Abstract
In their meta-analysis on how privacy concerns and perceived privacy risk are related to online disclosure intentionand behavior, Yu et al. (2020) conclude that “the ‘privacy paradox’ phenomenon (...) exists in our research model” (p. 8). In this comment, we contest this conclusion and present evidence and arguments against it. We find five areas of problems: (1) Flawed logic of hypothesis testing; (2) erroneous and implausible results; (3) questionable decision to use only the direct effect of privacy concerns on disclosure behavior as evidence in testing the privacy paradox; (4) overinterpreting results from MASEM; (5) insufficient reporting and lack of transparency. To guide future research, we offer three recommendations: Going beyond mere null hypothesis significance testing, probing alternative theoretical models, and implementing open science practices. While we value this meta-analytic effort, we caution its readers that, contrary to the authors’ claim, it does not offer evidence in support of the privacy paradox.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Meta-Psychology |
| Volume | 5 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - 29 Nov 2021 |
Research Keywords
- Privacy Paradox
- Meta-Analysis
- Comment
Publisher's Copyright Statement
- This full text is made available under CC-BY 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Does the privacy paradox exist? Comment on Yu et al.’s (2020) meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver