https://twitter.

com/harris_mkt

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

harris_mkt@hotmail.co.uk

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)

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.

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

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

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 5

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

List of Tables and Graphs

Graphs:

Figure 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9

Title Age Gender (Percentage) Gender (Number) Frequency of Internet Use Location of Internet Use Invasion of Privacy Frequency General Concerns for Privacy Concern for Information Collected by Unknown Entities Concerns for Family & Friends Accessing Personal Data Levels of Concern for Privacy Online

Page 35 35 35 36 36 37 38 38 38 38

Tables: Table 1.0 1.1 1.2 2.0 2.1 2.2 3.0 3.1 3.2 Title Ranking Scale of Respondents Level of Privacy Concern Top 5 Concerns for Privacy Online: Male Top 5 Concerns for Privacy Online: Female Internet Users Information Privacy Concerns Model: Measurement of Central Tendency & Dispersion Cross Tabulation: General Concern for Privacy Online & The Importance of The right to Control Disclosed Data Cross Tabulation: Frequency of Privacy Invasion & The Importance of Being Made Aware of Disclosed Data Use Semi-Structured Interview Questions Responses 1 Responses 2 Page 40 41 41 42/43 45 46 47 48 49

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.

1.1 Importance 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.

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 online consumer 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

10

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 of a persons behaviour within society such as their sexual orientation 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)

11

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 individuals protect 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 person s 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)

12

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). 13

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 14

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).

15

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 of the 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 of reasoned 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

16

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 of preventing 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 17

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 18

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 info rmation 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 19

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 of General 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 of an 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 20

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 ecommerce 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).

21

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.

22

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 23

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-

24

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 25

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.

26

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).

27

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. 28

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 Sampling
The 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 29

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 Reliability
The 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.

30

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 31

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.

32

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.

33

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%).

34

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.

35

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.

36

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.

37

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 of Buchanan 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.

38

Table 1.0 Ranking Scale of Respondents Level of Privacy Concern (Descending order of Concern) Measure of Central Tendency Mean (Level of Concern) 4.82 4.78 4.63 4.36 3.76 3.66 3.58 2.96 2.73 2.45 2.19 2.12 2.05 1.83 1.44 High Concern Measure of Dispersion Standard Deviation 0.38 0.42 0.64 0.66 0.84 0.79 0.75 0.69 0.65 0.65 0.58 0.60 0.50 0.52 0.53

Concern

Table 1.0

Low Concern

39

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).

40

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).

41

4.7 Internet Users Information Privacy Concerns Model: 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

Mean

Std. Deviation

Collection

I am concerned when online sites collect personal information about me

113

4.14

0.60

I am concerned when online sites ask me for personal information

113

4.03

0.84

When online sites ask me for personal information, I sometimes think twice before disclosing information

113

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

42

Continued
Constructs

Mean

Std. Deviatio n
1.21

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

Awareness A good consumer online privacy policy should have

clear and understandable disclosure practices

113

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 used

113

4.32

0.62

Table 2.0

43

4.8 Internet Users Information Privacy Concerns Model: 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 Neither Disagree nor Agree Slightly concerned 2 9 4 15 Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Total

Somewhat Concerned General concern for privacy online Moderately Concerned

13

35

49

32

36

Extremely Concerned

0 3

0 26

13 84

13 113

Total

Table 2.1 Cross Tabulation: General Concern for Privacy Online & The Importance of The right 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

44

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 and knowledgeable about how my personal information will be used Neither Disagree nor Agree Never Rarely Frequency of Privacy Invasion Occasionally A moderate amount A great deal Total 1 2 1 0 0 4 Somewhat Agree 2 15 19 7 3 46 Strongly Agree 0 5 26 20 12 63 3 22 46 27 15 113 Total

Table 2.2 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 and the 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 45

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 out in accordance with the questionnaire results regarding respondents attitudes towards control, collection and awareness of data collection. The interview structure and the three responses can be seen in appendix 6 and 7. The purpose of the interviews was to further understand consumers information privacy concerns online. Questionnaire structured questions:
1 Are you usually hesitant to give your information to organisations online? Possible Probing Questions 1a) What would reduce your apprehensions (if any) of disclosing personal information When you do give information to an online company for either a transaction or a for signing up to newsletters do you do so knowing you have some control of its use? Possible Probing Questions 2a) Would the lack of control affect your decision to disclose information? Do you feel its important for companies to tell consumers how they will use personal data collected online?

Are you bothered if websites you visit online collect your online activities and habits?

