Panic Attack: How Illegitimate Invasions of Privacy Cause Consumer Anxiety and Dissatisfaction

Abstract

This research fills a gap in the literature regarding face-to-face privacy invasions. Most research in the privacy arena examines information privacy (e.g., credit card and data information) and ignores the privacy component of face-to-face interactions. Using three studies, the authors explore the impact of physical and visual invasions on privacy control. The findings show that only one dimension of privacy needs to be invaded for consumers to feel less control over their privacy. Perceptions of privacy control have a negative relationship with satisfaction, as mediated through feelings of anxiety. Importantly, two invasions do not have a greater impact than one, and a legitimate reason for physical or visual invasions can lessen the negative consequences in terms of anxiety and satisfaction. These results have important theoretical and practical implications for marketers aiming to design satisfying consumption experiences that also preserve consumer welfare.

Too close for comfort? The impact of salesperson‐customer proximity on consumers' purchase behavior

“…Our close distance falls within the personal space zone, our medium distance falls within the social zone (4–12 feet), and our far distance belongs to the public zone (beyond 12 feet), which usually characterizes formal speeches and passersby (Hall, 1966; McElroy et al, 1990; Welsch et al, 2019). Note that the distinction between the close and medium distance conditions is substantially smaller than those examined in previous related work, which has typically contrasted distances of 1 foot (30 cm) with distances of 10 feet (≈3 m; Esmark & Noble, 2018) or even 15 feet (≈4.6 m; Esmark Jones et al, 2020). Our medium proximity condition arguably represents a more typical interpersonal distance in retail settings, thus adding further theoretical insights and strengthening the practical implications of our work.…”

“…Third, unlike prior work in this area that has only examined the divergent influence of two personal space zones on consumer outcomes (e.g., Argo et al, 2005; Esmark & Noble, 2018; Esmark Jones et al, 2020; Jacob & Guéguen, 2012; Xu et al, 2012), we investigated consumer responses to salesperson‐customer proximity across three distinct personal space zones (i.e., the personal, social, and public zone) and uncover a linear relationship between the two. Interestingly, our findings suggest that the most positive consumer responses occur in the largely overlooked public zone, even compared to the more common social zone in which most interactions with salespeople take place.…”

“…However, a large body of research has shown that consumers are often wary of salespeople's ulterior persuasion motives and view them as separate social entities with different underlying goals (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000; Dahl et al, 2012; Friestad & Wright, 1994; Main et al, 2007). In fact, the mere perception of being watched by employees can reduce perceptions of privacy, with negative downstream consequences for patronage intentions (Esmark et al, 2017) and customer satisfaction (Esmark Jones et al, 2020), suggesting that interactions with salespeople are not always positive.…”

“…Notably, this is a particularly conservative test of our predictions given that we hold the purchase context itself constant (i.e., a sportswear purchase) and systematically highlight the identity‐signaling versus functional nature of products. Additionally, given prior work demonstrating that the mere perception of being watched can generate negative consumer responses (Esmark et al, 2017; Esmark Jones et al, 2020), we hold salesperson gaze constant in this study to isolate the impact of salesperson‐customer proximity. Finally, we aim to further rule out persuasion knowledge and ulterior motives as alternative explanations for our results.…”

What Exactly Is Marketing and Public Policy? Insights for JPPM Researchers

“…As privacy becomes more prominent, and as consumers and companies embrace more privacy-focused products and services, JPPM research continues to examine the interplay between marketing research and public policy practice. Recent research examines a specific European Union regulation around privacy, the General Data Protection Regulation (Bornschein, Schmidt, and Maier 2020), and the effects of privacy invasions on consumers (Esmark Jones et al 2020). Research on children's online privacy protection (Andrews, Walker, and Kees 2020) informs specific contexts and implications of federal policy such as COPPA and industry compliance efforts (CARU).…”