Structural Heterogeneity in the Privacy Calculus Across Perceived Privacy Control Groups: Evidence from E-Commerce Information Disclosure

Abstract

Consumer self-disclosure remains a central question in digital markets, as e-commerce participation increasingly depends on voluntary personal information sharing. Despite extensive application of privacy calculus theory, empirical findings regarding privacy concerns, trust, and perceived risk remain inconsistent, suggesting that the structural relationships underlying privacy trade-offs may vary across consumers and contexts. This study examines how privacy concerns, perceived benefits, perceived risk, and trust relate to perceived risk and personal information disclosure intention in e-commerce, and whether these structural relationships differ between consumers with higher and lower perceived privacy control (PPC). Survey data from 743 online consumers were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling and multigroup comparisons between consumers with high and low perceived privacy control. Findings show privacy concerns do not directly inhibit disclosure intention; instead, they are strongly associated with perceived risk, which is negatively associated with disclosure intention. The results reveal a separation between benefit and risk appraisal: perceived benefits motivate disclosure intention but do not significantly reduce perceived risk. The multigroup results reveal significant structural differences between the relatively high- and low-PPC groups. In the relatively high-PPC group, the relationship between perceived benefits and disclosure intention is stronger, as is the negative relationship between trust and perceived risk. In the relatively low-PPC group, perceived risk exerts a stronger inhibiting effect, while trust assumes a compensatory role, helping consumers navigate limited agency. By identifying structural heterogeneity in the privacy calculus across PPC groups, this study explains variations in disclosure decisions and clarifies inconsistent findings in prior research.