1. bookVolume 2022 (2022): Edizione 2 (April 2022)
Dettagli della rivista
License
Formato
Rivista
eISSN
2299-0984
Prima pubblicazione
16 Apr 2015
Frequenza di pubblicazione
4 volte all'anno
Lingue
Inglese
access type Accesso libero

Employees’ privacy perceptions: exploring the dimensionality and antecedents of personal data sensitivity and willingness to disclose

Pubblicato online: 03 Mar 2022
Volume & Edizione: Volume 2022 (2022) - Edizione 2 (April 2022)
Pagine: 68 - 94
Ricevuto: 31 Aug 2021
Accettato: 16 Dec 2021
Dettagli della rivista
License
Formato
Rivista
eISSN
2299-0984
Prima pubblicazione
16 Apr 2015
Frequenza di pubblicazione
4 volte all'anno
Lingue
Inglese
Abstract

The processing of employees’ personal data is dramatically increasing, yet there is a lack of tools that allow employees to manage their privacy. In order to develop these tools, one needs to understand what sensitive personal data are and what factors influence employees’ willingness to disclose. Current privacy research, however, lacks such insights, as it has focused on other contexts in recent decades. To fill this research gap, we conducted a cross-sectional survey with 553 employees from Germany. Our survey provides multiple insights into the relationships between perceived data sensitivity and willingness to disclose in the employment context. Among other things, we show that the perceived sensitivity of certain types of data differs substantially from existing studies in other contexts. Moreover, currently used legal and contextual distinctions between different types of data do not accurately reflect the subtleties of employees’ perceptions. Instead, using 62 different data elements, we identified four groups of personal data that better reflect the multi-dimensionality of perceptions. However, previously found common disclosure antecedents in the context of online privacy do not seem to affect them. We further identified three groups of employees that differ in their perceived data sensitivity and willingness to disclose, but neither in their privacy beliefs nor in their demographics. Our findings thus provide employers, policy makers, and researchers with a better understanding of employees’ privacy perceptions and serve as a basis for future targeted research on specific types of personal data and employees.

Keywords

[1] Khaled Almotairi and Bilal Bataineh. Perception of Information Sensitivity for Internet Users in Saudi Arabia. Acta Informatica Pragensia, 9(2):184–199, 2020.10.18267/j.aip.141 Search in Google Scholar

[2] Nils Backhaus. Context Sensitive Technologies and Electronic Employee Monitoring: A Meta-Analytic Review. In 2019 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII), pages 548–553, 2019.10.1109/SII.2019.8700354 Search in Google Scholar

[3] Kirstie Ball, Elizabeth M. Daniel, and Chris Stride. Dimensions of employee privacy: An empirical study. Information Technology & People, 25(4):376–394, 2012. Search in Google Scholar

[4] Lemi Baruh and Zeynep Cemalcılar. It is more than personal: Development and validation of a multidimensional privacy orientation scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 70:165–170, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

[5] Douglas Bates, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1):1–48, 2015.10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Search in Google Scholar

[6] France Bélanger and Robert E. Crossler. Privacy in the Digital Age: A Review of Information Privacy Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 35(4):1017–1042, 2011. Search in Google Scholar

[7] Devasheesh P. Bhave, Laurel H. Teo, and Reeshad S. Dalal. Privacy at Work: A Review and a Research Agenda for a Contested Terrain. Journal of Management, 46(1): 127–164, 2020. Search in Google Scholar

[8] Bethany C. Bray, Stephanie T. Lanza, and Xianming Tan. Eliminating Bias in Classify-Analyze Approaches for Latent Class Analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(1):1–11, 2015.10.1080/10705511.2014.935265429966725614730 Search in Google Scholar

[9] Laura Burbach, Chantal Lidynia, Philipp Brauner, and Martina Ziefle. Data protectors, benefit maximizers, or facts enthusiasts: Identifying user profiles for life-logging technologies. Computers in Human Behavior, 99:9–21, 2019. Search in Google Scholar

