A Meta-Analytic Review of Empirical Research on

Online Information Privacy Concerns:

Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators
Research-in-Progress

Haejung Yun Gwanhoo Lee

Graduate School of Information Kogod School of Business
Yonsei University American University
Seoul, Korea Washington, DC 20016
haejung.yun@gmail.com glee@american.edu

Dan J. Kim
Information Technology and Decision Sciences
University of North Texas
Denton, TX 76203
Dan.Kim@unt.edu

Abstract
IS researchers have studied online information privacy concerns for decades. However,
prior research has produced a sub-optimal contribution to knowledge because findings
are rather inconsistent and inconclusive. To address this issue, this research uses meta-
analysis methods to analyze cumulative effects of the relationships between online
information privacy concern and its theoretically-associated constructs. Our analysis of
89 empirical studies suggests that information privacy concerns have been most
frequently tested with such constructs as user experience, awareness/knowledge,
usefulness, privacy control, privacy risk, willingness to transact, willingness to provide
personal information, trust, and attitude. We find that while most of these bivariate
relationships are significant, their effect size varies. We also find that measure
instrument, sample characteristics, and culture significantly moderate several
relationships. We will use meta-analytic structural equation modeling techniques to
delve deeper into the most frequently tested constructs.

Keywords: Online information privacy concerns, meta-analysis, APCO macro model,

antecedents, outcomes, moderators

Introduction
With advances of communication and information technologies, online information privacy is one of
growing concerns to multiple online stakeholders such as consumers, business managers, scholars, and
government regulators (Skinner et al. 2006). Since Smith et al. (1996) developed an important measure of
online information privacy called CFIP (Concern for Information Privacy), a number of empirical studies
have tested antecedents and consequences of CFIP. However, this stream of research has produced a sub-
optimal contribution to knowledge because findings are rather inconsistent and inconclusive (Smith et al.
2011). For a given relationship, some studies have demonstrated a non-significant effect while others have
shown a significant effect. Yet, some other studies have shown a significant effect in the opposite direction.
Furthermore, researchers have adopted a number of different theories with atypical variables in studying

Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014 1

IS Security and Privacy

information privacy concerns (Li 2012). Thus, there was a need for systematic integration showing what
variables are most frequently studied in the literature on information privacy concerns.
As a result, researchers have recently reviewed the literature from a few different perspectives (e.g.,
Belanger and Crossler 2011; Li 2012; Smith et al. 2011). While these review studies have significantly
contributed to integration and sense-making of the fragmented, diverse literature, all of them took
narrative and descriptive review approaches (King and He 2005). One important shortcoming of
narrative/descriptive literature reviews is that they do not quantitatively accumulate the results of prior
empirical studies. These reviews hardly inform us of a cumulative direction and strength of a certain
hypothesized effect. As a result, effects of many theoretical relationships still remain inconclusive.
Naturally, researchers have called for a quantitative meta-analytic review of the literature on information
privacy concerns (Belanger and Crossler 2011; Li 2011).
This research aims to address this knowledge gap. Using quantitative meta-analytic techniques, this
research accumulates correlations for the relationships that have been tested repeatedly and shows the
direction and strength of the effect of antecedents on information privacy concerns and that of the effect
on the outcomes of information privacy concerns. By so doing, this research can inform us how conclusive
a certain effect is and thus helps us understand what we already know and what we don’t know yet.
Another important intended contribution of this research is to test potential moderators on the
relationships between information privacy concern and its theoretically-associated constructs. It is
possible that some relationships have demonstrated mixed results due to the omission of important
moderators. Once certain moderators are introduced, these relationships might show clearer patterns of
effects. As a result, this research can resolve some of the inconsistent findings and explain why such
inconsistency has been observed. Researchers have suggested a few important moderators that need to be
tested. For example, Belanger and Crossler (2011) proposed that the characteristics of the subject (i.e.,
student vs. non-student) and the type of instrument (i.e., CFIP vs. other measures) are possible
moderators. This research tests the effect of these moderators. Furthermore, it also tests the moderating
effect of cultural/national differences.
In sum, this research responds to a call for quantitatively accumulating the results of prior empirical
studies on information privacy concerns using quantitative meta-analytic methods. With the recent
increase in empirical studies in this area, we are well posed to conduct a rigorous meta-analysis, which
was not possible in the past due to a small number of repeated studies. By showing how conclusive certain
effects are, the results of this research can guide future studies to focus on addressing still inconclusive
and inconsistent effects rather than re-testing the effects that we already know with great confidence.
What follows is a brief background and related work on central constructs of this study. We then present
research methods followed by some preliminary results. We conclude by discussing expected contribution
of this research and plans for completion.

Online Information Privacy Concerns, Antecedents, Outcomes, and

Moderators
Privacy has been studied for centuries with slightly different definitions in different disciplines including
philosophy, psychology, law, economics, information systems and others (Smith et al. 2011). Several
influential studies on online information privacy concerns have focused on conceptualization (e.g.,
Belanger et al. 2002; Clarke 1999; Smith et al. 1996; Stone et al. 1983), privacy paradox (e.g., Bennett
1995; Acquisti 2004), privacy calculus (e.g., Ackerman 2004), measurement of privacy (e.g., Malhotra et
al. 2004; Smith et al. 1996; Stewart and Segars 2002), research trends (e.g., Li 2011; Pavlou 2011) and
literature reviews (Belanger and Crossler 2011; Smith et al. 2011).
For the conceptualization and measurement of information privacy concerns, for example, Smith et al.
(1996) conceptualize the concern for information privacy concerns (CFIP) and develop measurement
scale using four data-related dimensions (collection, errors, improper access, and unauthorized secondary
use). Later, adapting the CFIP in the Internet context, Malhotra et al. (2004) conceptualize the Internet
users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC) as a second-order construct with three dimensions (control,
awareness, and collection). Dinev and Hart (2004) also conceptualize two dimensional information
privacy concerns (abuse and finding).

