Privacy concerns and
online brand communities
Mark Siekman 29-08-2015
Privacy concerns and
online brand communities
Mark Siekman Master Thesis Marketing RijksUniversiteit Groningen 29-08-2015 Student number: 1729535 Mark Siekman Oosterveldsestraat 180 7826 HB Emmen Phone: 0624138892 E-mail: m.j.siekman@student.rug.nl
First supervisor: Professor P.C. Verhoef
Management summary
This study measured several constructs, including the predicting role of personality traits on privacy concerns. Privacy concerns influence the behavioral intentions of an individual and can be an indicator for managers of what kind of individuals their brand community attracts. In literature, I found two beliefs that have an effect on the intentional behavior of a customer, namely trust and risk. In this research, I tested the suggested influence.
The personality traits neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness and
conscientiousness are all antecedents and predictors for the privacy concerns of an individual. Our sample consisted individuals from the Netherlands. Marketers should be aware of the personality traits that influence privacy concerns. They should take this into account when they develop marketing programs for the Dutch market.
The influence of trust and risk towards providing and receiving information was measured. Privacy concerns have a negative effect on trust beliefs, while they have a positive effect on risk beliefs. There was no support for a significant effect of trust for both providing and receiving information. The lowering effect of privacy concerns on information sending through a lowering effect of trust was not also significant.
Preface
I was interested in privacy concerns of individuals in online environments. Nowadays Internet is one of the most important ways to attract and interact with customers or potential
customers. One of the most important questions was: when are customers not willing to send or receive information.
I want to thank my family and friends for all their support during my study. Also for the times they took me away from my computer and do other things. In the last place, I want to thank Carmelcollege Emmen for the freedom they gave me to finish my study.
This thesis is dedicated to my uncle. He passed away in a few weeks after he got terrible news from his doctor. He showed his family to be strong and never give up. Although I had a difficult period (it was during writing my thesis), his words and positive attitude made me finish my thesis. A thank you note to him seems nothing more than appropriate.
Content
Management summary ... 3
Preface ... 4
Chapter 1 Introduction ... 6
Chapter 2 Theoretical background and research hypotheses ... 9
2.1 Privacy and online brand communities ... 9
2.2 Personality traits and privacy concerns ... 9
2.3 Privacy concerns, beliefs and the intention to send or receive information ... 13
Chapter 3 Research design ... 17
3.1 Personality traits and privacy concerns ... 18
3.2 Privacy concerns, beliefs and the intention to send or receive information ... 19
3.3 Descriptive results ... 20
Chapter 4 Results ... 22
4.1 Personality traits and privacy concerns ... 22
4.2 Privacy concerns, beliefs and the intention to send or receive information ... 23
Chapter 5 Conclusion and discussion... 25
Conclusion ... 25
Discussion ... 25
References ... 29
Chapter 1 Introduction
Many companies actively use the Internet, which is especially true in Europe. Of the
European companies with more than ten employees, 73 percent have a website and about 30 percent use social media to attract and serve customers (ANP, 2015). They do not use the Internet simply to sell their products, but also to collect information about products, explore new ideas or to build relationships with customers. To achieve these preceding aims,
companies try to attract customers to participate in their online brand communities. Customers can send or receive information about products, improvements, marketing campaigns or new ideas (Füller et al. 2008; Chang et al. 2013).
Although brand communities can be an important source of information for marketing
managers, consumers are not always willing to send or receive information (Smith et al. 2011; Malhotra et al. 2004; Smith et al. 1996). Their hesitance is related to privacy concerns.
Furthermore, Internet users (also members of online brand communities) are afraid that firms misuse their personal information (Smith et al. 2011; Malhotra et al. 2004).
According to Smith et al. (2011), there are three types of privacy: physical privacy, information privacy and general privacy (which contains both physical and information privacy). In this research, the term privacy is related to information privacy (Smith et al. 2011). Information privacy refers to “the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others” (Westin 1967, p. 7; Malhotra et al. 2004). Information privacy concerns relate to the consumers’ subjective views of fairness in regard to when, how and to what extent information personal information is communicated with others (Malhotra et al. 2004). In the IUIPC-model (Internet User’s Information Privacy Concerns) of Malhotra et al. (2004) the privacy concerns of Internet users are based on three factors: collection, control and awareness of privacy practices. The three factors of this model cover the ‘when’, ‘how’ and ‘to what extent’ of the information privacy definitions mentioned above (Malhotra et al. 2004).
Privacy concerns are influenced by an individual’s personality traits (Junglas et al. 2008). Several researchers found evidence that personality traits are antecedents for privacy concerns (Matzler et al. 2009; Matzler et al. 2011; Füller et al. 2008; Chang et al. 2013; Goldberg 1990; Goldberg 1992). Earlier research studied five personality traits: extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness. The personality traits were shortly called the ‘Big Five’ (Goldberg, 1992; Matzler et al. 2011; Junglas et al. 2008; Chang et al. 2013). Each personality trait has another influence on the privacy concerns of an
individual. Junglas et al. (2008) conducted research amongst students from a large university in the United States of America. Only three of the five personality traits had a significant influence on privacy concerns (agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience). In another study, car enthusiasts of an online brand community were asked for their privacy concerns. Of the five traits, only extraversion was a significant antecedent for predicting privacy concerns (Matzler et al. 2011). In this research, the antecedents for privacy concerns are tested. I aim to understand what the effects of the Big Five personality traits are on privacy concerns in online brand communities.
Interaction in an online brand community entails sending or receiving information (Chang et al. 2013). Chang et al. (2013) have done research on some situational traits (for instance identification with a community) as antecedents of sending or receiving information. Their research, however did not take privacy concerns into account, while other studies showed evidence that privacy concerns are antecedents of intentional behavior (Malhotra et al 2004; Bansal et al. 2010). I want to understand the effect of privacy concerns on sending or
receiving information in the context of online brand communities. I expect that privacy concerns have a negative influence, because it is a negative antecedent in relation to positive intentions.
In literature, much research has been conducted regarding Internet usage and privacy concerns in general, but none of this research is specific to the context of online brand communities. Only one paper (Matzler et al. 2011) focused on the indicated drivers of privacy concerns in an online brand community. It focused on car enthusiasts of one brand. Several papers
confirm that personality traits are predictors of privacy concerns (Smith et al. 2011, Junglas et al. 2008), but none of them tested the context of online brand communities.
