Consumers’ Change in Trust and Security after a Personal Data Breach in Online Shopping
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Data Breach in Online Shopping
2.2. Trust in Online Shopping
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Subjects
3.2. Measurement Development
3.3. Survey Procedure
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. One-Way ANOVA Test
4.3. Hierarchical Regression Analysis
4.4. Qualitative Results
5. Discussion
5.1. Findings
5.2. Theoretical Contribution
5.3. Practical Implications
5.4. Limitations
5.5. Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gabriel, B.S.; Silviu, G.A. Trends regarding fines and sanctions in competition law, labor law and data protection law. Law Rev. 2019, 10, 17–25. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; Chou, T. Exploring the continuance intentions of consumers for B2C online shopping. Online Inf. Rev. 2012, 36, 104–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Park, D.H.; Han, I. The different effects of online consumer reviews on consumers’ purchase intentions depending on trust in online shopping malls: An advertising perspective. Internet Res. 2011, 21, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matzat, U.; Snijders, C. Rebuilding Trust in Online Shops on Consumer Review Sites: Sellers’ Responses to User-Generated Complaints. J. Comput. Commun. 2012, 18, 62–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grabner-Kraeuter, S. The role of consumers’ trust in online-shopping. J. Bus. Ethics 2002, 39, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stouthuysen, K.; Teunis, I.; Reusen, E.; Slabbinck, H. Initial trust and intentions to buy: The effect of vendor-specific guarantees, customer reviews and the role of online shopping experience. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2018, 27, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Debei, M.M.; Akroush, M.N.; Ashouri, M.I. Consumer attitudes towards online shopping: The effects of trust, perceived benefits, and perceived web quality. Internet Res. 2015, 25, 707–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.S. Purchase Intention in the Online Open Market: Do Concerns for E-Commerce Really Matter? Sustainability 2020, 12, 773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Das, G. Antecedents and consequences of trust: An e-tail branding perspective. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2016, 44, 713–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sreeram, A.; Kesharwani, A.; Desai, S. Factors affecting satisfaction and loyalty in online grocery shopping: An integrated model. J. Indian Bus. Res. 2017, 9, 107–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akram, M.S. Drivers and Barriers to Online Shopping in a Newly Digitalized Society. TEM J. 2018, 7, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, Y.; Gong, T. The effects of customer justice perception and affect on customer citizenship behavior and customer dysfunctional behavior. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2008, 37, 767–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chakraborty, R.; Lee, J.; Bagchi-Sen, S.; Upadhyaya, S.; Raghav Rao, H. Online shopping intention in the context of data breach in online retail stores: An examination of older and younger adults. Decis. Support Syst. 2016, 83, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shafiee, M.M.; Bazargan, N.A. Behavioral Customer Loyalty in Online Shopping: The Role of E-Service Quality and E-Recovery. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2018, 13, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, A.J.; Li, E.Y.; Lee, S.-Y. Dysfunctional customer behavior in cross-border e-commerce: A Justice-affect-behavior model. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2018, 19, 36–54. [Google Scholar]
- van der Heijden, H.; Verhagen, T.; Creemers, M. Understanding online purchase intentions: Contributions from technology and trust perspectives. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2003, 12, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hahn, K.H.; Kim, J. The effect of offline brand trust and perceived internet confidence on online shopping intention in the integrated multi-channel context. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2009, 37, 126–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, W.M. Antecedents and consequences of e-shopping: An integrated model. Internet Res. 2015, 25, 184–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Parliament Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32016R0679 (accessed on 27 January 2019).