[10] Shawn F. Clouse, Ryan T. Wright, and Ronald E. Pike. Employee Information Privacy Concerns with Employer Held Data: A Comparison of Two Prevalent Privacy Models. Journal of Information Privacy and Security, 6(3): 47–71, 2010. Search in Google Scholar

[11] Tobias Dienlin and Sabine Trepte. Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3):285–297, 2015.10.1002/ejsp.2049 Search in Google Scholar

[12] Tamara Dinev and Paul Hart. An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1):61–80, 2006.10.1287/isre.1060.0080 Search in Google Scholar

[13] Tamara Dinev, Heng Xu, Jeff H Smith, and Paul Hart. Information privacy and correlates: An empirical attempt to bridge and distinguish privacy-related concepts. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(3):295–316, 2013. Search in Google Scholar

[14] Tamara Dinev, Allen R. McConnell, and H. Jeff Smith. Research Commentary—Informing Privacy Research Through Information Systems, Psychology, and Behavioral Economics: Thinking Outside the “APCO” Box. Information Systems Research, 26(4):639–655, 2015. Search in Google Scholar

[15] Janna-Lynn Dupree, Richard Devries, Daniel M. Berry, and Edward Lank. Privacy Personas: Clustering Users via Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Security Practices. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 5228–5239, 2016.10.1145/2858036.2858214 Search in Google Scholar

[16] J. A. Durlak. How to Select, Calculate, and Interpret Effect Sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34(9):917–928, 2009.10.1093/jpepsy/jsp00419223279 Search in Google Scholar

[17] Isioma Elueze and Anabel Quan-Haase. Privacy Attitudes and Concerns in the Digital Lives of Older Adults: Westin’s Privacy Attitude Typology Revisited. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(10):1372–1391, 2018. Search in Google Scholar

[18] European Union. General Data Protection Regulation. May 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Search in Google Scholar

[19] Njål Foldnes and Steffen Grønneberg. The sensitivity of structural equation modeling with ordinal data to underlying non-normality and observed distributional forms. Psychological Methods, 2021.10.1037/met000038533793270 Search in Google Scholar

[20] John Fox. polycor: Polychoric and Polyserial Correlations, 2020. R package version 0.8-0/r22. Search in Google Scholar

[21] Sandra Gabriele and Sonia Chiasson. Understanding Fitness Tracker Users’ Security and Privacy Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–12, 2020.10.1145/3313831.3376651 Search in Google Scholar

[22] Mirta Galesic and Michael Bosnjak. Effects of Questionnaire Length on Participation and Indicators of Response Quality in a Web Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2): 349–360, 2009.10.1093/poq/nfp031 Search in Google Scholar

[23] Shawn N. Geniole, Valentina Proietti, Brian M. Bird, Triana L. Ortiz, Pierre L. Bonin, Bernard Goldfarb, Neil V. Watson, and Justin M. Carré. Testosterone reduces the threat premium in competitive resource division. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286(1903): 20190720, 2019.10.1098/rspb.2019.0720654509031138068 Search in Google Scholar

[24] Nina Gerber, Paul Gerber, and Melanie Volkamer. Explaining the privacy paradox: A systematic review of literature investigating privacy attitude and behavior. Computers & Security, 77:226–261, 2018. Search in Google Scholar

[25] Thomas Groß. Validity and Reliability of the Scale Internet Users’ Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC). Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PoPETs), 2021(2): 235–258, 2021.10.2478/popets-2021-0026 Search in Google Scholar

[26] Joseph F. Hair, William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson. Multivariate Data Analysis. Eighth edition, 2019. Search in Google Scholar

[27] David Harborth and Sebastian Pape. German Translation of the Concerns for Information Privacy (CFIP) Construct. Technical Report SSRN 3112207, 2018.10.2139/ssrn.3112207 Search in Google Scholar

[28] Jörg Henseler, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1):115–135, 2015.10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 Search in Google Scholar

[29] Francisco Pablo Holgado–Tello, Salvador Chacón–Moscoso, Isabel Barbero–García, and Enrique Vila–Abad. Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Quality & Quantity, 44 (1):153, 2008.10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y Search in Google Scholar