Several papers found evidence that certain behavioral intentions can drive privacy concerns. A few papers discuss the influence of privacy concerns on sending information in general Internet usage (Malhotra et al. 2004, Bansal et al. 2010). In a paper from Chang et al. (2013), sending and receiving information are the behavioral intentions, but do not use privacy concerns as a predictor for behavioral intentions. In the context of general Internet usage, there is evidence that privacy concerns are an antecedent of intentional behavior (Malhotra et al. 2004, Bansal et al. 2010). The willingness to send information and the willingness to receive information (Füller et al. 2008) have never been tested in the context of brand communities and with privacy concerns as antecedent.
I seek to understand what drives privacy concerns in online brand communities and if privacy concerns have an effect on the behavioral intentions sending and receiving information in online brand communities. The research question, thus, is: ‘what are the drivers of privacy concern and what effect does privacy concerns have on the behavioral intentions in online brand communities?’
To find answers to this question, some research have been developed. The first is: ‘what is the effect of the big five personality traits on privacy concerns in online brand communities?’ The second research question is: ‘what is the effect of privacy concerns on the intention to send or receive information?’
I have conducted a literature research in order to form hypotheses that could give answers to these questions. After that, I have collected data from users of online brand communities in the Netherlands and then tested the hypotheses.
The first contribution of this study is that, to the best of my knowledge, it is the first such study that conducts research on privacy concerns in online brand communities. This contributes to literature, but also to practice (companies).
provides companies with an understanding of whether an individual has more or less privacy concerns. If companies gather information about consumers, then will know which consumers have a high degree of privacy concerns.
Secondly, I also study the impact of privacy concerns on the behavioral intentions of sending information and the willingness to receive information in online brand communities.
Although some research has been conducted in privacy concerns and behavioral intention, no research has been done specifically on privacy concerns and the behavioral intentions of sending and receiving information in the context of online brand communities. This research evaluates the role of trust and risk on sending and receiving information, which contributes to the understanding of whether a community member is willing to send or receive information in an online brand community. Hopefully, companies will be able to use these insights in their marketing plans.
In the next chapter, the literature research, hypotheses and the conceptual model are
Chapter 2 Theoretical background and research hypotheses
2.1 Privacy and online brand communities
The aforementioned privacy concerns are based on concerns of personal information
misusage. In the Antecedents Privacy Concerns Outcomes model of Smith et al. (2011), there are some proposed antecedents that can influence, enlarge or decrease the privacy concern of members. Antecedents that Smith et al. mentioned include personality differences, privacy experience, privacy awareness, demographic differences, and culture/climate.
Personality differences or traits affect individual privacy concerns (Smith et al. 2011).
Collection
The first factor related to privacy concerns is the collection of data. Marketers collect the personal information of individuals. If an individual provides personal information, he or she expects something in return. If the amount of information provided is not sufficient in
comparison to the outcomes (the returns), the individual may find it unfair. Individuals will be reluctant if they expect negative outcomes, and as a result, the collection of data is one of the factors of privacy concerns (Malhotra et al. 2004).
Control
Another factor of privacy concerns is control. Individuals want to have control of their own personal information and as consumer, take high risks in providing their personal information. If they have control over the procedures (what happens with their information), they find the procedures fair. A lack of such control will increase privacy concerns (Malhotra et al. 2004).
Awareness of privacy practices
The third and last factor is the awareness of privacy practices. It refers to the degree to which an individual is concerned about his awareness of organizational information privacy
practices. This factor consists of two types of justices: interactional and informational. Transparency and the properness of information during the procedures are the issues of interactional justice. If an individual thinks that a company is not transparent and/or is not honest in their communication about their treatment of information, the individual has greater privacy concerns. Informational justice refers to the disclosure of information. If an individual feels that his information is used improperly or are unsure of how their information will be used, then they will not provide their personal information (Malhotra et al. 2004).
Some possible outcomes of privacy concerns are that members intend to receive or do not receive information and/or do or do not provide information (sending). Marketing managers want information in order to reach (potential) customers or in order to achieve customer feedback (Smith et al. 2011; Chang et al. 2013; Malhotra et al., 2004).
2.2 Personality traits and privacy concerns
One of the antecedents for privacy concerns is ‘personal differences’, which can also be defined as the personal traits of a member. In marketing research, the ‘Big Five’ personality traits are adopted in several kinds of research. There is evidence that the ‘Big Five’
2009; Matzler et al. 2011; Füller et al. 2008; Chang et al. 2013; Goldberg 1990; Goldberg 1992). Junglas et al. (2008) conducted research amongst a student population in the United States of America, and in their research, the researchers stated that personality traits are stable beyond adulthood. Other research (Cobb-Clark & Schurer, 2013) found evidence that the personality traits are stable between 25 and 59 years old. Finally, personality traits are specific to individuals (Junglas et al. 2008).
In my research, I want to evaluate which personality traits are stable in online brand
communities. In a paper from Junglas et al. (2008), the sample included only students and in the article of Cobb-Clark & Schurer (2013), students were excluded. In our research, we focus on adult customers. Online brand communities influences members’ perceptions and actions (Muniz & Schau, 2005). Furthermore, active member participation leads to positive
intentional behavior (Algesheimer et al. 2005). In an online brand community, the intentional behaviors include sending and/or receiving information (Füller et al. 2008), which indicates that the intentional behavior should be greater in online brand communities than for instance in general Internet usage. If this is the case, an individual has less privacy concerns (Junglas et al. 2008) and is willing to provide information (Malhotra et al. 2004). As mentioned in the introduction, privacy concerns and the antecedents differ across researches (Junglas et al. 2008; Matzler et al. 2011; Bansal et al. 2010). Bansal et al. (2010) conducted research on individuals that had to fill in their personal information on a website log in screen. Junglas et al. (2008) researched the general Internet usage of students and their privacy concerns, while Matzler et al. (2011) conducted research on the users of an online brand community.
Extraversion was the only personality trait that had a significant influence across the users of the specific Volkswagen community (Matzler et al. 2011), while in the paper of Junglas et al. (2008), agreeableness, extraversion and conscientiousness were all significant antecedents. This implicates that there is a difference between antecedents in Internet usage generally and in online brand communities. I seek to understand which personality traits are predictors of privacy concerns in the Dutch online brand communities specifically.