- Mohan, J.; Wasserman, M.; Chidambaram, V. Analyzing GDPR Compliance Through the Lens of Privacy Policy. In Heterogeneous Data Management, Polystores, and Analytics for Healthcare; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 82–95. [Google Scholar]
- Presthus, W.; Sørum, H. Are Consumers Concerned About Privacy? An Online Survey Emphasizing the General Data Protection Regulation. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 138, 603–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatterjee, S.; Gao, X.; Sarkar, S.; Uzmanoglu, C. Reacting to the scope of a data breach: The differential role of fear and anger. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 101, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curtis, S.R.; Carre, J.R.; Jones, D.N. Consumer security behaviors and trust following a data breach. Manag. Audit. J. 2018, 33, 425–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maitlo, A.; Ameen, N.; Peikari, H.R.; Shah, M. Preventing identity theft: Identifying major barriers to knowledge-sharing in online retail organisations. Inf. Technol. People 2019, 32, 1184–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Valecha, R.; Bachura, E.; Chen, R.; Raghav Rao, H. An Exploration of Public Reaction to the OPM Data Breach Notifications. In Internetworked World; Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing; Fan, M., Heikkilä, J., Li, H., Shaw, M.J., Zhang, H., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 296, pp. 185–191. ISBN 978-3-319-69643-0. [Google Scholar]
- Van Schaik, P.; Jeske, D.; Onibokun, J.; Coventry, L.; Jansen, J.; Kusev, P. Risk perceptions of cyber-security and precautionary behaviour. Comput. Human Behav. 2017, 75, 547–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pelteret, M.; Ophoff, J. A review of information privacy and its importance to consumers and organizations. Inf. Sci. 2016, 19, 277–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Preibusch, S.; Peetz, T.; Acar, G.; Berendt, B. Shopping for privacy: Purchase details leaked to PayPal. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2016, 15, 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Molok, N.N.A.; Chang, S.; Ahmad, A. Information leakage through online social networking: Opening the doorway for advanced persistence threats. In Proceedings of the 8th Australian Information Security Management Conference, Perth, Australia, 30 November–2 December 2010; pp. 70–80. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Z.; Yang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Gu, G.; Ning, P.; Wang, X.S. AppIntent: Analyzing sensitive data transmission in android for privacy leakage detection. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer & Communications Security—CCS ’13, Berlin, Germany, 4–8 November 2013; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1043–1054. [Google Scholar]
- Carre, J.R.; Curtis, S.R.; Jones, D.N. Ascribing responsibility for online security and data breaches. Manag. Audit. J. 2018, 33, 436–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Karahanna, E.; Straub, D.W. Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 51–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lankton, N.K.; McKnight, D.H.; Thatcher, J.B. The moderating effects of privacy restrictiveness and experience on trusting beliefs and habit: An empirical test of intention to continue using a social networking website. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2012, 59, 654–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoffman, D.L.; Novak, T.P.; Peralta, M. Building consumer trust online. Commun. ACM 1999, 42, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akroush, M.N.; Al-Debei, M.M. An integrated model of factors affecting consumer attitudes towards online shopping. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2015, 21, 1353–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-dweeri, R.M.; Obeidat, Z.M.; Al-dwiry, M.A.; Alshurideh, M.T.; Alhorani, A.M. The impact of e-service quality and e-loyalty on online shopping: Moderating effect of e-satisfaction and e-trust. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 2017, 9, 92–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Akram, U.; Hui, P.; Kaleem Khan, M.; Tanveer, Y.; Mehmood, K.; Ahmad, W. How website quality affects online impulse buying. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2017, 30, 235–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pappas, N. Marketing strategies, perceived risks, and consumer trust in online buying behaviour. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 92–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison McKnight, D.; Choudhury, V.; Kacmar, C. The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: A trust building model. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2002, 11, 297–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Köksal, Y.; Penez, S. An investigation of the important factors influence web trust in online shopping. J. Mark. Manag. 2015, 6, 28–40. [Google Scholar]