[30] Hsiao-Ying Huang and Masooda Bashir. Privacy by region: Evaluation online users’ privacy perceptions by geographical region. In 2016 Future Technologies Conference (FTC), pages 968–977, 2016.10.1109/FTC.2016.7821721 Search in Google Scholar

[31] Athina Ioannou, Iis Tussyadiah, and Graham Miller. That’s Private! Understanding Travelers’ Privacy Concerns and Online Data Disclosure. Journal of Travel Research, page 0047287520951642, 2020.10.1177/0047287520951642 Search in Google Scholar

[32] ISO. ISO/IEC 29100:2011(E): Information Technology — Security Techniques — Privacy Framework. 2011. Search in Google Scholar

[33] Leslie K. John, Alessandro Acquisti, and George Loewenstein. Strangers on a Plane: Context-Dependent Willingness to Divulge Sensitive Information. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5):858–873, 2011. Search in Google Scholar

[34] Terrence D. Jorgensen, Sunthud Pornprasertmanit, Alexander M. Schoemann, Yves Rosseel, Patrick Miller, Corbin Quick, Mauricio Garnier-Villarreal, James Selig, Aaron Boulton, Kristopher Preacher, Donna Coffman, Mijke Rhemtulla, Alexander Robitzsch, Craig Enders, Ruben Arslan, Bell Clinton, Pavel Panko, Edgar Merkle, Steven Chesnut, Jarrett Byrnes, Jason D. Rights, Ylenio Longo, Maxwell Mansolf, Mattan S. Ben-Shachar, Mikko Rönkkö, and Andrew R. Johnson. semTools: Useful Tools for Structural Equation Modeling, 2021. Search in Google Scholar

[35] Michelle L. Kaarst-Brown and E. Dale Thompson. Cracks in the Security Foundation: Employee Judgments about Information Sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMIS Conference on Computers and People Research, pages 145–151, 2015.10.1145/2751957.2751977 Search in Google Scholar

[36] Rex B. Kline. Assumptions in structural equation modeling. In Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling, pages 111–125. 2012. Search in Google Scholar

[37] Bart P Knijnenburg. Information Disclosure profiles for Segmentation and Recommendation. In 1st USENIX Workshop on Privacy Personas and Segmentation (PPS), pages 1–4, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

[38] Bart P. Knijnenburg, Alfred Kobsa, and Hongxia Jin. Dimensionality of information disclosure behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(12):1144–1162, 2013.10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.06.003 Search in Google Scholar

[39] Manuel Koller. Robustlmm: An R Package for Robust Estimation of Linear Mixed-Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 75(1):1–24, 2016. Search in Google Scholar

[40] Selcuk Korkmaz, Dincer Goksuluk, and Gokmen Zararsiz. Mvn: An r package for assessing multivariate normality. The R Journal, 6(2):151–162, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

[41] Takashi Koshimizu, Tomoji Toriyama, and Noboru Babaguchi. Factors on the sense of privacy in video surveillance. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Workshop on Continuous Archival and Retrival of Personal Experences (CARPE), pages 35–44, 2006.10.1145/1178657.1178665 Search in Google Scholar

[42] Ponnurangam Kumaraguru and Lorrie Faith Cranor. Privacy Indexes: A Survey of Westin’s Studies. Research Report CMU-ISRI-5-138, Institute for Software Research, International School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, 2005. Search in Google Scholar

[43] Marija Kuzmanovic and Gordana Savic. Avoiding the Privacy Paradox Using Preference-Based Segmentation: A Conjoint Analysis Approach. Electronics, 9(9):1382, 2020. Search in Google Scholar

[44] Alexandra Kuznetsova, Per B. Brockhoff, and Rune H. B. Christensen. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13):1–26, 2017. Search in Google Scholar

[45] Nancy K. Lankton, D. Harrison McKnight, and John F. Tripp. Facebook privacy management strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 76(C):149–163, 2017.10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.015 Search in Google Scholar

[46] Benedikt Lebek, Kenan Degirmenci, and Michael H. Breitner. Investigating the Influence of Security, Privacy, and Legal Concerns on Employees’ Intention to Use BYOD Mobile Devices. In Proceedings of the 19th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), volume 3, pages 2191–2198, 2013. Search in Google Scholar