Table 3.0

46

4.9.1 Results

1st Participant (A) Male 2nd Participant (B) Female 3rd Participant (C) Male Collection The first area was concerned with understanding how hesitant the respondents were about sharing personal information with organisations online. Two respondents (B & C) stated that the reputation of the organisation was an important factor whilst respondent (A) wasnt concerned about sharing data as it usually encompasses an exchange for goods. A: Mmm, it depends. When Im buying stuff I have to give my details so Im not really hesitant about it. And its usually stuff Im happy with giving like my address, name and card details. (B): depending on which company and for what reason really. If Im buying something online from a company then if I it looks dubious Ill do quick background check just to reassure my card details wont be stolen. (C): Not to the ones I trust. The ones I trust more Im more likely to give my details to. I really hate giving details to websites that look crap and dont look professional. Also if I really want to buy something, like a game I wanted recently Ill give my details. Table 3.1

Control The next area looked to establish an understanding of the participants attitudes towards the importance of control when making a purchase. All three participants reflected similar attitudes about control, stating that they feel it is important for companies to allow them to exercise some control of the way their personal data will be used. Two of which stated they actively control their data:

47

A: Oh most definitely! When I buy stuff online I always tick the option to not get involved with their promotions or whatever it is they do. B: Oh I see, er, yeah. Even though I like a website I still untick that box about third party companies. Otherwise my email is flooded, so annoying. C: Yeah, well I know the trusted websites will give me the control so control is definitely a factor when I buy something. I buy a lot of stuff from Asos and I know that if I had to I could contact them if I was concerned with anything. Table 3.2

4.10 Results Summary

The results showed that the majority of respondents were somewhat concerned about their general privacy online, with Females having a marginally higher level of concern compared to Males. Furthermore the results also indicated that unauthorised use of financial information online was of high concern amongst all respondents. With regards to the IUIPC model, it demonstrated that Awareness was the construct which held the highest concern. More specifically however within the control construct the majority of respondents agreed that organisations should give consumers the right to control the use and collection of data. Overall the results shows that respondents call for a right to control data but also have strong attitudes towards the awareness of data collection, being made aware of an organisations disclosure practices was a key concern.

48

5.0 Discussion
5.1 Introduction
This section will analyse the research findings in detail, discussing the key areas uncovered and relating back to the literature (chapter 2). The section has been organised into key section of general concerns for privacy and also the three constructs of the IUIPC model; Control, Collection and Awareness. Hypothesise 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. Outcomes H1: Although control wasnt the most concerned item between the th ree IUIPC constructs of Control, Collection and Awareness, the results from both the interviews and the questionnaires indicated participants did in fact agree strongly with the need for control of data. H2: The results showed awareness was the most concerned item, all levels of the construct measured a high average of concern.

49

5.2 Outcomes
5.2.1 Consumers Level of Concern for Privacy Scale
The initial stage of the research was to gather some insight of the participants general activity online and concerns for privacy. As expected, the large majority of the sample used the internet several times a day; their concerns of privacy did vary slightly but on average respondents expressed some concern for their privacy online. The first model implemented (Table 1.0) was Buchanan et als (2007) 16 point model to measure general concerns people have online, for this study the model was reduced to 15 items excluding the item what are your general concerns for privacy online?. The study looked into the concerns people have regarding informational privacy, as the literature found this to be the main privacy component relevant to consumers (Clarke, 1997; Goodwin, 1991). It was clear to see from the results that privacy concerns related to expressive privacy was not seen to be of high concern, for example the concern for emails being inappropriately forwarded to other unintended readers was represented in the bottom five concerns of privacy within the scale (table 1.0). Although the results showed a low level of concern for expressive privacy, this only shows that the sample of University students do little to protect a realm of expressing their self-identity as DeCew (1997) notes the active protection of ones surroundings to express self-identity defines expressive privacy. A larger more diverse sample of participants may find more varied attitudes towards expressive privacy. Risk-benefit analysis and the Disclosure of Financial Information Within the literature it was found that many studies identified that consumers carry out a risk-benefit analysis prior to disclosing personal information to reduce any negative implications that could occur as a result of disclosure (Xu et al, 2009), looking closely at table 1.0 the scale shows participants rated information being compromised and online identity theft as areas of high concern. Of the compromised information, financial related items were of the most concerned, indicating that consumers perceive the disclosure of their financial details as highly risky. Furthermore two participants that took part in the interviews noted a worry for their card details being stolen and cited hating to disclose data to websites that look unprofessional as This 50

