UNMASKING THE PRIVACY PARADOX: UNDERSTANDING

MODERATING ROLE OF MYOPIC-SELF IN THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRIVACY CONCERN AND SELF-
DISCLOSURE
Hashim H Puthiyakath* Manash P Goswami**
Purpose: This study aimed to shed light on the underlying mechanisms of this paradox, with a specific focus on the role of the
myopic-self, characterised by a focus on immediate rewards and impulsive decision-making.
Design/methodology/approach This study employed a survey technique, utilising multi-item Likert scales to measure the key
variables under investigation.
Findings: The findings suggest that the myopic-self plays a crucial role in determining online self-disclosure behaviours,
adding a new dimension to our understanding of the privacy paradox. The implications of these findings for online privacy
management and platform design are discussed in conclusion.
Originality/value: A statistically significant negative correlation was identified between privacy concerns stemming from
organizational and social threats and self-disclosure, yet its weakness suggests that in practical terms, it is almost zero. It
indicates that the privacy paradox is present and warrant further exploration.
Keywords: privacy paradox, online self-disclosure, myopic-self, privacy concerns, social media

The advent and rapid proliferation of digital technologies tendency of individuals to prioritise immediate benefits over
have revolutionised various facets of our lives, particularly the long-term consequences.
way we communicate, share information, and maintain social It is postulated that the myopic view could influence how
connections. As we increasingly engage in these digital individuals negotiate their privacy concerns and the decisions
interactions, we expose ourselves to privacy risks through the they make about disclosing personal information online. Thus,
vast amount of personal information disclosed online. this study will delve into the role of the 'myopic-self' in the
However, the extensive availability of personal data increases context of the privacy paradox, aiming to offer a novel
apprehensions about privacy. In the digital age, privacy perspective to understand and explain privacy paradox.
concerns have become more pronounced, especially in light of
recurring instances of high-profile data breaches and the I. Review of Literature
growing awareness of ubiquitous data collection practices.
Despite these concerns, individuals often disclose personal The notion of privacy, a fundamental human right, has
information online, sometimes even in a seemingly become a focal point of interest in the digital age, prompting a
indiscriminate manner. This behaviour has led to the multitude of academic inquiries across various disciplines.
emergence of a significant research interest, referred to as the However, as the ubiquity of digital platforms has grown,
privacy paradox. The privacy paradox represents the researchers have identified an intriguing inconsistency in
dichotomy between individuals’ stated privacy concerns and individuals' privacy behaviours. Despite widespread
their disclosure practices in online platforms. expressions of privacy concerns, many individuals readily
disclose personal information online (Acquisti & Gross, 2006;
A significant body of research has been undertaken to Nosko et al., 2012; Taddei & Contena, 2013; Tufekci, 2008),
decipher the privacy paradox. However, these studies have giving rise to the concept of the 'privacy paradox' (Barnes,
often yielded conflicting findings, indicating the multifaceted 2006). The complexity of the privacy paradox has invited
nature of the problem and the existence of unexplored factors multifaceted exploration from numerous academic disciplines.
influencing this paradox. One possible explanation for these
inconsistent findings is the inherent complexity of the human *
PhD Scholar, Department of Media and
decision-making process, particularly in the context of
privacy decisions and personal information disclosure online.
Communication, Central University of Tamil
This research proposes to investigate an aspect of this Nadu, Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu, India
complexity by considering the concept of the myopic-self as a
**
Associate Professor, Department of Media
potential moderating factor in the relationship between and Communication, Central University of Tamil
privacy concern and personal information disclosure. Nadu, Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu, India
Introduced by Loewenstein in 1996, myopic-self refers to the
Scholars within information science have primarily disclosure behaviours due to cognitive constraints and instead
concentrated on the technical aspects of privacy, such as data focus on immediate gains (Holland, 2009; Kehr et al., 2014).
encryption and anonymisation (Rowe, 2020; Zhang et al., Similarly, the concept of privacy fatigue suggests that users
2021), while psychologists have delved into the cognitive might become overwhelmed by the constant need to navigate
biases impacting privacy attitudes and behaviours (Li et al., privacy settings and make decisions regarding their data
2017; Sundar et al., 2013). Additionally, the fields of disclosure, ultimately leading to an increased willingness to
sociology and communication studies have illuminated disclose (Choi et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2021). Privacy fatigue
societal norms and communication practices influencing offers another layer of understanding to the privacy paradox
privacy behaviours (Benson et al., 2015; Kim & Kim, 2020; by exploring how a state of exhaustion might lead users to
Mosteller & Poddar, 2017). share more than they would under different circumstances.
