With the advent of the era of big data, consumers’ personal information is becoming more and more important to enterprises, which is the key to improve competitive advantages. However, consumers’ awareness of privacy protection is also increasing. Consumers have a strong resistance to businesses’ requests for private information, but they also need to provide private information to obtain personalized services. This makes consumers’ privacy preference and privacy disclosure willingness contextual and dynamic. And time is an important factor in the privacy context, which will greatly affect the validity of privacy permission requests. Moreover, there is still a wide debate on when enterprises should permit privacy information. Therefore, enterprises are faced with the dilemma of collecting data which is not currently used but may be needed in the future, and this seems to be a difficult choice. Privacy preference and behaviors are malleable and largely influenced by the context. However, consumers are mostly not completely rational, and different contexts will activate the cognitive adjustment of different types of information, thus affecting subsequent consumption decisions. Since privacy decisions involve higher risks, individual decision-making, especially risk preference, often changes due to the way information is expressed, so there is a framing effect. Whether different message framing can meet the different psychological needs of consumers under different permission times, and how the interaction of the two affects consumers’ risk preference are the focus of this paper. Because of this, this paper examines the impact of privacy permission time and communication methods on consumers’ privacy preference through two experiments. The study finds that in the case of “permission in advance”（that is, consumers are required to permit at the beginning of the service）, consumers will feel a high degree of uncertainty. At this time, the adoption of message framing that emphasizes “loss of permission” can reduce perceived uncertainty and enhance consumers’ willingness to disclose privacy. In the case of “timely authorization”（that is, consumers are required to permit in the course of providing the service）, consumers will feel a high sense of compulsion. Adopting the message framing that emphasizes “permitted benefits” can reduce consumers’ forced exposure and thus increase their willingness to disclose. The research of this paper has a certain enlightenment significance for enterprises to understand consumers’ privacy preference and psychological needs in-depth, to adopt certain strategies to alleviate privacy contradictions, regulate the way of information collection, and improve the personalized service experience.
/ Journals / Foreign Economics & Management
Foreign Economics & Management
Shaohua Zheng, Editor-in-Chief Rong Lu, Vice Editor-in-Chief
Home > All Issues > 2020 > No.11 > Article Details
Impact of the Matching Effect Between Permission Time and Message Framing on Privacy Disclosure Willingness
Foreign Economics & Management Vol. 42, Issue 11, pp. 81 - 93 (2020) DOI:10.16538/j.cnki.fem.20200817.301
Li He, Yu Lu, Xu Yiming, et al. Research on privacy paradox in social network sites under the perspective of construal level theory[J]. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, 2018, 37(1): 1-13.
 Li Xiaoming, Tan Pu. Applied research on framing effect and related techniques[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(12): 2230-2237.
 Nie Chunyan, Wang Tao, Zhao Peng, et al. The influence of interpretation frame on the evaluation of culturally mixed products: The moderating effect of comparison focus and interpretation strategy[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(12): 1438-1448.
 Sheng Guanghua, Yue Beibei, Gong Siyu. Impact of the matching effect between green advertising appeal and information framework on consumer responses[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2019, 16(3): 439-446.
 Shou Zhigang, Zheng Weihua. Uncertainty promotion research: Theoretical review and latest development[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2017, 39(3): 90-98.
 Wang Yanping, Cheng Yan. An analysis of online consumers’ psychology reactance and acceptance intention to proactive recommendation services: The influences of reference groups and time pressure[J]. Management Review, 2013, 25(2): 70-78.
 Acquisti A, Brandimarte L, Loewenstein G. Privacy and human behavior in the age of information[J]. Science, 2015, 347(6221): 509-514.
 Alkire L, Pohlmann J, Barnett W. Triggers and motivators of privacy protection behavior on Facebook[J]. Journal of Services Marketing, 2019, 33(1): 57-72.
 Bansal G, Zahedi F M, Gefen D. Do context and personality matter? Trust and privacy concerns in disclosing private information online[J]. Information & Management, 2016, 53(1): 1-21.
 Coleman N V, Williams P, Morales A C, et al. Attention, attitudes, and action: When and why incidental fear increases consumer choice[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 2017, 44(2): 283-312.
 Dillard J P, Shen L J. On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication[J]. Communication Monographs, 2005, 72(2): 144-168.
 Feng Y L, Chen L, Zheng A, et al. AC-Net: Assessing the consistency of description and permission in android apps[J]. IEEE Access, 2019, 7: 57829-57842.
 Fiske S T. Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38(6): 889-906.
 Fransen M L, Verlegh P W J, Kirmani A, et al. A typology of consumer strategies for resisting advertising, and a review of mechanisms for countering them[J]. International Journal of Advertising, 2015, 34(1): 6-16.
 Gerlach J P, Eling N, Wessels N, et al. Flamingos on a slackline: Companies’ challenges of balancing the competing demands of handling customer information and privacy[J]. Information Systems Journal, 2019, 29(2): 548-575.
