Науковий вісник НГУ

Does privacy paradox survive when context matters?

• 
• 

User Rating:  / 0

PoorBest 

Details

Parent Category: 2026

Category: Content №4 2026

Created on 24 August 2026

Last Updated on 24 August 2026

Published on 30 November -0001

Written by V. Koziuk, Yu. Ivashuk, N. Tsyapa

Hits: 903

Authors:

V. Koziuk, orcid.org/0000-0002-5715-2983, West Ukrainian National University, Ternopil, Ukraine, e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Yu. Ivashuk, orcid.org/0000-0002-8459-4744, West Ukrainian National University, Ternopil, Ukraine, e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

N. Tsyapa*, orcid.org/0009-0005-0820-5443, West Ukrainian National University, Ternopil, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

* Corresponding author e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

повний текст / full article

Naukovyi Visnyk Natsionalnoho Hirnychoho Universytetu. 2026, (4): 211 - 222

https://doi.org/10.33271/nvngu/2026-4/211

Abstract:

Purpose. To assess whether the privacy paradox persists when accounting for contextual information and transparency in digital services, and to evaluate the stability of privacy preferences across everyday life, social media, and digital finance.

Methodology. A questionnaire survey of 400 respondents was conducted. Indices of privacy propensity in three domains and indices of preference for privacy over convenience and over undefined future benefits were constructed on Likert scales and analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, t-tests, and regression models.

Findings. Privacy propensities differ significantly across contexts and correlate only weakly with each other. At the same time, all three indices of propensity for privacy are strongly and statistically significantly related to the preference for privacy over functionality when the choice is formulated in a clear, context-rich way, which supports the conclusion that the privacy paradox in this setting appears in a weak form and that context acts as a boundary line between the privacy paradox and more preference-consistent choices. That said, the explanatory power of the models remains modest and does not justify a strong rational-choice interpretation.

Originality. The study jointly examines three context‑distant privacy domains and explicitly contrasts abstract and contextualized privacy-functionality trade-offs, showing that context acts as a boundary condition between the privacy paradox and rational, preference-consistent choice. In contrast to the authors’ previous work on the privacy paradox in Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) design and trust in them, this article extends the analysis to three non‑CBDC domains of everyday life. This includes social media, and digital finance, and explicitly contrasts abstract and context‑rich privacy-functionality trade‑offs within a single empirical design.

Practical value. The results suggest that clearer and more context-rich privacy choices are associated with greater preference consistency, which highlights the potential value of more transparent privacy policies and user interfaces in digital services. For regulators, the findings provide only preliminary support for transparency-oriented approaches to privacy policy, as the cross-sectional design and non-probabilistic sample do not allow strong causal or normative conclusions.

Keywords: digital economy, digital privacy, privacy paradox, behavioral economy, consumer choice

References.

1. Hu, Q., Xie, J., & Zhang, G. (2023). The role of data-driven services strategy in platform competition: A system performance perspective. PLoS ONE, 18(1), e0272547. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272547

2. Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., & Wagman, L. (2016). The economics of privacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(2), 442-492. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.54.2.442

3. Goldfarb, A., & Que, V. F. (2023). The economics of digital privacy. Annual Review of Economics, 15(1), 267-286. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-082322-014346

4. Barth, S., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2017). The privacy paradox: Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1038-1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013

5. Gerber, N., Gerber, P., & Volkamer, M. (2018). Explaining the privacy paradox: A systematic review of literature investigating privacy attitude and behavior. Computers & Security, 77, 226-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.002

6.Gimpel, H., Kleindienst, D., & Waldmann, D. (2018). The disclosure of private data: Measuring the privacy paradox in digital services. Electronic Markets, 28(4), 475-490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-018-0303-8

7. Cloos, J., Frank, B., Kampenhuber, L., Karam, S., Luong, N., Moller, D., Monge-Larrain, M., …, & Rossler, C. (2019). Is your privacy for sale? An experiment on the willingness to reveal sensitive information. Games, 10(3), 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/g10030028

8. Barth, S., de Jong, M. D. T., Junger, M., Hartel, P. H., & Roppelt, J. C. (2019). Putting the privacy paradox to the test: Online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources. Telematics and Informatics, 41, 55-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.03.003

9. Hirschprung, R. S. (2023). Is the privacy paradox a domain-specific phenomenon? Computers, 12(8), 156. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12080156