means organisations should do their best to comply with procedural fairness, as Culnan & Armstrong (1999) illustrated, to ensure consumers that the disclosure of this information will not be compromised. Social Presence Within the literature, studies from Sheehan and Hoy (2000) and Short et al (1976) identified that a driving factor of concern for consumers when making a purchase online is the absence of a physical being during a transactional relationship. Therefore one of the objectives of the scale (table 1.0) was to measure how concerned individuals are about companies and people misrepresenting themselves online, or not saying who they really are. Interestingly the results showed that many of the participants were only somewhat concerned about misrepresentation from companies, other people and emails. 52% of the respondents were somewhat concerned about other people misrepresenting themselves online, and 53% were somewhat concerned about receiving emails from false senders. Somewhat concerned attitudes however were less evident towards companies misrepresenting themselves, which accounted for 38% of the total sample. Although the literature found consumers are hesitant to disclose information due to the lack of social presence (Kumar and Benbasar, 2002) studies from Tu (2002) found the implementation of a social actor does little to reassure the consumer. Because the sample was so specific to University students, and therefore limited the scope to test a more varied demographic this may have been the reason why such low levels of concern were perceived on misrepresentation. Data Collection from Unknown Sources One of the more concerned areas of privacy found in the results was the collection of personal information from people of whom the respondents did not know, 46% of the participants indicated they were Extremely concerned about their data being collected from those who they dont know resulting in involuntary disclosure. As Christensen (2011) found that consumers were highly concerned of organisations collecting data without notifying them, although research conducted didnt specifically touch upon concerns regarding the mechanics of involuntary disclosure, enough

51

evidence exists to say that the respondents of this study had high concerns of data collection by unknown entities.

5.2.2 Internet Users Information Privacy Concerns

Within the literature it was found that when consumers disclose personal information online, they not only disclose information for a utilitarian objective but also look to establish a social exchange (Li, 2011) this is known as the social contract theory (Milne & Gordon, 1993; Donaldson et al, 1994). The social contract theory works similar to the premise of the risk-benefit analysis; however it also encompasses three main components of a consumers cost-benefit evaluation (Culnan and Bies, 2003). Therefore the research process conducted an IUIPC model measuring the three constructs collection, control and awareness. Table 2.0 shows the results of the model. Collection There is much emphasis in the literature review on the importance of collection with regards to consumer privacy concerns (Mascarenhas, 2003; Culnan and Bies, 2003). It is one of the most important organisational objectives in the e-commerce environment (Mascarenhas, 2003) and can be understood as the extent of which consumers are concerned about the amount of data collected by organisations online (Cohen, 1987). The research (table 2.0) found respondents had somewhat concerned attitudes towards the collection of personal data online. The items Being asked for personal data and The collection of personal data were the highest two items of concern. However the items When online sites ask me for personal information, I sometimes think twice before disclosing information and I am concerned about giving my personal information to many online sites reflected slightly lower levels of concerns. This may be because the nature of the respondents are experienced users (average age 21) of the internet and therefore practice fair exchange regularly, as Malhotra et al (2004) state the process of fair exchange consists of individuals assessing if the exchange of data will be beneficial to them or not. Control In the literature many authors made clear that a consumers desire for control in the online environment is especially pertinent due to the increased likelihood of personal 52

data being shared at ease by organisations, resulting in a highly risky environment for transactional relationships (Lanier & Saini, 2008; Alge, 2001; Winer, 2001). Consequently, the research reflected this, as attitudes towards control of personal data were especially high with the item I believe it is important for online consumers to be able to exercise some control over the use of disclosed personal data being the most important item of concern. Claudill and Murphy (2002) suggested consumer concerns of collection focus on how much control they have over their personal data through mechanisms of exit and approval, in accordance with this the research found the item I am concerned that if I disclose personal data online it could be misused if I am not given an option to control it had high levels of agreement reinforcing Milne and Rohms (2000) argument that organisations should alert consumers of information practices through the use of opt-out or opt-in instruments and privacy policies Awareness From the literature many studies identified the importance of consumer knowledge within the make-up of consumer privacy, referring to the extent to which firms inform consumers about how they will use collected information (Foxman & Kilcoyne, 1993; Nowak & Phelps, 1997). The research showed that the awareness construct was the most concerned item amongst all of the constructs, indicating strong attitudes towards being made aware of the collection and use of disclosed information. The items within the awareness also had the lowest dispersion levels consequently reflecting the positive attitudes respondents have toward the need for awareness.

5.3 Summary
Overall the main findings of the research generally linked with the appropriate literature however some areas such as social presence were slightly disconnected from the literature due to the limitative nature of the sample. Furthermore the research identified that consumer attitudes towards information privacy is reliant on three main areas of the social contract theory, control of disclosed data, awareness of the collection of personal data and also the type and how often collection of data occurs.

53

6.0 Conclusion
This chapter compromises of the conclusion of the study discussing the implications of the research and practice and also highlighting the areas of limitations.