The role of demographics in the manifestation of the privacy Despite these valuable theoretical contributions, the literature
paradox has also been subject to scrutiny. Studies have still grapples with a lack of consensus on the underlying
unveiled how age (Guo et al., 2016), gender (Peng, 2021), and mechanisms driving the privacy paradox. Moreover, these
cultural background (Liyanaarachchi, 2021; Robinson, 2017; theories often overlook the dynamic nature of privacy
Trepte et al., 2017) shape online disclosure behaviours and decisions, which can be influenced by a myriad of situational
privacy concerns, each adding a layer of complexity to our and personal factors. Therefore, there exists an imperative
understanding of the privacy paradox. need to delve further into the exploration of the variables and
Researchers have also identified variations of the privacy mechanisms contributing to the privacy paradox.
paradox depending on the context. Different online
environments, including social networking sites, e-commerce Myopic-self
platforms, and health information websites, carry unique The 'myopic-self' concept, rooted in behavioural economics,
privacy risks and benefits, leading to differing degrees of presents a compelling framework for deciphering individuals'
paradoxical behaviour (F. Zhang et al., 2023; Lee & Rha, seemingly inconsistent decisions. Thaler and Shefrin (1981)
2016; Mosteller & Poddar, 2017). were pioneers in this area, introducing their dual-self model of
Theorists and researchers have proposed several explanations self-control. They proposed that the 'myopic-self' or 'doer'
for this paradox, each with a unique lens and focus. A within an individual seeks immediate gratification, often
substantial body of research has explored the privacy paradox conflicting with the 'planner' that values long-term benefits.
through the privacy calculus model, which presents the This internal conflict elucidates the nature of myopic
decision to disclose personal information as a rational, cost- decisions, adding a dimension of self-control to the
benefit analysis (Dinev & Hart, 2006). This theory frames the understanding of myopic behaviours.
decision to disclose information as a rational process where Ainslie (1991) further elaborated the notion of this myopic-
individuals weigh the potential benefits against the perceived self. He demonstrated that individuals with dynamically
risks (Dinev & Hart, 2006). For instance, individuals may inconsistent preferences tend to exhibit behaviour patterns
choose to disclose information on social networking sites to akin to harmful addictions. Despite their genuine intentions to
foster social connections, despite acknowledging potential act properly, the hyperbolic discounting of future values
privacy risks. In this sense, the privacy calculus theory continually obfuscates harmful long-term consequences,
suggests that the privacy paradox occurs when the perceived favouring immediate rewards. Collectively, these insights
benefits of disclosure outweigh the perceived risks. enrich our understanding of the factors driving decisions that
However, the 'privacy calculus' model has been critiqued for favour short-term gratification at the cost of long-term
simplifying the decision-making process. It presumes that repercussions.
users possess a comprehensive understanding of the potential Subsequent research further deepened the understanding of
risks and rewards and can make rational decisions based on the myopic-self. For instance, Ainslie (2001) connected this
this awareness. This presumption often fails to account for the idea to hyperbolic discounting, a behavioural pattern in which
intricacies of the decision-making process and the affective individuals markedly undervalue future rewards compared to
elements involved (Knijnenburg et al., 2017; Wilson, 2015). immediate ones. This tendency to discount future benefits
In light of these critiques, alternate theories that incorporate further entangles the complexity of myopic decision-making.
cognitive biases and heuristics into the decision-making Adding another layer to this intricate concept, Hershfield et al.
process have been proposed. Simon's 'bounded rationality' (2011) focused on how an individual’s conceptions of their
theory suggests that individuals' decisions are often not future selves affect their intertemporal choices, that is, the
completely rational, but instead, are bounded by cognitive trade-offs between immediate and delayed outcomes. The
limitations and biases (Simon, 1990). When applied to the author argues that people often discount future rewards
privacy paradox, this perspective implies that users might not because they perceive their future selves as dissimilar, less
fully comprehend the long-term implications of their online vivid, and less positive than their current selves.
While researchers have thoroughly investigated the myopic- Conceptual Framework
self in diverse domains such as economic decision-making The conceptual framework of this study synthesises
(Cheng et al., 2011) and health behaviours (Lawless et al., foundational tenets from the privacy paradox and myopic-self
2013), its application in the digital privacy landscape remains theories to shed light on the complexities of online self-
largely unexplored. This gap in the literature is significant, disclosure behaviour. Central to this theoretical framework is
given the potential implications of myopic behaviours on the privacy paradox, epitomised by the dichotomy between
online self-disclosure, which is an act balancing immediate professed privacy concerns and the disclosure of personal