Extraversion
Extraverted individuals are active and seek for positive life experiences. They draw energy from interactions with others and from their environment. They are willing to take more risk in order to witness positive life experiences. They do not see many threats to their personal information, because they have a higher goal. Extraverted individuals have less privacy concern, because personal information is not that important to them (Junglas et al. 2008). The group (such as online brand communities) is important to them (Goldberg 1990; Barrick & Mount 1991). Therefore, they like to join communities. Extraversion is related to an
individual’s orientation towards others. Talkative, assertive, sociable, bold and demonstrative are terms that describe extraversion (Goldberg, 1990; Bansal et al. 2010). Introversion, the opposite of extraversion, is correlated with the preference for isolation (Bansal et al. 2010). As mentioned before, extraverted individuals enjoy social interactions. Normally, social interactions involve providing personal information. This indicates that extraverted individuals are less sensitive towards providing personal information (Bansal et al. 2010; Junglas et al. 2008).
H1: Extraversion is negatively related to privacy concerns Neuroticism
to take risks. Neurotic individuals, because they focus on negative aspects, have more privacy concerns (Junglas et al. 2008). Individuals with a high score in neuroticism are more
emotionally unstable. The more neurotic an individual is, the more privacy concerns he or she has and the less he or she is willing to receive and provide information (Junglas et al, 2008; Chang et al. 2013). Neuroticism or emotional instability is a trait associated with being stressed, volatile, fearful, anxious and depressed. Individuals who exhibit this trait have more negative emotions (Bansal et al. 2010; Junglas et al. 2008). People who are anxious and fearful are more nervous about their personal information and should have more privacy concerns.
H2: Neuroticism is positively related to privacy concerns Openness to experience
Individuals that are open to experience seek to try new things and experience new situations. They are empathic, explorative, unconventional, imaginative and curious. They also enjoy learning. Their goal is to witness new experiences. Since they are more unconventional, they have less privacy concerns (Junglas et al. 2008). A higher need for information and curiosity are the most important characteristics of individuals with a high score on openness to
experience. They search for new information and are very curious of new products or improvements. Therefore, they are willing to provide some personal information (Junglas et al. 2008). Openness to experience can be described in terms of curiosity, open-mindedness, broad-mindedness, imagination and artistic sensitivity (Bansal et al. 2010). Individuals open to experience use logic, intellect and rationality in order to analyze and understand new situations. They do not worry that much about information privacy. They realize benefits better and are more cognitively driven than driven by fear (Bansal et al. 2010). Because they analyze risks more rationally and take the actions to reduce risks, they should have lower levels of privacy concerns than others. Hence,
H3: Openness to experience is negatively related to privacy concerns Conscientiousness
Conscientious individuals are attentive to detail exact effort and strive for dependability. They are aware of what they are doing and want to control their own lives. They pay close attention to their actions, but also to the actions of companies. Since they are more concerned, they also have more privacy concerns (Junglas et al. 2008). When it comes to privacy, they are aware of what they are doing and think twice before they provide their information. The more
conscientiousness an individual is, the more privacy concerns he has. This trait reflects the extent of an individuals’ determination, volition and will. Conscientious individuals are described as being dependable, organized, exacting and thorough. They are precautionary and foresighted. Conscientious individuals are detail-oriented and action-oriented. Those
individuals undertake actions needed for successful completion of tasks and are less risk-oriented and less willing to get involved in unsafe situations (Bansal et al. 2010). Therefore, they may view providing personal information as risky behavior that should be avoided as a result of their privacy concerns.
H4: Conscientiousness is positively related to privacy concerns Agreeableness
suspicious of other individuals or their environments. The privacy concerns of agreeable individuals are reduced by their tendency to trust others. They expect others, including companies, to make relationships pleasant and satisfying (Junglas et al. 2008). As a result of their tendency to trust and to be less suspicious, agreeableness does not lead to privacy concerns. Barrick & Mount (1991) describe people who score highly in agreeableness as being forgiving, helpful, generous, cooperative, good-natured and courteous. One of the characteristics of communities is that people are willing to help each other (Algesheimer et al. 2005). Agreeableness individuals can be described as being kind, trusting, flexible, warm, cooperative, generous, considerate and agreeable. They get along better with others and have a higher extent of intimacy (Bansal et al. 2010). Agreeable individuals are apprehensive of deviant behaviors and are trusting in their social interactions (Bansal et al. 2010). Therefore, agreeableness is negatively related to privacy concerns, because agreeable individuals are more trusting.
2.3 Privacy concerns, beliefs and the intention to send or receive information
Behavioral intention is a reliable predictor of actual behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In this study, the behavioral intentions are to send or receive information in an online brand community. Members are willing to receive information from the company or other members of the community. On the other hand, some members are willing to provide their experiences in order to help other people or the company (Algesheimer et al. 2005; Bakozzi and Dhokalia 2006; Kozinets 2002; McKnight et al 2002). In another study, the behavioral intentions are in line with the individual’s goals (Van Doorn et al. 2010). An individual can have social and moral goals, such as to help people or companies by providing information in an online brand community. For instance they want to help people by providing their opinion about a product or to help companies by offering advice about improvements (Van Doorn et al. 2010).
Individuals send information to the brand community in order to help others (Chang et al. 2013; Van Doorn et al. 2010). On the other hand, individuals may also have specific consumption goals if they join an online brand community. Individuals want to maximize their consumption benefit by gathering information through an online brand community (Van Doorn et al. 2010). Their intentional behavior is to receive information (Chang et al. 2013). Trust is one of the most important outcomes of privacy concerns (Smith et al. 2011 and Malhotra et al. 2004) and is also a predictor of the behavioral intention of an individual (Malhotra et al., 2004). In this case, there is sufficient evidence from the privacy concerns models that trust is an outcome of privacy concerns (Eastlick et al. 2006; Kim, 2008; Malhotra et al., 2004; Bansal et al. 2010). Trust can be defined as the degree to which individuals believe a company is dependable in protecting individuals’ personal information (Malhotra et al., 2004). If individuals think that a company protects their personal information (privacy concerns) and uses it in a proper way, then they trust the company. Conversely, if an individual is afraid that the company misuses their information and does not protect their information, they do not trust the company (Malhotra et al. 2004). Within Internet usage, if a customer has more privacy concerns, he is less willing to participate (Junglas et al. 2008). In Internet usage more generally, privacy concerns have a negative impact on trust (Malhotra et al. 2004; Eastlick et al. 2006; Bansal et al. 2010). I assume that in an online brand community, privacy concerns also have a negative effect on trust beliefs.
H6: Privacy concerns lower trust beliefs in online brand communities
Individuals provide little or no information if they do not trust a company (Malhotra et al. 2004). Due to privacy concerns, individuals perceive more trust (Smith et al. 2011; Malhotra et al. 2004). Trust plays an important role in determining someone’s behavior (Luo, 2002). If an individual has more trusting beliefs then he or she will want to provide more information (Malhotra et al. 2004). I seek to understand if trust has also a positive influence on the intention to provide information in online brand communities.