[47] Lebek Benedikt. Information security awareness and behavior: A theory-based literature review. Management Research Review, 37(12):1049–1092, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

[48] Yuan Li. Empirical Studies on Online Information Privacy Concerns: Literature Review and an Integrative Framework. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28:453–496, 2011. Search in Google Scholar

[49] Drew A. Linzer and Jeffrey B. Lewis. poLCA: An R Package for Polytomous Variable Latent Class Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(1):1–29, 2011. Search in Google Scholar

[50] Steven G. Luke. Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 49(4): 1494–1502, 2017.10.3758/s13428-016-0809-y27620283 Search in Google Scholar

[51] Fred A. Mael, Mary Connerley, and Ray A. Morath. None of Your Business: Parameters of Biodata Invasiveness. Personnel Psychology, 49(3):613–650, 1996. Search in Google Scholar

[52] Miguel Malheiros, Sören Preibusch, and M. Angela Sasse. “Fairly Truthful”: The Impact of Perceived Effort, Fairness, Relevance, and Sensitivity on Personal Data Disclosure. In Trust and Trustworthy Computing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 250–266, 2013.10.1007/978-3-642-38908-5_19 Search in Google Scholar

[53] Naresh K Malhotra, Sung S Kim, and James Agarwal. Internet Users’ Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model. Information Systems Research (ISRE), 15(4):336–355, 2004. Search in Google Scholar

[54] Ereni Markos, George R. Milne, and James W. Peltier. Information Sensitivity and Willingness to Provide Continua: A Comparative Privacy Study of the United States and Brazil. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 36(1):79–96, 2017. Search in Google Scholar

[55] Ereni Markos, Lauren I. Labrecque, and George R. Milne. A New Information Lens: The Self-concept and Exchange Context as a Means to Understand Information Sensitivity of Anonymous and Personal Identifying Information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 42:46–62, 2018. Search in Google Scholar

[56] Kirsten E. M. Martin and Helen Nissenbaum. Measuring Privacy: An Empirical Test Using Context To Expose Confounding Variables. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review (STLR), 18:176–218, 2015. Search in Google Scholar

[57] Erika McCallister, Tim Grance, and Karen Scarfone. Guide to Protecting the Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Technical Report 800-122, NIST, 2010.10.6028/NIST.SP.800-122 Search in Google Scholar

[58] Tobias Mettler and Jochen Wulf. Physiolytics at the workplace: Affordances and constraints of wearables use from an employee’s perspective. Information Systems Journal, 29 (1):245–273, 2019. Search in Google Scholar

[59] Miriam J. Metzger. Privacy, Trust, and Disclosure: Exploring Barriers to Electronic Commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(4), 2004.10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00292.x Search in Google Scholar

[60] George R. Milne, George Pettinico, Fatima M. Hajjat, and Ereni Markos. Information Sensitivity Typology: Mapping the Degree and Type of Risk Consumers Perceive in Personal Data Sharing. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 51(1): 133–161, 2017. Search in Google Scholar

[61] David L. Mothersbaugh, William K. Foxx, Sharon E. Beatty, and Sijun Wang. Disclosure Antecedents in an Online Service Context: The Role of Sensitivity of Information. Journal of Service Research, 15(1):76–98, 2012. Search in Google Scholar

[62] Patrick Murmann and Simone Fischer-Hübner. Tools for Achieving Usable Ex Post Transparency: A Survey. IEEE Access, 5:22965–22991, 2017. Search in Google Scholar

[63] Helen Nissenbaum. Privacy as Contextual Integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1):1119–157, 2004. Search in Google Scholar

[64] Karen L. Nylund, Tihomir Asparouhov, and Bengt O. Muthén. Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A monte carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4):535–569, 2007. Search in Google Scholar

[65] OECD. STAN industry ISIC rev. 4. 2017. Search in Google Scholar

[66] Federal Labour Office. Klassifikation der Berufe 2010 – überarbeitete Fassung 2020 Band 1: Systematischer und alphabetischer Teil mit Erläuterungen. Official document, Bundesagentur für Arbeit, 2021. Search in Google Scholar

