Triggers and motivators of privacy

protection behavior on Facebook

Linda Alkire
McCoy College of Business, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA
Johannes Pohlmann
Ketchum Pleon GmbH, Duesseldorf, Germany, and
Willy Barnett
Delta Airlines, Atlanta, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Internet user privacy risks have been a topical subject with respect to consumers, corporations and governments. In line with the recent
privacy scandals linked to social media, the aim of this study is to explore users’ privacy protection behaviors (PPB) on Facebook through the actions
they take to protect their privacy, their underlying motives and the values behind these protective actions. Moreover, this study aims to address an
unintended consequence of Facebook usage. Despite Facebook’s positive and uplifting goal of connecting people, consumers are forced to resort to
specific behaviors to protect their privacy and well-being.
Design/methodology/approach – This study adopts an exploratory research approach by using a well-established qualitative technique:
structured laddering interviews. In total, 20 in-depth personal interviews were conducted with the Millennials.
Findings – Results show that the process of privacy protection is initiated by experiences, uncertainty and literacy, rather than threats, which leads
to concerns that trigger PPBs. The most common PPBs include: “Reflection,” “Avoidance,” “Intervention,” “Restriction,” “Control,” and
“Restraint.” The underlying motives for the adoption of these strategies include: “Success,” “Security,” “Social Recognition,” “A World of Peace,”
“Exclusivity of Self,” “Being in Control,” “Meaning” and “True Friendship”.
Originality/value – The present research adopts a transdisciplinary framework to help fill the gap regarding the interplay of PPBs on Facebook, the
triggers of those behaviors and their underlying motives. It contributes to the service literature and practice as it provides insights into a growing
area of interest, whereas more social media channels are being created and more services are using social media strategies to engage and interact
with their customers. Finally, it addresses the growing need to consider the impact of technological services, including internet and social media, on
consumers’ and societies’ well-being.
Keywords Internet, Facebook, Millennials, Social media, Digital, Online service, Unintended consequences, Privacy protection behaviour
Paper type Research paper

Introduction services (e.g. retailing, healthcare and education) to be

Within the past 20 years, the internet has become a central part
of many people’s life. Since 2005, the number of worldwide
internet users has more than quadrupled, from about one
billion in 2005 to more than four billion in 2018 (Statista,
2018). As such, more than half of the world’s population is now
online. Not only has the number of internet users increased
dramatically but also the amount of time people spend on the
internet. A survey of the GlobalWebindex (2018) shows that
the average internet user now spends around 6.2 h a day using
internet-powered devices and services.
Wilson et al. (2012, p. 14) state that the “internet is just one
big service,” and that all companies using the internet are
service providers. As such the internet became a major actor in
the economy (Huang and Rust, 2013) allowing existing
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm
delivered online and also creating new services and business
models (e.g. Airbnb and Uber). One of the most significant
new services created by the internet lies within social media
(e.g. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram). Through social media
platforms, interactions between companies and customers, and
among customers themselves, total more than 3.3 billion users
(Statista, 2018). The massive numbers of social media users,
along with the accompanying data exchange, e.g. Facebook
generates up to 250 million posts per hour (WERSM, 2018),
certain risks become prevalent. One of the biggest concerns of
researchers, policymakers and users is related to privacy
(Bartsch and Dienlin, 2016; Bergström, 2015). In line with the
recent privacy scandals linked to security breaches involving
Cambridge Analytica, Twitter and other Silicon Valley giants,
social media privacy concerns are at their peak. On September
2018, Facebook disclosed that “almost 50 million” of its users
were left exposed by a security flaw (BBC, 2018). Apart from
direct harms such as criminal motivations to abuse private data,

Journal of Services Marketing

Received 9 October 2018
33/1 (2019) 57–72 Revised 15 November 2018
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] 26 November 2018
[DOI 10.1108/JSM-10-2018-0287] Accepted 28 November 2018

