Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Stacey Conchie

dblp:361/1928 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0002-0033-7127ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
1 paper
Usable security · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Usability and user experience research · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Usable security › usable privacy › privacy behavior
privacy paradox
0.712023
Un-Paradoxing Privacy: Considering Hopeful Trust · ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

qualitative study · 1.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Un-Paradoxing Privacy: Considering Hopeful Trust
abstract
Extant literature has proposed an important role for trust in moderating people’s willingness to disclose personal information, but there is scant HCI literature that deeply explores the relationship between privacy and trust in apparent privacy paradox circumstances. Attending to this gap, this article reports a qualitative study examining how people account for continuing to use services that conflict with their stated privacy preferences, and how trust features in these accounts. Our findings undermine the notion that individuals engage in strategic thinking about privacy, raising important questions regarding the explanatory power of the well-known privacy calculus model and its proposed relationship between privacy and trust. Finding evidence of hopeful trust in participants’ accounts, we argue that trust allows people to morally account for their “paradoxical” information disclosure behavior. We propose that effecting greater alignment between people’s privacy attitudes and privacy behavior—or “un-paradoxing privacy”—will require greater regulatory assurances of privacy.
Bran Knowles, Stacey Conchie
ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact.2