satisfaction against possible future privacy consequences. information in online environments. This paradox has been
established in past studies, with countless surveys revealing a
Synthesis of Literature: The Interplay between Myopic- disconnect between individuals' stated privacy attitudes and
self, Privacy Concerns, and Disclosure their actual online disclosure behaviours. These behaviours
Building upon the reviewed literature, it becomes clear that span a range of activities in the digital realm, from sharing
there is a potentially significant interplay between the personal updates on social media platforms to providing
concepts of the myopic-self, privacy concerns, and online personal details for online transactions. The privacy calculus
disclosure behaviours. At its core, the privacy paradox theory serves as the theoretical backdrop for this
encapsulates a seeming disconnect between individuals' phenomenon, implying that individuals engage in a
voiced concerns about privacy and their actual disclosure of subconscious or conscious assessment of perceived risks
personal information online. On the other hand, the myopic- against anticipated benefits prior to online information
self theory proposes that individuals often favour immediate disclosure.
gratification over long-term consequences, a bias that seems Another important concept is online self-disclosure which
to feed into the privacy paradox directly. refers to the act of individuals sharing their personal
Applying the myopic-self theory to the context of the privacy information in online environments such as social media
paradox, it is conceivable that online users, driven by their platforms, online transactions, or digital communications. The
myopic selves, could prioritise the immediate benefits of behaviours related to online self-disclosure do not necessarily
social interaction and self-expression offered by online correlate directly with the level of privacy concerns an
platforms over potential future privacy risks. This instant individual expresses, thus giving rise to the privacy paradox.
gratification obtained through online sharing could explain the The concept of the 'myopic-self' is incorporated in the study
observed dichotomy between individuals' privacy concerns as a potential moderating variable that could provide insights
and their extensive self-disclosure online. Moreover, the into the privacy paradox. Originating from behavioural
myopic-self can provide a psychological basis for the privacy economics, the myopic-self indicates an individual's tendency
calculus model, wherein individuals consciously or to seek immediate gratification, potentially overlooking the
subconsciously weigh the perceived benefits and risks of long-term implications of their actions. This construct is
online disclosure. traced back to the seminal work of Thaler and Shefrin (1981)
and Hershfield et al.'s (2011), positing the myopic-self as the
Furthermore, considering Hershfield et al.'s (2011) concept of driving force behind the inclination for instant gratification,
dual selves, individuals might perceive their future selves as often undermining the contemplation of potential future
somewhat separate entities, making it easier to discount consequences. The immediacy of rewards from online
potential future privacy risks. This disconnection between interactions, such as social approval or perceived
present and future selves may further amplify the impact of connectedness, may drive those individuals with a more
myopic-self on the privacy paradox. pronounced myopic-self to disclose more personal
In summary, the literature suggests a complex interplay information online, irrespective of their privacy concerns.
between the myopic-self, privacy concerns, and online The proposed conceptual framework of this study postulates a
disclosure behaviours. The concept of myopic-self could offer model where privacy concerns operate as the independent
a valuable framework for understanding the privacy paradox variable, influencing the level of online self-disclosure, which
and the inconsistency in individuals' online behaviour. It is treated as the dependent variable. The myopic-self serves as
presents a unique perspective on the possible cognitive biases a moderating variable that can alter the strength and direction
influencing individuals' online disclosure decisions, adding a of the relationship between privacy concerns and online self-
significant layer of depth to our understanding of the privacy disclosure. This moderating role of the myopic-self introduces
paradox. It is, however, noteworthy that despite these an additional dimension to the conceptual model, potentially
theoretical linkages, empirical research exploring the role of enriching our understanding of the dynamics at play in online
the myopic-self in the context of the privacy paradox remains disclosure behaviour. Assuming that the allure of immediate
scant, underscoring the need for further investigation, which rewards gained through online disclosure could possibly
the present study aims to undertake. incentivise myopic individuals to disclose personal
information online, even in the presence of pronounced original scale consists of two dimensions: "Consideration of
privacy concerns, this study hypothesises that the myopic-self Immediate Consequences" and "Consideration of Future
potentially intensifies the disconnection between stated Consequences." However, this study exclusively adopted the
privacy concerns and online disclosure behaviour. More "Consideration of Immediate Consequences" dimension,
specifically, this study proposes that a higher degree of which measured participants' tendency to prioritise immediate