57
 Privacy protection behavior on Facebook
Linda Alkire, Johannes Pohlmann and Willy Barnett
online services and their – often weak – privacy policies
contribute to growing user concerns (Cecere et al., 2015).
These concerns can negatively affect their well-being
(Anderson and Ostrom, 2015) and lead to various protective
behaviors (Chen and Chen, 2015).
Within the service field, transformative service research
(TSR) emphasizes the importance of privacy for well-being.
TSR is defined as “research that focuses on creating ‘uplifting
changes’ aimed at improving the lives of individuals (both
consumers and employees), families, communities, society and
the ecosystem more broadly” (Anderson et al., 2013, p. 243).
Anderson and Ostrom (2015, p. 247) cautioned that the advent
of the internet “may expose consumers to risks, that could
negatively affect their well-being” while Rosenbaum and Wong
(2012) called for studying the unintended consequences of
online services. Finally, Anderson and Ostrom (2015, p. 247)
described privacy as one of the “key issues worthy of greater
TSR”.
The link between privacy and protective behaviors has been
documented within academic literature (Yap et al., 2012).
However, few studies have examined this link in online services,
specifically in social media services, such as Facebook.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to fill this gap by exploring in
greater depth users’ privacy protection behavior (PPB) on
Facebook through the actions they take to protect their privacy,
their underlying motives and the values behind these protective
actions. Moreover, this work aims to address an unintended
consequence of Facebook usage. Despite Facebook’s positive
and uplifting goal of connecting people, consumers are forced
to resort to specific behaviors to protect their privacy and well-
being.
As such, this paper makes the following contribution: first, it
helps fill the gap regarding the interplay of PPB on Facebook,
the triggers of those behaviors and their underlying motives.
Second, it contributes to the service literature and practice as it
provides insights into a growing area of interest, whereas more
social media channels are being created and more services are
using social media strategies (and thus channels) to engage and
interact with their customers. Finally, it addresses the growing
need to consider the unintended consequences of services,
including internet and social media, on consumers’ and
societies’ well-being (Rosenbaum and Wong, 2012).
The rest of the paper begins with an overview of the concept
of privacy, its role and importance within online services,
specifically social media services and PPB studied to date.
Subsequently, research questions and the adopted
methodological approach are presented. Consequently, we
describe the chosen data analysis technique followed by a
discussion of the results. Finally, we propose managerial
implications and outline limitations and directions for further
research.
Literature review
Privacy
There is limited agreement across the literature on the meaning
of privacy (Martin and Murphy, 2017). According to Newell
(1994), theorists have not agreed “on whether privacy was a
condition of the individual, a quality of the place, a process, a
goal, an individual or group attitude or an observable
58
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2019 · 57–72
behavior.” Cooley (1880) initially described privacy as the
“right to be left alone.” Later researchers argued privacy does
not only include the right of withdrawing from people but also
involves the possibility of selectively controlling the extent and
type of contact a person has with others and the information
shared during that process (Moore, 2001). Pedersen’s (1999,
p. 398) definition summarizes these aspects by describing
privacy as a “boundary control process, in which the individual
regulates with whom contact will occur and how much and
what type of interaction it will be”. According to Westin
(1970), this process has a number of important functions, as it
enables and regulates personal autonomy, self-evaluation,
emotional release and the ability to limit and protect
communication. Other researchers argue that the satisfaction of
privacy needs is an important influencing factor in the
development of a person and is simultaneously essential for the
functioning of groups and social networks (Newell, 1994).
Similarly, privacy needs and the value people associate with
privacy differ and very much depend on diverse factors, such as
a person’s background, experiences, age and gender (Park,
2015). As such, the understanding of this complex concept
differs across cultures and regions, changes with the course of
time and is highly dependent on the actual circumstances
(Acquisti et al., 2015).
Privacy and social media
With the wide acceptance of the internet and the formation of
an information-oriented society, the concept of privacy has
further evolved. Moore (2007) argues there are two main types
of privacy, namely, physical privacy and informational privacy.
As the usage of the internet often involves disclosing
information, informational privacy is often thought of in an
online context. To further segment informational privacy,
Birnhack and Elkin-Koren (2011) suggest there are two main
aspects, as follows:
1 the right to control one’s personal information; and
2 the right to prevent access to one’s personal information.
Both aspects are significant in the online world. Individuals
want to control what information they share online, including
contact information, date of birth and full name. They also
want to control who has access to this information. Hong and
Thong (2013) emphasize that privacy concerns especially occur
in the context of novel information technologies – such as social
media networks – with complex functionalities and advanced
capabilities to collect, store and use personal information (e.g.
tailor services to individual needs or advertisements to personal
preferences). With the continuous rise and adoption of social
media services and strategies, it is imperative to understand
their role in people’s privacy (Brandtzaeg et al., 2010).
The usage of social media networks usually implies providing
private data. This can have many reasons, for example,
socialization or giving away personal data in exchange for a
service Acquisti et al. (2015). Apart from this explicitly
provided data, organizations also collect data implicitly by
using tracking software and/or cookies that permit businesses to
follow customers’ online behaviors and gather information
about their personal preferences and interests (Liu et al., 2004).
Despite the fact that social media services have been developed
with mostly positive intentions (e.g. connecting people,
 Privacy protection behavior on Facebook
Linda Alkire, Johannes Pohlmann and Willy Barnett
building communities, enhancing relationships, sharing
information, etc.), the explicit and implicit disclosure of
durable private data can entail various intended or unintended
consequences (Cameron and Webster, 2005). Apart from
rather unharmful but potentially annoying impacts such as
spam messages or personalized advertisements, Prosser (1960)
presented four serious torts regarding privacy cases:
“Intrusion,” “Private Facts,” “False Light” and
“Appropriation.” Even though his categorization originates
from an era when social media did not exist, it is still valid.
“Intrusion” includes the physical or non-physical penetration
upon the private sphere of another person in a highly offensive
manner. “Private Facts” describes the publication of highly
offensive information about another person without his/her
consent. “False Light” includes the same tort as private facts,
with the difference that the published information is false.
“Appropriation” describes the usage of another persons’ data,
such as their name, for some advantage. Others identified
further harm regarding the usage of social media in connection
with insufficient knowledge or literacy, such as the
unintentional disclosure of private data or legal prosecution due
to improper exposure of information or other kinds of data
(Bartsch and Dienlin, 2016). Finally, as the storage of data in
the digital age is so durable that certain information is de facto
undeletable, data collection could pose a threat to social media
users, years after the data was collected (Mayer-Scho«nberger,
2011).
Potential consequences of the aforementioned threats might
include heightened vulnerability (Martin et al., 2017),
personality theft, sexual harassment, opinion manipulation,
cyberbullying, fraud, behavioral profiling, unwanted or highly
targeted, obtrusive marketing communications and might
result in emotional, mental, social or financial harm to
customers and companies alike (Martin and Murphy, 2017).
Similarly, social media users are also confronted with the
ubiquitous issue of surveillance, data collection or micro-
targeting triggered by economic, political or even criminal
interests (Park et al., 2012). Finally, Hiranandani (2011)
emphasized the importance of control over personal
information for people’s sense of self, their ability to form
relationships, their liberty, autonomy and overall well-being.
These consequences are found to be detrimental to individuals’
and societies’ well-being (Anderson and Ostrom, 2015; Diener
et al., 2009).
Alarmingly, Martin et al. (2017) recently found that firms
have little insight into the consequences of such privacy
breaches and do not know how to prevent its negative effects.
Generally, companies have limited knowledge about the
various unintended consequences of their services (Rosenbaum
and Wong, 2012).
The far-reaching consequences of the disclosure of private
data might entail, combined with recurring scandals of data
abuse and an intensified media focus on questionable data
protection policies, led to rising users’ concerns. Malhotra et al.
(2004) found that these concerns could be related to:
 the way personal information is collected;
 users’ perception of losing control over their information;
and
 users’ unawareness of how their information is used.
59
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2019 · 57–72
Moreover, legal frameworks and laws regarding online/social
media data protection in most countries are still evolving and
are not capable of effectively tackling rising violations in online
privacy, which is an additional factor contributing to the
growing social media privacy concerns.
Privacy protection behaviors
The rising privacy concerns led customers to act. Previous
research has examined a variety of practices consumers engage
in when trying to protect their privacy. Laufer and Wolfe
(1977) explain individuals perform a “calculus of behavior” to
evaluate the costs and benefits of providing personal
information. As such, individuals explicitly consider the trade-
off between the merits of interactions and potential
consequences when attempting to protect their privacy. Yap
et al. (2012) propose a comprehensive overview of the various
PPB consumers actively engage in, such as withdrawal,
defensive behavior, feinting, neutralization, attack, perception
management and reconciliation practices so as to achieve,
maintain and/or regain control over their personal domains.
However, these practices are neither specific to online services
nor to social media networks. As stated by Randles and Warde
(2006, p. 229), PPBs are likely to be affected by “the evolution
of technologies, institutional contexts and physical
infrastructure,” as well as being subject to “local histories and
conditions”.
In response to the growing online privacy concerns, prior
research identified PPB users engage in online. These
behaviors range from lying and falsifying personal information
(Horne et al., 2007), complaining and abstaining (Sheehan and
Hoy, 1999), using privacy-enhancing technologies and refusal
to purchase (Wirtz et al., 2007). Acquisti et al. (2015) broadly
described different online privacy control mechanisms. These
include: separateness, reserve, anonymity, protecting personal
information, deception and dissimulation. Nevertheless,
research in the area lacks depth and understanding of the
causes of such behaviors. Cranor et al. (1999) presented some
findings on internet users’ attitudes toward online privacy and
how these attitudes affected their behavior. For example, they
found internet users are more likely to provide information
when they are not personally identified, and some types of data
are more sensitive to some users than others. Additionally, Park
et al. (2012) conducted a survey to identify information control
behaviors. Nevertheless, the accuracy of attitudinal scales to
predict actual privacy behavior is questionable, as when directly
asked, people often claim to care a lot about privacy and express
privacy concerns, which in reality often contradicts their actual
behavior (Acquisti et al., 2015). Despite the number of studies
in the online setting, these findings may not be a complete
representation of the causes and ranges of practices consumers
engage in, specifically in a social media setting.
Finally, few studies examined the factors that influence
disclosure habits with regard to privacy attitudes (Chen and
Chen, 2015). For example, Milne et al. (2009) found that self-
efficacy and various demographic factors, such as age, have a
differential impact on customers’ behavior online. Moreover,
Schwaig et al. (2013) found that individual differences such as
perceptions of consumer alienation, self-esteem and computer
anxiety had a direct impact on concern for information privacy
online. Stutzman et al. (2011) identified privacy settings and
 Privacy protection behavior on Facebook
Linda Alkire, Johannes Pohlmann and Willy Barnett
privacy policy consumption practices as specific factors
affecting users’ behavior on social media sites.
In summary, the scattered body of knowledge mainly looks at
specific factors mediating disclosure online or very generic
behaviors applicable across different offline or online settings.
Findings on concrete actions on social media services resulting
from certain privacy attitudes, e.g. what people do to protect
their privacy, are vague and broad.
Research objectives
The literature review suggests a lack of studies investigating the
connections between the triggers of social media PPB, concrete
privacy protection measures and the underlying motives for the
adoption of those behaviors within social media services.
Therefore, the research objective is to examine how online
privacy concerns affect the way people use Facebook services
(triggers), respectively, what they do to protect their privacy
(PPBs), what are the underlying motives (higher order values)
of these behaviors and how exactly triggers, PPBs and
underlying motives of PPB are connected. Facebook is chosen
for further exploration given that it is the leading social media
network worldwide and the subject of heightened privacy
concerns. This study also intends to provide recommendations
on how online services and privacy policies could be adjusted to
protect customers’ privacy and enhance their well-being by
mitigating the unintended consequences linked to privacy
concerns.
Methodology
Research design
To address the purpose of this study, an exploratory research
design was adopted. Further, a qualitative research method was
selected to help understand relatively unknown behaviors: PPB
among Facebook users. Thus, the qualitative research
approach could help identify the different patterns of privacy
protection and to decode the underlying motives and values
(Malhotra, 2015), i.e. insights a quantitative method could not
provide. Hair et al. (2006) characterize in-depth-interviews as
especially suitable in such cases, where the researcher aims to
gain attitudinal and behavioral data. A specific form of semi-
structured in-depth interviews were chosen: “laddering-
interviews”. Laddering is a bottom-up, in-depth interviewing
technique in which the interviewer asks different probing
questions to elicit higher-order meanings that drive the
respondent’s perceptions (Reynolds and Phillips, 2009).
Laddering originates from means-end theory, which is based on
the assumption that the behavior of individuals is driven by
personal values (Gutman, 1982). As such, the attributes of
objects are “means” to reach higher level consequences
(psychological or functional), which, in turn, are means to
achieve an ultimate value (“ends”) (Reynolds and Olsen,
2001). The objective of laddering interviews is to uncover the
relationships present between three concepts of meaning: the
attributes of a product/service, the interviewee’s consequences
of interaction with these attributes and the underlying values
that are strengthened or satisfied by the consequences
(Reynolds and Philips, 2009). Schwartz (1994) describes these
values as goals of differing importance, which function as
guiding principles for people and social entities. Laddering
60
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2019 · 57–72
usually encompasses personal, semi-standardized in-depth
interviews, where probing questions are used to uncover
Attribute (A)-Consequence (C)-Value (V) chains. In this
study, we aim to uncover the Attributes (A), Consequences (C)
and perceived Values (V) associated with social media PPB
occurrence:
 Attributes (A) are usually tangible and intangible
characteristics of a good, a service or an individual. In this
study, Attributes (A) are the triggers of PPB. In other
words, it is the reasons why users engage in PPB;
 Consequences (C) usually describe why a certain attribute
is important to the individual. In this study, Consequences
(C) are the actual PPB; and
 Values (V) are universal life goals, and as described by
Rokeach (1973), they are the most personal goals people
are aiming for in their lives. In this study, Values (V)
reflect the underlying motives of actual PPB.
Thus, laddering interviews not only help uncover what the
respondents think about privacy issues and what they do to
protect their privacy but also help determine what their
underlying values for these PPBs.
Sample specification
For the purpose of this study, the researchers conducted 20 in-
depth interviews with Millennials, who regularly use Facebook.
The choices were justified as follows:
Sample size
According to Reynolds and Olsen (2001), the minimum
sample size required for conducting laddering research is 20
participants, as it can give a full range of Attributes,
Consequences and Values. Subsequently, personal interviews
were conducted with 20 participants. Snowball sampling was
used as a non-probability sampling technique asking recruited
participants to recommend further eligible participants.
Facebook
The reasons to exclusively focus on Facebook were
 Facebook is the leading social network site worldwide.
According to Facebook’s (2017) earnings report, there are
2.01 billion monthly active users on Facebook. Thus,
Facebook offers a wide range of services to a diverse set of
users.
 Facebook is a chosen social media channel by many
organizations engaged in social media marketing with over
70 million businesses now using Facebook Pages
(Facebook, 2017). In total, 20 million people use
Facebook Messenger to connect and communicate with
customers and more than 5 million businesses are using
paid advertising on Facebook (2017). Finally, 95.8
percent of social media marketers say Facebook delivers
the best return on investment among the social networks.
 Facebook allows many dimensions of possible self-
disclosure (Raynes-Goldie, 2012). Through the many
different possibilities of self-disclosure (e.g. sharing of
pictures, videos, personal information, etc.) and different
options for PPB (e.g. adjusting the privacy settings of
Facebook among other individual protection behaviors),
Facebook is deemed to be an ideal platform to examine
PPB and its underlying motives.
 Privacy protection behavior on Facebook Journal of Services Marketing
Linda Alkire, Johannes Pohlmann and Willy Barnett Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2019 · 57–72