6.1 Research Implications

The literature discussed the different states and dimensions of privacy as a general notion and found that the concept of privacy is a vast complex component within many areas of society. Within the literature it was found informational privacy was the main concern for consumers, in the online and offline environment. However the studys focus was on the implications of consumer privacy attitudes in the online environment, as this are of research is of great importance with the ever growing number of internet users and productivity online. The study found that consumers online are somewhat concerned for their privacy online, in cases of sharing data with organisations however the research found lower levels of concerns for sharing data with friends or family. The literature review suggested that the social contract theory was a key component of consumer behaviours online, citing control, awareness and collection of data as the main issues concerning the disclosure of personal data. Consequently the study found respondents agreed that a control of personal data is an important factor when making a purchase online, secondly awareness of how personal information will be used and if personal information is being collected also had very high levels of agreed importance. Collection of data was seemingly less important but respondents did reflect some concern for the amount of information being collected online. The literature also illustrated a number of practices of which organisations have adopted to reduce consumer apprehensions of disclosing data, for example procedural fairness is the instance where organisations make sure the activity of disclosing information by the consumer is done so in fair circumstances i.e. granting control of the secondary use of the data.

54

6.2 Implications of the Practice

From the research it can be seen that consumers have some concerns for their privacy online, at the heart of these concerns, personal information being compromised is of the main concern by the majority of the respondents. Financial information was the most prevalent item of data that respondents associated with the most risk. The quantitative research reinforced the importance of the social contract theory with all three constructs (control, awareness and collection) representing high levels of importance with the respondents attitudes of privacy concerns. The interviews conducted gathered a better understanding of the circumstances why the disclosure of information may be of high concern, with unprofessional perceptions of the site being the driving factor.

6.3 Revisiting the Limitations

6.3.1 Sample
The sample size of the study consequently mean participants all shared similar online activities, usage and lifestyles. Therefore the variation of the results was limited, however the demographic of the respondents arguably represents one of the most important group of internet users.

6.3.2 Time
Time heavily restricted the research potential, better time management and longer time for the questionnaires may have resulted in a much larger sample which could have reinforced the reliability of the research a little more. For example only three interviews were conducted; more qualitative research could have arrived at some more detailed insight to consumer attitudes of privacy.

6.3.3 IUIPC Model

Although the model touched upon the main areas of the social contract theory, it provided little understanding for the consumers attitudes or awareness of new technologies of collecting data.

55

6.4 Summary of the Study

The information technology revolution has given the opportunity of endless possibilities for both consumers and organisations. The speed of sharing information has reached levels of ease that has never existed in any time in history before the internet arrived. However wit this powerful tool concerns do occur, especially so related to privacy, with so much potential for personal information to be compromised organisations face the task of limiting consumer apprehensions. The study found that this is increasingly important as consumers are becoming more aware of the risk involved in disclosing information online and the potential of this data being compromised. The social contract theory was the main element taken from the literature to measure consumer attitudes on the basis of the three constructs, control, awareness and collection. It was identified in the study that consumers regarded these components especially important in the realm of consumer privacy.

56

7.0 Appendices
Appendix One Personal Reflection
The journey I embarked on for this dissertation was one of mixed emotions. The study I chose to base my dissertation one was concerns and attitudes towards information privacy. At the beginning of the process I felt I didnt have a focused objective, instead I was looking at general marketing methods that are a cause of concern. I also didnt narrow down the complex notion of privacy to just the relevance to consumers. This lack of preparation impacted on my work progress immensely as the initial stages of the dissertation (literature review) was being amended continuously to fit the research objective. Eventually however I felt I developed a relatively good understanding surround the literature and theory of consumer informational privacy concerns and decided to focus on online marketing issues as this industry was the most spoken in the studies I was reading on. Working to meet other deadlines for other modules was also something I felt was difficult to achieve, on occasions my priorities could have been questioned when considering the amount of work needed to be done for the dissertation. The amount of time spent on the initial stage of the dissertation consequently impacted the potential of the research process as time was of the essence. I tried my best to obtain as many responses as possible with the time I had and also ensure the research was a clear and distinctive. The experienced I gained from the dissertation process I felt was valuable in two instances; firstly on an educational level my knowledge in the field of consumer privacy was increased dramatically. An understanding of the importance and the procedures organisations must take to reduce consumer apprehensions of disclosing data was valuable. Secondly, the process gave me a few things to contemplate for the application of my work in life in general; good prioritisation is an important skill I feel I need to implement in my everyday life.

57

Appendix Two Ethics Form

58

59

60

Appendix Three Questionnaire Levels of Concern

The following two pages show the questions of the questionnaire that measured the levels of concern for privacy. The questionnaire was administered online.