myopia may lead to an increase in online self-disclosure, outcomes and concerns over potential future consequences.
despite high privacy concerns. Participants rated their agreement with each item on a five-
point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5
II. Research Design and Methods (Strongly Agree).
Procedure
This study employed a survey technique, utilising multi-item The questionnaire was designed and implemented using
Likert scales to measure the key variables under investigation. Google Forms for data collection. Questionnaire items for the
Participants key variables were set as mandatory in order to ensure
The data was collected from college students in Malappuram complete data for the analysis, effectively minimising the
districts. The inclusion criteria for participation required that issue of missing data.
students were active users of at least one of the following The study was conducted among 3 arts and science colleges in
social media platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Malappuram district, Kerala, India. The colleges were
Twitter. Additionally, participants needed to be 18 years of randomly selected from the list available at Higher Education
age or older to be eligible for the study. These criteria were Department Portal of Govt. of Kerala. The Principal
implemented to ensure that participants had sufficient Investigator (PI) visited these selected institutions and sought
exposure and experience with social media and met the legal permission from the respective authorities to conduct data
age requirement for participation. collection within their classrooms. Subsequently, the
The final sample size for the study comprised a total of 342 classrooms were assigned by the college authorities. In the
undergraduate students who met the inclusion criteria and designated classrooms, the PI distributed a Google Form link
voluntarily participated in the survey. The participants' age to the students via the respective class WhatsApp groups. The
range varied from 18 to 24 years, reflecting the typical age students were then instructed to complete the form using their
demographic of undergraduate students in the college. personal mobile devices. However, in one class, one student
Measures did not carry their phone to class, and in another class, two
The study has three key constructs: privacy concern, self- students did not have their phones with them, although they
disclosure, and myopic-self. Each construct was measured regularly used social media. To accommodate these students,
using established scales. the researcher provided his own phone and laptop to them for
The level of privacy concern was assessed using the Privacy filling the questionnaire. Additionally, three tablets were
Concerns in Online Social Networking (PCOSN) scale made available as a backup in case any other students did not
developed by Krasnova et al. (2009). This scale consists of have access to their personal devices. The students were given
two dimensions: privacy concern regarding organisational sufficient time to complete the questionnaire, and their
threats (PCO) and privacy concern regarding social threats responses were collected electronically via Google Forms. In
(PCS). The privacy concern regarding the organisational total, a participation count of 342 students was achieved,
threats dimension includes 7 items, while the privacy concern surpassing the desired sample size. The age of the sample
regarding the social threats dimension comprises 4 items. ranged from 18 to 24 years. In terms of gender distribution,
Participants rated their agreement with each item on a five- 208 participants (60%) were female, while 136 participants
point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (40%) were male.
(Strongly Agree).
The extent of self-disclosure on online social networking III. Result and Discussion
platforms was measured using a scale adapted from Chen
(2018). This scale consists of 5 items, and participants rated The structural equation modelling (SEM) technique was
their agreement with each item on a five-point Likert scale, employed to test the proposed model. The analysis was
ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). conducted using Jamovi, and plots were created with the
The items assessed participants' willingness and frequency of Plotly package for Python.
disclosing personal information on online social networking Results
platforms. The first stage of the data analysis involved providing a
Myopic tendencies were assessed using a modified version of comprehensive view of the descriptive statistics for the
the Future Consequences Scale, originally developed by primary variables under study. Privacy concern had two
Strathman et al. (1994) and refined by She et al. (2021). The dimensions: concerns about organisational threats (PCO) and
concerns about social threats (PCS) and they were measured Gender-Based Disparities in Privacy Concerns and Online
on a 1 to 5 scale using multi-item Likert Scale. It was noted Self-Disclosure
that PCO had a mean of 3.36 and a standard deviation of 1.22. The study also sought to illuminate potential variations in the
Similarly, PCS exhibited a mean of 3.41 and a standard principal constructs based on gender. The independent
deviation of 1.14. samples t-tests illuminated significant disparities in privacy
With regard to the Level of Online Self-Disclosure, a mean of concerns related to both organisational and social threats, with
3.271 and a standard deviation of 1.176 were observed. In no significant differences noted in the levels of online self-
terms of myopic-self, the sample had a mean of 2.81 and a disclosure and the myopic-self. The results are presented in
standard deviation of 1.33. Table 1 and Figure 1.