 The reoccurring scandals about Facebook’s privacy
breaches and subsequent policies have alerted many users.
Facebook faced a number of accusations regarding their
privacy policies in the past, which led to an increasingly
negative reputation of Facebook (Bartsch and Dienlin,
2016). This reputation and the resulting concerns many
users have might affect their PPB.
Millennials
Millennials, people born between 1981 and 1994 (Mangold
and Smith, 2012), have been chosen because studies have
shown online users within that age group, in contrast to older or
younger internet users, both care about privacy and have a
sufficient internet literacy to apply privacy protection actions
(O’Brien et al., 2011). Millennials grew up with and were,
therefore, strongly influenced by the fast development of
technology, which made them the most technology savvy age
group (Bolton et al., 2013). Many online users of this age group
show a general awareness of online privacy threats and
constantly weigh their personal exposure on the basis of
potential benefits and (privacy) risks. In the context of
Facebook, O’Brien et al. (2011) found most Millennials deeply
care about privacy, and therefore choose high-security settings.
Similarly, Millennials are one of the most participative age
groups when it comes to the usage of online social networks and
the disclosure of personal information (Bolton et al., 2013).
Specifically, the Facebook (2018) report shows users between
25 and 34 years of age, from 29.7 per cent of users and are the
most common age demographic. Thus, Millennials were
expected to provide the richest data that would help address the
study’s research questions. The average age of the interviewees
was 25.75. The oldest participant was 33 years of age and the
youngest participant was 22 years of age. Moreover, the
number of female and male participants was almost equal (9
women and 11 men). The participants of the present study
came from 13 different countries and five different continents
so as to provide an international perspective.
yourself?” to find out about Consequences (C) (e.g. “I only
provide data that I have to provide”) and “why is that important
to you?” to elicit higher order Values (V) (e.g. “I want to be in
control over my personal information”). Figure 1 illustrates
how the laddering technique was applied – together with the
codes used for the different responses.
Coding and data summary
During the coding process the identified Attributes,
Consequences and Values were reviewed and reconsidered to
identify a smaller number of summarizing codes, as per
Reynolds and Philips (2009). To facilitate the coding process,
various a priori defined values from the Hierarchical Model of
Happiness (Diener et al., 2009), Schwartz Theory of Basic
Values (Schwartz, 2012), Maslow’s (1954) Hierarchy of
Needs, and Rokeach’s Human Values (1973) were used for end
value categories. Multiple value frameworks were used to
strengthen the findings and avoid accidental exclusion of
possible values generated through qualitative analysis. Another
important reason for using these value frameworks was that
they are widely accepted (Nasr et al., 2018) and used in
conjunction in the literature (Van Rekom et al., 2006), and
thus, help ensure the reliability and validity of the present
research. Figure 2 shows all eight value codes used in the
present study, together with the theoretical concept they are
based on, and quotes from the interviews, which serve as
examples of statements made by the participants and coded as
values.
Figure 1 Illustration of the laddering process

Interviewing
The primary goal of the interviewing phase is to abstract a series
of complete Attribute-Consequence-Value ladders (Reynolds
and Phillips, 2009). The interviewing can be conducted in
different directions: “downwards to seek explanation, upwards
to elicit goals and values, or sideways to provide further
examples at the same level” (Foote and Lamb, 2002, p. 246) Figure 2 Value circle
and ends when respondents give circular answers, are incapable
or reluctant to provide further answer or reach the value level
(Gengler and Reynolds, 1995).
The average interview lasted for 50 min. By encouraging the
participants to talk about their perceptions and personal
experiences regarding Facebook and privacy at the beginning of
the interview, the interviewer provided the opportunity for
participants to discuss which aspects of online privacy were
important to them, without leading them in a specific direction.
This was important, as the expectations of the researcher and
the way he/she phrases the questions can affect the responses of
the participant. Most of the responses included a set of
Attributes (A) (e.g. “ I don’t really know what Facebook can do
with my data”). Based on these attributes, the interviewer used
probing questions such as “What actions do you take to protect

61
 Privacy protection behavior on Facebook
Linda Alkire, Johannes Pohlmann and Willy Barnett
As the coding of responses could be somewhat subjective,
especially because distinguishing between the different
meaning levels can be difficult, reliability problems might occur
(Reynolds and Olsen, 2001). Thus, a second coder was used
and subsequently the results of the first and second coder were
compared using Perreault and Leigh’s(1989) “index of
reliability” to check the reliability of the coding. The “index of
reliability” in this study was 0.85, suggesting the coding was
reliable (Perreault and Leigh, 1989). Moreover, the existing
disagreements were resolved after a short discussion between
the coders.
After determining the codes, the decision-support software
program “LADDERMAP” was used. “LADDERMAP”
allows the entering of different codes and on that basis creates
Attribute-Consequence-Value ladders and a hierarchical value
map (HVM), which visualizes the connections between the
different Attributes, Consequences and Values, and the
strength of these connections (Lastovicka, 1995).
A total of 676 ladders has been entered to “LADDERMAP”
to create the HVM. The HVM consists of several nodes, which
represent the most mentioned Attributes – Consequences –
Values connected with lines expressing the linkages between
them. Each map depicts three levels representing the Attributes
(first level or bottom of the map), Consequences (second level
or middle of the map) and Values (third level or top of the
map).
Figure 3 shows the HVM of the present research with a cut-
off level of eight. The cut-off level is defined as “the minimum
degree of association in the data required to support a chain in a
map” (Lastovicka, 1995, p. 495). Hence, a cut-off level of eight
represents associations that are mentioned at least eight times.
The higher the cut-off level, the more connections and codes
disappear (Reynolds and Philips, 2009). The selection of the
cut-off point should be related to the overall readability of the
final HVM. Hence, the researcher should find a balance
between data reduction and retention (Gengler et al., 1995)
and between detail and interpretability (Christensen and
Olson, 2002). Hence, there are no set rules for choosing a cut-
off point. In the present case, different cut-off levels were used
and compared because of the richness of the data, and to keep a
balance between detail and interpretability the comparatively
high cut-off level of eight was deemed appropriate.
Figure 3 Hierarchical value map
62
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2019 · 57–72
Figure 3 shows the most important connections and codes. The
size of the circles demonstrates how often the code was
mentioned by the participants. The thickness of the lines
demonstrates how strong the connections between the different
concepts are.
Results
The results show the process of privacy protection could be
triggered by “Experience” (N = 101), “Dependence” (N = 71),
“Uncertainty” (N = 83), “Employability” (N = 54),
“Intrusion” (N = 72), “Perception” (N = 63) and “Literacy”
(N = 13). These lead to PPBs that users adopt: “Reflection”
(N = 82), “Avoidance” (N = 108), “Intervention” (N = 72),
“Restriction” (N = 105), “Control” (N = 105) and “Restraint”
(N = 69). The underlying motives for these PPBs can be:
“Success” (N = 35), “Security” (N = 104), “A World of Peace”
(N = 38), “Being in Control” (N = 106), “Social Recognition”
(N = 109), “Exclusivity of Self” (N = 64), “True Friendship”
(N = 35) and “Meaning” (N = 45). A detailed description of all
the codes used in the present work together with the academic
concepts they are derived from, examples of quotes and the
total number they were mentioned by the participants can be
found in Tables I-III.
Triggers of privacy protection behaviors on Facebook
“Experience” was one of the most important triggers.
Responses were coded as “Experience” when participants had a
single or different unspecific personal experience, which
affected their activities or if they had learned from the
experiences of others. This broad code was chosen because
most participants were not able to name specific experiences,
but claimed their behaviors were triggered by a number of
unspecific experiences. Many participants, for example,
mentioned they have had, over time, different experiences
while using Facebook, which have influenced or even changed
their PPB (other codes were used for specific experiences, e.g.
“Intrusion” and “Appropriation”).
The code “Dependence” was used when participants
exhibited concerns related to their privacy being affected by the
activities of other Facebook users. Some participants
mentioned even if they do not upload any private information,
it is still possible for their friends to upload pictures of them or
tag them in certain posts, and thus their privacy is depended on
others.
“Uncertainty” comprises those answers of participants in
which they have indicated they are uncertain about the possible
impact of their activities. This includes uncertainty about what
does or might happen to their personal data, how and to what
extent the data is used, how it could be used in the future, etc.
Most participants stated they do not feel they have sufficient
online literacy to fully understand technical possibilities and to
control their privacy. Many also said they are unsettled by the
complex and opaque online environment.
The importance of the different triggers of privacy behavior
does not vary significantly. However, if the thickness of the
connections is taken into consideration (HVM), “Experience”
(N = 101), “Dependence” (N = 71) and “Uncertainty” (N =
83) are the most important triggers, as they cause various PPB.
Other identified triggers of PPB are in Table I.
 Privacy protection behavior on Facebook Journal of Services Marketing
Linda Alkire, Johannes Pohlmann and Willy Barnett Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2019 · 57–72

