Privacy concerns can greatly hinder consumers' intentions to interact with a website. The success of a website therefore depends on its ability to improve consumers' perceptions of privacy assurance. Seals and assurance statements are mechanisms often used to increase this assurance; however, the findings of the extant literature regarding the effectiveness of these tools are mixed. We propose a model based on the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) that explains conditions under which privacy assurance is more or less effective, clarifying the contradictory findings in previous literature. We test our model in a free-simulation online experiment, and the results of the analysis indicate that the inclusion of assurance statements and the combination, understanding, and assurance of seals influence privacy assurance. Privacy assurance is most effective when seals and statements are accompanied by the peripheral cues of website quality and brand image and when counterargumentation-through transaction risk-is minimized. Importantly, we show ELM to be an appropriate theoretical lens to explain the equivocal results in the literature. Finally, we suggest theoretical and practical implications.

Interest in the repertory grid technique has been growing in the IS field. This article seeks to inform the reader on the proper use and application of the technique in IS research. The methodology has unique advantages that make it suitable for many research settings. In this tutorial, we describe the technique, its theoretical underpinnings, and how it may be used by IS researchers. We conclude by detailing many IS research opportunities that exist in respect to the repertory grid technique.

Abstract

Although some studies have shown that haptic and visual identification seem to rely on similar processes, few studies have directly compared the two. We investigated haptic and visual object identification by asking participants to learn to recognize (Experiments 1, and 3), or to match (Experiment 2) novel objects that varied only in shape. Participants explored objects haptically, visually, or bimodally, and were then asked to identify objects haptically and/or visually. We demonstrated that patterns of identification errors were similar across identification modality, independently of learning and testing condition, suggesting that the haptic and visual representations in memory were similar. We also demonstrated that identification performance depended on both learning and testing conditions: visual identification surpassed haptic identification only when participants explored the objects visually or bimodally. When participants explored the objects haptically, haptic and visual identification were equivalent. Interestingly, when participants were simultaneously presented with two objects (one was presented haptically, and one was presented visually), object similarity only influenced performance when participants were asked to indicate whether the two objects were the same, or when participants had learned about the objects visually-without any haptic input. The results suggest that haptic and visual object representations rely on similar processes, that they may be shared, and that visual processing may not always lead to the best performance.

Software agents with the ability to recommend actions, aid decision-making, and actually make decisions are becoming increasingly common. In many situations, users now choose whether or not to delegate tasks to these agents. While some research has examined software agents, relatively little is known about the factors that influence the intention to delegate decisions to them. An experiment was used to examine the influence of perceived accountability, extent of control, and trust in the agent on the intention to delegate a travel arrangement decision. Users were more likely to delegate to agents that gave them greater control by requiring them to approve the agent's recommendation before the decision was completed than to agents that performed the task autonomously without intervention after it was delegated. Contrary to expectations, intention to delegate increased as perceived accountability increased. Participants may perceive delegation as a means to shift blame from themselves to the agent and thus mitigate risk resulting from potential negative decision outcomes.