61

Concern

Not at all Concerned

Slightly Concerned

Somewhat Concerned

Moderately Concerned

Extremely Concerned

How concerned are you about: about online organisations not being who they claim they are? about online identity theft? about people online not being who they say they are? about people you do not know obtaining personal information about you from your online activities? about emails you receive not being from whom they say they are? about who might access your medical records electronically? Are you concerned that: you are asked for too much personal information when you register or make online purchases? that information about you could be found on an old computer? that if you use your credit card to buy something on the internet your credit card number will obtained/ .738 intercepted by someone else? that if you use your credit card to buy something on the internet your card will be mischarged? that an email you send may be read by someone else besides the person you sent it to?

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

62

Not at all Concerned Are you concerned that: that an email you send someone may be inappropriately forwarded to others? that an email you send someone may be printed out in a place where others could see it? that a computer virus could send out emails in your name? that an email containing a seemingly legitimate internet address may be fraudulent?

Slightly Concerned

Somewhat Concerned

Moderately Concerned

Extremely Concerned

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

63

Appendix Four Questionnaire General Concerns for Privacy

The next page shows the questions used to understand the general concerns consumers have for privacy.

64

How often do you use the internet? Please tick one Do you use the internet at least once a week in the following places? Tick appropriate

Several times a day

About once a day

3-5 days a week

1-2 Once days a every week few weeks

Less often

University

Work

Home

Other please specify

How frequently Never Rarely Occasionally have you personally been the victim of what you felt was an invasion of privacy (e.g. receiving unsolicited phone calls, unsolicited emails, etc?) Answer General Concerns for Privacy Online Not at all Slightly Somewhat concerned concerned concerned How concerned are you generally about your privacy online? How concerned are you about personal information online being accessed and collected by businesses or people you dont know?

Frequently

Very Frequently

Moderately concerned

Extremely concerned

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

65

Appendix Five Questionnaire IUIPC Model

The next two pages make up the IUIPC element of the survey.

66

Statement

Strongly Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat Agree

Strongly Agree

I am concerned when online sites collect personal information about me I am concerned when online sites ask me for personal information When online sites ask me for personal information, I sometimes think twice before disclosing information I am concerned about giving my personal information to many online sites I believe it is important for online consumers to be able to exercise some control over the use of disclosed personal data I believe that online privacy is invaded when control is lost or unwillingly reduced as a

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

67

result of a marketing transaction I am concerned that if I disclose personal data online it could be misused if I am not given an option to control it A good consumer online privacy policy should have clear and understandable disclosure practices It is very important to me that I am aware and knowledgeable about how my personal information will be used Online sites seeking information online should disclose the way the data are collected, processed and used

68

Appendix Six Participant Consent Form

The following page consists of one of the consent forms which were given to the participants who took part in the interview.

69

Participant Information Sheet

Study: The study aims to understand current consumer privacy attitudes towards online marketing. The reason you have been contacted is because you showed an interest in participating in further research when responding to the questionnaire regarding the study. Therefore I would like to inform you about why the research is being done and what it will involve. This study is designed to find out what the implications of privacy attitudes are towards online marketing. You will be asked to participate in an interview that will aim to gather a better understanding of your privacy concerns regarding online marketing. The questions will be an elaboration of the questionnaire you previously took part in. All information obtained during the study will be confidential; the only classified data that will be recorded is your age and gender. I hope that you will be able to take part in the research. If however you decide that you do not want to continue to take part in the research, you are free to withdraw. Please dont hesitate to ask any questions regarding the research. Yours sincerely, Harris Imran
By signing below, you are agreeing that: (1) you have read and understood the Participant Information Sheet, (2) questions about your participation in this study have been answered satisfactorily, (3) you are aware of the potential risks (if any), and (4) you are taking part in this research study voluntarily (without coercion).

_________________________________

Participants signature*

Date

_______________________________

_________________________________

70

Appendix Seven Interview Transcripts

Researcher (R)
PARTICIPANTS (granted anonymity):

1st Participant (A) 2nd Participant (B) 3rd Participant (C)

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHAMPTON

1. Are you usually hesitant to give your information to organisations online? Possible Probing Questions 1a) What would reduce your apprehensions (if any) of disclosing personal information 2. When you do give information to an online company for either a transaction or a for signing up to newsletters do you do so knowing you have some control of its use? Possible Probing Questions 2a) Would the lack of control affect your decision to disclose information? 3. Do you feel its important for companies to tell consumers how they will use personal data collected online? Possible Probing Questions 3a) Do you take precautions to safeguard your data? For example delete cookies 4. Are you bothered if websites you visit online collect your online activities and habits?