H7: Trust enlarges the intention to provide information in an online brand community
information (Malhotra et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2011), so I expect that there will be an even more positive relationship.
H8: Trust enlarges the intention to receive information in an online brand community
Although an individual has privacy concerns, trust has a positive role. Trust can reduce or take away privacy concerns. Otherwise, privacy concerns can lower trust beliefs (Bart et al. 2005; Malhotra et al. 2004). It has been found that consumers who trust the company are more willing to provide personal information (Smith et al. 2011). In these situations, they have less privacy concerns, because they assume that the company handles their personal information in a decent way. Privacy concerns have a significant impact on trust. Trust has a significant impact on consumer behavior or behavioral intentions (Eastlick et al. 2006; Malhotra et al., 2004). Although trust has a positive effect on those behaviors, privacy concerns lower the trusting beliefs, and thus, it is likely that privacy concerns lower the intention to send information via trust beliefs.
H9: Privacy concerns lower the intention to provide information, via the lowering effect of trust beliefs.
I am able to set the same hypothesis for receiving information, because it seems likely that if privacy concerns have an effect on the intention to send information through the lowering effect of trust beliefs, it has the same effect on receiving information. Individuals who use an online community provide high levels of personal information. Trust in such a web site has to be greater than for instance a sports web site, on which individuals only receive information (Bart et al. 2005), and as a result, I expect that the effect is even greater.
H10: Privacy concerns lower the intention to receive information, via the lowering effect of trust beliefs.
A great part of the literature shows that besides trust, risk is also one of the most prominent beliefs in information privacy contexts (Malhotra et al., 2004; Cespedes & Smith, 1993; Bansal et al. 2010). Risk can be defined as possible loss for an individual or consumer and the perception of risk relates to the uncertainty caused by the possibility of the companies’
opportunistic behavior that can result in an individual’s or consumer’s loss (Ganesan, 1994; Dowling & Staelin, 1994; Malhotra et al., 2004). The loss of an individual is associated with the release of personal information to the company (Dowling & Staelin, 1994; Malhotra et al., 2004). If an individual has a high degree of privacy concerns, it is likely that he has high risk beliefs (Malhotra et al., 2004).
H11: Privacy concerns enlarge risk beliefs in online brand communities
communities, because they are also related to Internet. Earlier research found this evidence for general internet usage (Malhotra et al. 2004; Bart et al. 2005).
H12: Risk lowers the intention to send information in an online brand community
As mentioned earlier, if an individual has a negative effect on the behavioral intention (Smith et al. 2011; Malhotra et al. 2004), than it is likely that it has also a negative effect on the intention to receive information in an online brand community.
H13: Risk lowers the intention to receive information in an online brand community
Privacy concerns can make the risk beliefs greater (Bart et al. 2005; Malhotra et al. 2004). It has been found that consumers that believe a company is risky are less willing to send personal information (Smith et al. 2011). They have more privacy concerns, because they think the company is risky to them or their personal information. Privacy concerns have a significant impact on risk. Risk has a significant impact on behavioral intentions (Eastlick et al. 2006; Malhotra et al., 2004). It is therefore likely that privacy concerns lower the intention to send information, via the enlarging effect of risk beliefs
H14: Privacy concerns lower the intention to send information, via the enlarging effect of risk beliefs.
I expect that if an individual has high risk beliefs, he is less willing to receive information. On the other hand, if a company is risky in the eyes of an individual, he does not want to buy products or build a relationship with that company or that community (Malhotra et al., 2004). In this case, there is little or no identification with the community. The individual does not want to receive information because he or she thinks negative experiences will result (Chang et al., 2013), and furthermore, does not expect any value in receiving information (Malhotra et al., 2004). I expect that privacy concerns lower the intention to receive information via the risk beliefs.
Figure 1: Conceptual model Extraversion Neuroticism Openness Conscientiousness Agreeableness Privacy Concerns H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 Risk beliefs Provide information Receive information Trust beliefs H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15
Individual specific Context specific
Hypotheses H1 - H5 are individual specific. The privacy concerns in this conceptual model refer to an individual’s information privacy concerns, which can also be described as an individual’s views of fairness within the context of information privacy (Malhotra et al. 2004). Individuals often have different opinions about fairness concerning companies’ collection and use of personal information. Those perceptions vary according to personal characteristics (Malhotra et al. 2004). Therefore, the left part of this conceptual model is individual specific.
The right part of the conceptual model, including H6 - H15, is context specific, because I measure the impact of mediating and moderating effects in different situations (fashion company/insurance Company). Individuals’ reactions to privacy concerns depend on
contextual variables. (Malhotra et al. 2004). If an individual is asked for more or less sensitive information, the individual may has other intentions. Malhotra et al. (2004) have conducted earlier research concerning this phenomenon. Sending and receiving information probably differ across different types of companies. As a result, if contextual variables change, privacy concerns can be mediated and moderated (Malhotra et al. 2004; Smith et al. 2011; Bansal et al. 2010). Therefore, the right part of the conceptual model is context specific.
Chapter 3 Research design
The research hypotheses were tested on a sample of 246 individuals who are members of an online brand community. I used a survey (see Appendix A) to assess the privacy concerns of individuals. This is consistent with the approach used by other researchers (Smith et al. 1996; Malhotra et al., 2004; Junglas et al. 2008; Chang et al. 2013).
In order to collect data, I used a structured questionnaire (see Appendix A). The questionnaire was developed based on the literature mentioned before. It was administered to individuals in an online research panel in the Netherlands. The first question concerned whether the
individuals were familiar with online brand communities. If they were, they were able to continue with the questionnaire. After finishing the questionnaire, they were rewarded from the organizing company for participating (a reward of one euro).
I collected a total of 246 completed questionnaires. This is similar to other studies in this field (Malhotra et al., 2004; Bansal et al., 2010 and Chang et al., 2013). Men (53.7%) and women (46.3%) were almost equally presented. The average age of the respondents was 49 years old, while the youngest respondent was fifteen years old and the oldest was 84 years old. Almost all of the respondents finished a study and 66% of the respondents had a bachelor’s degree or higher. The median number of years of Internet experience was 16 years. For the findings, see table 1.