Table 1. Gender disparities in key variables

Variable Gender Mean (SE) SD Mean difference t p Cohen

PCO Female 3.49(0.08) 1.17 0.3158 2.357 0.019 0.26

Male 3.17(0.11) 1.28

PCS Female 3.64(0.08) 1.16 0.5868 4.809 < .001 0.5303

Male 3.05(0.08) 1.02

SD Female 3.25(0.08) 1.18 -0.047 -0.368 0.713 -0.0406

Male 3.29(0.10) 1.12

Myopic Female 2.77(0.09) 1.36 -0.1065 -0.726 0.468 -0.0801

Male 2.87(0.11) 1.28

Note: PCO = Privacy concerns about organizational threats, PCS = Privacy concerns about social threats, SD = Self-
disclosure

Figure 1. Gender differences in the level of key variables Females demonstrated significantly higher privacy concerns
related to organisational threats (mean = 3.49, SD = 1.17)
compared to their male counterparts (mean = 3.17, SD =
1.28); t(342) = 2.357, p = 0.019, Cohen's d = 0.26. Similarly,
females also exhibited significantly higher privacy concerns
related to social threats (mean = 3.64, SD = 1.16) as compared
to males (mean = 3.05, SD = 1.02); t(342) = 4.809, p < 0.001,
Cohen's d = 0.53.
However, the levels of online self-disclosure among females
(mean = 3.25, SD = 1.18) and males (mean = 3.29, SD = 1.12)
did not exhibit a statistically significant difference; t(342) = -
0.368, p = 0.713, Cohen's d = -0.0406. Similarly, no
significant difference was found in the myopic-self between
females (mean = 2.77, SD = 1.36) and males (mean = 2.87,
SD = 1.28); t(342) = -0.726, p = 0.468, Cohen's d = -0.0801.

Correlations Among Primary Variables

Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to examine
the associations among the primary variables, namely, privacy
concerns about organizational threats (PCO), privacy
concerns about social threats (PCS), level of online self-
disclosure (SD), and the myopic-self. The results are interaction term (PCO * myopic) was 0.203 (SE = 0.025, p
presented in Table 2. < .001), indicating a significant impact of the myopic-self in
altering the relationship between privacy concerns and online
Table 2. Correlation matrix self-disclosure. The moderation estimates of variables from
the first moderation analyses are presented in Table 3.
PCO PCS SD

PCS 0.8*** Table 3. Estimates

Estimate SE Z p
SD -0.236*** -0.174***
PCO -0.22 0.0325 -6.77 < .001
Myopic 0.002 0.055 0.678***
Myopic 0.562 0.0299 18.79 < .001
Note: PCO = Privacy concerns about organizational
threats, PCS = Privacy concerns about social threats, SD =
Self-disclosure. *** = p < .001 PCO * Myopic 0.203 0.025 8.14 < .001

Note: PCO = Privacy concerns about organizational threats.

