often do you use the internet?

Unsurprisingly due to the nature

of the sample, all respondents

used the Internet at least more

than once a day. 94% of the

participants stated they use the

internet Several times a day.

Do you use the internet at least

once a week at either of the

following? University, Work,

Home, or Other?

28% of the responses stated

internet use occurred in other

locations; places such as Cafes,

Pubs and Smart Phones were

noted.


37/83

36

4.4.2 Experiences of Privacy Invasion

How frequently have you personally been the victim of what you felt was an invasion

of privacy (e.g. receiving unsolicited phone calls, unsolicited emails, etc?)

A cumulative total of only 22% represented those who felt they were rarely or never

victims of privacy invasion.


38/83

37

4.4.3 General Concerns for

Privacy Online

How concerned are you generally

about your privacy online?

43% of the respondents indicated

they were somewhat concerned

about their general privacy online.

How concerned are you about

personal information online being

accessed and collected by businesses

or people you dont know?

Over half of the respondents indicated

they were extremely concerned (53%)about their data being obtained by

people or businesses they dont know.

How concerned are you about

family or friends being able to

access your personal

information online?

61% of the respondents were Not

at all concerned about family or

friends accessing personal data.


39/83

38

4.5 Central Tendency & Dispersion Measurement of

Respondents Level of Privacy Concerns Online

4.5.1 Attitudes of General Privacy Concerns Online

Table 1.0 represents the respondents level of concern for privacy online; it is

produced on the basis ofBuchanan et als (2006) 16 point privacy concern

measurement scale. For each item, respondents indicated how concerned they were

on a 5 point Likert scale where 1=not at all concerned and 5=extremely concerned.

General Concern for Online Privacy item was omitted from the scale leaving 15 items

to measure respondents concerns.

The Central Tendency measurement represents the average of the data set, for this

study the average is constructed of the Mean score for each item; from the Mean

respondents average level of concern was calculated from all 15 items. Dispersion

measures the diversity within a data set. Standard Deviation (SD) was used to reflect

how diverse peoples privacy concerns were for each item. Theres some evidence to

suggest that as the level of privacy importance decreases the SD value increases,

reflecting more varied attitudes amongst items of lower privacy concerns.


40/83

39

Table 1.0 Ranking Scale of Respondents Level of Privacy Concern (Descending order

of Concern)

Concern

Measure of

CentralTendency

Measure

ofDispersion

Mean(Level ofConcern)

StandardDeviation

4.82 0.38

4.78 0.42

4.63 0.64

4.36 0.66

3.76 0.84

3.66 0.79

3.58 0.75

2.96 0.69

2.73 0.65

2.45 0.65

2.19 0.58

2.12 0.60

2.05 0.50

1.83 0.52

1.44 0.53

High Concern

Low ConcernTable 1.0


41/83

40

The Privacy Concern Scale (Table 1.0) shows that the respondents felt any

unauthorised use or access of financial information was of high concern, as the two

highest ranked forms of online privacy online are items concerned with respondents

credit/debit cards being compromised either by interception during a transaction or

mischarged during a purchase. Both items also had the least variance (0.38 & 0.48)

showing a low variation of answers and therefore further reinforcing the high level of

concern. Furthermore high concerns were also notably attached to situations where

an individuals information would be compromised; Online Identity Theft and

Information collated by unknown entities were amongst the top five most concerned

items. Other individuals or organisations misrepresenting themselves online was less

of a concern to respondents, this may be due to the experience the sample have on

the internet as the majority stated they use the internet Several times a day (94%).

4.6 Cross Tabulation of General Privacy Concerns

4.6.1 Level of Concerns by Gender

Females showed a

marginally higher level of

concern (3.3) for online

privacy in comparison to

Males (3.1).


42/83

41

Top 5 Concerns for Privacy Online: Male

(N=number of respondents)

As stated in Table 1.0, concerns

related to financial information

being compromised ranked as

items of high concern. This also

resonated with the male

respondents.

Top 5 Concerns for Privacy Online:

Female

High concerns for financial information

was also reflected amongst Female

respondents, however Online Identity

Theft was similarly idenitifed as an

important cause for concern (4.83).

Interestingly Female respondents felt

more concern for Being asked too much

personal information (3.74) than Male

respondents (3.66).