Table 1 Descriptive statistics
Variable Frequency Percentage
Gender Male Female 132 114 53.7% 46.3% Age 15 – 25 26 – 35 36 – 45 46 – 55 56 – 65 ≥ 66 28 27 29 62 72 28 11.4% 11.0% 11.7% 25.2% 29.3% 11.4% Study WO HBO MBO High school 64 99 74 9 26.0% 40.2% 30.1% 3.7% Number of years Internet
3.1 Personality traits and privacy concerns
Based upon a review of the literature, validated survey items were identified for the
personality traits and the privacy concerns (see table 2). I used items developed by Malhotra et al. (2004) to measure privacy concerns as a three-dimensional second-order construct that comprised of collection, control and awareness of privacy practices. Items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging 1 to 7.
The personality traits were measured using a 10-item scale validated by Junglas et al. (2008). Other comparable measures use longer formats (e.g. 60-item FFI or the 240-item NEO-PI-R) which results in a lengthy questionnaire. Shorter versions minimize the missing data and increase the reliability of obtained data. Those measures have shown to be valid (Nagy, 2002; Junglas et al. 2008). A 7-point Likert scale was used, which also ranged from 1 to 7. An overview of the items can be found in table 2.
Table 2 Survey statements Cronbach’s
alpha
.89 Agreeableness (source: Junglas et al. 2008)
I see myself as sympathetic/warm I see myself as critical/quarrelsome (r)
.86 Conscientiousness (source: Junglas et al. 2008)
I see myself as dependable/self-disciplined I see myself as disorganized/careless (r) .83 Neuroticism (source: Junglas et al. 2008)
I see myself as calm/emotionally stable (r) I see myself as anxious/easily upset .90 Extravert (source: Junglas et al. 2008)
I see myself as extraverted/enthusiastic I see myself as reserved/quiet (r)
.81 Openness to experience (source: Junglas et al. 2008)
I see myself as open to new experiences/complex I see myself as conventional/uncreative (r) .77 Privacy concerns (source: Malhotra et al. 2004)
.70 Control
Consumer online privacy is really a matter of consumers’ right to exercise control and autonomy over decisions about how their information is collected, used, and shared.
Consumer control of personal information lies at the heart of consumer privacy.
I believe that online privacy is invaded when control is lost or unwillingly reduced as a result of a marketing transaction.
.89 Awareness
Companies seeking information online should disclose the way the data are collected, processed, and used.
A good consumer online privacy policy should have a clear and conspicuous disclosure. It is very important to me that I am aware and knowledgeable about how my personal information will be used.
.74 Collection
It usually bothers me when online companies ask me for personal information.
When online companies ask me for personal information, I sometimes think twice before providing it.
It bothers me to give personal information to so many online companies.
Privacy concerns are the dependent variable, while the personality traits are independent variables. In all the hypotheses from H1 to H5, I test the influence of the different personality traits on privacy concerns. A multiple linear regression in SPSS demonstrates the influence of the personality traits on privacy concerns (Huizingh, 2014).
The personality traits are reliable (see table 2). The Cronbach alphas are high enough (greater than .7) to confirm the reliability of the scales they were measured on (Nunnally and
Bernstein, 1994). The privacy concerns are measured on a reliable scale (α = .77). The model generates valid results (F = 18, p < .01). The variables may be interpreted as valid predictors of privacy concerns.
3.2 Privacy concerns, beliefs and the intention to send or receive information
I developed an experimental design with a scenario-creation method (Malhotra et al. 2004; Webster & Trevino, 1995). In the first part of the survey, individuals rated items on a 7-point Likert scale for companies in general.
Trust and risk, beliefs were measured using a 5-item scale that was validated by previous studies from Malhotra et al. (2004). The items for trust and risk can be found in table 3. I used one item for providing information and a 3-item scale for receiving information. Those scales were adopted and validated by Chang et al. (2013). The items can be found in table 3.
Table 3 Survey statements (2) Cronbach’s
alpha
0.70 Trust (source: Malhotra et al. 2004)
Online companies would be trustworthy in handling (te information).
Online companies would tell the truth and fulfill promises related to (the information) provided by me.
Online companies are in general predictable and consistent regarding the usage of (the information).
Online companies are always honest with customers when it comes to using (the information) that I would provide.
0.89 Risk (source: Malhotra et al. 2004)
In general, it would be risky to give (the information) to online companies.
There would be high potential for loss associated with giving (the information) to online firms. There would be too much uncertainty associated with giving (the information) to online firms. Providing online firms with (the information) would involve many unexpected problems. I would feel unsafe giving (the information) to online companies.
Intention to provide information
I am prepared to provide information in an online brand community 0.91 Intention to receive information (source Chang et al. 2013, adapted)
I want to receive the most updated information from an online brand community. I want to receive activity information from an online brand community.
I want to receive new product information from an online brand community. I want to receive discount information from an online brand community.
I tested the Cronbach alphas of the scales and they were reliable (.70 or higher) (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). See table 3 for all the Cronbach alphas.
3.3 Descriptive results
Table 4 Correlations and average scores(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) AVE (1) Agreeableness 1 4.207 (2) Conscientiousness .140* 1 5.484 (3) Neuroticism -.212** -.310** 1 3.134 (4) Extravert .017 .286** -.199** 1 5.175 (5) Opennes -.064 .223** -.242** .460** 1 5.518 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level N = 246
Table 4 shows the correlations between the personality traits. Almost all of the personality traits had weak correlating effects with other personality traits, except for extraversion with agreeableness and openness to experience with agreeableness. The correlating effect between openness to experience and extraversion may be indicated as moderate (.46). I may conclude that none of the correlating effects is great enough to take personality traits together in our analyses.
The average scores on the personality traits are also shown in table 4. On a 7-point Likert scale, the respondents have high scores in terms of conscientiousness, extraversion and openness to experience (see last column in table 4). They score lower on agreeableness and neuroticism.
In table 5, the correlations between the constructs of H6 – H15 are presented. A strong linear relation was observed between privacy concerns and risk (.665). The other correlating effects are below moderate.
Table 5 Correlations and average scores (2)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) AVE (1) Privacy concerns 1 5.938 (2) Trust -.157* 1 3.457 (3) Risk .665** -.272** 1 4.582 (4) Receive information -.086 .040 .117 1 3.248 (5) Providing information -.172** .079 -.195** .400** 1 4.090 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
Chapter 4 Results
The results are presented in this chapter. In the first section of this chapter, the results of the first part of the conceptual model (H1 - H5) are presented. The results of the second part are described in the second paragraph, which contains the results of H6 – H15.