The correlation matrix reveals that PCO and PCS are highly
correlated (r = 0.8, p < .001), suggesting a significant positive
relationship between these two dimensions of privacy Further examination of the simple slopes provided additional
concerns. The SD displayed a negative relationship with both insights into the nature of this moderation effect. At the
PCO (r = -0.236, p < .001) and PCS (r = -0.174, p = 0.001), average level of the myopic-self, higher privacy concerns
indicating that as privacy concerns increase, the level of were associated with lower levels of online self-disclosure
online self-disclosure tends to decrease. Although statistically (slope = -0.2201, SE = 0.0356, p < .001), confirming the
significant, the correlation is weak. expected negative relationship. However, when considering
Regarding the myopic-self, the analysis revealed a significant individuals with a low level of the myopic-self (1 standard
positive correlation with the level of online self-disclosure (r deviation below the mean), the negative relationship between
= 0.678, p < .001). This finding indicates that individuals with privacy concerns and online self-disclosure was even more
higher levels of myopic tendencies tend to exhibit greater pronounced (slope = -0.4901, SE = 0.0494, p < .001).
online self-disclosure. On the other hand, no significant Interestingly, at a high level of the myopic-self (1 standard
correlation was observed between the myopic-self and either deviation above the mean), the relationship between privacy
PCO (r = 0.002, p = 0.969) or PCS (r = 0.055, p = 0.305). concerns and online self-disclosure was not significant (slope
These results suggest that privacy concerns related to = 0.05, SE = 0.0501, p = 0.318). This suggests that the
organisational or social threats do not show a substantial myopic-self moderates the strength of the relationship, with
relationship with the myopic-self. higher levels of the myopic-self weakening the negative
impact of privacy concerns on online self-disclosure. The
Moderation effect of myopic results of simple slope analyses are presented in Table 4 and
To further explore the interplay between privacy concerns, the Figure 2.
myopic self, and online self-disclosure, two moderation
analyses were conducted. The first analysis examined the Table 4. Simple slope analysis
moderation effect of the myopic-self on the relationship Estimate SE Z p
between privacy concerns regarding organisational threats
(PCO) and the level of online self-disclosure (SD). This 0.035
Average -0.2201 -6.179 < .001
analysis sought to understand whether the myopic-self plays a 6
role in influencing the strength and direction of the
relationship between privacy concerns and online self- 0.049
Low (-1SD) -0.4901 -9.919 < .001
disclosure, shedding light on the mechanisms that contribute 4
to the privacy paradox phenomenon. High 0.050
The results of the moderation analysis revealed a significant 0.05 0.998 0.318
(+1SD) 1
interaction effect between privacy concerns (PCO) and the
myopic-self on online self-disclosure (SD), supporting the
hypothesis that the myopic-self acts as a moderator in this
relationship. Specifically, the estimated coefficient for the
 Figure 2. Effect of privacy concerns regarding aligning with the expected negative relationship. When
organizational threats on self-disclosure across different considering individuals with a low level of the myopic-self (1
levels of myopic-self standard deviation below the mean), the negative relationship
between privacy concerns and online self-disclosure was even
more pronounced (slope = -0.4221, SE = 0.0514, p < .001).
However, at a high level of the myopic-self (1 standard
deviation above the mean), the relationship between privacy
concerns and online self-disclosure was not significant (slope
= 0.065, SE = 0.0586, p = 0.267). This suggests that the
myopic-self moderates the strength of the relationship,
weakening the negative impact of privacy concerns on online
self-disclosure. The results of simple slope analyses are
presented in Table 6 and Figure 3.

Table 6. Simple slope

Estimate SE Z p

Average -0.1785 0.039 -4.58 < .001

The second moderation analysis aimed to examine the
moderating effect of the myopic-self on the relationship 0.051
Low (-1SD) -0.4221 -8.22 < .001
between privacy concerns regarding social threats (PCS) and 4
online self-disclosure (SD). This analysis aimed to explore
whether the myopic-self influences the relationship between 0.058
High (+1SD) 0.065 1.11 0.267
privacy concerns regarding social threats and online self- 6
disclosure, providing further insights into the privacy paradox
phenomenon.
The results of the moderation analysis revealed a significant
interaction effect between privacy concerns (PCS) and the Figure 3. Effect of privacy concerns regarding social
myopic-self on online self-disclosure (SD), suggesting that threats on self-disclosure across different levels of myopic-
the myopic-self plays a moderating role in this relationship. self
The estimated coefficient for the interaction term (PCS *
myopic) was 0.183 (SE = 0.0285, p < .001), indicating a
significant influence of the myopic-self in shaping the
relationship between privacy concerns regarding social threats
and online self-disclosure (Table 5).

