dissertationThis dissertation highlights two important issues with regard to online privacy concerns in e-commerce: (1) why can't privacy concerns explain online behavior? and (2) what are the essential sources of privacy concerns in e-commerce? In Chapter 2, we explain the discrepancy between people's privacy concerns and their willingness to personal information to an online vender, which is called the online privacy paradox. Drawing on construal level theory (CLT), we suggest that people form privacy concerns in a general situation by construing benefits of information disclosure and privacy risk. Due to high psychological distance, the evaluations of benefits and privacy risk become abstract and superficial (i.e., high-level construal). However, as people traverse to a particular situation, the evaluations of those factors become more specific, due to decreased psychological distance (i.e., low-level construal). When high- and low-level construals are consistent, privacy concerns significantly affect information disclosure in a particular situation. In contrast, when the construals are inconsistent, privacy concerns can't explain information disclosure in a particular situation (i.e., privacy paradox). In Chapter 3, we attempt to identify essential antecedents of privacy concerns in ecommerce. Drawing on protection motivation theory, we select privacy risk, self-efficacy, and response efficacy as generic determinants of privacy concerns. We also identify notice and consent of information practice as privacy concerns' determinants specific to ecommerce. According to our results, while privacy risk and consent had direct effects on privacy concerns, self-efficacy and notice indirectly impact privacy concerns through privacy risk. In Chapter 4, we seek to explain the inconsistent direct and indirect effect of privacy concerns by examining attitudinal ambivalence. We develop two alternative models: direct ambivalence and indirect ambivalence model. The direct ambivalence model conceptualizes privacy concerns as attitude and assumes the direct effect of privacy concerns. The effect of privacy concerns is moderated by the ambivalence of privacy selfefficacy and privacy risk. On the other hand, indirect ambivalence model conceptualizes privacy concerns as individual characteristics and assumes indirect effect of privacy concerns via favorability of information disclosure. The relation between favorability and information disclosure is moderated by the ambivalence of benefits and privacy risk
