Privacy concerns, privacy practices and web site categories: Toward a situational paradigm

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to disprove the common assumptions of research into privacy concerns from an adversarial paradigm, which does not work in the context of the internet. These assumptions usually claim that internet users who have higher privacy concerns will disclose less information, and that data subjects are always adversarial to data users without considering social contexts.

Design/methodology/approach

The study surveyed 400 respondents from China, The Netherlands, Taiwan and the USA. It examined not only their privacy concerns, but also their actual practices, in order to identify any similarities between concerns and practices.

Findings

This study proved that internet users' privacy concerns do not reflect their privacy practices and showed how social contexts (Web category) influence users' privacy practices. Respondents from China, The Netherlands, Taiwan and the USA perceive Website categories in different ways, reflecting the influences of political systems, cultural background and economic development.

Research limitations/implications

This study maintains that future research on online privacy should take contexts or situations into account. To confirm this, additional research should be undertaken on how social contexts in other countries affect users' privacy concerns and practices. Investigators should also study what makes users more likely to disclose information.

Originality/value

This study suggests that legislation provides the basic protection, while self‐regulation supplies the detailed principles of online privacy. Privacy education teaches users how to create their “zone of privacy” and how to be responsible for their online practices, in order to build an abuse‐free information environment on the internet.

Citation

Hsu, C.(J). (2006), "Privacy concerns, privacy practices and web site categories: Toward a situational paradigm", Online Information Review, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 569-586. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520610706433