4.1 Personality traits and privacy concerns
To test the left part of the model, see figure 1. I used a Simple Linear Regression in SPSS. Privacy concerns were the dependent variable, while extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness were the independent variables. The model generates valid results (F = 18, R2 = .273, p < .01). The variables may be interpreted as valid predictors of privacy concerns. In table 4, the mean and standard deviation are also shown, but do not show extreme results.
Table 6 Personality traits and privacy concerns
Mean SD b p Extraversion 5.175 1.1702 .032 .459 Neuroticism 3.134 .9868 .167** .001 Openness 5.518 .7750 -.183** .005 Conscientiousness 5.484 .9224 .380** .000 Agreeableness 4.207 .7517 -.146* .015 * significant at the 0.05 level
** significant at the 0.01 level Dependent variable: Privacy Concerns
The first hypothesis, which suggests that extraversion is negatively related with privacy concerns, was not supported. Despite the theoretical support that individuals with an extravert personality trait have less privacy concerns (Junglas et al. 2008), the findings do not support H1 (b = .032, p > 0.05) at a 95% confidence interval level.
Hypothesis H2 is supported, which means that neuroticism is positively related to privacy concerns. The independent variable is significantly related with privacy concerns (b = 0.167, p < .01).
Openness to experience is negatively related to privacy concerns. There is significant
evidence to accept H3. There is a significant relationship between openness to experience and privacy concerns. The hypothesis H3 can be accepted (b = -.183, p < .01).
Hypothesis H4 is supported, which means that conscientiousness is positively related to privacy concerns. The independent variable is significantly related with privacy concerns (b = 0.380, p = 0.000). These outcomes indicate that there is a significant relationship between conscientiousness and privacy concerns.
4.2 Privacy concerns, beliefs and the intention to send or receive information
In this section, I present the results of H6 – H15. In table 7, all the results of the effects on and of trust are presented. In this same way, table 8 presents the effects on and of risk beliefs. As expected, privacy concerns lower trust beliefs. As we can see in table 7, H6 is significant. Despite the theoretical support, our research did not find support to accept H7, H8, H9 and H10. Trust has no significant effect on providing or receiving information.
Table 7 Trust beliefs
Privacy concerns Trust (H6) Trust Provide information (H7)
Privacy concerns Trust Providing information (H9) b = -.167 Mean = 5.938 F = 6 p = .014* SD = .789 R2 = .25 b = .162 Mean = 3.457 F = 2 p = .215 SD = .839 R2 = .006 Trust: Priv.conc.: b = .109 b = -.356 F = 7 p = .103 p = .01 R2 = .03 Trust Receive information
(H8)
Privacy concerns Trust Receive information (H10) b = .061 Mean = 3.457 F = .383 p = .536 SD = .839 R2 = .02 Trust: Priv.conc.: b = -.143 b = .041 F = .982 p = .679 p = .210 R2 = .008 * significant at the 0.05 level
Privacy concerns have a positive effect on the risk beliefs of a consumer. Therefore, H11 can be accepted and the null hypothesis can be rejected (see table 8). Risk has a significant effect on both providing information in an online brand community (at a .05 significance level) and receiving information (at a .1 significance level).
H12 is supported. Risk has a negative effect on the intention to provide information (b = -.267, p = .02). The null hypothesis can be rejected. On the other hand, risk has no significant effect on receiving information (b = .122, p = .067), so H13 can be rejected.
H14 is not supported, indicating that there is no evidence that privacy concerns lower the intention to send information, via the enlarging effect of risk beliefs. As opposed to H14, H15 did find support. According to Baron & Kenny (1986), one factor can have an enlarging or lowering effect on the other dependent variable. In order to be significant, however, both dependent variables must have a significant effect. In H14, risk and privacy concerns do not have a significant effect (see the p-values in table 8).
Table 8 Risk beliefs
Privacy concerns Risk (H11) Risk Provide information (H12)
Privacy concerns Risk Providing information (H14) b = 1.052 Mean = 5.938 F = 192 p = .000* SD = .789 R2 = .442 b = -.267 Mean = 4.582 F = 10 p = .002* SD = 1.248 R2 = .038 Risk: Priv.conc.: b = -.196 b = -.167 F = 5 p = .089 p = .360 R2 = .041 Risk Receive information
(H13)
Chapter 5 Conclusion and discussion
Conclusion
In online brand communities, individuals are able to provide and receive information. In individual’s willingness to provide and/or receive information is a crucial issue. In relation to privacy concerns, this research was conducted to study the situations in which individuals want to provide or receive information, and furthermore, what kind of influences can play a part.
In the first part of this study (H1 – H5), research on personality traits that can be seen as antecedents for privacy concerns was conducted. According to literature, the five personality traits (agreeableness, extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism and
conscientiousness) could be seen as antecedents. Results show that there is no evidence that extraversion is an antecedent for privacy concerns, while neuroticism, openness to experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness are antecedents. Neuroticism is positively related to privacy concerns, openness to experience negatively related, conscientiousness is positively related and finally, agreeableness negatively related.
In the second part of this study (H6 – H15), the influences of trust and risk towards providing and receiving information was measured. Literature suggested that trust and risk has a
significant effect in the relationship privacy concerns towards sending/receiving information. Privacy concerns have a negative effect on trust beliefs, while they have a positive effect on risk beliefs. There was no support of a significant effect of trust both on providing and receiving information. The lowering effect of privacy concerns on information sending through a lowering effect of trust was also not significant.
On the other hand, privacy concerns have a significant positively effect on risk beliefs. Moreover, risk beliefs have a negative effect on providing information. There is no evidence that privacy concerns lower the intention to send information, via the increasing effect of risk beliefs. To the contrary, privacy concerns do lower the intention to receive information, via the increasing effect of risk beliefs.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the preceding findings. The personality traits neuroticism, openness to experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness are predictors of privacy concerns. Privacy concerns do have an effect on trust and risk beliefs. Trust is not a reliable predictor for providing and receiving information. Risk, on the other hand, is a reliable predictor for providing information. The final conclusion is that privacy concerns lower the intention to receive information, via the enlarging effect of risk beliefs.
Discussion
questionnaire and there are no complaints, the questionnaire is valid to use for research. It also was an independent research; respondents were randomly picked and asked if they wanted to fill in the questionnaire. Given the results of the normality check in this research, the
population and answers could be interpreted as normal. No strange exceptions were measured. The population was representative of the Dutch market.
Discussion on results
The antecedents for privacy concerns (extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience and conscientiousness) were in line with the findings in literature, except for extraversion. As was found, extraversion is not an antecedent for privacy concerns. Although there are
different papers that conclude this findings (Junglas et al. 2008; Bansal et al. 2010), in this research, no evidence could be found conform these earlier findings. I suppose participating in online brand communities is normal nowadays, and as a result extraversion is not necessary to participate in an online brand community.