Table 5. Moderation estimates

Estimate SE Z P

PCS -0.179 0.0367 -4.86 < .001

Myopic 0.568 0.0312 18.19 < .001

PCS * Myopic 0.183 0.0285 6.45 < .001

Note: PCO = Privacy concerns about organizational threats, Discussion

PCS = Privacy concerns about social threats, SD = Self- Previous research on privacy concerns and self-disclosure has
disclosure. revealed a complex phenomenon known as the privacy
Further examination of the simple slopes provided valuable paradox. While it is commonly expected that higher levels of
insights into the nature of this moderation effect. At the privacy concerns would be associated with lower levels of
average level of the myopic-self, higher privacy concerns online self-disclosure, empirical findings have been
regarding social threats were associated with lower levels of inconsistent, often revealing weak negative correlations or
online self-disclosure (slope = -0.1785, SE = 0.039, p < .001), even the absence of a significant relationship.
Given this privacy paradox, the present study aimed to shed concerns (related to both organisational and social threats)
light on the underlying mechanisms and provide insights into and online self-disclosure. Our results affirmed that the
the conditions under which the expected negative correlation myopic self plays a significant part, influencing the strength
between privacy concerns and online self-disclosure may be and direction of this relationship.
weakened. Specifically, the study examined whether the Specifically, the analysis revealed that individuals with low
myopic-self, as a moderating variable, influenced the levels of the myopic-self exhibited a moderate negative
relationship between privacy concerns (PCO) and online self- correlation between privacy concerns and self-disclosure. This
disclosure (SD). suggests that for these individuals, there was no privacy
The findings from the descriptive statistics revealed moderate paradox, as their self-disclosure aligned with their expressed
levels of privacy concerns related to bothorganisationall privacy concerns. However, for individuals with average
threats (PCO) and social threats (PCS). The levels of online levels of the myopic-self, the negative relationship between
self-disclosure and the myopic-self were also assessed. privacy concerns and self-disclosure became weaker. The
Furthermore, gender-based disparities in privacy concerns and correlation was practically negligible for individuals with high
online self-disclosure were explored, revealing significant levels of the myopic-self. This indicates that when individuals
differences between females and males in terms of privacy exhibit a high degree of the myopic-self, characterized by
concerns but not in online self-disclosure or the myopic-self. impulsivity and a desire for immediate gratification, it
The observed gender differences in privacy concerns align potentially dilutes the influence of privacy concerns on self-
with previous research, suggesting that females tend to exhibit disclosure decisions, potentially leading to a privacy paradox
higher levels of privacy concerns compared to males (Tifferet, scenario.
2019). The finding that females reported higher levels of These findings contribute to our understanding of the privacy
privacy concerns related to both organisational and social paradox phenomenon and highlight the significance of the
threats is consistent with the notion that females may be more myopic-self in shaping online self-disclosure behaviours. The
cautious and vigilant about their privacy in online results align with the privacy calculus theory, which posits
environments. These gender-based disparities provide that individuals engage in a cost-benefit analysis when
valuable insights into the dynamics of privacy concerns and deciding to disclose personal information online. In the
emphasise the need for gender-sensitive approaches when presence of a stronger myopic-self, the anticipated immediate
examining privacy-related behaviours and interventions. rewards associated with self-disclosure override privacy
When it comes to online self-disclosure, the study found no concerns, leading to increased disclosure even when privacy
significant differences between genders. This indicates that concerns are high.
both females and males, in the context of this study, engage in Theoretical implications
similar levels of sharing personal information online. The concept of the myopic-self provides a new lens through
Importantly, this study's findings pertain specifically to which to understand the privacy paradox and offers a potential
college students. It is suggested that the absence of gender explanation for the weak or absent negative relationship
differences in online self-disclosure within this demographic between privacy concerns and self-disclosure observed in
might be due to their comparable online behaviours and social previous research. Incorporating the myopic-self as a
media usage patterns. moderating variable enriches our understanding of the
The correlation analysis revealed that higher levels of privacy complex interplay between privacy concerns, impulsive
concerns were associated with lower levels of online self- decision-making tendencies, and online self-disclosure
disclosure, indicating a negative relationship. However, the behaviours. The study also supports the relevance of the
strength of these correlations was weak, suggesting that the privacy calculus theory, emphasising the role of perceived
expected negative relationship may be influenced by other risks and anticipated benefits in individuals' decision-making
factors. This finding is consistent with the privacy paradox processes regarding online self-disclosure.
literature, which highlights the discrepancy between Practical implications
individuals' stated privacy concerns and their actual online The results highlight the need for interventions and
self-disclosure behaviours. To further explore the factors educational programs that target individuals with high myopic