Table I Triggers of privacy protection behavior on Facebook

Name of attribute Description
Perception Participants subjective perceptions of
security standards, legal protection, the
reputation of Facebook, etc., has
caused PPBs
Dependence Participants think that their privacy is
(private facts) also dependent on the activities and
behaviors of others
Employability Participants feel that their activities can
affect their professional development
Appropriation Participants have heard from or
experienced the abuse of their-another
persons’ personal information
Intrusion Participants have heard from or
experienced the penetration upon their/
the privacy sphere of another person
Uncertainty Participants are uncertain about
possible impacts of their activities
Irreversibility Participants feel that their actions and
activities are irreversible as the content
they upload will remain somewhere
Experience Participants have made a single or
different unspecific personal
experiences, which have affected their
activities or they have learned from the
experiences of others
Literacy Participants have gained literacy (e.g.
read news or books) and are therefore
concerned about their online privacy
Examples
“I don’t really count on legal
protections; I think that Facebook’s
reputation regarding the protection of
the privacy of its customers is quite
poor”
“When I use Facebook, protecting my
privacy is not only about what I do but
also what my friends publish about
me”
“I know that many employers check
your Facebook before they invite you to
interview”
“Two years ago somebody has stolen
my identity and tried to convince
friends of mine to transfer money to a
bank account”
“I once had a problem with a stalker.
The girl posted weird things under my
photos and on my wall”
“I don’t really know what Facebook
can do with my data, to which other
companies they pass it, and what
implications this can have for me”
“Once you post a picture you have to
be aware that you might never be able
to get it off the internet again”
“As I got more mature, my behaviours
have changed; I have made some bad
experience myself”
“I have read a lot about this issue, you
find many articles about privacy when
you read the news regularly”
Similar concepts in the
literature Count
Perception (Gibson, 1983); 63
perception has purpose to guide
action (Lee, 2009)
Dependence (Blankfield, 1987); 71
interdependence (Wageman,
1995)
Individual perspective of 54
employability (Forrier and Sels,
2003; Fugate et al., 2004)
Appropriation as a privacy tort 32
(Prosser, 1960)
Intrusion as a privacy tort 72
(Prosser, 1960)
State, effect and response 83
uncertainty (Milliken, 1987)
Irreversibility as an outcome of 34
actions that cannot be undone
(Arrow and Fisher, 1974;
Pindyck, 2000)
Experience as a result of life 101
events (Husserl, 1970)
Online Literacy (Tuman, 1996); 13
modern meaning of literacy
(UNESCO, 2005)

Privacy protection behaviors on Facebook
The HVM shows “Avoidance,” “Intervention,” “Restriction”
and “Control” amongst the most important PPB.
“Avoidance” refers to a protection mechanism, whereas the
participant avoids the publication of certain content, the usage
of specific functions and/or the participation in certain
discussions. For example, some participants mentioned they do
not upload any personal information except the one needed to
use the service (name and email). Others said that they neither
upload party pictures nor participate in political or religious
discussions.
Responses were coded as “Intervention,” when participants
mentioned they have actively taken action to protect or regain
privacy – in response to a privacy breach. Practically, the
actions included contacting people and asking them to delete
specific posts, asking friends not to upload pictures of them,
unfriending certain people, unfollowing certain pages, etc.
The code “Restriction” was used whenever participants
stated they restrict the access to personal information (to
certain or all Facebook friends). Practically, this code was used
when referring to Facebook privacy settings allowing access
restrictions.
The code “Control” was used whenever participants said
they use “control mechanisms” to protect their privacy. Those
mechanisms not only included Facebook settings such as
“Review posts that friends tag you in before they appear on
your timeline” but also the usage of specialized software that
allows control of personal data on the internet. Other identified
social media PPBs are in Table II.
Underlying motives of privacy protection behavior on
Facebook
The HVM shows that the three most important underlying
motives of PPB on Facebook are “Security,” “Social
Recognition” and “Being in Control”.
The code “Security” was used when participants questioned
the safety of their belongings, property, morality, health, etc., or
feared these resources were threatened. Many think

63
 Privacy protection behavior on Facebook
Linda Alkire, Johannes Pohlmann and Willy Barnett
Table II PPBs on Facebook
Name of
consequences Description
Reflection Participants think about their own posts
before they publish them and critically
reflect possible consequences. This might
lead to a complete deletion of already
written posts or to an adjustment of the
posts
Caution Participants are cautious regarding their
activities
Avoidance Participants avoid the publication of certain
content/the usage of certain functions/the
participation in certain situations
Restriction Participants restrict the accessibility of
personal information
Restraint Participants are generally restrained
regarding their activities to protect
themselves
Intervention Participants actively take action to protect
privacy or rebuild privacy – in reaction to a
privacy breach
Control Participants use control mechanisms to
protect their privacy
information from Facebook could be used to harm their
security both in a physical context (e.g. burglars who might find
out that they are on vacation and break into their house) and in
a non-physical context (e.g. security of financial resources,
when sending bank details to other people via the Facebook
Messenger).
The code “Social Recognition” comprises answers of
participants who stated their actions are driven by how others
view them. Some explained one’s presence on Facebook,
amount of activity and willingness to use the different Facebook
services, affects their image and reputation.
Responses were coded as “Being in Control” whenever
participants expressed the desire to be in control or were in fear
of losing control over personal information. Most participants,
specifically mentioned it is important for them to be in control
of their private data. Other identified underlying motives of
social media PPB are in Table III.
A closer examination of the HVM shows the aforementioned
triggers, PPB and underlying motives form five major ladders/
connections:
Experience fi avoidance fi security/being in control
Participants desire to control and security when using
Facebook, thus they avoid certain activities. This protection
behavior is mainly triggered by personal experiences or
experiences of others. A specific example mentioned by
participants is that they have heard about people who have
posted their location (e.g. on vacations), this information was
then used by criminals, who targeted their houses for break-ins.
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2019 · 57–72
Similar concepts in the
Examples literature Count
“Before I post something, I always rethink the Reflective practice (Grimmett 82
content and pose myself the question if I really and Erickson, 1988;
want that to be out there; I ask myself the Richardson, 1992)
question whether I would also say that in a
physical context”
“I am very cautious about all that; this is all so Cautiousness (Messick and 54
complex which makes me suspicious and Hills, 1960); deliberation
cautious” (Murray, 1938)
“I never publish my location; I only provide data Avoidance as a self- 108
that I have to provide; I never engage in political protective behavior
or religious discussions” (Blanchard et al., 1986;
Stankowich and Blumstein,
2005)
“Only my Facebook friends can see my stuff” Restrictions as a means to 105
gain privacy (Rule, 1980)
“I used to be more active but as I started to Self-control as a mechanism 69
understand what can happen to my personal to achieve goals and avoid
information, I reduced my activities” damage (Timpano and
Schmidt, 2013)
“When friends publish something I don’t like, I Taking action as a measure 72
ask them to take it off; I delete people with to protect online privacy
whom I have lost contact every now and then.” (Bryce and Klang, 2009)
“I have to accept tags before they appear on my Taking action to create the 105
timeline; I use software which disguises my feeling of being in control
identity to protect myself” (Petronio and Bantz, 1991)
The consequences for those participants was that they never
post their location and/or do not inform people that they are on
vacation. The underlying motive was that they wanted to
protect and secure their personal belongings.
Experience fi restriction fi being in control/social recognition
Participants explained they try to keep control over their
personal information by restricting access to this information.
This restriction was predominantly done through Facebook
privacy settings. Most of the participants mentioned they use
some of the basic “restriction settings”. Others stated they have
classified their friends and only some can see their basic
information but not their postings. Others said they regulate the
access to information from post to post. “Social Recognition”
was also an important influencing factor of “Restriction.” This
is because many stated they have a very versatile and
heterogeneous “circle of friends” on Facebook, including
parents, relatives, peers from work and university,
acquaintances and close friends. Participants said they do not
want to present themselves in an equal way to all of those
different groups.
Experience fi restraint fi being in control
Many explained when they got more experienced with
Facebook, they reduced their level of engagement. Some
mentioned the more experience they gain, the more passively
they use Facebook. The motive was “Being in Control”.
Participants explained over time they have learned there is no
reliable way of controlling information once it is published.
64
 Privacy protection behavior on Facebook Journal of Services Marketing
Linda Alkire, Johannes Pohlmann and Willy Barnett Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2019 · 57–72

Table III Underlying motives of PPBs on facebook

Similar concepts in the
Name of value Description Examples literature Count
Meaning The participant does not see a personal “For me I just don’t see a meaning in Diener et al.’s (2009) 45
meaning/benefit in the activity, which is, posting all that stuff; I don’t think that I hierarchical model of
however, important to him/her benefit from disclosing myself on happiness
Facebook”
A World of Peace The participant wants to avoid conflict/ “I don’t comment on religious subjects Rokeach’s(1973) human 38
wants to keep harmony on her/his social because I don’t want to upset anybody; I values, Schwartz (2006)
environment don’t share some posts with all of my universal values
friends because I know that some wouldn’t
like it”
Security The participant fears that personal “I just don’t feel safe anymore if I publish Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of 104
resources, property, morality, health etc., my location; I fear that it could harm me needs, Schwartz (2006)
are threatened financially in the future” universal values
Success The participant is concerned that activities “I am a bit concerned that this could Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of 35
can influence his/her professional negatively influence my employability” needs, Schwartz (2006)
development, which is, however, important universal values, Rokeach’s
to him/her (1973) human values, Diener
et al.’s (2009) hierarchical
model of happiness
True Friendship The participant rejects superficial “I don’t want those superficial Rokeach’s (1973) human 35
relationships, but seeks true friendship and relationships, I just share my photos with values, Schwartz (2006)
meaningful relationships my closest friends to show them what they universal values
mean to me”
Social The participant is concerned about/aware of “My postings will influence how other Rokeach’s (1973) human 109
Recognition the impacts of her/his activities on her/his people see me and that is important to me; values
reputation/image, which is, however, I do that because I want other people to
important to her/him have a good image of me”
Being in Control The participant wants to be in control over “I at least want to have the feeling of being Schwartz (2006) universal 106
personal information in control; I want to be in control over my values
information because they belong to me.”
Exclusivity of Self The participant considers his/her personality “My personality is something which is very Husseri (1988) 64
to be a valuable asset, that he/she does not valuable to me, in fact the most valuable
want to share with everybody thing I have, so I don’t want to allow
everybody to have access to it; I don’t want
to be an open book”

However, they did not want to renounce using the service. reputation. Apart from “Intervention,” “Control” mechanisms
Instead, they just reduced their level of engagement. are used to maintain social recognition and control.