2 Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014

 Meta-Analytic Review of Online Information Privacy Concerns

To present the relationships between privacy concerns and other constructs that have been empirically
examined by prior studies, Smith et al. (2011) propose APCO Macro Model, a high-level process model
delineating “Antecedents
Privacy Concerns
Outcomes.” Locating privacy concerns as a central
construct, the model suggests five groups of antecedents of privacy concerns: privacy experiences, privacy
awareness, personality differences, and demographic differences as individual level variables, and
culture/climate as an organizational or national level. The model also presents several dependent
variables as outcomes of privacy concerns, including behavioral reactions, trust, regulation and
risks/costs. The most prominent variables are behavioral reactions to privacy concerns, which include
individual’s willingness to disclose personal information and/or to engage in e-commerce transactions.
Trust and regulation are considered to be both antecedent and outcome of privacy concern. Along with
privacy benefits, privacy risks/costs are salient components to determine an individual’s behavioral
reactions based on the tradeoff. This process is called privacy calculus which is also a part of the model.
We used the APCO Macro Model to guide our literature search and code variables for meta-analysis.

Moderators and Subgroups

When Belanger et al. (2011) and Li (2011) call for meta-analytic studies on information privacy concerns,
they suggest that moderating effects should also be tested. Following the suggestion, we examine the
moderating effects of categorical grouping variables: (1) measurement instrument (CFIP vs. other
measures), (2) sample characteristic (student sample vs. non-student sample), and (3) cultural difference
(US vs. other countries).
CFIP (Smith et al. 1996; Stewart and Segars 2002) is the most frequently used instrument in the IS
context. Malhotra et al.’s (2004) IUIPC is another widely-adopted instrument to measure privacy
concerns, but we also found other types of measures including Dinev et al.’s (2004) and self-developed
measurement. Therefore, we divided our sample into CFIP-based studies versus other measure-based
studies to test the moderating effect of the instrument. A large number of previous studies on information
privacy have heavily relied on student samples and U.S.-based samples (Belanger et al. 2011) partly
because of the convenience in data collection. We examine the moderating effects of these sample
characteristics (student vs. non-student, and US vs. non-US).

Research Methods
Literature Search
Our target literature is empirical studies that investigate privacy concerns and other related constructs.
For quantitative meta-analysis, one of the important criteria for inclusion is that a paper must report
correlation coefficients. We searched not only academic journals but also conference proceedings and
unpublished dissertations and theses. Validity threats due to publication bias are mitigated through this
multiple source methods since correlations reported in the studies published in journals may be higher
than those reported in unpublished studies (King and He 2005; Sharma and Yetton 2007).
To identify the journal pool and relevant publications, we referred to the Association for Information
Systems (AIS) website providing a list of high quality IS journals (Li 2011). We specifically adopted a list
of over 100 IS journals published in the MIS Journal Rankings page (http://start.aisnet.org
/?JournalRankings). Some journals from the list were excluded because they no longer exist, and
technical journals or professional magazines were not considered either. We used an online database
called Web of Science to extract relevant publications by using search keywords as “privacy concern(s)”
and the journal names. We also used ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database to acquire
proper sample of unpublished dissertations and theses with the search keywords as “privacy concern(s)”,
“privacy risk”, or “security concern(s)”. In order to determine the appropriate conference proceedings for
the meta-analysis, we firstly referred to the proceedings of the major conferences hosted by AIS, including
ICIS, AMCIS, ECIS, and PACIS, and also reviewed the proceedings of the Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). The search period was not specified, so it covered all the journal
publications, conference papers, and dissertations/theses dated up to March 2014. However, we excluded
the redundant papers which used the same dataset with the same author(s) and constructs. This literature
search process yielded 89 publications including 51 journal articles, 28 conference papers, and 10
dissertations/theses.

Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014 3

IS Security and Privacy

Developing Research Model for Meta-Analysis

Since a number of constructs appear only once or twice in the identified sample of 89 studies, the first
step was to classify a set of constructs that have been frequently tested, thus subject to meta-analysis. To
that end, we listed up all the constructs with correlation coefficients reported in each empirical study. We
then counted the frequency of the correlation between these constructs and the central construct,
information privacy concerns. Field (2001) suggests that a meta-analysis should include at least 15 studies,
otherwise the type I error (i.e., accepting a false null hypothesis) could be seriously inflated. Following this
guideline, we only included the nine constructs with more than 15 correlations1 across studies. As a result,
our research model for meta-analysis was developed (Figure 1). The definition of each construct is
provided in Table 1.

Figure 1. Research Model for Hypotheses Testing

Table 1. Definition of Research Constructs

Constructs Definition
Experience Prior experience with the certain technology or general technology (e.g.,
Internet)
Awareness/Knowledge The extent to which an individual is informed about the certain technology,
service, or practice (e.g., privacy policy)
Usefulness The degree to which an individual believes that using the technology/service
will help him or her attain gains in job performance.
Privacy control The perception of an individual about the possibility of managing their own
information
Trust The willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party
Privacy risk The expectation of losses associated with the disclosure of personal
information.
Willingness to transact Willingness to be engaged in monetary transactions or to use certain services
(continuously)

1 Some studies reported more than one correlation in one bivariate relationship: (1) when they had more
than one datasets; (2) when the certain concept was measured in different ways within the same study; or
(3) when the correlations between first-order constructs (e.g., privacy concerns or trust) of the second-
order constructs were reported.