43/83

42


Measurement of Central Tendency & Dispersion

Table 2.0 represents respondents attitudes towards each construct (Control,

Collection & Awareness) of the IUIPC model; the Central Tendency was measured by

the Mean score for each statement. The Awareness construct especially reflected a

high level of agreement amongst the respondents. The Dispersion measured the

variation amongst the data set.

Constructs N Mean Std.

Deviation

Collection I am concerned when online sites collect personal

information about me113 4.14 0.60

I am concerned when online sites ask me for personal

information113 4.03 0.84

When online sites ask me for personal information, I

sometimes think twice before disclosing information113 3.90 0.94

I am concerned about giving my personal information to

many online sites 113 3.75 1.00

Control I believe it is important for online consumers to be able

to exercise some control over the use of disclosed

personal data

113 4.72 0.51

I believe that online privacy is invaded when control is

lost or unwillingly reduced as a result of a marketing

transaction

113 4.49 0.66


44/83

43

Constructs N Mean Std.

Deviatio

n

Control

(cont.)

I am concerned that if I disclose personal data online it

could be misused if I am not given an option to control it

113 3.89 1.21

Awareness A good consumer online privacy policy should have

clear and understandable disclosure practices113 4.56 0.50

It is very important to me that I am aware and

knowledgeable about how my personal information will

be used

113 4.52 0.57

Online sites seeking information online should disclose

the way the data are collected, processed and used113 4.32 0.62

Continued

Table 2.0


45/83

44


Cross Tabulation by General Concerns for Privacy

Cross Tabulation is a useful technique applied to quantitative data in order to analyse

the relationship between two or more variables. The following tables represent an

analysis of the relationship between respondents general privacy concerns and the

key items taken from each of the Awareness and Control constructs of the IUIPC

model.

General concern for privacy online * I believe it is important for online consumers to be able to exercise

some control over the use of disclosed personal data Cross Tabulation

Count

I believe it is important for online consumers

to be able to exercise some control over the

use of disclosed personal data

TotalNeither

Disagree

nor Agree

Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

General concern for

privacy online

Slightly concerned2 9 4 15

Somewhat Concerned 1 13 35 49

Moderately Concerned0 4 32 36

Extremely Concerned0 0 13 13

Total 3 26 84 113

Cross Tabulation: General Concern for Privacy Online & The Importance of Theright to Control Disclosed Data

Table 2.1 reflects the relationship between respondents General concern for privacy

online and the highest ranked item in the Control construct I believe it is important

for online consumers to be able to exercise some control over the use of disclosed

personal data. 60% of those who were Slightly concerned for their online privacy

Somewhat agreed that it is important for consumers to have some right of control

over disclosed personal information. However, 71% of those who were Somewhat

Table 2.1


46/83

45

Table 2.2

Concerned and 89% of those who were Moderately Concerned Strongly agreed

with the importance of having some control over disclosed personal information;

expectedly, 100% of the Extremely Concerned respondents also Strongly agreed

with the statement.

How frequently have you personally been the victim of what you felt was an invasion of privacy (e.g.

receiving unsolicited phone calls, unsolicited emails, etc?) * It is very important to me that I am aware and

knowledgeable about how my personal information will be used Cross tabulation

Count

It is very important to me that I am aware andknowledgeable about how my personal information

will be used

Total

Neither Disagree

nor Agree

Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Frequency of Privacy

Invasion

Never 1 2 0 3

Rarely 2 15 5 22

Occasionally 1 19 26 46

A moderate

amount0 7 20 27

A great deal 0 3 12 15

Total 4 46 63 113

Cross Tabulation: Frequency of Privacy Invasion & The Importance of Being

Made Aware of Disclosed Data Use

Table 2.2 represents the relationship between the frequencies of privacy invasions andthe importance of being made aware about the intended use of disclosed personal

data. 68% of those who have Rarely been the victim of some form of privacy invasion

Somewhat agreed that being made aware of how their personal information will be

used was important to them. In contrast to this, respondents who had more

experiences of privacy invasion felt strongly about the importance of being made

aware of the intended use of disclosed data. 57% of those who Occasionally

experience invasions of privacy Strongly agreed on the importance of being made


47/83

46

Table 3.0

aware; the same was also found for respondents that Moderately (74%) experienced

invasion of privacy and so too those who experienced A great deal (80%) of invasion.

4.9 Semi-Structured Interviews

Three semi-structured interviews were conducted and represented the Qualitative

phase of the research. The interviews were carried o

consumer privacy attitudes & online marketing

Documents