influencing this relationship and to provide a deeper tendencies. Such programmes should focus on raising
understanding of the privacy paradox, the study incorporated awareness about the potential long-term consequences of
the concept of the myopic-self, characterised by a tendency online self-disclosure and help individuals develop strategies
towards immediate rewards and impulsive decision-making, to balance immediate rewards with privacy concerns.
as a moderator variable affecting the relationship between Additionally, understanding the gender differences in privacy
privacy concerns and self-disclosure. concerns can inform the design of privacy settings and
The moderation analysis revealed the nuanced role of the controls in online platforms, catering to the specific needs and
myopic-self in moderating the relationship between privacy preferences of different user groups.
 IV. Conclusion prompting an inclination towards delayed
gratification. British Journal of Psychology, 103(1),
The findings of this study highlighted the presence of a 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
privacy paradox, where the expected negative correlation 8295.2011.02067.x
between privacy concerns and online self-disclosure was Choi, H., Park, J., & Jung, Y. (2018). The role of privacy
weak. While statistical significance was observed with a fatigue in online privacy behavior. Computers in
larger sample size, the practical strength of the negative Human Behavior, 81, 42–51.
correlation remained weak. This paradox can be better https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.001
understood by considering the influence of the myopic-self, Dinev, T., & Hart, P. ’. (2006). An extended privacy calculus
which emerged as a key factor in shaping online disclosure model for E-Commerce transactions. Information
behaviour. The myopic-self, characterized by a focus on Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80.
immediate rewards and impulsive decision-making, may https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0080
override privacy concerns and lead individuals to engage in Guo, X., Zhang, X., & Sun, Y. (2016). The privacy–
online self-disclosure despite their professed concerns. These personalization paradox in mHealth services
results contribute to our understanding of the privacy paradox acceptance of different age groups. Electronic
phenomenon and highlight the importance of considering Commerce Research and Applications, 16, 55–65.
individual traits and motivations in shaping online disclosure https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2015.11.001
behaviours. By unravelling the intricate dynamics between Hershfield, H. E., Goldstein, D. A., Sharpe, W. F., Fox, J.,
privacy concerns, the myopic-self, and online self-disclosure, Yeykelis, L., Carstensen, L. L., & Bailenson, J. N.
this study provides valuable insights for researchers, (2011). Increasing saving behavior through Age-
practitioners, and policymakers seeking to promote Progressed renderings of the future self. Journal of
responsible and informed online behaviours while respecting Marketing Research, 48(SPL), S23–S37.
individuals' privacy preferences. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.spl.s23
Holland, H. B. (2009). Privacy Paradox 2.0. Widener LJ, 19,
References 893.
Kehr, F., Wentzel, D., & Kowatsch, T. (2014). Privacy
Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006, June). Imagined paradox revised: Pre-existing attitudes, psychological
communities: Awareness, information sharing, and ownership, and actual disclosur
privacy on the Facebook. Paper presented at the 6th Kim, B., & Kim, D. (2020). Understanding the key
Workshop on privacy enhancing technologies, antecedents of users’ disclosing behaviors on social
Cambridge, UK. Retrieved from: networking sites: the Privacy Paradox. Sustainability,
http://people.cs.pitt.edu/~chang/265/proj10/zim/imagi 12(12), 5163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125163
nedcom.pdf Knijnenburg, B. P., Raybourn, E. M., Cherry, D. A.,
Ainslee, G. (1991). 'Derivation of "rational" economic Wilkinson, D., Sivakumar, S., & Sloan, H. (2017).
behaviour from hyperbolic discount curves. Death to the privacy calculus? Social Science
American Economic Review, vol. 81, (May), pp. 334 Research Network.
40. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2923806
Barnes, S. K. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in Krasnova, H., Günther, O., Spiekermann, S., & Koroleva, K.
the United States. First Monday. (2009). Privacy concerns and identity in online social
https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394 networks. Identity in the Information Society, 2(1),
Benson, V., Saridakis, G., & Tennakoon, H. (2015). 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12394-009-0019-1
Information disclosure of social media users. Lawless, L. J., Drichoutis, A. C., & Nayga, R. M. (2013).
Information Technology & People, 28(3), 426–441. Time preferences and health behaviour: a review.
https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-10-2014-0232 Agricultural and Food Economics, 1(1).
Chen, H. (2018). Revisiting the privacy paradox on social https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-7532-1-17
media with an extended privacy calculus model: the Lee, J., & Rha, J. (2016). Personalization–privacy paradox
effect of privacy Concerns, Privacy Self-Efficacy, and consumer conflict with the use of location-based
and Social Capital on privacy management. American mobile commerce. Computers in Human Behavior,
Behavioral Scientist, 62(10), 1392–1412. 63, 453–462.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218792691 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.056
Cheng, Y., Shein, P. P., & Chiou, W. (2011). Escaping the Li, H., Luo, X., Zhang, J., & Xu, H. (2017). Resolving the
impulse to immediate gratification: The prospect privacy paradox: Toward a cognitive appraisal and
concept promotes a future-oriented mindset, emotion approach to online privacy behaviour.