The Role of Consumers’ Privacy Awareness in the Privacy Calculus for IoT Services

Figures & data

Table 1. Related research in an IoT environment.

Subject	Author	Service type	Research
Privacy calculus	Cichy et al. (2021)	Connected Cars	Privacy concern is negatively affected by data sharing behavior.
	Kim and Choi (2022)	Smart home	Perceived costs negatively affected by the intention to use smart home services.
	Kim et al. (2019)	Healthcare, Smart home, Transformation	Users do not pay much attention to perceived privacy risk when providing privacy information for a better personalized service.
	Koohang et al. (2022)	Not specified	Trust for service providers is positively affected by continued intention to use IoT.
	Pal et al. (2021)	Not specified	Trust for IoT service providers is positively affected by personal information disclosure intention.
	Schomakers et al. (2022)	Transportation Fitness Medical treatment	Privacy concern is negatively affected by intention to use IoT services. Trust in data protection is positively affected by intention to use IoT services.
	Xu and Wang (2022)	SNS IoT services Health applications	Trust for IoT service providers is positively affected by personal information disclosure intention.
Privacy policy, control, security	Cichy et al. (2021)	Cars	Information privacy and data security are negatively affected by users’ privacy concerns.
	Johnson et al. (2020)	Camera, TV Thermostat Wearable	The result of choice experiment shows that participants were significantly more likely to select a device that carried a security label.
	Koohang et al. (2022)	Not specified	IoT privacy and security knowledge both are positively affected by trust for IoT service providers.
	Pal et al. (2021)	Not specified	Perceived privacy control is positively affected by trust for IoT service providers.
	Princi and Krämer (2020)	Not specified	Perceived control is negatively affected by perceived risks and positively affected by intention to use IoT services.
	Zhu et al. (2021)	Health application	Privacy policy effectiveness is negatively affected by privacy concern.

Figure 1. Research framework

Table 2. Construct definitions.

Constructs	Similar concepts	Definition
Antecedent
Privacy Awareness	Procedural Fairness	Perceived awareness of the privacy statement (Li et al., 2011; Xu and Gupta, 2009)
	Privacy Notice
	Privacy Policy
	Privacy Statement
Mediates
Privacy Concern	Privacy Risks	Concerns about the IoT service provider’s opportunistic behavior related to how they use the personal information provided (McKnight et al., 2011)
	Privacy Fears
Trust	Confidence	Confidence that the personal information submitted to the IoT service provider will be handled competently, reliably, and safely (Dinev & Hart, 2006a)
	Reputation
Outcome
WPPI	Information Disclosure	Consumers’ behavioral intention to disclose various types of personal information, which is necessary when using IoT services (Kim et al., 2019)
	Information Sharing

WPPI: willingness to provide personal information.

Table 3. Distribution of the sample (n = 2,292).

Items	Frequency	%
Gender
Male	1,387	60.5
Female	905	39.5
Age
20–29 years old	511	22.3
30–39 years old	568	24.8
40–49 years old	495	21.6
50–59 years old	446	19.5
60 or older	272	11.9
Experienced IoT device or services
Smart health band	444	19.4
Smart medical instruments	462	20.2
Smart home services	459	20.0
IP cameras	455	19.9
Vehicle telematics	472	20.6

Table 4. Descriptive and distributional statistics results.

Variable		Mean	SD	Skewness^a	Kurtosis^a
Privacy awareness	PA-1	3.08	.90	–.25	–.37
	PA-1	2.76	1.01	.11	–.66
	PA-1	2.73	1.04	.17	–.70
	PA-1	2.90	1.02	–.08	–.67
	PA-1	2.81	1.05	.03	–.72
Privacy concern	PC-1	3.65	.88	–.34	–.24
	PC-2	3.97	.93	–.19	–.59
	PC-3	3.88	.89	–.10	–.63
	PC-4	3.89	.90	–.20	–.47
	PC-5	3.69	.90	–.09	–.74
Trust in service Provider	T-1	3.12	.91	–.48	.04
	T-2	3.02	1.00	–.74	.07
	T-3	3.03	1.05	–.66	.29
	T-4	3.14	1.00	–.61	.02
	T-5	2.96	1.12	–.48	–.02
WPPI	WPPI-1	2.92	1.21	–.20	–.99
	WPPI-2	3.09	1.07	–.32	–.64
	WPPI-3	2.73	1.22	.09	–.99
	WPPI-4	2.94	1.13	–.11	–.81
	WPPI-5	2.99	1.13	–.18	–.76

^aDiagnostic criterion for severe non-normality: skewness < 2, kurtosis < 7 (West et al., 1995). WPPI: willingness to provide personal information; PA: privacy awareness; PC: privacy concern; T: trust for one’s service provider.