4 Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014

 Meta-Analytic Review of Online Information Privacy Concerns

Willingness to provide The extent to which an individual would reveal personal information through
personal information the Internet
Attitude A learned disposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable
manner with respect to a given object or behavior

Coding Procedures
Using the research model developed, we further coded the 89 papers in our sample; each paper was
assigned to two authors to avoid subjective decisions. When a disagreement arose, the authors discussed
to reach consensus, although this was rarely needed because the coding criteria are quite objective and
straightforward. First, we listed all studies that included correlations between the focal construct
(information privacy concerns) and the nine identified constructs of the model. Then, we reviewed each
paper thoroughly and coded the information about author(s), year of publication, journal name, construct
names, their reliability index (i.e., Cronbach’s α or composite reliability), measurement types (CFIP or
others), sample characteristics (student or non-student), country origin (US or non-US), sample size, and
Pearson correlation coefficients. We gained 122 to 60 correlations for the nine pairwise relationships.
Out of 89 papers, 23 papers used CFIP measures while 66 papers used other measures. Student (46
papers) and non-student samples (43 papers) take up similar portion. Forty-six studies were conducted in
United States while 39 studies were done in other countries. Four studies made cross-cultural
comparisons; therefore they have both US and other countries samples.

Meta-analytic Calculation
Recently, meta-analytic studies used various techniques depending on their research questions and
objectives. While Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) bivariate meta-analysis technique (e.g., Lee and Xia 2006;
Wu and Lu 2013) have been widely used, several recent meta-analysis studies have used weighted least
square regression (e.g., Sharma and Yetton 2007; Sharma et al. 2009; Wu and Lederer 2009) and meta-
analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) (e.g., Colquitt et al. 2007; Joseph et al. 2007) .
If we can identify a few important constructs derived from a strong theory (i.e., top-down approach),
MASEM would be a good fit. On the other hand, if we investigate a comprehensive set of numerous
constructs derived from multiple theories (i.e., bottom-up approach) and test moderating effects, then
bivariate correlation analysis and weighted least squares regression would be better choices. This research
combines these two approaches in two phases; in the first phase, we use bivariate correlation analysis to
examine the cumulative direction and significance of the relationships shown in the research model. We
then conduct a moderator analysis using t-approximation tests (Joseph et al. 2007). In the second phase,
we will use MASEM to delve deeper into a smaller set of core constructs with greater rigor.
To perform meta-analysis of bivariate relationships, we used zero-order effect sizes (correlations), sample
size, and reliability statistics (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha and composite construct reliability 3). When the
reliabilities were not reported, we filled in the mean reliability value while those of one-item measures
were set to 0.6 (Hunter and Schmidt 2004; Sharma and Yetton 2007). Following Hunter and Schmidt’s
(2004) formula, correlations were weighted by sample size and corrected for reliability to acquire
corrected meta-analytic correlations. The statistical significance of these correlations is decided by the
95% confidence intervals for the mean correlation; if 95% confidence interval does not include zero, it
indicates the bivariate relationship is significant.

2 The numbers of correlations of “privacy control-privacy concerns” and “experience-privacy concerns”

relationships are less than 15 because some studies/correlation were excluded due to incomplete
information.
3 Peterson and Kim (2013) revealed that the difference between Cronbach’s alpha and composite
reliability value was relatively inconsequential for practical applications such as meta-analysis; hence, we
used composite reliability when only this value was reported, while we used alpha value in case that the
both estimators were reported.

Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014 5

IS Security and Privacy

To test moderating effects, we divided the sample into two subgroups by respective moderators for every
bivariate relationship. Along with meta-analytic mean correlations and 95% confidence interval, t'-value
was computed to determine if the mean correlations of two groups are significantly different.

Results
Meta-Analysis of Bivariate Relationships
Table 2 summarizes the results of the meta-analysis of bivariate relationships between information
privacy concerns and the nine identified constructs. Regarding every relationship, we report the number
of correlations, the cumulative sample size, the average sample size, along with uncorrected/corrected
mean of meta-analytic correlation, explained variance, and 95% confidence interval. Except for
“experience-privacy concerns” relationship, every correlation is found to be significant. As expected,
willingness to transact, willingness to provide personal information, privacy control, trust, and attitude
are negatively associated with privacy concerns, while privacy risk shows positive correlation with privacy
concerns. Unlike our expectation, interestingly, awareness/knowledge and usefulness are positively
correlated with privacy concerns. The explained variance by sampling error in every significant
relationship is less than 10 percent, which means additional moderators need to be introduced to further
explain the unaccounted variance (Lee & Xia, 2006).

Table 2. Meta-Analytic Summary of Bivariate Relationships with Information Privacy Concerns

No. Average Uncorrected Corrected Explained 95%

Sample
Variable of sample meta-analytic meta- variance confidence
size
corr. size corr. analytic corr. (%) interval

Experience 14 4974 355 -0.009 -0.013 48% -0.041, 0.015

Awareness/
24 12434 518 0.027 0.039 5% 0.021, 0.056
Knowledge
Usefulness 22 5208 237 0.063 0.074 9% 0.047, 0.01
Privacy
12 4634 386 -0.218 -0.238 2% -0.265, -0.211
control
Privacy risk 30 13172 439 0.337 0.391 2% 0.377, 0.406
Trust 60 23289 388 -0.115 -0.132 5% -0.145, -0.120
Willingness
48 15393 321 -0.131 -0.149 8% -0.165, -0.134
to transact
Willingness
to provide
39 14048 360 -0.214 -0.248 9% -0.263, -0.232
personal
information
Attitude 22 8390 381 -0.197 -0.240 2% -0.260, -0.220

Moderator Analyses
To test moderating effects of the three categorical moderators, we conducted t-approximation tests of the
differences between the mean correlations of a pair of subgroups (Wagner and Gooding 1987). With a few
exceptions, the three moderators show significant effects on most bivariate relationships. For example, in
“privacy concerns-willingness to transact” relationship, non-CFIP measures, non-student, and non-US
samples show significantly higher correlations than their counterparts. Some of these results are
consistent with the findings of prior research. For example, Malhotra et al. (2004) have shown that IUIPC
explains more of the variance in a person’s willingness to transact than CFIP.