10.      Koziuk, V., Ivashuk, Y., & Hayda, Y. (2024). CBDC, trust in the central bank, and the privacy paradox. Economics – Innovative and Economics Research Journal, 12(2), 219-242. https://doi.org/10.2478/eoik-2024-0025

11.      Athey, S., Catalini, C., & Tucker, C. E. (2017). The digital privacy paradox: Small money, small costs, small talk. NBER Working Paper, 23488. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23488

12.      Chen, L., Huang, Y., Ouyang, S., & Xiong, W. (2021). The data privacy paradox and digital demand. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3930095

13.      Cofone, I. (2026). The privacy paradox is a misnomer: Data under structural uncertainty. Georgetown Law and Technology Review, 10(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6030275

14.      Chhabra, S., Mukherjee, J., & Agarwal, M. N. (2023). Understanding privacy paradox: Experimental approach on study privacy concerns and actual behavior among apps users. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 33(3-4), 105-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2023.2251328

15.      Hargittai, E., & Marwick, A. (2016). “What can I really do?” Explaining the privacy paradox with online apathy. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3737-3757. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/4655

16.      Blank, G., Bolsover, G., & Dubois, E. (2014). A new privacy paradox: Young people and privacy on social network sites. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2479938

17.      Adorjan, M., & Ricciardelli, R. (2019). A new privacy paradox? Youth agentic practices of privacy management despite “nothing to hide” online. Canadian Review of Sociology, 56(1), 8-29.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12227

18.      Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Ranzini, G. (2016). Privacy cynicism: A new approach to the privacy paradox. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(4), 7. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2016-4-7

19.      Liyanaarachchi, G. (2021). Managing privacy paradox through national culture: Reshaping online retailing strategy. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60, 102500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102500

20.      Koziuk, V., & Ivashuk, Y. (2022). Does it matter for CBDC design? Privacy-anonymity preferences from the side of hierarchies and egalitarian cultural patterns. Economics – Innovative and Economics Research Journal, 10(1), 35-53. https://doi.org/10.2478/eoik-2022-0008

21.      Colnago, J., Cranor, L. F., & Acquisti, A. (2023). Is there a reverse privacy paradox? An exploratory analysis of gaps between privacy perspectives and privacy-seeking behaviors. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2023(1), 455-476. https://doi.org/10.56553/popets-2023-0027

22.      Solove, D. J. (2021). The myth of the privacy paradox. George Washington Law Review, 89(1), 1-51. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3536265

23.      Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behavior: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security, 64, 122-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.12.001

24.      Brits, H., & Jonker, N. (2023). The use of financial apps: Privacy paradox or privacy calculus? De Nederlandsche Bank Working Paper, 794. https://www.dnb.nl/media/hwpei2bx/working_paper_no-794.pdf

25.      Cruijsen, C. van der (2020). Payments data: Do consumers want banks to keep them in a safe or turn them into gold? Applied Economics, 52(6), 609-622. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2019.1659493

26.      Rosati, P., Fox, G., Cummins, M., & Lynn, T. (2022). Perceived risk as a determinant of propensity to adopt account information services under the EU Payment Services Directive. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 17(2), 493-506. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer17020026

27.      Koziuk, V., Dziubanovska, N., & Tsegelnyy, I. (2025a). Can artificial intelligence help to identify privacy paradox: Case of CBDC. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3974, 119-132. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3974/paper13.pdf

28.      Karwatzki, S., Trenz, M., & Veit, D. (2022). The multidimensional nature of privacy risks: Conceptualisation, measurement and implications for digital services. Information Systems Journal, 32(6), 1126-1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12386

29.      Frener, R., Dombrowski, J., & Trepte, S. (2023). Development and validation of the Need for Privacy Scale (NFP-S). Communication Methods and Measures, 17(4), 265-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2023.2246014

30.      MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293-334. https://doi.org/10.2307/23044045

31.      Choi, S., Kim, B., Kim, Y.-S., & Kwon, O. (2023). Central bank digital currency and privacy: A randomized survey experiment. BIS Working Paper, 1147. https://www.bis.org/publ/work1147.htm

32.      Koziuk, V., Ivashuk, Y., & Hayda, Y. (2025b). Privacy preferences and trust in central banks: Heterogeneity in case of CBDC. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 3(62), 11-26. https://doi.org/10.55643/fcaptp.3.62.2025.4734

33.      Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119-157. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol79/iss1/10/

• < Prev
• Next >