Table 5. Confirmatory factor analysis results.

(Low/High)	FL^b	AVE^b	C.R^b	Cronbach’s Alpha
Privacy Awareness − 1	.67	.59	.88	.88
Privacy Awareness − 2	.84
Privacy Awareness − 3	.84
Privacy Awareness − 4	.74
Privacy Awareness − 5	.75
Privacy Concern − 1	.74	.52	.84	.87
Privacy Concern − 2	.78
Privacy Concern − 3	.77
Privacy Concern − 4	.68
Privacy Concern − 5	.62
Trust − 1	.68	.58	.87	.85
Trust − 2	.76
Trust − 3	.80
Trust − 4	.77
Trust − 5	.79
WPPI − 1	.78	.54	.85	.85
WPPI − 2	.64
WPPI − 3	.77
WPPI − 4	.78
WPPI − 5	.70

^aSuggested thresholds for convergent validity: FL > .5, AVE > .5, C.R > .7 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). WPPI: willingness to provide personal information.

Table 6. Pairwise correlation results.

	PA	PC	T	WPPI
PA	1	–	–	–
PC	–.07** (.01)	1	–	–
T	.45** (.20)	–.16** (.03)	1	–
WPPI	.33** (.11)	–.18** (.03)	.38** (.14)	1

**p < 0.05. Discriminant validity criterion: AVE (bold diagonal values) > squared correlation (values in brackets) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). WPPI: willingness to provide personal information; PA: privacy awareness; PC: privacy concern; T: trust for one’s service provider.

Table 7. AMOS results: path analysis

Structural path	B	SE	CR	β	Test results
(H1) PC→WPPI	–.20	.04	–5.29***	–.12	Supported
(H2) T→WPPI	.35	.03	11.25***	.32	Supported
(H3) PA→PC	–.08	.02	–4.38***	–.11	Supported
(H4) PA→WPPI	.25	.03	7.53***	.20	Supported
(H5) PA→T	.59	.03	20.54***	.52	Supported

Note. ^a${\chi }^2$= 566.51***, RMSEA = .03, NFI = .97, CFI = .98, ***, *** = p < 0.001. ^bPA = privacy awareness, PC, privacy concern, T, trust for one’s service provider, WPPI = Willingness to provide personal information

Figure 2. Parallel-multiple mediating effect of privacy concern and trust in one’s service provider in the relationship between privacy awareness and willingness to provide personal information

Table 8. PROCESS Macro result: direct effects between privacy awareness, privacy concern, trust in one’s service provider, and willingness to provide personal information

Structural path		Constant	B	SE	t
Mediate to Dependent	(H1) PC→WPPI	2.02	–.16	.02	–6.50***
	(H2) T→WPPI		.37	.03	12.93***
Independent to Dependent	(H4) PA→WPPI		.22	.02	9.16***
Independent to Mediate	(H3) PA→PC	3.99	–.06	.02	–3.35**
	(H5) PA→T	1.37	.37	.02	23.98***

**p < .01; ***p < 0.001.

Table 9. PROCESS Macro result: total effect and direct effect of privacy awareness on willingness to provide personal information

	B	SE	T	p
Total Effect (c)	.36	.02	16.43***	0.000
Direct Effect (c’)	.22	.02	9.16***	0.000
Model Info	R^2 = .19, F = 178.57***

***p < 0.001.

Table 10. PROCESS Macro result: Indirect effects of privacy awareness on willingness to provide personal information

	B	Boot SE	95% CI
			Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
PA→PC→WPPI	.01	.00	.00	.02
PA→T→WPPI	.14	.01	.11	.17
Total Indirect Effect	.15	.01	.12	.18

PA: privacy awareness; PC: privacy concern; T: trust for one’s service provider; WPPI: willingness to provide personal information.

Table 11. PROCESS Macro result: Difference test between indirect effects

	B	Boot SE	95% CI
			Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
Privacy Concern – Trust	–.13	.01	–.16	–.10

Table A1. Questionnaire items and scales of the construct variables.