- Tamimi, N.; Sebastianelli, R. The relative importance of e-tailer website attributes on the likelihood of online purchase. Internet Res. 2015, 25, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohr, H.; Walter, Z. Formation of Consumers’ Perceived Information Security: Examining the Transfer of Trust in Online Retailers. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019, 21, 1231–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liébana-Cabanillas, F.; Marinković, V.; Kalinić, Z. A SEM-neural network approach for predicting antecedents of m-commerce acceptance. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017, 37, 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, A.; Arora, N. Understanding determinants and barriers of mobile shopping adoption using behavioral reasoning theory. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 36, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilashi, M.; Ibrahim, O.; Reza Mirabi, V.; Ebrahimi, L.; Zare, M. The role of security, design and content factors on customer trust in mobile commerce. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 26, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Bavel, R.; Rodríguez-Priego, N.; Vila, J.; Briggs, P. Using protection motivation theory in the design of nudges to improve online security behavior. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2019, 123, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strzelecki, A. Key Features of E-Tailer Shops in Adaptation to Cross-Border E-Commerce in the EU. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kalinić, Z.; Ranković, V.; Kalinić, L. Challenges in Cross-border E-commerce in the European Union. Zesz. Nauk. Uniw. Ekon. Krakowie 2018, 5, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Strzelecki, A.; Rizun, M. Consumers’ security and trust for online shopping after GDPR: Examples from Poland and Ukraine. Digit. Policy Regul. Gov. 2020, 22, 289–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kosior, K. Economic, Ethical and Legal Aspects of Digitalization in the Agri-Food Sector. Probl. Agric. Econ. 2020, 263, 53–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wojtkowski, Ł.; Brodzińska-Mirowska, B.; Seklecka, A. Polish Privacy Media Discourse: Privacy as Imposed Policies. Media Commun. 2020, 8, 302–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaburko, J.; Szulżyk-Cieplak, J. Information security risk assessment using the AHP method. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 710, 12036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 1932, 22, 55. [Google Scholar]
- Vladlena, B.; Saridakis, G.; Tennakoon, H.; Ezingeard, J.N. The role of security notices and online consumer behaviour: An empirical study of social networking users. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2015, 80, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adjerid, I.; Acquisti, A.; Brandimarte, L.; Loewenstein, G. Sleights of privacy: Framing, disclosures, and the limits of transparency. In Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security—SOUPS ’13, Newcastle, UK, 24–26 July 2013; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 9:1–9:17. [Google Scholar]
- Ba, S. Establishing online trust through a community responsibility system. Decis. Support Syst. 2001, 31, 323–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, K. Computer crime victimization and integrated theory: An empirical assessment. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 2008, 2, 308–333. [Google Scholar]
- Alreck, P.; Settle, R.B. Gender effects on Internet, catalogue and store shopping. J. Database Mark. Cust. Strateg. Manag. 2002, 9, 150–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernández, B.; Jiménez, J.; José Martín, M. Age, gender and income: Do they really moderate online shopping behaviour? Online Inf. Rev. 2011, 35, 113–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Babin, B.J.; Griffin, M. A closer look at the influence of age on consumer ethics. In Advances in Consumer Research; Association for Consumer Research: Duluth, MN, USA, 1995; Volume 22, pp. 668–673. ISBN 0098-9258r0-915552-34-5. [Google Scholar]
- Couper, M.P. Review: Web Surveys: A Review of Issues and Approaches. Public Opin. Q. 2000, 64, 464–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renaud, K.; Shepherd, L.A. How to Make Privacy Policies both GDPR-Compliant and Usable. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference On Cyber Situational Awareness, Data Analytics And Assessment (Cyber SA), Glasgow, UK, 11–12 June 2018; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Zou, Y.; Danino, S.; Sun, K.; Schaub, F. You “Might” Be Affected: An Empirical Analysis of Readability and Usability Issues in Data Breach Notifications. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI ’19, Glasgow, UK, 4–9 May 2019; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Zou, Y.; Schaub, F. Beyond Mandatory: Making Data Breach Notifications Useful for Consumers. IEEE Secur. Priv. 2019, 17, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syed, R. Enterprise reputation threats on social media: A case of data breach framing. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 257–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.S.; Jai, T.-M. Trust fall: Data breach perceptions from loyalty and non-loyalty customers. Serv. Ind. J. 2021, 41, 947–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pallant, J.I.; Pallant, J.L.; Sands, S.J.; Ferraro, C.R.; Afifi, E. When and how consumers are willing to exchange data with retailers: An exploratory segmentation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 64, 102774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, Y.; Mhaidli, A.H.; McCall, A.; Schaub, F. “I’ve Got Nothing to Lose”: Consumers’ Risk Perceptions and Protective Actions after the Equifax Data Breach. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security ({SOUPS} 2018), Baltimore, MD, USA, 12–14 August 2018; {USENIX} Association: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2018; pp. 197–216. [Google Scholar]