Dependence fi intervention/control fi social recognition/being in Uncertainty fi control fi being in control/social recognition

control
The feeling of “Dependence”– being dependent on the
activities and behaviors of others regarding one’s own privacy
leads to “Intervention” and “Control.” Many stated they
actively intervene when others breach their privacy by
contacting them and asking them to remove the content. Some
have contacted Facebook in the past or would contact
Facebook in such cases, to delete the content, if the posting
person is unwilling to do so voluntarily. It does not come as a
surprise that the motives for this behavior are the desire to be in
control and the maintenance of one’s own image. Many
participants said they fear offensive or inappropriate postings of
others could negatively affect their reputation. Again, “Social
Recognition” and “Being in Control” are closely interrelated.
Participants stated they do not want others to have control over
what is published about them and thus, have control over their
Many stated they do not feel they have sufficient online literacy
to understand the consequences of their own online activities.
Additionally, some mentioned the frequent changes in
Facebook’s privacy policy makes it difficult to keep up with. As
a consequence, many participants use “Control” mechanisms.
“Social Recognition” is also an important underlying motive of
“Control” triggered by “Uncertainty” because many
participants stated that uncertainty or a lack of literacy can lead
to the unintentional exposure of private information, which
might affect their reputation.
Discussion
The laddering interviews and the subsequent analysis of the
data led to the identification of seven triggers of Facebook PPB,
six PPBs and eight underlying motives. These findings are
novel as research, so far, has focused on partial aspects of PPB.