71

Transcript 1
Semi-structured interview Researcher (R) 1st Participant (A) Age: 22 Gender: Male

R: Hi, good to see you today. I just want to say thanks for showing an interest in taking part in this short interview, as youre aware form the questionnaire the questions asked today are for a study that is looking at the implications of consumer privacy attitudes online. Well look to discuss three areas, your concern of the collection of personal information, your views on having some control over the use of your shared information and also your views on being made aware by companies collecting your data. Okay does that all make sense? A: Yep R: Brilliant, so I presume you use the internet regularly, the questionnaires showed a lot of you used the internet a lot! So when youre online, browsing, buying stuff and all that, would you say youre quite hesitant in sharing your data with companies? A: Mmm, it depends. When Im buying stuff I have to give my details so Im not really hesitant about it. And its usually stuff Im happy with giving like my address, name and card details. R: So youd give your details up for something in return, what if you wanted to view something on a website and you had to give your details like name, a home address and things, to access it? Would you be hesitant then? A: Well, if Im being honest unless Im buying something, I usually lie about stuff like that to get access. Like a forum sites, some magazine sites want my email address and name for me to read an article so I just give an email I dont use and a fake name. R: So if you give fake data would that mean youre hesitant about giving real data? Why do you feel the need to fake a name or use an old email? A: I dont know why I do it, I wouldnt say Im hesitant about giving data but I prefer to have some, er, privacy for things I only need to use once.

72

R: Okay, so would you say providing data for something youre interested in like a product or service is fine but for things, services you only use once or not gonna use that often you like to keep data anonymous? A: Yeah, definitely! R: So when you give a company your data for something youre interested in say a product you like, do you feel its important that you, erm, have control of how that data can be used by the company? A: Oh most definitely! When I buy stuff online I always tick the option to not get involved with their promotions or whatever it is they do. R: Okay, so lets say youre shopping online and you find something you want, if the website doesnt give you any option to control your data will you still give the information and buy it? A: Well (Pauses) If its a company ive used before then most likely I will yes. But if ive never bought something from it then Id think about it, depends how desperately I want this product! (Laughs) R: (Laughs) Thats fine. In that case then, do you think companies online should tell consumers how theyre gonna use the data they collect? A: Definitely R: Could you elaborate on that? A: Yeah, well I think its the responsibility companies have. Its not really fair if my data is sold on to other companies I might not really fancy having my data. R: Brilliant. Well that concludes the interview; I hope you felt comfortable with it and thank you for taking the time to participate. A: No problem.

73

Transcript 2
Semi-structured interview Researcher (R) 2st Participant (B) Age: 22 Gender: Female R: Hello. I just want to start with saying thank you for showing an interest in the study and taking time out to participate in this short interview. B: Thats okay. R: Alright, the interview today will be on the basis of the questionnaire, which is to look at the implications of consumer privacy attitudes online. Today Im hoping to discuss three areas with you. Your concern about the collection of personal information, your views on having some control over the use of your shared information and also your views on being made aware by companies collecting your data. That all cool? B: Yes! R: Perfect, okay lets start. I assume you use the internet regularly B: (Laughs) Definitely! R: So, when youre online would you say youre hesitant in sharing your personal data with companies? B: Well, depending on which company and for what reason really. If Im buying something online from a company then if I it looks dubious Ill do quick background check just to reassure my card details wont be stolen. But just sharing my data willy nilly is not something I do. R: Okay, so trust plays a big part when sharing data? You need to be able to trust the company will treat your data appropriately before youre willing to buy something? B: Hm, definitely. R: Okay then if you do decide to buy something, and the website seems, er, trusting, trustworthy, do you need to have some say in how your information will be used? B: Information like? 74

R: Well, personal details, home address, name, email address? B: Oh I see, er, yeah. Even though I like a website I still untick that box about third party companies. Otherwise my email is flooded, so annoying. R: How important do you think it is for companies to tell consumers how theyll use their personal information? And why? B: I think its very important. Just because the result of data being shared with other companies means youre target for so many emails that are just not of interest. R: Are you bothered about websites collecting data about your online habits and activities? B: Well yes, that would be a real gross invasion of privacy, especially if im not aware of it! R: Okay, I think thats everything. Thank you again. B: Oh thats no problem.