- Janakiraman, R.; Lim, J.H.; Rishika, R. The Effect of a Data Breach Announcement on Customer Behavior: Evidence from a Multichannel Retailer. J. Mark. 2018, 82, 85–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, J.; Dai, H. Social media content and sentiment analysis on consumer security breaches. J. Financ. Crime 2016, 23, 855–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nield, J.; Scanlan, J.; Roehrer, E. Exploring Consumer Information-Security Awareness and Preparedness of Data-Breach Events. Libr. Trends 2020, 68, 611–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, K.D.; Kim, J.J.; Palmatier, R.W.; Steinhoff, L.; Stewart, D.W.; Walker, B.A.; Wang, Y.; Weaven, S.K. Data Privacy in Retail. J. Retail. 2020, 96, 474–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ion, I.; Reeder, R.; Consolvo, S. “...No One Can Hack My Mind”: Comparing Expert and Non-Expert Security Practices. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security ({SOUPS} 2015), Ottawa, ON, Canada, 22–24 July 2015; {USENIX} Association: Ottawa, Canada, 2015; pp. 327–346. [Google Scholar]
- Thomas, K.; Pullman, J.; Yeo, K.; Raghunathan, A.; Kelley, P.G.; Invernizzi, L.; Benko, B.; Pietraszek, T.; Patel, S.; Boneh, D.; et al. Protecting accounts from credential stuffing with password breach alerting. In Proceedings of the 28th {USENIX} Security Symposium ({USENIX} Security 19), Santa Clara, CA, USA, 14–16 August 2019; Association: Santa Clara, CA, USA, 2019; pp. 1556–1571. [Google Scholar]
- Alazab, M.; Hong, S.-H.; Ng, J. Louder bark with no bite: Privacy protection through the regulation of mandatory data breach notification in Australia. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2021, 116, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goode, S.; Hoehle, H.; Venkatesh, V.; Brown, S.A. User Compensation as a Data Breach Recovery Action: An Investigation of the Sony PlayStation Network Breach. MIS Q. 2017, 41, 703–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gwebu, K.L.; Wang, J.; Wang, L. The Role of Corporate Reputation and Crisis Response Strategies in Data Breach Management. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2018, 35, 683–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, B.C.F.; Kim, S.S.; Jiang, Z. (Jack) Influence of Firm’s Recovery Endeavors upon Privacy Breach on Online Customer Behavior. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2016, 33, 904–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, M.J.; Jagpal, S.; Gupta, S.; Li, S.; Yu, Y. A Flexible Method for Protecting Marketing Data: An Application to Point-of-Sale Data. Mark. Sci. 2018, 37, 153–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yu, S. Does fear of victimization deter online shopping? J. Financ. Crime 2018, 25, 770–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manworren, N.; Letwat, J.; Daily, O. Why you should care about the Target data breach. Bus. Horiz. 2016, 59, 257–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, W.; Zhang, L.; Hua, N. Error management in service security breaches. J. Serv. Mark. 2019, 33, 783–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morahan-Martin, J. The gender gap in internet use: Why men use the internet more than women—A literature review. CyberPsychology Behav. 1998, 1, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Item | Description | Sources | |
---|---|---|---|
Introduction | |||
1 | Were you a client of Morele before November 2018? | The questionnaire is directed only at victims of the data breach at Morele. All other users were excluded here. | Own |
The incident | |||
2 | Determine the perceived level of security when transferring data to Morele before the incident. | By security, the “green padlock,” privacy policy awareness, logotypes of SSL certificates, cookies policy, etc., are understood. Assessment of the actions taken by Morele to make the consumers feel secure. | [21,54] |
3 | Determine the trust level when conducting transactions at Morele before the incident. | Trust is consumers’ certainty that the entire commercial transaction will proceed correctly, i.e., the parcel will be received on time and without complications, etc. Assessment of the service quality at Morele. | [2,12] |
4 | How did you find out about the data breach at Morele? | Did Morele succeed in informing all the consumers about the incident quickly enough? Assessment of Morele information campaign. | [55] |