Earlier research investigated providing and receiving information in a context of certain brands (coffee house, car brand, telephone brand) (Chang et al. 2013; Matzler et al. 2011). In my research, I asked about the willingness to provide and receive information in online brand communities in general.
In earlier research, the influence of other variables on privacy concerns could play a role (Smith et al. 2011). One of those variables is experience. Smith et al. (2011) state that experience could have a significant role, besides personality traits, on privacy concerns. I suppose that it is possible that community members have much experience with online brand communities, as personality traits are no longer important. Most of our respondents have over 10 years Internet experience.
In the research of Bansal et al. (2010), providing information is also dependent on personal situations. When on the Internet, if an individual is asked for health information and the member has a poor health status, he or she is less likely to give information. Besides personality traits, it could be that people are ashamed if they are asked to provide personal information and therefore have more privacy concerns. I suppose it could be that someone does not want to share information about the price, because he is ashamed that he does not have that much money to buy something.
Privacy concerns are antecedents for intentional behavior, such as providing information and receiving information. Literature suggested that risk and trust play a significant role in this instance. In this research, I could not find evidence for the assumption that trust is an antecedent for intentional behavior. I suppose that since people are so used to the Internet, they do not have to trust a company in order to use the Internet. It is probable customers know what they are doing on the Internet.
It is also possible that in online brand communities, members know what is expected of them. They made a well-known choice when they attended the community. In that case, they
already trusted the community involved and also the company. It could be a reason why trust does not have a significant influence in providing or receiving information.
Limitations and recommendations
This research was conducted in the Netherlands among individuals in an online panel. It would be interesting to ask individuals in ways besides an online questionnaire. It might provide other insights.
In this research 246 respondents completed the questionnaire. The more respondents that respond to the questionnaire, the more reliable the results are.
The personality traits, except for neuroticism, are antecedents for privacy concerns. In this study, I delivered further prove of this phenomenon. As mentioned earlier, it is possible that extraverted people do participate in online brand communities and no longer consider privacy concerns. Therefore, it would be of interest to do research into the question of whether
extraverted people that participate in online brand communities think about privacy concerns. In the case for personality traits in general, it gives more insight into how to attract those individuals or, in the case of companies, the ways that they can bring their information to those individuals.
In practice, as was found in research, four of the five personality traits are antecedents for privacy concerns. If companies want to attract members in their online brand community, they can take this into account in their marketing plan. In order to get useful information and to send information to the right target group in online brand communities (Füller et al. 2008; Chang et al. 2013), a company has to know the personality traits of those particular members. There was no evidence for extraversion as an antecedent of privacy concerns in this research, so companies should find out if extraverts attend their online brand communities. Afterward, they should find which information they provide and are willing to receive. If they do not attend online brand communities, which I do not expect, companies should try to target those people in other ways.
Contrary to Malhotra et al. (2004), no overall evidence could be found that trust and risk have a significant effect on intentional behavior. I measured two intentional behaviors in online brand communities, namely providing and receiving information. I only measured these variables in the context of online brand communities. Therefore, it is notable that research focuses on the effect of trust and risk on several kinds of intentional behavior in different contexts. Malhotra et al. (2004) conducted research for Internet usage in general, but their research led to different results, which indicates that several kinds of intentional behavior show that trust has other effects. The results within online brand communities differ from Internet usage in general. I conclude therefore that more research has to be done within this field.
concerns do have a significant effect on both trust and risk. Thus, if a company wants to take away risk beliefs or to increase trust beliefs, it should invest in taking away privacy concerns of (potential) community members.
References
ANP, site: http://www.nu.nl/ondernemen/3655244/europese-bedrijven-actiever-internet.html, 5. August 2015
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69, 19–34.
Anand, B. & Shachar, R. (2009), “Targeted Advertising as a Signal,” Quantitative Marketing
and Economics, 7 (3), 237-266
Andersen, P.H. (2005). Relationship marketing and brand involvement of professionals through web-enhance brand communities: The case of Coloplast. Industrial Marketing
Management, 34, 285–297.
Anderson, J.C., and Narus, J.A. (1990). A model of distribution firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54, 1, 42–58
Bagozzi, R.P., & Dholakia, U.M. (2006). Antecedents and purchase consequences of
customer participation in small group brand communities. International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 23(1), 45–61.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51 1173-1182
Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F. & Urban, G.L. (2005). Are the Drivers and Role of Online Trust the Same for All Web Sites and Consumers? A Large-Scale Exploratory Empirical Study. Journal of Marketing, 69, 133-152.
Bauer, H.; Grether, M.; and Leach, M. (2002). Building customer relations over the Internet.
Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 2, 155–163.
Chang, A., Hsieh, S.H. & Lin, F. (2013). Personality traits that lead members of online brand communities to participate in information sending and receiving. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 17, 37-61
Cespedes, F. V., H. J. Smith. (1993). Database marketing: New rules for policy and practice.
Sloan Management Rev. 34(4) 7–22.
Cobb-Clark, D., & Schurer, S. (2013). Two economists’ musings on the stability of locus of control. Economic Journal, 123(570), F358–F400.
Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; and Warshaw, P.R. (1989b). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 8, 982–1003 Demoulin, N.T.M. & Zidda, P. (2009). Drivers of customers’ adoption and adoption timing of a new loyalty card in the grocery retail market, Journal of Retailing, 85, 3, 391-405
Dinev, T. & P. Hart, (2006) An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transaction, Information Systems Research 17 (1) 61–80.
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 (15:4), 389-402.
Doorn, van, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253-266.
Dowling, G. R., R. Staelin. (1994) A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research 21(June) 119–134.
Eastlick, M.A. & S.L. Lotz, P. Warrington, (2006) Understanding online B-to-C relationships: an integrated model of privacy concerns, trust, and commitment, Journal of Business
Research 59 877–886.
Fishbein, M., I. Ajzen, (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Füller, J., Matzler, K., & Hoppe, M. (2008). Brand community members as a source of Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 608–619.
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinats of long-term orientation in buyer–seller relationships.
Journal of Marketing, 58, 1–19.
Goldberg, L.R. (1990). An alternative ‘description of personality’: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.
