Online Privacy Breaches, Offline Consequences: Construction and Validation of the Concerns with the Protection of Informational Privacy Scale

Abstract

Concerns with protecting privacy, especially of online data, has been a goal of privacy scholarship for years. Because most data are transferred online, many instruments focus on online environments. However, when privacy is invaded and data mishandled, the consequences, including the emotional ramifications, extend beyond the online space and into the offline world. Thus, we developed the CPIP, a measure of privacy concern. We were able to (1) determine the top four domains for informational privacy and (2) correlate that concern with emotional outcomes showing people with high concerns felt less calm, less at ease, and angrier, after reading prompts about the right to privacy protection. The CPIP predicts who experiences an emotional reaction to a loss of privacy and steps for Internet providers collecting data online to create a better balance for users and their privacy. This alignment (or misalignment) of attitudes and behaviors challenge the privacy paradox.

Did zoom bomb? Negative video conferencing meetings during COVID ‐19 undermined worker subjective productivity

“…Furthermore, our results demonstrate how online interactions can have offline consequences in a real‐world setting, such that poor quality video conferencing meetings (i.e., online interactions) lead to feelings of anxiety and have negative downstream consequences on subjective productivity (i.e., offline consequences). This finding replicates past research on how those who have concerns with their privacy on the internet also have lingering feelings of anxiety afterwards (Durnell et al, 2020), which raises future research questions of how to make users feel more positive when interacting with technology so that subsequent offline consequences are minimized or diminished.…”

PrivyTo: A privacy‐preserving location‐sharing platform

“…There is a subset of the privacy literature that examines the privacy paradox : the discrepancy between users’ expressed privacy attitudes and their actual behavior (Barth & de Jong, 2017; Kokolakis, 2017; Norberg & Horne, 2007). When people experience intrusions of their data privacy, they experience a strong negative affective reaction (Budimir, Fontaine, and Roesch, 2021; Durnell, Okabe‐Miyamoto, Howell, &, Zizi, 2020). In short, as Coopamootoo and Groß (2017) state, violations of privacy engender fear.…”

“…Budimir et al (2021), however, find that the experience of a privacy breach actually can limit the likeliness of individuals to take actions to protect their privacy in the future. Durnell et al (2020) offer a resolution to this paradox, suggesting that while people care about their privacy, they feel they have no “volitional control.” Similarly, Coopamootoo (2018) explains why individuals who fear privacy breaches fail to protect their privacy in terms of a lack of self‐efficacy. Other research examining social networking applications concurs, arguing that individuals experience a feeling of a loss of agency or control over their personal data (Chen & Chen, 2015; Rzeszewski & Luczys, 2018).…”

Hands-off? Lessons from high-touch professionals about going virtual

“…Judgments of affective trust are highly susceptible to perceived breaches in privacy. Service professionals need to establish strong policies, procedures and technology to guard against any perceived weaknesses in how clients’ personal information collected online is managed (e.g., Durnell, 2020 ). This means that priority needs to be given to data safety, security and storage.…”

“… Brewster et al, 2014 ; Durnell et al, 2020 ; Hall and McGraw, 2014 ; Papacharissi and Easton, 2013 .…”