5 | Determine the level of trust in Morele after the incident. | The attitude of consumers towards Morele after the incident. Most likely based on emotions rather than on the actual security policy of the store. | [2,12,56] |
6 | Do you think that Morele has fulfilled its GDPR obligations after the incident? | Opinions of consumers on this issue may be subjective, yet they will allow additional assessment of consumers’ trust in Morele after the incident. | [19,21] |
Post-incident actions | |||
7 | Did you change your password at other online stores after the incident at Morele? | Assessment of changes in consumers’ security awareness after the incident. | [21,54] |
8 | Do you intend to use more complex passwords at online stores after the incident at Morele? | ||
9 | Has the incident at Morele had consequences for you (receiving suspicious emails, false transactions, etc.)? | Assessment of the scale of the incident—its influence on consumers’ overall activity on the Internet. | [55,57] |
10 | Do you intend to continue buying at Morele after the incident? | Assessment of changes in consumers’ trust in Morele and online shopping in general after the incident. | [2,56] |
11 | Do you intend to buy at any other online store after the incident at Morele? | ||
12 | What kinds of goods did/do you mostly buy at Morele? | Answering the only open-ended question in the survey, a respondent shows his/her thoughtful approach to the survey and reliability. | [58,59] |
Metrics | |||
13 | Gender | Demographic characteristics of the sample of respondents (see Table 2). | [60,61] |
14 | Age |
Characteristic | Count | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 795 | 96.24 |
Female | 31 | 3.76 |
Age (years) | ||
<18 | 18 | 2.18 |
18–24 | 354 | 42.86 |
25–34 | 307 | 37.17 |
35–44 | 117 | 14.16 |
45–54 | 23 | 2.78 |
55–64 | 4 | 0.48 |
65+ | 0 | 0 |
Not given | 3 | 0.36 |
NS | Mean | Median | SD | S. Err | Variance | Security | Original Trust | Changed Trust | GDPR | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Security | 826 | 3.3717 | 4 | 1.5851 | 0.0552 | 2.5126 | 1 | |||
Original trust | 826 | 4.0218 | 4 | 1.0477 | 0.0365 | 1.0977 | 0.394 * (0.417 **) | 1 | ||
Changed trust | 826 | 1.7446 | 1 | 1.0555 | 0.0367 | 1.1140 | 0.164 * (0.165 **) | 0.253 * (0.259 **) | 1 | |
GDPR | 826 | 2.0835 | 2 | 1.2569 | 0.0437 | 1.5796 | 0.152 * (0.153 **) | 0.202 * (0.205 **) | 0.629 * (0.74 **) | 1 |
Source | SS | DF | MS | F-Stat | p-Value | F-Test |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Groups (between groups) | 2847.02 | 3 | 949.00 | 602.15 | 4.44089 × 10−16 | 2.60 |
Error (within groups) | 5200.87 | 3300 | 1.57 | |||
Total: | 8047.90 | 3303 |
Security | Original Trust | Changed Trust | |
---|---|---|---|
Original trust | 0.1831 | ||
Changed trust | 0.4582 | 0.6413 | |
GDPR | 0.3628 | 0.5459 | 0.0954 |
Model | R | R2 | Adjusted R2 | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R2 Change | F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | |||||
1 | 0.394 a | 0.155 | 0.154 | 1.458 | 0.155 | 151.077 | 1 | 824 | 0.000 |
2 | 0.399 b | 0.159 | 0.157 | 1.455 | 0.004 | 4.358 | 1 | 823 | 0.037 |
3 | 0.401 c | 0.161 | 0.158 | 1.454 | 0.002 | 1.700 | 1 | 822 | 0.193 |
Question | Answer Options | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Did you change your password at other online stores after the incident at Morele? (more than one answer possible) | All passwords (29.5%) | Only Morele password (26.8%) | Online shops I’m using (20%) | No changes (16.7%) | Custom answers (7%) |
Do you intend to use more complex passwords at online stores after the incident at Morele? | Yes (26.4%) | Only important websites (33.9%) | No (25.1%) | Don’t know (7.7%) | Custom answers (6.9%) |
Has the incident at Morele had consequences for you (receiving suspicious emails, false transactions, etc.)? | Yes (27.6%) | No (72.4%) | |||
Do you intend to continue buying at Morele after the incident? | Never (35.5%) | No in any time soon (30.8%) | Yes, I do (22.8%) | Don’t know (6.5%) | Custom answers (4.4%) |
Do you intend to buy at any other online stores after the incident at Morele? | Yes, I already did (85%) | Yes, in the near future (9.3%) | No (2.8%) | Don’t know (2.5%) | Custom answers (0.4%) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Strzelecki, A.; Rizun, M. Consumers’ Change in Trust and Security after a Personal Data Breach in Online Shopping. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5866. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105866
Strzelecki A, Rizun M. Consumers’ Change in Trust and Security after a Personal Data Breach in Online Shopping. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10):5866. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105866
Chicago/Turabian StyleStrzelecki, Artur, and Mariia Rizun. 2022. "Consumers’ Change in Trust and Security after a Personal Data Breach in Online Shopping" Sustainability 14, no. 10: 5866. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105866
APA StyleStrzelecki, A., & Rizun, M. (2022). Consumers’ Change in Trust and Security after a Personal Data Breach in Online Shopping. Sustainability, 14(10), 5866. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105866