[67] Federal Statistical Office. Homepage. https://www.destatis.de/EN/Home/_node.html, 2021. Search in Google Scholar

[68] Judith S. Olson, Jonathan Grudin, and Eric Horvitz. A study of preferences for sharing and privacy. In CHI Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1985–1988, 2005.10.1145/1056808.1057073 Search in Google Scholar

[69] Sandra Petronio. Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. 2002. Search in Google Scholar

[70] Joseph Phelps, Glen Nowak, and Elizabeth Ferrell. Privacy Concerns and Consumer Willingness to Provide Personal Information. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1): 27–41, 2000.10.1509/jppm.19.1.27.16941 Search in Google Scholar

[71] Svenja Polst, Patricia Kelbert, and Denis Feth. Company Privacy Dashboards: Employee Needs and Requirements. In 1st International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction for Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust (HCI-CPT), pages 429–440, 2019.10.1007/978-3-030-22351-9_29 Search in Google Scholar

[72] Kristopher J. Preacher, Guangjian Zhang, Cheongtag Kim, and Gerhard Mels. Choosing the Optimal Number of Factors in Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Model Selection Perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48(1):28–56, 2013. Search in Google Scholar

[73] Sören Preibusch. Managing diversity in privacy preferences: How to construct a privacy typology. In 1st USENIX Workshop on Privacy Personas and Segmentation (PPS), pages 1–6, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

[74] R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2020. Search in Google Scholar

[75] William Revelle. psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 2021. R package version 2.1.3. Search in Google Scholar

[76] Bernard L. Rosenbaum. Attitude toward invasion of privacy in the personnel selection process and job applicant demographic and personality correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58(3):333–338, 1973.10.1037/h0036294 Search in Google Scholar

[77] Yves Rosseel. Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(1):1–36, 2012. Search in Google Scholar

[78] Guillaume A. Rousselet, Cyril R. Pernet, and Rand R. Wilcox. A practical introduction to the bootstrap: a versatile method to make inferences by using data-driven simulations. PsyArXiv, 2019.10.31234/osf.io/h8ft7 Search in Google Scholar

[79] Guillaume A. Rousselet, Cyril R. Pernet, and Rand R. Wilcox. The Percentile Bootstrap: A Primer With Step-by-Step Instructions in R. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1):2515245920911881, 2021. Search in Google Scholar

[80] Eva-Maria Schomakers, Chantal Lidynia, Luisa Vervier, and Martina Ziefle. Of Guardians, Cynics, and Pragmatists - A Typology of Privacy Concerns and Behavior:. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Internet of Things, Big Data and Security, pages 153–163, 2018.10.5220/0006774301530163 Search in Google Scholar

[81] Eva-Maria Schomakers, Chantal Lidynia, Dirk Müllmann, and Martina Ziefle. Internet users’ perceptions of information sensitivity – insights from Germany. International Journal of Information Management, 46(1):142–150, 2019.10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.11.018 Search in Google Scholar

[82] Eva-Maria Schomakers, Chantal Lidynia, Dirk Müllmann, Roman Matzutt, Klaus Wehrle, Indra Spiecker genannt Döhmann, and Martina Ziefle. Putting Privacy into Perspective – Comparing Technical, Legal, and Users’ View of Information Sensitivity. In INFORMATIK 2020, pages 857–870, 2021. Search in Google Scholar

[83] Kim Bartel Sheehan and Mariea Grubbs Hoy. Dimensions of Privacy Concern among Online Consumers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1):62–73, 2000.10.1509/jppm.19.1.62.16949 Search in Google Scholar

[84] H. Jeff Smith, Sandra J. Milberg, and Sandra J. Burke. Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals’ Concerns about Organizational Practices. MIS Quarterly, 20(2):167–196, 1996. Search in Google Scholar

[85] H. Jeff Smith, Tamara Dinev, and Heng Xu. Information Privacy Research: An Interdisciplinary Review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4):989–1016, 2011. Search in Google Scholar