6 Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014

 Meta-Analytic Review of Online Information Privacy Concerns

Consistent with general beliefs that privacy concerns would play a less important role in younger
generation’s behavior (i.e., students), non-student subjects show stronger effects than student subjects in
most relationships. Regarding the cultural effect, the US samples generally produce weaker effects in most
cases (i.e., willingness to transact, trust, privacy risk) except for one relationship (i.e., privacy concerns-
attitude).

Table 3. t-Approximation Tests for Moderating Effects

Explained Corrected mean
Moderators No. of corr. t'-Value
variance (%) correlations
Willingness to transact online
(Willingness to use services)
CFIP vs. other measures 25 vs. 23 17% vs. 7% -0.030 vs. -0.232 9.168**
Student vs. non-student 35 vs. 13 10% vs. 6% -0.108 vs. -0.245 3.002**
U.S. vs. other countries 21 vs. 27 9% vs. 10% -0.050 vs. -0.238 9.265**
Willingness to provide personal
information (Self-disclosure)
CFIP vs. other measures 3 vs. 36 100% vs. 8% -0.319 vs. -0.244 6.604*
Student vs. non-student 12 vs. 27 27% vs. 7% -0.195 vs. -0.267 4.556**
U.S. vs. other countries 33 vs. 6 10% vs. 7% -0.242 vs. -0.278 0.557 (n.s.)
Attitude
CFIP vs. other measures 14 vs. 8 4% vs. 1% -0.283 vs. -0.202 0.569 (n.s)
Student vs. non-student 14 vs. 8 2% vs. 2% -0.095 vs. -0.397 4.728**
U.S. vs. other countries 9 vs. 13 3% vs. 1% -0.411 vs. -0.167 4.556**
Privacy risk
CFIP vs. other measures 12 vs. 18 2% vs. 3% 0.184 vs. 0.560 5.937**
Student vs. non-student 20 vs. 10 2% vs. 3% 0.315 vs. 0.579 7.390**
U.S. vs. other countries 19 vs. 11 3% vs. 3% 0.230 vs. 0.659 10.673**
Trust
CFIP vs. other measures 16 vs. 44 4% vs. 7% 0.018 vs. -0.188 3.371**
Student vs. non-student 37 vs. 23 6% vs. 4% -0.080 vs. -0.236 4.108**
U.S. vs. other countries 38 vs. 22 4% vs.6% -0.111 vs. -0.161 14.889**
Experience
CFIP vs. other measures 9 vs. 5 40% vs. 87% 0.003 vs. -0.022 0.749 (n.s.)
Student vs. non-student 9 vs. 5 45% vs. 59% 0.003 vs. -0.023 1.209 (n.s.)
U.S. vs. other countries 16 vs. 8 27% vs. 2% 0.057 vs. 0.020 1.260 (n.s.)
Awareness/Knowledge
CFIP vs. other measures 16 vs. 8 27% vs. 20% 0.057 vs. 0.020 0.410 (n.s.)
Student vs. non-student 17 vs. 7 26% vs. 2% 0.061 vs. 0.013 0.477 (n.s.)
U.S. vs. other countries 20 vs. 4 8% vs. 3% 0.103 vs. -0.069 2.090 (n.s.)
Usefulness
CFIP vs. other measures 16 vs. 6 27% vs. 4% -0.047 vs. 0.156 2.776*
Student vs. non-student 18vs. 4 8% vs.24% 0.098 vs. 0.020 2.787*
U.S. vs. other countries 7 vs. 15 50% vs. 6% 0.063 vs. 0.078 0.310 (n.s.)
Privacy control
CFIP vs. other measures 5 vs. 7 33% vs. 1% -0.464 vs. -0.126 2.357†
Student vs. non-student 4 vs. 8 1% vs. 3% -0.246 vs. -0.230 0.110 (n.s.)
U.S. vs. other countries 4 vs. 8 7% vs. 20% -0.314 vs. -0.134 1.068 (n.s.)
Note: ** significant at p<0.01, * significant at p<0.05, and † significant at p<0.1

Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014 7

IS Security and Privacy

Expected Contribution and Plans for Completion

This research conducts a quantitative meta-analytic review of empirical studies investigating the
theoretical relationships between online information privacy concerns and other relevant variables. This
study intends to integrate prior findings and resolve their inconsistencies by introducing moderators. The
literature search result suggests that most frequently tested variables include user experience,
awareness/knowledge, usefulness, privacy control, privacy risk, willingness to transact, willingness to
provide personal information, trust, and attitude. The preliminary results of meta-analysis show that
privacy risk, privacy control, willingness to provide personal information, and attitude are strongly
associated with information privacy concern while awareness/knowledge, usefulness, willingness to
transact, and trust are relatively weakly, albeit statistically significant, associated with it. The effect of
experience is found to be insignificant based on the analysis of 14 correlations.
The three moderators – measure instrument, sample characteristics, and culture/nationality – show
significant effects on several theoretical relationships. Overall, CFIP tends to produce a smaller effect size
than other measures such as IUIPC. Non-student subjects tend to show stronger effects than student
subjects. With a few exceptions, the subjects from the United States demonstrate weaker effects than
those from other countries. These findings support that contexts and research methods matter to the
study of information privacy concerns.
To complete this research, we will run additional analyses by introducing more moderators such as
technological contexts. In addition, we will use meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM)
techniques (Viswesvaran and Ones 1995) to delve deeper into a subset of the variables that have been
most tested. MASEM is considered more rigorous than bivariate correlation analysis. Furthermore, it
could uncover significant relationships between variables that prior studies overlooked. The bivariate
correlation analysis and the MASEM analysis will be complement to each other and are expected to
generate different insights on the relationships related to online information privacy concern. We plan to
report both results at the conference.