75

Transcript 3
Semi-structured interview Researcher (R) 3rd Participant (C) Age: 24 Gender: Male R: Hi, good to see you today. I just want to say thanks for showing an interest in taking part in this short interview, as youre aware form the questionnaire the questions asked today are for a study that is looking at the implications of consumer privacy attitudes online. Well look to discuss three areas, your concern of the collection of personal information, your views on having some control over the use of your shared information and also your views on being made aware by companies collecting your data. Okay does that all make sense? C: Sure R: When youre online, browsing or buying products for example, do you feel hesitant in sharing your personal data with companies? C: Not to the ones I trust. The ones I trust more Im more likely to give my details to. I really hate giving details to websites that look crap and dont look professional. Also if I really want to buy something, like a game I wanted recently Ill give my details. R: Okay brilliant. So when you do buy something online do you give your personal data knowing that youll have some control of the use of it? C: Yeah, well I know the trusted websites will give me the control so control is definitely a factor when I make a purchase online. I buy a lot of stuff from Asos and I know that if I had to I could contact them if I was concerned with anything. R: Do you feel it is important for companies to tell consumer how they will use collected data? C: Not really, legally Im sure they should have to abide by something. I dont think it matters to be honest. I think consumers have the ability to either not share the information or even ask the organisation if they were really concerned. R: Are you bothered about online websites collecting data regarding your online activities?

76

C: Yeah its annoying but I can live with, I dont mind too much. If I do receive emails linked to this I just disregard them. R: Okay I think thats everything. Thank you again.

77

8.0 References
1. Alge, B. J. 2001. Effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural justice. J. App. Psych. 86(4) 797804. 2. Allan, E Lind, T Tyler T (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. UK: Springer 3. Belanger, F., Hiller, J.S. & Smith, W.J., 2002. Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: the role of privacy, security, and site attributes. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), pp.245270. 4. Blumberg et al (2005). Business Research Methods. UK: McGraw-Hill Higher Education 5. Buchanan, T., Paine, C. & Joinson, A.N., 2007. Development of Measures of Online Privacy Concern and Protection for Use on the Internet. , 58(2), pp.157 165. 6. Burgoon, J.K., Parrott, R., LePoire, B.A., Kelley, D.L., Walther, J.B., & Perry, D. (1989). Maintaining and restoring privacy through communication in different types of relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 131158. 7. Caudill, E.M., Murphy, P.E., 2000. Consumer online privacy: legal and ethical issues. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 7-20. 8. Christiansen, L., 2011. Personal privacy and Internet marketing: An impossible conflict or a marriage made in heaven? Business Horizons, 54(6), pp.509514. 9. Crotty, M (1998). The Foundations of Social Research. UK: Sage. 10. Cespedes, F. V., H. J. Smith. 1993. Database marketing: New rules for policy and practice. Sloan Management Rev. 34(4) 722. 11. Creswell, J Plan-Clarke, V (2006). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. UK: Sage Publications. 12. Culnan, M.J. & Armstrong, P.K., 1999. Information Privacy Concerns , Procedural Fairness , and Impersonal Trust : An Empirical Investigation. , (February).

78

13. Culnan, M.J., 2000. Protecting privacy online: is self-regulation working? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 20-27. 14. DeCew, J. (1997). In pursuit of privacy: Law, ethics, and the rise of technology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 15. Denscombe, M (2003). The Good Research Guide: For Small-scale Social Research Projects. 2nd ed. UK: Open University. 16. D.L. Hoffman, T.P. Novak, M.A. Peralta, Information privacy in the marketspace: implications for the commercial uses of anonymity on the web, The Information Society 15 (2) (1999) 129139. 17. D.H. Lee, S. Im, C.R. Taylor, Voluntary self-disclosure of information on the internet: a multi-method study of the motivations and consequences of disclosing information on blogs, Psychology and Marketing 25 (7) (2008) 692 710. 18. Dinev, T., Hart, P. & Mullen, M.R., 2008. Internet privacy concerns and beliefs about government surveillance An empirical investigation. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(3), pp.214233. 19. E.A. Lind, T.R. Tyler, The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum Press, New York, 1988. 20. Easterby-Smith et al (2012). Management Research. 4th ed. UK: Sage 21. Erspective, A.G.P., Pavlou, P.A. & Anderson, A.G., 2007. U NDERSTANDING AND M ITIGATING U NCERTAINTY IN O NLINE E XCHANGE R ELATIONSHIPS : A P RINCIPAL . , 31(1), pp.105136. 22. Folger, Robert and Robert J, Bies (1989), "Managerial Responsibilities and Procedural Justice," Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 2, 79-90, 23. Foxman, E. R., P. Kilcoyne. 1993. Information technology, marketing practice, and consumer privacy: Ethical issues. J. Public Policy Marketing 12(1) 106119. 24. Gill, G. Jackson, P (2010). Research Methods for Managers . UK: Sage. 25. Gilliland, S. W. 1993. The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 18(4) 694734.