[86] Stephanie A. Smith and Steven R. Brunner. To Reveal or Conceal: Using Communication Privacy Management Theory to Understand Disclosures in the Workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(3):429–446, 2017. Search in Google Scholar

[87] Daniel J. Solove. A Taxonomy of Privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(3):477–560, 2006.10.2307/40041279 Search in Google Scholar

[88] Markus D. Steiner and Silvia Grieder. EFAtools: An r package with fast and flexible implementations of exploratory factor analysis tools. Journal of Open Source Software, 5 (53):2521, 2020. Search in Google Scholar

[89] Daniel J. Stekhoven and Peter Bühlmann. MissForest — non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics, 28(1):112–118, 2012.10.1093/bioinformatics/btr59722039212 Search in Google Scholar

[90] Eugene F. Stone, Hal G. Gueutal, Donald G. Gardner, and Stephen McClure. A field experiment comparing information-privacy values, beliefs, and attitudes across several types of organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3):459–468, 1983.10.1037/0021-9010.68.3.459 Search in Google Scholar

[91] Paul D. Tolchinsky, Michael K. McCuddy, Jerome Adams, Daniel C. Ganster, Richard W. Woodman, and Howard L. Fromkin. Employee perceptions of invasion of privacy: A field simulation experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(3):308–313, 1981. Search in Google Scholar

[92] Jan Tolsdorf and Florian Dehling. In Our Employer We Trust: Mental Models of Office Workers’ Privacy Perceptions. In Proceedings of the 1st Asian Workshop on Usable Security (AsiaUSEC, FC Workshop), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 122–136, 2020.10.1007/978-3-030-54455-3_9 Search in Google Scholar

[93] Jan Tolsdorf, Florian Dehling, Delphine Reinhardt, and Luigi Lo Iacono. Exploring Mental Models of Informational Self-Determination of Office Workers in Germany. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PoPETs), 2021 (3):5–27, 2021.10.2478/popets-2021-0035 Search in Google Scholar

[94] Jennifer Urban and Chris Jay Hoofnagle. The Privacy Pragmatic as Privacy Vulnerable. In 1st USENIX Workshop on Privacy Personas and Segmentation (PPS), pages 1–5, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

[95] Cees van der Eijk and Jonathan Rose. Risky Business: Factor Analysis of Survey Data – Assessing the Probability of Incorrect Dimensionalisation. PLOS ONE, 10(3):e0118900, 2015. Search in Google Scholar

[96] Jichuan Wang and Xiaoqian Wang. 7.1 The Rules of Thumb for Sample Size Needed for SEM. In Structural Equation Modeling: Applications Using Mplus. 2nd edition, 2012. Search in Google Scholar

[97] Marley W. Watkins. Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44(3):219–246, 2018. Search in Google Scholar

[98] Pamela Wisniewski, Bart P Knijnenburg, and Heather Richter Lipford. Profiling Facebook Users’ Privacy Behaviors. In 1st USENIX Workshop on Privacy Personas and Segmentation (PPS), pages 1–6, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

[99] Richard W. Woodman, Daniel C. Ganster, Jerome Adams, Michael K. McCuddy, Paul D. Tolchinsky, and Howard Fromkin. A Survey of Employee Perceptions of Information Privacy in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 25(3):647–663, 1982.10.5465/256087 Search in Google Scholar

[100] Heng Xu, Tamara Dinev, Jeff Smith, and Paul Hart. Information Privacy Concerns: Linking Individual Perceptions with Institutional Privacy Assurances. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(12):798–824, 2011. Search in Google Scholar

[101] Charilaos Yiotis, Jennifer C McElwain, and Bruce A Osborne. Enhancing the productivity of ryegrass at elevated CO2 is dependent on tillering and leaf area development rather than leaf-level photosynthesis. Journal of Experimental Botany, 72(5):1962–1977, 2021.10.1093/jxb/eraa584792130133315099 Search in Google Scholar

[102] Conrad Zygmont and Mario R. Smith. Robust factor analysis in the presence of normality violations, missing data, and outliers: Empirical questions and possible solutions. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 10(1):40–55, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

Articoli consigliati da Trend MD

Pianifica la tua conferenza remota con Sciendo