References
Ackerman, M. S. 2004. “Privacy in Pervasive Environments: Next generation Labeling Protocols,”
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing (8:6), pp 430-439.
Acquisti, A. 2004. “Privacy in Electronic Commerce and the Economics of Immediate Gratification,” in
Proceedings of the 5th ACM Electronic Commerce Conference, New York: ACM Press, pp 21-29.
*Alexander, P. S. 2001. The interface between consumers and commercial internet sites: Information
privacy concerns and fair information practice/privacy statements. (Order No. 3003734, The
University of Memphis). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
*Anderson, C. L. and Agarwal, R. 2011. “The Digitization of Healthcare: Boundary Risks, Emotion, and
Consumer Willingness to Disclose Personal Health Information,” Information Systems Research
(22:3), pp 469-490.
*Angst, C. M. and Agarwal, R. 2009. “Adoption of Electronic Health Records in the Presence of Privacy
Concerns: The Elaboration Likelihood Model and Individual Persuasion,” MIS Quarterly (33:2), pp
339-370.
*Awad, N. F. and Krishnan, M. S. 2006. “The Personalization Privacy Paradox: An Empirical Evaluation
of Information Transparency and the Willingness to be Profiled Online for Personalization. MIS
Quarterly (30:1), pp 13-28.
*Ball, K., Daniel, E. M., and Stride, C. 2012. “Dimensions of Employee Privacy: An Empirical Study,”
Information Technology & People (25:4), pp 376-394.
*Bansal, G. 2008. Three research essays on examining online privacy concerns: The role of personal
dispositions, context, and privacy-assurance features. (Order No. 3332164, The University of
Wisconsin - Milwaukee). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
*Bansal, G. and Zahedi, F. M. 2010. “Trading Trust for Discount: Does Frugality Moderate the Impact of
Privacy and Security Concerns?” in Proceedings of AMCIS 2010, Paper 417.
*Bansal, G., Zahedi, F. M., and Gefen, D. 2010. “The Impact of Personal Dispositions on Information
Sensitivity, Privacy Concern and Trust in Disclosing Health Information Online,” Decision Support
Systems (49:2), pp 138-150.

8 Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014

 Meta-Analytic Review of Online Information Privacy Concerns

*Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Tucker, J. S., Weathers, V., Bertolino, M., Erdogan, B. and Campion, M. A.
2006. “Selection in the Information Age: The Impact of Privacy Concerns and Computer Experience
on Applicant Reactions. Journal of Management (32:5), pp 601-621.
Belanger, F., Hiller, J. S., and Smith, W. J. 2002. "Trustworthiness in Electronic Commerce: The Role of
Privacy, Security, and Site Attributes," The Journal of Strategic Information Systems (11:3), pp 245-
270.
Belanger, F., and Crossler, R. E. 2011. "Privacy in the Digital Age: A Review of Information Privacy
Research in Information Systems," MIS Quarterly (35:4), pp 1017-1042.
*Bellman, S., Johnson, E. J., Kobrin, S. J., and Lohse, G. L. 2004. “International Differences in
Information Privacy Concerns: A Global Survey of Consumers,” Information Society (20:5), pp 313-
324.
Bennett, C. J. 1995. The Political Economy of Privacy: A Review of the Literature, Hackensack, NJ: Center
for Social and Legal Research.
*Brecht, F., Fabian, B., Kunz, S., and Mueller, S. 2011. “Are You Willing to Wait Longer for Internet
Privacy?” in Proceedings of ECIS 2011, Paper 236.
*Buchanan, T., Paine, C., Joinson, A. N., and Reips, U. D. 2007. “Development of Measures of Online
Privacy Concern and Protection for Use on the Internet,” Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology (58:2), pp 157-165.
*Chai, S., Das, S., and Rao, H. R. 2008. “An Exploratory Study of Bloggers' Information Sharing Behavior:
The Role of Online Privacy Concerns,” in Proceedings of AMCIS 2008, Paper 282.
*Chai, S., Das, S., and Rao, H R. 2011. “Factors Affecting Bloggers' Knowledge Sharing: An Investigation
across Gender,” Journal of Management Information Systems (28:3), pp 309-342.
*Choi, C. F. B. and Jiang Z. J. 2013. “Responses to Social Predicament on Online Social Networks,” in
Proceedings of AMCIS 2013.
*Chen, W. K., Huang, H. C., and Chou, S. C. T. 2012. “Understanding What Determines Consumers'
Expanded Use of Mobile Videophones,” Behaviour & Information Technology (31:10), pp 953-967.
*Chua, Z. and Jiang, Z. J. 2006. “Effects of Anonymity Media Richness and Chat-Room Activeness on
Online Chatting Experience,” in Proceedings of ECIS 2006, Paper 153.
Clarke, R. 1999. “Internet Privacy Concerns Confirm the Case for Intervention,” Communications of the
ACM (42:2), pp 60-67.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., and LePine, J. A. 2007. "Trust, Trustworthiness, and Trust Propensity: A
Meta-Analytic Test of Their Unique Relationships with Risk Taking and Job Performance," Journal of
Applied Psychology (92:4), pp 909-927.
*Dinev, T., Bellotto, M., Hart, P., Russo, V., Serra, I., and Colautti, C. 2006. “Internet Users' Privacy
Concerns and Beliefs about Government Surveillance: An Exploratory Study of Differences between
Italy and the United States,” Journal of Global Information Management (14:4), pp 57-93.
*Dinev, T., Bellotto, M., Hart, P., Russo, V., Serra, I., and Colautti, C. 2006. “Privacy Calculus Model in e-
commerce - A Study of Italy and the United States,” European Journal of Information Systems (15),
pp 389-402.
*Dinev, T., Dinev, P., Hart, P. 2006. “Internet Privacy Concerns and Social Awareness as Determinants of
Intention to Transact,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce (10:2), pp 7-29.
Dinev, T., and Hart, P. 2004. "Internet Privacy Concerns and Their Antecedents - Measurement Validity
and a Regression Model," Behaviour & Information Technology (23:6), pp 413-422.
*Dinev, T. and Hart, P. 2006a. “An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for e-commerce Transactions,”
Information Systems Research (17:1), pp 61-80.
*Dinev, T. and Hart, P. 2006b. “Privacy Concerns and Levels of Information Exchange: An Empirical
Investigation of Intended e-services Use,” e-Service Journal (4:3), pp 25-59.
*Dinev, T., Hart, P., and Mullen, M. R. 2008. “Internet Privacy Concerns and Beliefs about Government
Surveillance - An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of Strategic Information Systems (17:3), pp 214-
233.
*Dinev, T., Xu, H., and Smith, H. J. 2009. “Information Privacy Values, Beliefs and Attitudes: An
Empirical Analysis of Web 2.0 Privacy,” in Proceedings of 42nd Hawaii International Conference.
*Earp, J. B. and Payton, F. C. 2006. “Information Privacy in the Service Sector: An Exploratory Study of
Health Care and Banking Professionals,” Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic
Commerce (16:2), pp 105-122.
*Faja, S. and Trimi, S. 2006. “Influence of the Web Vendor’s Interventions on Privacy-Related Behaviors
in e-commerce,” Communications of the Association for Information Systems (17), pp 2-68.

Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014 9

IS Security and Privacy

Field, A. P. 2001. "Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: a Monte Carlo comparison of fixed-and

random-effects methods," Psychological methods (6:2), pp 161-180.
*Goonawardene, N., Jiang, J., Tan, S.S., and Jiang, Z. 2013. “Online Health Information Seeking and
Adolescents’ Intention towards Health Self-Management,” in Proceedings of PAIS 2013, Paper 174.
*Guo, X., Sun, Y., Yan, Z., and Wang, N. 2012. “Privacy-Personalization Paradox in Adoption of Mobile
Health Service: The Mediating Role of Trust,” in Proceedings of PAICS 2012, Paper 27.
*Ho, S. Y. and Chau, P. Y. 2013. “The Effects of Location Personalization on Integrity Trust and Integrity
Distrust in Mobile Merchants,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce (17:4), pp 39-72.
Hunter, J. E., and Schmidt, F. L. 2004. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research
findings: Sage Publications.
*Jiang, Z. J., Heng, C. S., and Choi, B. C. 2013. “Privacy Concerns and Privacy-Protective Behavior in
Synchronous Online Social Interactions,” Information Systems Research (24:3), pp 579-595.
*Joinson, A. N., Reips, U. D., Buchanan, T., and Schofield, C. B. P. 2010. “Privacy, Trust, and Self-
Disclosure Online,” Human-Computer Interaction (25:1) pp 1-24.
Joseph, D., Ng, K. Y., Koh, C., and Soon, A. 2007. "Turnover of Information Technology Professionals: A
Narrative Review, Meta-analytic Structural Equation Modeling, and Model Development," MIS
Quarterly (31:3), pp 547-577.
*Jung, E. J., Lankton, N., McKnight, H., and Jung, E. 2012. “Three Processes that Form Online Social
Networking Post-Adoptive Use Intention,” in Proceedings of AMCIS 2012, Paper 3.
*Jung, E.J., McKnight, H., Jung, E., and Lankton, N. 2011. “The Surprising Lack of Effect of Privacy
Concerns on Intention to Use Online Social Networks,” in Proceedings of AMCIS 2011, Paper 285.
*Junglas, I. A., Johnson, N. A., and Spitzmuller, C. 2008. “Personality Traits and Concern for Privacy: An
Empirical Study in the Context of Location-based Services,” European Journal of Information
Systems (17) pp 387-402.
*Keith, M. J., Babb, J. S., and Lowry, P. B. 2014. “A Longitudinal Study of Information Privacy on Mobile
Devices,” in Proceedings of 47th Hawaii International Conference.
*Kim, D. J. 2008. “Self-Perception-Based versus Transference-Based Trust Determinants in Computer-
Mediated Transactions: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Study,” Journal of Management Information
Systems (24:4), pp 13-45.
*Kim, H. 2013. Exploring the Effects of Perceived Relevance and Privacy Concerns on Consumer
Responses to Online Behavioral Advertising. Order No. 1547861, University of Minnesota). ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses.
King, W. R., and He, J. 2005. "Understanding the Role and Methods of Meta-Analysis in IS Research,”
Communications of the Association for Information Systems (16), pp 665-686.
*Korzaan, M. L. and Boswell, K. T. 2008. “The Influence of Personality Traits and Information Privacy
Concerns on Behavioral Intentions,” Journal of Computer Information Systems (48:4), pp 15-24.
*Krasnova, H., Kolesnikova, E., and Guenther, O. 2009. “It Won't Happen to Me!: Self-Disclosure in
Online Social Networks,” in Proceedings of AMCIS 2009, Paper 343.
*Krasnova, H., Kolesnikova, E., and Guenther, O. 2010. “Leveraging Trust and Privacy Concerns in Online
Social Networks: An Empirical Study,” in Proceedings of ECIS 2010, Paper 160.
*Ku, Y. C., Chen, R., and Zhang, H. 2013. “Why Do Users Continue Using Social Networking Sites? An
Exploratory Study of Members in the United States and Taiwan,” Information & Management (50:7),
pp 571-581.
*Kumar, N., Mohan, K., and Holowczak, R. 2008. “Locking the Door but Leaving the Computer
Vulnerable: Factors Inhibiting Home Users' Adoption of Software Firewalls, Decision Support
Systems (46:1), pp 254-264.
*Kwon, J. 2010. Essays on Information Risk Management in Electronic Markets. (Order No. 3444806,
Purdue University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
*Lankton, N. K. 2013. “A Quantitative and Qualitative Study of Facebook Privacy using the Antecedent-
Privacy Concern-Outcome Macro Model,” in Proceedings of AMCIS 2013.
*Lareau, L. S. C. 2011. Understanding Online Self-Disclosure through Emerging Privacy Concerns and
Norms: A Mixed-Method Approach. (Order No. 1501862, Purdue University). ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses.
Lee, G., and Xia, W. 2006. "Organizational Size and IT Innovation Adoption: A Meta-Analysis,"
Information & Management (43:8), pp 975-985.
*Li, H., Sarathy, R., and Xu, H. 2011. “The Role of Affect and Cognition on Online Consumers' Decision to
Disclose Personal Information to Unfamiliar Online Vendors,” Decision Support Systems (51:3), pp

10 Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014

 Meta-Analytic Review of Online Information Privacy Concerns

434-445.
*Li, T., Pavlou, P., and dos Santos, G. 2013. “What Drives Users’ Website Registration? A Randomized
Field Experiment,” in Proceedings of ICIS 2013.
*Li, T. and Unger, T. 2012. “Willing to Pay for Quality Personalization? Trade-Off Between Quality and
Privacy,” European Journal of Information Systems (21), pp 621-642.
Li, Y. 2011. "Empirical Studies on Online Information Privacy Concerns: Literature Review and an
Integrative Framework," Communications of the Association for Information Systems (28), pp 453-
496.
Li, Y. 2012. "Theories in Online Information Privacy Research: A Critical Review and an Integrated
Framework," Decision Support Systems (54:1), pp 471-481.
*Li, Y. 2014. “The Impact of Disposition to Privacy, Website Reputation and Website Familiarity on
Information Privacy Concerns,” Decision Support Systems (57), pp 343-354.
*Li, Y. & Chang, K. 2012. “A Study on User Acceptance of Cloud Computing: A Multi-Theoretical
Perspective,” in Proceedings of AMCIS 2012, Paper 19.
*Liao, C. C., Liu, C. C., and Chen, K. C. 2011. “Examining the Impact of Privacy, Trust and Risk
Perceptions beyond Monetary Transactions: An Integrated Model,” Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications (10:6) pp 702-715.
*Liao, C., To, P. L., Hsieh, T., and Liu, C. 2009. “An Empirical Study of Factors Influencing the Adoption
of Internet Banking,” in Proceedings of AMCIS 2009, Paper 753.
*Lo, J. and Riemenschneider, C. 2010. “An Examination of Privacy Concerns and Trust Entities in
Determining Willingness to Disclose Personal Information on a Social Networking Site, in
Proceedings of AMCIS 2010, Paper 46.
*Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., and Agarwal, J. 2004. “Internet Users' Information Privacy Concerns
(IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model,” Information Systems Research (15:4), pp
336-355.
*McKnight, D. H., Lankton, N., and Tripp, J. 2011. “Social Networking Information Disclosure and
Continuance Intention: A Disconnect,” in Proceedigns of 44th Hawaii International Conference.
*Midha, V. 2012. “Impact of Consumer Empowerment on Online Trust: An Examination across Genders,”
Decision Support Systems (54:1), pp 198-205.
*Milberg, S. J., Smith, H. J., and Burke, S. J. 2000. “Information Privacy: Corporate Management and
National Regulation,” Organization Science (11:1), pp 35-57.
*Mohamed, N. and 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
2366-2375.
*Nakos, J. D. 2003. Informational Privacy Concerns and Information Practices. (Order No. 3100241,
Capella University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
*Odeyinde, O. B. 2013. Information Privacy Concerns of undergraduate Students in a Nigerian University
and Their Willingness to Provide Personal Information to Transact on the Internet. (Order No.
3605643, Wilmington University (Delaware). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
*Okazaki, S., Molina, F. J., and Hirose, M. 2012. “Mobile Advertising Avoidance: Exploring the Role of
Ubiquity,” Electronic Markets (22:3), pp 169-183.
*Park, I. 2009. “The Study on the Relationship between Privacy Concerns and Information Systems
Effectiveness,” in Proceedings of ICIS 2009, Paper 153.
Pavlou, P. A. 2011. "State of the Information Privacy Literature: Where Are We Now and Where Should
We Go?," MIS Quarterly (35:4), pp 977-988.
*Pavlou, P. A., Huigang, L., and Yajiong, X. 2007. “Understanding and Mitigating Uncertainty in Online
Exchange Relationships: A Principal-Agent Perspective,” MIS Quarterly (31:1), pp 105-136.
Peterson, R. A., and Kim, Y. 2013. "On the Relationship Between Coefficient Alpha and Composite
Reliability," Journal of Applied Psychology (98:1), pp 194-198.
*Pramatari, K. and Theotokis, A. 2009. “Consumer Acceptance of RFID-Enabled Services: A Model of
Multiple Attitudes, Perceived System Characteristics and Individual Traits,” European Journal of
Information Systems (18), pp 541-552.
*Plummer, M. M. 2009. “Recruitment in Social Network Sites: The Interplay between Usefulness and
Risks in Explaining Jobseekers' Intentions,” in Proceedings of AMCIS 2009 Doctoral Consortium,
Paper 19.
*Ray, S., Ow, T., and Kim, S. S. 2011. “Security Assurance: How Online Service Providers can Influence
Security Control Perceptions and Gain Trust,” Decision Sciences (42:2), pp 391-412.

Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014 11

IS Security and Privacy

*Schwaig, K. S., Segars, A. H., Grover, V., and Fiedler, K. D. 2013. “A Model of Consumers' Perceptions of
the Invasion of Information Privacy,” Information & Management (50:1), pp 1-12.
Sharma, R., and Yetton, P. 2007. "The Contingent Effects of Training, Technical Complexity, and Task
Interdependence of Successful Information Systems Implementation,” MIS Quarterly (31:2), pp 219-
238.
Sharma, R., Yetton, P., and Crawford, J. 2009. "Estimating the Effect of Common Method Variance: The
Method-Method Pair Technique with an Illustration from TAM Research,” MIS Quarterly (33:3), pp
473-413.
*Shih, D. H., Hsu, S. F., Yen, D. C., and Lin, C. C. 2012. “Exploring the Individual's Behavior on Self-
Disclosure Online,” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (28:10), pp 627-645.
*Shukla, P. 2014. “The Impact of Organizational Efforts on Consumer Concerns in an Online Cntext,”
nformation & Management (51:1), pp 113-119.
Skinner, G., Han, S., and Chang, E. 2006. "An Information Privacy Taxonomy for Collaborative
Environments," Information Management & Computer Security (14:4), pp 382-394.
*Smit, E.G.,, van Noort, G., and Voorveld, H. A. 2014. “Understanding Online Behavioural Advertising:
User Knowledge, Privacy Concerns and Online Coping Behaviour in Europe,” Computers in Human
Behavior (32), pp 15-22.
Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., and Xu, H. 2011. "Information Privacy Research: An Interdisciplinary Review,"
MIS Quarterly (35:4), pp 989-1016.
Smith, H. J., Milberg, S. J., and Burke, S. J. 1996. "Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals' Concerns
about Organizational Practices," MIS Quarterly (20:2), pp 167-196.
*Son, J. Y. and Kim, S. 2008. “Internet Users' Information Privacy-Protective Responses: A Taxonomy
and a Nomological Model,” MIS Quarterly (32:3), pp 503-529.
Stewart, K. A., and Segars, A. H. 2002. "An Empirical Examination of the Concern for Information
Privacy Instrument," Information Systems Research (13:1), pp 36-49.
Stone, E. F., Gueutal, H. G., Gardner, D. G., and McClure, S. 1983. "A Field Experiment Comparing
Information-Privacy Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes Across Several Types of Organizations," Journal of
Applied Psychology (68:3), pp 459-468.
*Taddei, S. and Contena, B. 2013. “Privacy, Trust and Control: Which Relationships with Online Self-
Disclosure?” Computers in Human Behavior (29:3), pp 821-826.
*Taylor, D. G., Davis, D. F., and Jillapalli, R. 2009. “Privacy Concern and Online Personalization: The
Moderating Effects of Information Control and Compensation,” Electronic Commerce Research (9:3),
pp 203-223.
*van Slyke, C., Shim, J. T., Johnson, R., and Jiang, J. 2006. “Concern for Information Privacy and Online
Consumer Purchasing,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems (7:1), pp 415-443.
*von Stetten, A., Wild, U., and Chrennikow, W. 2011. “Adopting Social Network Sites – The Role of
Individual IT Culture and Privacy Concerns,” in Proceedings of AMCIS 2011, Paper 290.
Wagner III, J. A., and Gooding, R. Z. 1987. "Effects of Societal Trends on Participation Research,"
Administrative Science Quarterly (32), pp 241-262.
*Wang, Y. and Midha, V. 2012. “User Self-Disclosure on Health Social Networks: A Social Exchange
Perspective,” in Proceedings of ICIS 2012.
Wu, J., and Lu, X. 2013. "Effects of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivators on Using Utilitarian, Hedonic, and
Dual-Purposed Information Systems: A Meta-Analysis," Journal of the Association for Information
Systems (14:3), pp 153-191.
Wu, J., and Lederer, A. 2009. "A Meta-Analysis of the Role of Environment-Based Voluntariness in
Information Technology Acceptance,” MIS Quarterly (33:2), pp 419-432.
*Xu, H. 2010. “Locus of Control and Location Privacy: An Empirical Study in Singapore,” Journal of
Global Information Technology Management (13:2), pp 63-87.
*Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, J., and Hart, P. 2011. “Information Privacy Concerns: Linking Individual
Perceptions with Institutional Privacy Assurances,” Journal of the Association for Information
Systems (12:12), pp 798-824.
*Xu, H. and Gupta, S. 2009. “The Effects of Privacy Concerns and Personal Innovativeness on Potential
and Experienced Customers’ Adoption of Location-Based Service,” Electronic Markets (19:2-3), pp
137-149.
*Xu, H., Gupta, S., Rosson, M. B., and Carroll, J. M. 2012. “Measuring Mobile Users' Concerns for
Information Privacy” in Proceedings of ICIS 2012.
*Xu, H. and Teo, H. H. 2004. “Alleviating Consumers' Privacy Concerns in Location-Based Services: A

12 Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014

 Meta-Analytic Review of Online Information Privacy Concerns

Psychological Control Perspective,” in Proceedings of ICIS 2004, Paper 64.

*Xu, H., Teo, H. H., Tan, B. C., and Agarwal, R. 2012. “Effects of Individual Self-Protection, Industry Self-
Regulation, and Government Regulation on Privacy Concerns: A Study of Location-Based Services,”
Information Systems Research (23:4), pp 342-1363.
*Yao, M. Z., Rice, R. E., and Wallis, K. 2007. “Predicting User Concerns about Online Privacy,” Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology (58:5), pp 710-722.
*Yonce, C. A. 2011. Now Accepting Applications Online: An Examination of Privacy Concerns,
Explanations, and Control in Applicant Reactions to Internet-Based Selection Procedures. (Order No.
3459808, Portland State University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
*Zhang, N., Wang, C., and Xu, Y. 2011. “Privacy in Online Social Networks,” in Proceedings of ICIS 2011,
Paper 3.
*Zhao, L., Lu, Y. L., and Gupta, S. 2012. “Disclosure Intention of Location-Related Information in
Location-based Social Network Services,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce (16:4), pp
53-89.
*Zhao, X. 2012. Why We Disclose Differently: How Social Networking Site Affordances Affect Privacy
Concerns and Disclosure Practices in Cross-Cultural Contexts. (Order No. 1529886, Purdue
University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
*Zhou, T. 2013. “An Empirical Examination of User Adoption of Location-Based Services,” Electronic
Commerce Research (13:1), pp 25-39.
*Zimmer, J. C., Arsal, R., Al-Marzouq, M., Moore, D., and Grover, V. 2010. “Knowing Your Customers:
Using a Reciprocal Relationship to Enhance Voluntary Information Disclosure,” Decision Support
Systems (48:2), pp 395-406.

(Eighty-nine articles preceded with an asterisk are included in the meta-analysis.)

Thirty Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland 2014 13