65
 Privacy protection behavior on Facebook
Linda Alkire, Johannes Pohlmann and Willy Barnett
Various researchers who examined privacy, in general,
assumed the triggers for protection behaviors are privacy
threats, and therefore, categorized different kinds of threats as
the basis for research in the field of PPBs (Fire et al., 2014).
Likewise, the present research identified some of these threats
as causes of PPB (“Appropriation” and “Intrusion”). However,
the present study also shows threats are not always the cause of
PPBs. They are sometimes only indirect causes. Uncertainty,
the dependence on others or personal experiences are examples
of factors that can include or entail threats or concerns, but do
not represent direct threats. A more granular approach to the
triggers of social media PPB is therefore proposed.
Triggers of privacy protection behaviors on Facebook
Our study confirms “Experience” is one of the most important
triggers of PPB on Facebook. This comes in accordance with
Debatin et al. (2009), who concluded Facebook users who have
had or who have heard of negative experiences are more likely
to change their disclosure behavior.
The “Dependence” on others is an aspect that has been
previously studied in online settings. Christofides et al. (2009)
argue that social media users are exposed to the disclosures of
friends and other users. This could result in negative “Social
Recognition” and heightened vulnerability.
“Uncertainty” is another factor triggering PPB on Facebook.
Previous research conducted by Grabner-Krauter and
Kaluscha (2003), in an online shopping context, distinguishes
between two types of uncertainty, namely, system-dependent
and transaction-specific. This characterization is also
applicable in a social media context. In the case of Facebook,
system-dependent uncertainty could entail how Facebook uses
the provided user data and transaction-specific uncertainty
pertains to the uncertainty of how friends will act or how
hackers might use personal data. Our study confirms rising
uncertainty among users. This is due to the following two
reasons: first, Facebook users are often unwilling to deal with or
understand online privacy policies, as they are perceived to be
complex, unstructured and boring. Second, even if Facebook
users are interested and are willing to inform themselves about
online privacy issues, some aspects are not regulated by law or
are not accessible to them, so that in many cases, Facebook
solely defines how data is processed and used, and users are not
able to influence it, and in some cases are not even able to find
out how personal data is processed. This is mainly due to
technological advancements that have made the collection and
usage of user data often invisible while making it vulnerable to
hackers.
Privacy protection behaviors on Facebook
The present research identifies six overarching PPBs on
Facebook: “Restraint,” “Reflection,” “Avoidance,”
“Restriction,” “Intervention” and “Control.” This adds to the
scattered body of knowledge that mainly looks at specific
protection behaviors (Stutzman et al., 2011) or very generic
behaviors applicable across different online setting (Ernst et al.,
2015).
“Restraint” is a protection mechanism that has gained little
attention in the literature on online/social media privacy. This
is surprising, as various researchers (Schoeman, 1984) have
described “Reserve” and “Restraint” as a common practice in
66
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2019 · 57–72
social relationships, as humans have to adopt different roles
within different social groups and contexts, and thus, might
have to withhold certain thoughts and emotions to adhere to
specific roles. Similarly, Marder et al. (2016) have described a
“chilling effect” in the context of online surveillance, where
individuals restrain self-disclosure because of social
recognition. The present research, however, shows individuals
do not restrain themselves because of social recognition, but
mainly because they want to keep control over their personal
information. This comes in accordance with Benson et al.
(2015), who concluded social media users who have a great
desire for control tend to disclose less personal information
than others.
The notion of “Reflection” used in this work is comparable
to the concept of “Self-Censorship”-the “last-minute” deletion
of posts or comments or the filtering of content after it has been
written (Das and Kramer, 2013). In the literature, “Self-
Censorship” is often put on a level with the prevention of self-
disclosure. The concept of “Reflection” used in the present
work, however, is broader and not only comprises the
prevention of self-disclosure after a reflection process but also
an adjusted self-disclosure behavior as a result of a reflection
process. The reasons for those behaviors have been examined
by various researchers as well. Complementing the results of
the present study; self-presentation (Brandtzaeg et al., 2010),
control over personal information and the desire to avoid
conflicts (similar to the concept of “A World of Peace” used in
the present work) are among the most important reasons for
reflection or self-censorship (Acquisti and Gross, 2006).
The strategy of “Avoidance” to protect one’s privacy has
been widely discussed in the privacy literature. Yap et al. (2012,
p. 175) use the term “Withdraw” to describe a generic privacy
protection behavior defined as “avoidance tactics informants
employ to facilitate the goal of strategically removing
themselves from potential privacy-related situations.” More
specifically, Ernst et al. (2015, p. 9) identified “Refusal” as an
important protection mechanism in the context of social media
sites. They describe “Refusal” as “the extent to which a
member intentionally refuses to provide specific information,”
which is similar to the notion of “Avoidance”. Our results also
complement the work of Benson et al. (2015), who found the
desire of being in control over personal information is positively
associated with an avoidance of self-disclosure. Similarly,
Marder’s et al. (2016) findings were expanded whereas
avoidance due to social pressure and anxiety (e.g. political or
religious posts) is found to be associated with self-presentation.
This is interesting as “Avoidance” limits two of the most
important criteria for the success of social media network;
content sharing and sociability (Brandtzaeg et al., 2010).
“Restriction” of privacy settings is becoming increasingly
customary. Our findings confirm the work of Stutzman and
Kramer-Duffield (2010) claiming it is becoming increasingly
popular among Facebook users to limit access to close friends
or to selectively disclose information to the different groups.
The notion of “Intervention” used in this work is broad and
includes all actively taken measures to protect or rebuild
privacy (apart from restriction and control strategies).
Correspondingly, there are many different aspects of this
concept described and examined in the literature. The most
 Privacy protection behavior on Facebook
Linda Alkire, Johannes Pohlmann and Willy Barnett
common intervention measures confirmed in this study,
include:
 personal deletion of content (Das and Kramer, 2013); and
 requesting the responsible person or Facebook to remove
the content – a very common behavior when privacy
concerns increase, which has been described as “voicing
behavior” by Sheehan and Hoy (1999) – the “untagging”
of photos or posts, and the “unfriending” of contacts.
“Control” in connection with privacy and online social
networks is often used as a very broad term in the literature,
which comprises all sorts of protection strategies. Acquisti and
Gross (2006) have found many online users confront their
privacy concerns by simply trusting their own ability “to
control” their privacy. In fact, they often overestimate their
knowledge and abilities. The concept of “Control” used in the
present work is a slightly different one. It does not encompass
the whole range of possible strategies and measures to control
one’s privacy but rather technical applications and settings that
help Facebook users to do so (e.g. “review tags option”).
Another control strategy, which was both found in the literature
and identified in the present research, is the usage of specialized
software to block cookies, disguise one’s identity, conscious
provision of false data, (e.g. a fake name, address, profile
picture, etc.) and communication avoidance (White et al.,
2008).
Underlying motives of privacy protection behavior on
Facebook
Privacy is important for many different reasons, including
solitude, autonomy, emotional release, self-evaluation, limited
and protected communication (Westin, 1970), the reduction of
personal distress (Newell, 1994), the need for intimacy and
psychological respite and the desire for protection from social
influence and control (Margulis, 2003). Some researchers even
argue that privacy relates to effective individual and group
functioning (Werner et al., 1992). Therefore, it seems logical
individuals have a number of reasons to adopt PPBs, not only
in an offline but also in an online context.
“Security” is a very common motive for PPBs on Facebook,
both in the present research and in the literature. Dhami et al.
(2013) conclude that social networks have recognized this, and
therefore, started to provide more comprehensive and more
intuitive security settings to foster the self-disclosure of their
users. The fact an individual’s presentation on Facebook can
have an effect on the individual’s employability seems
undisputed (Bohmova and Malinova, 2013). Nevertheless,
there is only a little research on how much the individual’s
behavior on Facebook is influenced by this. “Success” in the
present work does not only include the preservation of the
actual employability but also factors such as preventing
negative preconceived opinions and prejudices of potential
future peers or concealing sensitive information that could
hinder a career jump.
“Social Recognition” is the most important motive identified
in the present research. A finding that is also reflected by
different scholars. Seidman (2013) describes “Self-
Presentation,” together with “Belonging,” as the most
important motivations for Facebook usage. Zhao et al. (2008)
argue that all activities on Facebook basically serve the purpose
67
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2019 · 57–72
of self-presentation. Dhir et al. (2016) found that “Self-
Presentation,” on the other hand, is also the main reason
individuals started to develop protective strategies in the first
place. Similarly, the present research shows that most PPBs are
connected to “Social Recognition.” Interestingly, Jourard
(1966) found social recognition closely related with the desire
of being in control. He argues privacy is a result of an
individual’s desire to control personal information, especially
information that might lead to perceptions and beliefs that
others might develop or hold of them.
The desire of “Being in Control” has been described as one
of the fundamental aspects of privacy (Margulis, 2003), as an
important factor for the functioning of social life and as one of
the most important motives of online privacy protection
(Martin and Murphy, 2017). In a social media context, van der
Velden and El Emam (2013) found the more users feel they
have control over their activities, the more they are willing to
increase their activities. Similarly, privacy concerns have been
shown to diminish with stronger individual and regulatory
controls (Martin, 2015). The results of the present work reflect
those findings. Accordingly, “Being in Control” is strongly
connected with “Avoidance,” “Restriction” and “Restraint,” as
many participants stated they feel they cannot fully control their
own information.
Many researchers argue the behavior of social media users is
determined by a constant evaluation of costs and benefits of the
planned activities (Acquisti et al., 2015). This is related to the
concept of “Meaning,” identified in the present work. Many
participants stated they do not use certain Facebook services or
do not publish certain information simply because they do not
see a meaning or a personal benefit resulting from these actions.
On the other hand, they see potential threats regarding the
usage of services or the disclosure of personal information.
Researchers questioned whether online friendships are as
real as offline friendships (Whitty, 2008). The results of the
present research suggest they are not, as many participants
expressed a desire for “True Friendship” and stated that
Facebook is a place where they have collected many superficial
acquaintances. Even though some claim social media has
changed the understanding of friendship, various scholars agree
on a lack of meaningful relationships – aside from family
relationships – has a negative impact on emotional,
psychological and physical health (Baumeister and Leary,
1995). This was confirmed by the present work, as many
participants underlined the value true or meaningful
friendships have for them. Additionally, the responses indicate
that the desire for “True Friendship” in a social media context
might come when users are getting more mature. At younger
ages individuals are more prone to adding and accepting many
friends to show they are popular. However, when they get older
they recognize the value of true friendships.
In some cases, the main motive to protect personal
information or to selectively disclose that information is to
avoid conflict. This motive was also found in the present work
and coded as “A World of Peace.” Users tend to group their
friends and publish different content to different groups to keep
up harmony. Others do not comment on political or religious
issues to avoid conflict – a common pattern found by other
scholars as well (Vraga et al., 2015).
 Privacy protection behavior on Facebook
Linda Alkire, Johannes Pohlmann and Willy Barnett
Online or digital privacy, just like other forms of privacy, is a
key aspect of human well-being. Therefore, it can be argued the
ultimate goal of online PPB is the protection of one’s well-
being. Our results suggest by adopting PPB, users are seeking
to protect and enhance their values of “Security,” “Success,”
“Social Recognition,” “Being in Control,” “Meaning,” “True
Friendship” and “A World of Peace.” These values are
detrimental to one’s sense of well-being (Diener et al., 2009).
Moreover, the excessive usage and dependence on social media
