Empirically Investigating Extraneous Influences on the “APCO” Model—Childhood Brand Nostalgia and the Positivity Bias

Abstract

Pokémon Go is one of the most successful mobile games of all time. Millions played and still play this mobile augmented reality (AR) application, although severe privacy issues are pervasive in the app due to its use of several sensors such as location data and camera. In general, individuals regularly use online services and mobile apps although they might know that the use is associated with high privacy risks. This seemingly contradictory behavior of users is analyzed from a variety of different perspectives in the information systems domain. One of these perspectives evaluates privacy-related decision making processes based on concepts from behavioral economics. We follow this line of work by empirically testing one exemplary extraneous factor within the “enhanced APCO model” (antecedents–privacy concerns–outcome). Specific empirical tests on such biases are rare in the literature which is why we propose and empirically analyze the extraneous influence of a positivity bias. In our case, we hypothesize that the bias is induced by childhood brand nostalgia towards the Pokémon franchise. We analyze our proposition in the context of an online survey with 418 active players of the game. Our results indicate that childhood brand nostalgia influences the privacy calculus by exerting a large effect on the benefits within the trade-off and, therefore, causing a higher use frequency. Our work shows two important implications. First, the behavioral economics perspective on privacy provides additional insights relative to previous research. However, the effects of several other biases and heuristics have to be tested in future work. Second, relying on nostalgia represents an important, but also double-edged, instrument for practitioners to market new services and applications.

Acceptance Factors of Privacy-Enhancing Technologies on the Basis of Tor and JonDonym

“…But so far it had not been applied to a PET such as an anonymization service. There is a major difference between PETs and other services, i. e., apps [30,35,53] or games [24,33] regarding the application of the IUIPC instrument. The other services had a certain use for their customer (primary use), and the users' privacy concerns were investigated for the use of the service.…”