79

26. Goodwin, Cathy. 1991. "Privacy: Recognition of a Consumer Right." Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 10 (1): 149-166. 27. Greenberg, Jerald (1985), "Procedural Justice: An Interpretive Analysis of Personnel Systems," in Kendrith M, Rowland and Gerald R, Ferris Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol 3, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 141-183 28. Hann, I.-H. et al., 2007. Overcoming Online Information Privacy Concerns: An Information-Processing Theory Approach. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2), pp.1342. 29. Remenyi, D et al (1998). Doing Research in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method. Sage: UK 30. Hague, P Hague, N, Morgan C (2004). Market Research in Practice. UK: Sage. 31. Hyun Baek, T., & Morimoto, M. (2012). Stay away from me. Examining the determinants of consumer avoidance of personalized advertising. Journal of Advertising, 41(1), 59-76. 32. H.J. Smith, T. Dinev, H. Xu, Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review, MIS Quarterly 35 (4) (2011) 9891015. 33. K.M. Eisenhardt, Agency theory: an assessment and review, The Academy of Management Review 14 (1) (1989) 5774. 34. Kelemen, M Rumens, N (2008). An Introduction to Critical Management Research. UK: Sage. 35. Kohli, A. K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990). Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications. The Journal of Marketing, 54(2) 36. Lanier, Clintond D and Saini, Amit. (2008). Understanding Consumer Privacy. Academy of Marketing Science review. 12 (2), 1. 37. Li, Y., 2012. Theories in online information privacy research: A critical review and an integrated framework. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), pp.471 481. 38. Mary, J., 1993. How did they get my name ?: An exploratory investigation of. 39. M. Bergen, S. Dutta, O.C. Walker Jr., Agency relationships in marketing: a review of the implications and applications of agency and related, Journal of Marketing 56 (3) (1992) 124. 80

40. M.J. Culnan, P.K. Armstrong, Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation, Organization Science 10 (1) (1999) 104115. 41. Mascarenhas, O,A ,J ., Kesavan, R. and Bernacchi, D,M. (2003). Co-Managing Online Privacy: A Call for Joint Ownership. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20 (7): 686-702. 42. Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. & Agarwal, J., 2004. Internet Users Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), pp.336355. 43. Milne, George R. and Mary Ellen Gordon. 1993. "Direct Mail Privacy-Efficiency Trade-offs Within an Implied Social Contract Framework." Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 12 (2): 206-215. 44. Phelps, Joseph; Nowak, Glen; Ferrell, Elizabeth, Privacy concerns and consumer willingness to provide personal information, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing; Spring 2000; 19, 1; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 27 45. Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy," Harvard Law Review, 4 (5), (1890): 193-220, p. 195 46. Saunders et al (2009). Research methods for Business Students. London: Pearson Education Limited. 47. Sekaran and Bougie (2013). Research methods for Business Students. UK: Wiley. 48. Sheehan, K. B., M. G. Hoy. 2000. Dimensions of privacy concern among online consumers. J. Public Policy Marketing 19(1) 6273. 49. Silverman, D (2000). Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook. UK: Sage. 50. Smith, H.J., Milberg, S.J. & Burke, S.J., 1996. Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals Concerns about Organizational Practices. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), p.167. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/249477?origin=crossref. 51. Tyler, T. R. 1994. Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 67 850863.

81

52. T. Donaldson, T.W. Dunfee, Toward a unified conception of business ethics: integrative social contracts theory, Academy of Management Review 19 (2) (1994) 252284. 53. Y. Moon, Intimate exchanges: using computers to elicit self-disclosure from consumers, Journal of Consumer Research 26 (4) (2000) 323339. 54. L.C. Wang, J. Baker, J.A. Wagner, K. Wakefield, Can a retail web site be social? Journal of Marketing 71 (2007) 143157. 55. Laufer, R. S., M. Wolfe. 1977. Privacy as a concept and a social issue: A multidimensional development theory. J. Soc. Issues 33(3) 2242. 56. Mohamed, N. & Ahmad, I.H., 2012. Information privacy concerns, antecedents and privacy measure use in social networking sites: Evidence from Malaysia. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), pp.23662375. 57. Smith, H. J., S. J. Milberg, S. J. Burke. 1996. Information privacy: Measuring individuals concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quart. 20(2) 167196. 58. Westin, A. (1967), Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum 59. William L. Prosser, "Privacy," California Law Review, 48 (1960): 338-423. 60. Winer, R.S., 2001. A Framework for Customer Relationship Management. California Management Review, 43(4), pp.89105. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/10.2307/41166102. 61. Xu, H. et al., 2009. The Role of Push-Pull Technology in Privacy Calculus: The Case of Location-Based Services. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(3), pp.135174. 62. Zhang, T.C., Agarwal, R. & Lucas, H.C., 2011. R ESEARCH A RTICLE T HE V ALUE OF IT-E NABLED R ETAILER L EARNING : P ERSONALIZED P RODUCT R ECOMMENDATIONS AND C USTOMER S TORE L OYALTY IN E LECTRONIC M ARKETS 1. , 35(4), pp.859881.

82