and internet services in general (e.g. dating websites and instant
messaging) are causing a myriad of unintended consequences
(Rosenbaum and Wong, 2012). These consequences should
not be ignored by service scholars as they are damaging to the
functioning of individuals and societies (Merton, 1936). In this
work, we explored an unintended consequence of using
Facebook, a social media website that has a very positive and
promising goal of connecting people. Nevertheless, its
unintended consequences are linked to the heightened levels of
stress and fear of losing privacy (e.g. fear of dependency,
uncertainty, intrusion, etc.). Stress and fear are causing
Facebook users to adopt various protection behaviors, which
could be limiting them from enjoying the full potential of the
service. This finding suggests there is a “dark side” of services
(negative unintended consequences) that needs to be
acknowledged and addressed by various service organizations.
Managerial implications
The present research derives a number of practical
implications, which might be useful for social media networks
and service organizations using these networks as part of their
social media strategy.
First, if social media networks want to foster the engagement
of their users, they should introduce more comprehensive,
clearly structured and easily understandable privacy settings
that give the users the feeling of being in control over personal
data. This is particularly important as user’s PPB can hinder
two of the most important criteria for the success of social
media network; content sharing and sociability (Brandtzaeg
et al., 2010).
Second, service organizations need to be mindful when
adopting new social media channels and strategies. These can
potentially turn off many customers from using their brands
and services. Service organizations should be mindful as to
select the channels that will not harm the image of the company
because of the associated customer privacy concerns. Similarly,
they should be aware of the various customers’ PPB adopted on
various social media channels when designing engagement
campaigns (e.g. participation in polls, competitions,
promotions, etc.).
Third, social media channels, as well as service companies
using social media strategies, should responsibly use the
information provided by customers online; therefore,
committing to the ethical use of information and stronger
protection of their customers’ privacy, taking into account the
values customers hold about their privacy. Goldfarb and
Tucker (2013) found that strong privacy regulations enhance a
positive brand experience, leading to competitive advantage. As
such, privacy policies function as critical evidence of a
company’s efforts toward privacy self-regulation.
68
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2019 · 57–72
Fourth, given the rising privacy threats, the security of the
user’s data should be a priority for companies and governments
alike. Stricter government security guidelines and policies are
needed to address the constant breaches of social media
channels. Consequently, companies should not view strict
privacy measures as constraints associated with extra costs, but
rather opportunities to improve the customer experience and
well-being. Companies must consider the stress that they are
putting consumers under, indeed, every internet site has the
potential to create stress and hinder users’ well-being. As such,
companies should be aware about the negative well-being that
is caused by the heightened privacy concerns and overall usage
of the service (e.g. internet addiction). This is particularly
important for service organizations as privacy and security are
among the strongest factors driving purchase intent as
mediated by the trust (Schlosser et al., 2006). Moreover,
governments should work on creating awareness campaigns to
increase the privacy literacy of customers and provide response
outlet for privacy concerns.
Finally, as social media PPBs have been associated with
important values such as security and social recognitions, it is
important for organizations to respect these values to avoid
negative customer consequences and behaviors linked to
communication avoidance, information falsification or
derogatory word-of-mouth toward the company and its
employees.
Research limitations and directions for future
research
The present study has several limitations, which open a number
of avenues for future research.
The present work exclusively focuses on Millennials. Thus,
the results are not generalizable for all age groups and do not
account for possible cultural differences. Another limitation of
the present research is that all of the participants had an
academic background, which might be an influencing factor of
their social media PPBs, and thus, affect the validity of the
results to a certain extent.
Additionally, there are some aspects of the methodology of
laddering, which have been criticized by various researchers.
First, Grunert and Grunert (1995) argued that participants
have to react spontaneously to abstract questions and if the
participants have little knowledge about the discussed subject,
the responses might be either of little value or influenced by
how the interviewer poses the questions, which usually
corresponds to the researcher’s requirements. Second, Lin
(2002) has criticized the “simplification process of variables,”
as it usually limits the extent of answers, which reflect the
respondent’s thoughts and motives. In the present study,
various responses had to be generalized to manage the richness
of the data. Moreover, it was not possible to describe any
specific PPBs in depth due to this problem. Another problem is
the choice of the cut-off level. There are no statistical criteria to
select an ideal cut-off level. In the present case, because of the
richness of the data, a relatively high cut-off level was chosen,
which led to the disappearance of two triggers, one protection
measure and seven underlying motives.
Generally, marketing practice using consumer data and
analytics has advanced at a more rapid pace than has marketing
 Privacy protection behavior on Facebook
Linda Alkire, Johannes Pohlmann and Willy Barnett
academic scholarship. As such, it is important to address novel
research questions arising from the increased usage of the
internet and developments within social media. Specifically,
the rise of new social media channels (e.g. Pheed and Thumb)
requires a further analysis of customers’ habits and their PPB.
Moreover, the development of technology (artificial
intelligence, face and voice biometrics login, etc.) could create
new threats to social media privacy. Also, research is needed
with different age groups and cultures. This could be explored
using cross-cultural preferences and cross-national regulatory
variation and effects. Best practices could be shared and
documented, as there is a need to identify the various social
media privacy enhancing factors and the means to achieving
them. Finally, further TSR work is needed to understand the
dynamics and mitigation mechanisms for the various
unintended consequences of services. As such, there is a need
for a broader exploration of the negative well-being caused by
many online and offline services.
References
Acquisti, A. and Gross, R. (2006), “Imagined communities:
awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the
Facebook”, Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Vol. 4258,
pp. 36-58.
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L. and Loewenstein, G. (2015),
“Privacy and human behavior in the age of information”,
Science (New York, N.Y.), Vol. 347 No. 6221,
pp. 509-514.
Anderson, L. and Ostrom, A.L. (2015), “Transformative
service research: advancing our knowledge about service and
well-being”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 243-249.
Anderson, L., Ostrom, A.L., Corus, C., Fisk, R.P., Gallan, A.
S., Giraldo, M., Mende, M., Mulder, M., Rayburn, S.W.,
Rosenbaum, M.S., Shirahada, K. and Williams, J.D. (2013),
“Transformative service research: an agenda for the future”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 8, pp. 1203-1210.
Arrow, K.J. and Fisher, A.C. (1974), “Environmental
preservation, uncertainty, and irreversibility”, Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 312-319.
Bartsch, M. and Dienlin, T. (2016), “Control your Facebook:
an analysis of online privacy literacy”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 56, pp. 147-154.
Baumeister, R.F. and Leary, M.R. (1995), “The need to
belong - desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human-motivation”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 117 No. 3, pp. 497-529.
BBC (2018), “Facebook security breach: up to 50m accounts
attacked”, available at: www.bbc.com/news/technology-
45686890?ns_source=Facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_
campaign=bbcnews&ocid=socialflow_Facebook (accessed
1 October 2018).
Benson, V., Saridakis, G. and Tennakoon, H. (2015),
“Information disclosure of social media users does control
over personal information, user awareness and security
notices matter?”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 28
No. 3, pp. 426-441.
Bergström, A. (2015), “Online privacy concerns: a broad
approach to understanding the concerns of different groups
69
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2019 · 57–72
for different uses”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 53,
pp. 419-426.
Birnhack, M. and Elkin-Koren, N. (2011), “WikiHunt and the
(in) visible handshake”, available at: www.opendemocracy.
net/michael-birnack-niva-elkin-koren/wikihunt-and-invisible-
handshake.
Blanchard, R.J., Flannelly, K.J. and Blanchard, D.C. (1986),
“Defensive behaviors of laboratory and wild Rattus-
Norvegicus”, Journal of Comparative Psychology, Vol. 100
No. 2, pp. 101-107.
Blankfield, A. (1987), “The concept of dependence”, The
International Journal of the Addictions, Vol. 22 No. 11,
pp. 1069-1081.
Bolton, R.N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N.,
Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., Komarova Loureiro, Y. and
Solnet, D. (2013), “Understanding generation Y and their
use of social media: a review and research agenda”, Journal of
Service Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 245-267.
Brandtzaeg, P.B., Luders, M. and Skjetne, J.H. (2010), “Too
many facebook friends? Content sharing and sociability
versus the need for privacy in social network sites”,
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 26
Nos 11/12, pp. 1006-1030.
Bryce, J. and Klang, M. (2009), “Young people, disclosure of
personal information and online privacy: control, choice and
consequences”, Information Security Technical Report, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 160-166.
Cameron, A.F. and Webster, J. (2005), “Unintended
consequences of emerging communication technologies:
instant messaging in the workplace”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 85-103.
Cecere, G., Le Guel, F. and Soulie, N. (2015), “Perceived
internet privacy concerns on social networks in Europe”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 96,
pp. 277-287.
Chen, H.T. and Chen, W.H. (2015), “Couldn’t or wouldn’t?
the influence of privacy concerns and self-efficacy in privacy
management on privacy protection”, Cyberpsychology
Behavior and Social Networking, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 13-19.
Christensen, G.L. and Olson, J.C. (2002), “Mapping
consumers’ mental models with ZMET”, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 477-501.
Christofides, E., Muise, A. and Desmarais, S. (2009),
“Information disclosure and control on facebook: are they
two sides of the same coin or two different processes?”,
Cyberpsychology & Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 341-345.
Cooley, T.M. (1880), A Treatise on the Law of Torts, Callaghan
and Company, Chicago, IL.
Cranor, L.F., Reagle, J. and Ackerman, M.S. (1999), “Beyond
concern: Understanding net users’ attitudes about online
privacy”, in Compaine, B.M. and Vogelsang, I. (Eds) The
Internet Upheaval: Raising Questions, Seeking Answers in
Communications Policy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Das, S. and Kramer, A. (2013), “Self-Censorship on
facebook”, Proceedings of the seventh international AAAI
conference on weblogs and social media, Association for the
Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, MA,
pp. 120-127.
Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J.P., Horn, A.K. and Hughes, B.N.
(2009), “Facebook and online privacy: attitudes, behaviors,
 Privacy protection behavior on Facebook
Linda Alkire, Johannes Pohlmann and Willy Barnett
and unintended consequences”, Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 83-108.
Dhami, A., Agarwal, N., Chakraborty, T.K., Singh, B.P. and
Minj, J. (2013), “Impact of trust, security and privacy
concerns in social networking: an exploratory study to
understand the pattern of information revelation in
Facebook”, Proceedings of the 2013 3rd IEEE International
Advance Computing Conference (IACC), IEEE, pp. 465-469.
Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Lonka, K. and Nieminen, M. (2016), “Why
do adolescents untag photos on facebook?”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 55, pp. 1106-1115.
Diener, E., Scollon, C.N. and Lucas, R.E. (2009), “The
evolving concept of subjective well-being: the multifaceted
nature of happiness”, Assessing Well-Being: The Collected
Works of Ed Diener, pp. 39, 67-100.
Ernst, C.-P.H., Pfeiffer, J. and Rothlauf, F. (2015), “Privacy
protecting behavior in social network sites”, Factors Driving
Social Network Site Usage, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden,
pp. 57-81.
Facebook (2017), “Facebook reports second quarter 2017
results”, available at: https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/
doc_news/2017/FB-Q2’17-Earnings-Release.pdf (accessed 1
October 2018).
Facebook (2018), available at: https://s21.q4cdn.com/
399680738/files/doc_financials/2018/Q2/Q2-2018-Earnings-
Presentation.pdf (accessed 1 October 2018).
Fire, M., Goldschmidt, R. and Elovici, Y. (2014), “Online
social networks: threats and solutions”, IEEE
Communications Surveys & Tutorials, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 2019-2036.
Foote, D. and Lamb, K. (2002), “Eliciting information about
the values of HRM practitioners using laddering interviews”,
Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 244-252.