Construct	Code	Items	Scale
Privacy Awareness	PA-1	I am aware of the service provider’s purpose in collecting my personal information	Five-point Likert scale (1) Not at all (5) Very much
	PA-2	I am aware of the location where the service provider stores and keeps my personal information
	PA-3	I am aware of the method that the service provider uses to process and analyze my personal information
	PA-4	I am aware of the period for which the service provider keeps and uses my personal information
	PA-5	I am aware of the scope in which the service provider shares my personal information
Privacy Concern	“When I use IoT appliances or services, I am concerned…”		Five-point Likert scale (1) Not at all (5) Very much
	PC-1	that my personal information might be collected unknowingly
	PC-2	that my personal information is leaked through hacking and other unfair methods
	PC-3	that my personal information would be used in a way I did not foresee
	PC-4	that my personal information would be provided to a third party I did not agree to
	PC-5	that my personal information would be difficult to destroy since it was provided at one point
Trust	“IoT service providers…”		Five-point Likert scale (1) Not at all (5) Very much
	T-1	will be working to collect the minimum information necessary to provide their service
	T-2	will have sufficient information security technology to prepare for hacking
	T-3	will not sell or distribute my personal information illegally
	T-4	will do their best when I request to read, suspend, correct, or destroy my collected information
	T-5	will be legally and morally responsible when the personal-information-related damage has occurred
Willingness to Provide Personal Information	(1) I do not want to provide … to any service provider (5) I can provide … to a service provider if the device or service is useful to me		Five-point semantic differential scale
	WPPI-1	Personally Identifiable Information
	WPPI-2	Appliance Identifiable Information
	WPPI-3	Video Information
	WPPI-4	Location Information
	WPPI-5	Health Information

WPPI: willingness to provide personal information.

Cichy, P., Salge, T. O., & Kohli, R. (2021). Privacy concerns and data sharing in the internet of things: Mixed methods evidence from connected cars. MIS Quarterly, 45(4), 1863–1892. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/14165

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim, M., & Choi, B. R. (2022). The impact of privacy control on users’ intention to use smart home internet of things (IoT) services. Asia Marketing Journal, 24(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.53728/2765-6500.1586

 Google Scholar

Kim, D., Park, K., Park, Y., & Ahn, J. H. (2019). Willingness to provide personal information: Perspective of privacy calculus in IoT services. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.022

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Koohang, A., Sargent, C. S., Nord, J. H., & Paliszkiewicz, J. (2022). Internet of Things (IoT): From awareness to continued use. International Journal of Information Management, 62, 102442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102442

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pal, D., Funilkul, S., & Zhang, X. (2021). Should I disclose my personal data? Perspectives from Internet of Things services. IEEE Access. 9, 4141–4157. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3048163

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schomakers, E. M., Lidynia, C., & Ziefle, M. (2022). The role of privacy in the acceptance of smart technologies: Applying the privacy calculus to technology acceptance. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38(13), 1276–1289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1994211

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xu, Y., Wang, D. (2022, November). Understanding the willingness to share building data by a social study based on privacy calculus theory. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM International Conference on Systems for Energy-Efficient Buildings, Cities, and Transportation (pp. 59–68). https://doi.org/10.1145/3563357.3564059

 Google Scholar

Johnson, S. D., Blythe, J. M., Manning, M., & Wong, G. T. (2020). The impact of IoT security labelling on consumer product choice and willingness to pay. PloS one, 15(1), e0227800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227800

 Google Scholar

Princi, E., & Krämer, N. C. (2020). Out of control–privacy calculus and the effect of perceived control and moral considerations on the usage of IoT healthcare devices. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 582054. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582054

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhu, M., Wu, C., Huang, S., Zheng, K., Young, S. D., Yan, X., & Yuan, Q. (2021). Privacy paradox in mHealth applications: An integrated elaboration likelihood model incorporating privacy calculus and privacy fatigue. Telematics and Informatics, 61, 101601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101601

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li, H., Sarathy, R., & Xu, H. (2011). The role of affect and cognition on online consumers’ decision to disclose personal information to unfamiliar online vendors. Decision Support Systems, 51(3), 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.01.017

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xu, H., & Gupta, S. (2009). The effects of privacy concerns and personal innovativeness on potential and experienced customers’ adoption of location-based services. Electronic Markets, 19(2–3), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-009-0012-4

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mcknight, D. H., Lankton, N., Tripp, J. (2011, January). Social networking information disclosure and continuance intention: A disconnect. In 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/Hicss.2011.379

 Google Scholar

Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006a). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0080

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Sage Publications, Inc.

 Google Scholar

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study is included in this published report titled ‘A Study on Consumer Rights to Control Personal Data in the IoT Era (ISBN 979-11-5649-345-7)’ published by Korea Consumer Agency.