Eoin Whelan, Michael Lang and Martin Butler
The privacy paradox refers to the situation where users of online services continue to disclose personal information even when they are concerned about their privacy. One recent…
Abstract
Purpose
The privacy paradox refers to the situation where users of online services continue to disclose personal information even when they are concerned about their privacy. One recent study of Facebook users published in Internet Research concludes that laziness contributes to the privacy paradox. The purpose of this study is to challenge the laziness explanation. To do so, we adopt a cognitive dispositions perspective and examine how a person’s external locus of control influences the privacy paradox, beyond the trait of laziness.
Design/methodology/approach
A mixed method approach is adopted. We first develop a research model which hypothesises the moderating effects of both laziness and external locus of control on privacy issues. We quantitatively test the research model through a two-phase survey of 463 Facebook users using the Hayes PROCESS macro. We then conduct a qualitative study to verify and develop the findings from the quantitative phase.
Findings
The privacy paradox holds true. The findings confirm the significant influence of external locus of control on the privacy paradox. While our quantitative findings suggest laziness does not affect the association between privacy concerns and self-disclosure, our qualitative data does provide some support for the laziness explanation.
Originality/value
Our study extends existing research by showing that a person’s external locus of control provides a stronger explanation for the privacy paradox than the laziness perspective. As such, this study further reveals the boundary conditions on which the privacy paradox exists for some users of social networking sites, but not others. Our study also suggests cognitive dissonance coping strategies, which are largely absent in prior investigations, may influence the privacy paradox.
Details
Keywords
Prior research has extensively examined how bringing technology from work into the non-work life domain creates conflict, yet the reverse pathway has rarely been studied. The…
Abstract
Purpose
Prior research has extensively examined how bringing technology from work into the non-work life domain creates conflict, yet the reverse pathway has rarely been studied. The purpose of this study is to bridge this gap and examine how the non-work use of smartphones in the workplace affects work–life conflict.
Design/methodology/approach
Drawing from three literature streams: technostress, work–life conflict and role boundary theory, the authors theorise on how limiting employees' ability to integrate the personal life domain into work, by means of technology use policy, contributes to stress and work–life conflict. To test this model, the authors employ a natural experiment in a company that changed its policy from fully restricting to open smartphone access for non-work purposes in the workplace. The insights gained from the experiment were explored further through qualitative interviews.
Findings
Work–life conflict declines when a ban on using smartphones for non-work purposes in the workplace is revoked. This study's results show that the relationship between smartphone use in the workplace and work–life conflict is mediated by sensed stress. Additionally, a post-hoc analysis reveals that work performance was unchanged when the smartphone ban was revoked.
Originality/value
First, this study advances the authors' understanding of how smartphone use policies in the workplace spill over to affect non-work life. Second, this work contributes to the technostress literature by revealing how, in specific situations, engagement with ICT can reduce distress and strain.