Forrier, A. and Sels, L. (2003), “The concept employability: a
complex mosaic”, International Journal of Human Resources
Development and Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 102-124.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A.J. and Ashforth, B.E. (2004),
“Employability: a psycho-social construct, its dimensions,
and applications”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65
No. 1, pp. 14-38.
Gengler, C.E. and Reynolds, T.J. (1995), “Consumer
understanding and advertising strategy - analysis and
strategic translation of laddering data”, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 35, pp. 19-33.
Gengler, C.E., Klenosky, D.B. and Mulvey, M.S. (1995),
“Improving the - analysis and strategic translation of
laddering data”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 35,
pp. 19-33.
Gibson, J.J. (1983), The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems,
Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
GlobalWebindex (2018), “GlobalWebIndex’s quarterly report
on the latest trends in social networking”, available at: www.
globalwebindex.net/hs-fs/hub/304927/file-2812772150-pdf/
Reports/GWI_Social_Summary_Report_Q1_2015.pdf (accessed
1 October 2018).
Goldfarb, A. and Tucker, C. (2013), “Why managing
customer privacy can be an opportunity”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 10-12.
70
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2019 · 57–72
Grabner-Krauter, S. and Kaluscha, E.A. (2003), “Empirical
research in on-line trust: a review and critical assessment”,
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 58
No. 6, pp. 783-812.
Grimmett, P.P. and Erickson, G.L. (1988), Reflection in
Teacher Education, Teachers College Press., New York, NY.
Gutman, J. (1982), “A means-end chain model based on
consumer categorization processes”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 60-72.
Hair, J.F., Bush, R.P. and Ortinau, D.J. (2006), Marketing
Research: Within a Changing Information Environment,
McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston, MA.
Hiranandani, V. (2011), “Privacy and security in the digital
age: contemporary challenges and future directions”, The
International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 15 No. 7,
pp. 1091-1106.
Huang, M.H. and Rust, R.T. (2013), “IT-related service: a
multidisciplinary perspective”, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 251-258.
Husserl, E. (1970), The Crisis of European Sciences and
Transcendental Phenomenology; an Introduction to
Phenomenological Philosophy, Northwestern University Press,
Evanston.
Jourard, S.M. (1966), “Some psychological aspects of
privacy”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 307-318.
Lastovicka, J.L. (1995), “Laddermap – version 4.0”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 32, pp. 494-496.
Lee, D.N. (2009), “A theory of visual control of braking based
on information about time-to-collision”, Perception, Vol. 38,
pp. A43-A65.
Lin, C. (2002), “Attribute-consequence-value linkages: a new
technique for understanding customer’s product
knowledge”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis
for Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 339-352.
Liu, C., Marchewka, J.T. and Ku, C. (2004), “American
and taiwanese perceptions concerning privacy, trust, and
behavioral intentions in electronic commerce”, Journal of
Global Information Management, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 18-40.
Malhotra, N.K. (2015), Essentials of Marketing Research: A
Hands-on Orientation, Pearson Education Limited, Pearson,
Essex.
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,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 336-355.
Mangold, W.G. and Smith, K.T. (2012), “Selling to
millennials with online reviews”, Business Horizons, Vol. 55
No. 2, pp. 141-153.
Marder, B., Houghton, D., Joinson, A., Shankar, A. and Bull,
E. (2016), “Understanding the psychological process of
avoidance-based self-regulation on facebook”,
Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking, Vol. 19
No. 5, pp. 321-327.
Margulis, S.T. (2003), “Privacy as a social issue and behavioral
concept”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 59 No. 9, pp. 243-261.
Martin, K. (2015), “Privacy notices as tabula rasa: an empirical
investigation into how complying with a privacy notice is
 Privacy protection behavior on Facebook
Linda Alkire, Johannes Pohlmann and Willy Barnett
related to meeting privacy expectations online”, Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 210-227.
Martin, K.D., Borah, A. and Palmatier, R.W. (2017), “Data
privacy: effects on customer and firm performance”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 36-58.
Martin, K.D. and Murphy, P.E. (2017), “The role of data
privacy in marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 135-155.
Maslow, A.H. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper, New
York, NY.
Mayer-Scho«nberger, V. (2011), Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting
in the Digital Age, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
Messick, S. and Hills, J.R. (1960), “Objective measurement of
Personality - cautiousness and intolerance of ambiguity”,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 685-698.
Milliken, F.J. (1987), “3 Types of perceived uncertainty about
the environment - state, effect, and response uncertainty”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 133-143.
Milne, G.R., Labrecque, L.I. and Cromer, C. (2009),
“Toward an understanding of the online consumer’s risky
behavior and protection practices”, Journal of Consumer
Affairs, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 449-473.
Merton, R.K. (1936), “The unanticipated consequences of
purposive social action”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 1
No. 6, pp. 894-904.
Moore, A.D. (2001), Intellectual Property & Information Control:
Philosophic Foundations and Contemporary Issues, Transaction
Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ.
Moore, A.D. (2007), “Toward informational privacy rights”,
The San Diego Law Review, Vol. 44, pp. 809.
Murray, H.A. (1938), Explorations in Personality; a Clinical and
Experimental Study of Fifty Men of College Age, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY & London.
Nasr, L., Burton, J. and Gruber, T. (2018), “Developing a
deeper understanding of positive customer feedback”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 142-160.
Newell, P.B. (1994), “A systems-model of privacy”, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 65-78.
O’Brien, S.L., Read, P., Woolcott, J. and Shah, C. (2011),
“Understanding privacy behaviors of millennials within
social networking sites”, Proceedings of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, Vol. 48, pp. 1-10.
Park, Y.J. (2015), “Do men and women differ in privacy?
Gendered privacy and (in)equality in the internet”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 50, pp. 252-258.
Park, Y.J., Campbell, S.W. and Kwak, N. (2012), “Affect,
cognition and reward: predictors of privacy protection
online”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 1019-1027.
Pedersen, D.M. (1999), “Model for types of privacy by privacy
functions”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 397-405.
Perreault, W.D. and Leigh, L.E. (1989), “Reliability of
nominal data based on qualitative judgments”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 135-148.
Petronio, S., Bantz, C. (1991), “Research note: controlling the
ramifications of disclosure: ‘Don’t tell anybody but. . .’”,
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 263-269.
71
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2019 · 57–72
Pindyck, R.S. (2000), “Irreversibilities and the timing of
environmental policy”, Resource and Energy Economics,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 233-259.
Prosser, W.L. (1960), “Privacy”, California Law Review,
Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 383-423.
Raynes-Goldie, K.S. (2012), “Privacy in the age of Facebook:
discourse, architecture, consequences”, Doctoral
Dissertation, Curtin University, Perth.
Reynolds, T.J. and Olsen, J.C. (2001), Understanding
Consumer Decision Making: The Means-End Approach to
Marketing and Advertising Strategies, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ.
Reynolds, T.J. and Phillips, J.M. (2009), “A review and
comparative analysis of laddering research methods”, in
Malhotra, N.K. (Ed.), Review of Marketing Research,
Emerald Books.
Richardson, V. (1992), “The evolution of reflective teaching
and teacher education”, in Clift, R.T., Houston, R.W. and
Pugach, M.C. (Eds), Encouraging Reflective Practice in
Education: An Analysis of Issues and Programs, Teachers’
College Press, New York, NY.
Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Rosenbaum, M.S. and Wong, I.A. (2012), “The effect of
instant messaging services on society’s mental health”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 124-136.
Rule, J.B. (1980), The Politics of Privacy, New American
Library, New York, NY.
Schlosser, A.E., White, T.B. and Lloyd, S.M. (2006),
“Converting web site visitors: investment increases
consumer trusting beliefs and online purchase intentions”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 133-148.
Schoeman, F.D. (1984), Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An
Anthology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
Cambridgeshire and New York, NY.
Schwaig, K.S., Segars, A.H., Grover, V. and Fiedler, K.D.
(2013), “A model of consumers’ perceptions of the invasion
of information privacy”, Information and Management,
Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994), “Are there universal aspects in the
structure and contents of human- values?”, Journal of Social
Issues, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 19-45.
Schwartz, S.H. (2006), “Basic human values: theory,
measurement, and applications”, Revue Française de
Sociologie, Vol. 47 No. 4, p. 929.
Schwartz, S.H. (2012), “An overview of the schwartz theory of
basic values”, Online Readings in Psychology and Culture,
Vol. 2 No. 1, p. 11.
Seidman, G. (2013), “Self-presentation and belonging on
Facebook: how personality influences social media use and
motivations”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 54
No. 3, pp. 402-407.
Sheehan, K.B. and Hoy, M.G. (1999), “Flaming, complaining,
abstaining: how online users respond to privacy concerns”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 37-51.
Stankowich, T. and Blumstein, D.T. (2005), “Fear in animals:
a Meta-analysis and review of risk assessment”, Proceedings of
the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, Vol. 272 No. 1581,
pp. 2627-2634.
 Privacy protection behavior on Facebook
Linda Alkire, Johannes Pohlmann and Willy Barnett
Statista (2018), “Global digital population as of July 2018 (in
millions)”, available at: www.statista.com/statistics/617136/
digital-population-worldwide/ (accessed 1 October 2018).
Stutzman, F. and Kramer-Duffield, J. (2010), “Friends only:
examining a privacy-enhancing behavior in facebook”,
Chi2010: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Chi Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vols 1/4,
pp. 1553-1562.
Stutzman, F., Capra, R. and Thompson, J. (2011), “Factors
mediating disclosure in social network sites”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 590-598.
Timpano, K.R. and Schmidt, N.B. (2013), “The relationship
between Self-Control deficits and hoarding: a multimethod
investigation across three samples”, Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 13-25.
Tuman, M.C. (1996), “Literacy online”, Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, Vol. 16, pp. 26-45.
UNESCO (2005), Literacy for Life, The United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris.
Van Der Velden, M. and El Emam, K. (2013), “Not all my
friends need to know’: a qualitative study of teenage patients,
privacy, and social media”, Journal of the American Medical
Informatics Association, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 16-24.
Van Rekom, J., Van Riel, C.B. and Wierenga, B. (2006), “A
methodology for assessing organizational core values”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 175-201.
Vraga, E.K., Thorson, K., Kligler-Vilenchik, N. and Gee, E.
(2015), “How individual sensitivities to disagreement shape
youth political expression on Facebook”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 45, pp. 281-289.
Wageman, R. (1995), “Interdependence and group
effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40
No. 1, pp. 145-180.
Werner, C.M., Altman, I. and Brown, B.B. (1992), “A
transactional approach to interpersonal- relations - physical-
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
72
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 33 · Number 1 · 2019 · 57–72
environment, social-context and temporal qualities”, Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 297-323.
Westin, A.F. (1970), Privacy and Freedom, Bodley Head,
London.
White, T.B., Zahay, D.L., Thorbjørnsen, H. and Shavitt, S.
(2008), “Getting too personal: reactance to highly
personalized email solicitations”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 40-50.
Whitty, M.T. (2008), “Liberating or debilitating? An
examination of romantic relationships, sexual relationships
and friendships on the net”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 1837-1850.
Wilson, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. and Gremler, D.D.
(2012), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across
the Firm, McGraw Hill, No. 2nd EU.
Yap, J.E., Beverland, M.B. and Bove, L.L. (2012), “Doing
privacy: consumers’ search for sovereignty through privacy
management practices”, Research in Consumer Behavior,
Vol. 14, pp. 171-190.
Zhao, S.Y., Grasmuck, S. and Martin, J. (2008), “Identity
construction on facebook: digital empowerment in anchored
relationships”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 5,
pp. 1816-1836.
Further reading
Husserl, E. (1988), Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to
Phenomenology, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ostrom, A.L., Parasuraman, A., Bowen, D.E., Patricio, L. and
Voss, C.A. (2015), “Service research priorities in a rapidly
changing context”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 127-159.
Corresponding author
Linda Alkire can be contacted at: linda.alkire@txstate.edu