 Ghazali A S, Ham J, Barakova E, et al. The influence of social cues in persuasive social robots on psychological reactance and compliance[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2018, 87: 58-65.
 Gu J, Xu Y J, Xu H, et al. Privacy concerns for mobile app download: An elaboration likelihood model perspective[J]. Decision Support Systems, 2017, 94: 19-28.
 Ha L, McCann K. An integrated model of advertising clutter in offline and online media[J]. International Journal of Advertising, 2008, 27(4): 569-592.
 Johnson G A, Shriver S K, Du S Y. Consumer privacy choice in online advertising: Who opts out and at what cost to industry?[J]. Marketing Science, 2020, 39(1): 33-51.
 Joinson A N, Paine C, Buchanan T, et al. Measuring self-disclosure online: Blurring and non-response to sensitive items in web-based surveys[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2008, 24(5): 2158-2171.
 Kayser D N, Graupmann V, Fryer J W, et al. Threat to freedom and the detrimental effect of avoidance goal frames: Reactance as a mediating variable[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2016, 7: 632.
 Krafft M, Arden C M, Verhoef P C. Permission marketing and privacy concerns—Why do customers (not) grant permissions?[J]. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 2017, 39: 39-54.
 Kumar V, Zhang X, Luo A. Modeling customer opt-in and opt-out in a permission-based marketing context[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2014, 51(4): 403-419.
 Lee H, Cameron G T. Utilizing audiovisual and gain-framed messages to attenuate psychological reactance toward weight management health messages[J]. Health Communication, 2017, 32(1): 72-81.
 Li H R, Edwards S M, Lee J H. Measuring the intrusiveness of advertisements: Scale development and validation[J]. Journal of Advertising, 2002, 31(2): 37-47.
 Martin K D, Borah A, Palmatier R W. Data privacy: Effects on customer and firm performance[J]. Journal of Marketing, 2017, 81(1): 36-58.
 Martin K D, Murphy P E. The role of data privacy in marketing[J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2017, 45(2): 135-155.
 Meyers-Levy J, Maheswaran D. Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur[J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2004, 14(1-2): 159-167.
 Miltgen C L, Smith H J. Falsifying and withholding: Exploring individuals’ contextual privacy-related decision-making[J]. Information & Management, 2019, 56(5): 696-717.
 Moon S, Bergey P K, Bove L L, et al. Message framing and individual traits in adopting innovative, sustainable products (ISPs): Evidence from biofuel adoption[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2016, 69(9): 3553-3560.
 Nenkov G Y. It’s all in the mindset: Effects of varying psychological distance in persuasive messages[J]. Marketing Letters, 2012, 23(3): 615-628.
 Pavlou P A, Liang H G, Xue Y J. Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2007, 31(1): 105-136.
 Shen L J. Antecedents to psychological reactance: The impact of threat, message frame, and choice[J]. Health Communication, 2015, 30(10): 975-985.
 Torkzadeh G, Dhillon G. Measuring factors that influence the success of Internet commerce[J]. Information Systems Research, 2002, 13(2): 187-204.
 Van De Velde L, Verbeke W, Popp M, et al. The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy[J]. Energy Policy, 2010, 38(10): 5541-5549.
 Wang T, Duong T D, Chen C C. Intention to disclose personal information via mobile applications: A privacy calculus perspective[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 2016, 36(4): 531-542.
 Wang Y C, Wang Y, Xie L Y, et al. Impact of perceived uncertainty on public acceptability of congestion charging: An empirical study in China[J]. Sustainability, 2019, 11(1): 129.
 Wedel M, Kannan P K. Marketing analytics for data-rich environments[J]. Journal of Marketing, 2016, 80(6): 97-121.
 White T B, Novak T P, Hoffman D L. No strings attached: When giving it away versus making them pay reduces consumer information disclosure[J]. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 2014, 28(3): 184-195.
 Wirth J, Maier C, Laumer S, et al. Perceived information sensitivity and interdependent privacy protection: A quantitative study[J]. Electronic Markets, 2019, 29(3): 359-378.
 Xu J. The impact of self-construal and message frame valence on reactance: A cross-cultural study in charity advertising[J]. International Journal of Advertising, 2019, 38(3): 405-427.
 Youn S, Kim S. Understanding ad avoidance on Facebook: Antecedents and outcomes of psychological reactance[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2019, 98: 232-244.
 Yun H, Lee G, Kim D J. A chronological review of empirical research on personal information privacy concerns: An analysis of contexts and research constructs[J]. Information & Management, 2019, 56(4): 570-601.
 Zhou W, Piramuthu S. Information relevance model of customized privacy for IoT[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2015, 131(1): 19-30.
Cite this article
Pan Ding, Xie Han. Impact of the Matching Effect Between Permission Time and Message Framing on Privacy Disclosure Willingness[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2020, 42(11): 81-93.
Export Citations as: For
Previous: Can Accounting Conservatism Be Contagious? Analysis from the Perspective of Network Centrality