Detecting fraud during online exams using proctoring software comes with substantial privacy challenges. Previous work argues students experience heightened anxiety and have privacy concerns. However, little is known about which specific aspects of online proctoring cause these concerns. This study contributes such insights by using the Contextual Integrity (CI) framework to discover how students (N = 456) rate the acceptability of 1064 proctoring information flows with varying information types, recipients, and transmission principles. We find that the acceptability varies considerably depending on the context. Besides exposing obvious privacy violations, we find that, under certain conditions, students consider it acceptable to share data with teachers - despite their lack of involvement in proctoring. Also, the acceptability of sharing highly sensitive information - which should under no circumstances be shared - sometimes increases. We discuss the implications of these and other findings and provide concrete recommendations for educational institutions using online proctoring.

Previous studies have not fully investigated the role of source accessibility versus source quality in the selection of information sources. It remains unclear what their (relative) importance is. Three different models have been identified: (a) an exclusively accessibility‐driven model, (b) a cost‐benefit model in which both accessibility and quality are significant influences, and (c) an exclusively quality‐driven model. Moreover, the conditions under which accessibility and quality are important are not well understood. The goal of our study is to shed more light on both issues by assessing the role of different dimensions of accessibility and quality and how their importance is affected by time pressure. We conducted a policy‐capturing study in which 89 financial specialists participated. Each judged 20 scenarios in which the accessibility and quality of human information sources, as well as time pressure, were manipulated. Results showed that both accessibility and quality affect the likelihood of asking a human information source for information. Moreover, although the weights attached to physical accessibility and the source's perceived technical quality were indeed moderated by time pressure, in both conditions we find support for a cost‐benefit model of information seeking, in which both accessibility and quality are significant influences.