Huizingh, E. (2014). Inleiding SPSS 22. BIM Meda B.V
John, L., Acquisti, A. and Lowenstein, G. (2011), “Strangers on a plane: context-dependent willingness to divulge sensitive information”, Journal of Consumer research, 37, 5, 858-873. Junglas, I.A., Johnson, N.A. and Spitzmüller, C. (2008). Personality traits and concern for privacy: an empirical study in the context of location-based services. European Journal of
Information Systems 17, 387-402.
Keskin, S. (2006) Comparison of Several Univariate Normality Tests Regarding Type I Error Rate and Power of the Test in Simoulation Based Small Samples. Journal of Applied Science
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) 13–45.
Kozinets, R.V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 1, 61–72
Lambrecht, A. & Tucker, C. (2013), “When Does Retargeting Work? Information Specificity in Online Advertising,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (September), 561-76
Luo, X. (2002). Trust production and privacy concerns on the internet: A framework based on relationship marketing and social exchange theory. Indust. Marketing Management 31(2) 111–118.
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), 336 - 355
Matzler, K.B.R., Mooradian, T.A., von Krogh, G., & Müller, J. (2009). Personality traits, affective commitment, documentation of knowledge and knowledge sharing. International
Journal of Human Resource Management.
Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Mooradian, T.A., von Krogh, G., & Müller, J. (2011). Personality traits, affective commitment, documentation of knowledge and knowledge sharing.
International Journal of Human Resource Management.
McAlexander, J.H., Shouten, J.W., & Koenig, H. (2002). Building brand community. Journal
of Marketing, 66(1), 38–54.
McKnight, D.H.; Choudhury, V.; and Kacmar, C. (2002). The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a Web site: A trust building model. Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 11, 3/4, 297–323.
McWilliam, G. (2000). Building stronger brands through online communities. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 41(3), 43–54.
Milberg, S. J., Burke, S. J., Smith, H. J., and Kallman, E. A. (1995). “Values, Personal Information Privacy, and Regulatory Approaches,” Communications of the ACM (38:12), 65-74
Morgan, R.M.,&Hunt, S.D. (1994). The commitment–trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38.
Muller D., Judd C. M. & Yzerbyt Y. (2005) When Moderation is Mediated and Mediation is Moderated, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 6, 852-863
Muniz, A.M., Jr., & O’Guinn, T.C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer
Research, 27, 412–432.
community. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 737–747.
Nagy, M.S. (2002) Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology 75, 77–86.
Nunnally, Jum C. and Ira Bernstein (1994), Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. O’Donoghue, T., and Rabin, M. (2001). “Choice and Procrastination,” Quarterly Journal of
Economics (116), 121-160.
Pavlou, P. & D. Gefen, (2004) Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust, Information Systems Research 15 (1) 37–59.
Payne, A., and From, P. (2005), A strategic framework for customer relationship management. Journal of Marketing, 69, 4 167–176.
Razali, Nornadiah; Wah, Yap Bee (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro–Wilk,
Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson–Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling
and Analytics 2 (1): 21–33.
Smith, H. J., Milberg, J. S., and Burke, J. S. (1996). “Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals’ Concerns About Organizational Practices,” MIS Quarterly (20:2), pp. 167-196. Smith, H.J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989-1016
Thompson, S.A., and Sinha, (2008), R.K. Brand communities and new product adoption: The influence and limits of oppositional loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 72, 11 65–80
Westin, A. F. 1967. Privacy and Freedom. Athenaum, New York.
White, T.B. (2004), “Consumer disclosure and disclosure avoidance: a motivational framework”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 1/2, 41-51.
Appendix A
Items of the on-line survey
1 Gender
Male/female
2 Age
3 Familiar with online brand communities
Yes/No
4 Education
Academic/Higher education/Intermediate education/Primary school/Else
5 Agreeableness (source: Junglas et al. 2008)
I see myself as sympathetic/warm I see myself as critical/quarrelsome (r)
Conscientiousness (source: Junglas et al. 2008)
I see myself as dependable/self-disciplined I see myself as disorganized/careless (r)
Neuroticism (source: Junglas et al. 2008)
I see myself as calm/emotionally stable (r) I see myself as anxious/easily upset
Extravert (source: Junglas et al. 2008)
I see myself as extraverted/enthusiastic I see myself as reserved/quiet (r)
Openness to experience (source: Junglas et al. 2008)
I see myself as open to new experiences/complex I see myself as conventional/uncreative (r)
6 Privacy (source: Malhotra et al. 2004) Control
Consumer online privacy is really a matter of consumers’ right to exercise control and autonomy over decisions about how their information is collected, used, and shared. Consumer control of personal information lies at the heart of consumer privacy.
I believe that online privacy is invaded when control is lost or unwillingly reduced as a result of a marketing transaction.
Awareness
Companies seeking information online should disclose the way the data are collected, processed, and used.
A good consumer online privacy policy should have a clear and conspicuous disclosure. It is very important to me that I am aware and knowledgeable about how my personal information will be used.
Collection
It usually bothers me when online companies ask me for personal information. When online companies ask me for personal information, I sometimes think twice before providing it.
It bothers me to give personal information to so many online companies.
7 Trust (source: Malhotra et al. 2004)
Online companies would be trustworthy in handling (the information).
Online companies would tell the truth and fulfill promises related to (the information) provided by me.
Online companies are in general predictable and consistent regarding the usage of (the information).
Online companies are always honest with customers when it comes to using (the information) that I would provide.
8 Risk (source: Malhotra et al. 2004)
In general, it would be risky to give (the information) to online companies.
There would be high potential for loss associated with giving (the information) to online firms.
There would be too much uncertainty associated with giving (the information) to online firms.
Providing online firms with (the information) would involve many unexpected problems.
I would feel unsafe giving (the information) to online companies.
9 Intention to provide information
I am prepared to provide information in an online brand community
10 Intention to receive information (source Chang et al. 2013, adapted)
I want to receive the most updated information from an online brand community. I want to receive activity information from an online brand community.
I want to receive new product information from an online brand community. I want to receive discount information from an online brand community.
11 Reliability companies (general) (adapted from Bansal et al. 2010)
Companies fulfil their promises I trust companies
Companies are honest
12 Fashion brand (Malhotra et al. 2004, adapted)
You visit the website of a fashion brand. The company asks you, in their online brand community, to provide your opinion about clothing. You are asked to give information about your favorite color and the design.
I am prepared to provide this information in an online brand community
13 You visit the website of a fashion brand. The company asks you, in their online brand community, to provide your opinion about clothing. You are asked to give information about your financial situation (willingness to pay, income and average expenditures on clothing per month).
I am prepared to provide this information in an online brand community
14 Intention to receive information (source Chang et al. 2013, adapted) Think about your fashion brand.
