How AI chatbots have reshaped the frontline interface in China: examining the role of sales–service ambidexterity and the personalization–privacy paradox

PurposeThis study serves two purposes: (1) to evaluate the effects of organizational ambidexterity by examining how the balanced and the combined sales–service configurations of chatbots differ in their abilities to enhance customer experience and patronage and (2) to apply information boundary theory to assess the contingent role that chatbot sales–service ambidexterity can play in adapting to customers' personalization–privacy paradox.Design/methodology/approachAn online survey of artificial intelligence chatbots users was conducted, and a mixed-methods research design involving response surface analysis and polynomial regression was adopted to address the research aim.FindingsThe results of polynomial regressions on survey data from 507 online customers indicated that as the benefits of personalization decreased and the risk to privacy increased, the inherently negative (positive) effects of imbalanced (combined) chatbots' sales–service ambidexterity had an increasing (decreasing) influence on customer experience. Furthermore, customer experience fully mediated the association of chatbots' sales–service ambidexterity with customer patronage.Originality/valueFirst, this study enriches the literature on frontline ambidexterity and extends it to the setting of human–machine interaction. Second, the study contributes to the literature on the personalization–privacy paradox by demonstrating the importance of frontline ambidexterity for adapting to customer concerns. Third, the study examines the conduit between artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots' ambidexterity and sales performance, thereby helping to reconcile the previously inconsistent evidence regarding this relationship.

Why Does Privacy Paradox Exist?

In this exploratory study, the main aim was to find, ‘why do people disclose information when they are concerned about their privacy?’. The reasons that provide a plausible explanation to the privacy paradox have been conjectural. From the analysis of the eighteen in-depth interviews using grounded theory, themes were then conceptualized. We found rational and irrational explanations in terms of cognitive biases and heuristics that explain the privacy paradox among mobile users. We figured out some reasons in this context of mobile computing which were not emphasized earlier in the privacy paradox literature such as Peanut Effect, Fear of Missing Out- FoMo, Learned Helplessness, and Neophiliac Personality. These results add to the privacy paradox discourse and provide implications for smartphone users for making privacy-related decisions more consciously rather than inconsiderately disclosing information. Also, the results would help marketers and policymakers design nudges and choice architectures that consider privacy decision-making hurdles.

Blurring the line between publicity and privacy on social media and the privacy paradox

The article examines the situation associated with the spread of social networks, which brought not only new communication opportunities, but also the risks of blurring the boundaries between privacy and publicity. People voluntarily share personal data in exchange for public acceptance. This information is recorded and studied by various government and commercial institutions. The danger to information privacy as a right to control access to personal information is aggravated by the peculiarities of online communication, which is characterized by “context collapse”: the merging of different audiences with different norms and values. Content posted on social media is searchable beyond a specific point in time and situation. If offline communication involves a foreseeable number of interlocutors, there is an “invisible audience” on social networks, which leads to information asymmetry. However, despite the fact that most users are aware of the potential dangers of privacy breaches, they share personal information on social networks. This phenomenon is called the privacy paradox. The reasons for this behavior are a lack of technical and social skills, a reluctance to spend time and energy on measures to minimize risks, a desire to have wide social connections and skepticism about the effectiveness of the efforts being made. The behavior of users on social networks is influenced primarily by factors such as age and education. The most concerned about the preservation of privacy are young people and middle-aged people, as they have to manage the most complex social relations.

Exacerbating the privacy paradox: Investigating cognitive load’s impact on disclosure

<p>Consumers have become the targets of a dual threat; more frequent requests for personal information and increased multitasking leading to distraction. This paper investigates the impact of cognitive load on the propensity to disclose personal information. A between-subjects experimental design was employed wherein participants completed a fictitious company questionnaire which asked for personal information whilst participants simultaneously remembered a 7-digit (Cognitive load condition) or 2-digit (Control condition) number. Upon completion of the questionnaire participants were asked to recall their number before answering several additional surveys and demographic questions. The results suggest that cognitive load influences the level of personal information disclosure in such a way that individuals tasked to remember a 7-digit number were more likely to disclose their personal information. Results also demonstrated the impact of information sensitivity, perceived risk, perceived worry, and need for cognition on three dependent variables: absolute disclosure, quality of disclosure, and response latency. The research adds greater nuance to the privacy paradox literature by proposing cognitive load as a key factor. Moreover, the results provide implications for marketing practitioners and policymakers regarding the acquisition of consumer’s personal information.</p>

Exacerbating the privacy paradox: Investigating cognitive load’s impact on disclosure

<p>Consumers have become the targets of a dual threat; more frequent requests for personal information and increased multitasking leading to distraction. This paper investigates the impact of cognitive load on the propensity to disclose personal information. A between-subjects experimental design was employed wherein participants completed a fictitious company questionnaire which asked for personal information whilst participants simultaneously remembered a 7-digit (Cognitive load condition) or 2-digit (Control condition) number. Upon completion of the questionnaire participants were asked to recall their number before answering several additional surveys and demographic questions. The results suggest that cognitive load influences the level of personal information disclosure in such a way that individuals tasked to remember a 7-digit number were more likely to disclose their personal information. Results also demonstrated the impact of information sensitivity, perceived risk, perceived worry, and need for cognition on three dependent variables: absolute disclosure, quality of disclosure, and response latency. The research adds greater nuance to the privacy paradox literature by proposing cognitive load as a key factor. Moreover, the results provide implications for marketing practitioners and policymakers regarding the acquisition of consumer’s personal information.</p>

Does the privacy paradox exist? Comment on Yu et al.’s (2020) meta-analysis

In their meta-analysis on how privacy concerns and perceived privacy risk are related to online disclosure intentionand behavior, Yu et al. (2020) conclude that “the ‘privacy paradox’ phenomenon (...) exists in our research model” (p. 8). In this comment, we contest this conclusion and present evidence and arguments against it. We find five areas of problems: (1) Flawed logic of hypothesis testing; (2) erroneous and implausible results; (3) questionable decision to use only the direct effect of privacy concerns on disclosure behavior as evidence in testing the privacy paradox; (4) overinterpreting results from MASEM; (5) insufficient reporting and lack of transparency. To guide future research, we offer three recommendations: Going beyond mere null hypothesis significance testing, probing alternative theoretical models, and implementing open science practices. While we value this meta-analytic effort, we caution its readers that, contrary to the authors’ claim, it does not offer evidence in support of the privacy paradox.

Addressing the privacy paradox on the organizational level: review and future directions

The discrepancy between informational privacy attitudes and actual behaviour of consumers is called the “privacy paradox”. Researchers across disciplines have formulated different theories on why consumers’ privacy concerns do not translate into increased protective behaviour. Over the past two decades multiple differing explanations for the paradox have been published. However, authors generally agree that companies are in a strong position to reduce consumers’ paradoxical behaviour by improving their customers’ informational privacy. Hence, this paper aims at answering the question: How can companies address the privacy paradox to improve their customers’ information privacy? Reviewing a sample of improvement recommendations from 138 papers that explore 41 theories in total, we determined that companies can generally align their privacy practices more closely with customers’ expectations across 4 inter-connected managerial processes: (1) strategic initiatives, (2) structural improvements, (3) human resource management, and (4) service development. The findings of this systematic literature review detail how companies can address both the rational and irrational nature of the privacy decision-making process. Furthermore, we propose a dynamic model able to identify weaknesses and strengths in companies’ privacy orientation.