International Conference Marketing from information to decision 8th Edition 2015

Consumer Perceptions about Digital Privacy

and Online Data Sharing in the UK Insurance
Sector

Ian R. BLAKESLEY
University of Winchester, Winchester Business School, UK
I.Blakesley.13@unimail.winchester.ac.uk

Anca C. YALLOP
University of Winchester, Winchester Business School, UK
Anca.Yallop@winchester.ac.uk

ABSTRACT Consumer behaviour in the UK insurance sector has transformed over the last
20 years from traditional retail, to predominantly online trading. Data is a fundamental part
of how the sector operates, and the use of data in insurance is constantly evolving. This paper
explores consumer perceptions about digital privacy and their subsequent motivations to
disclose personal data for insurance purposes. An exploratory, qualitative research approach
was used and qualitative data was collected from insurance consumers using in-depth, semi-
structured interviews. The study found that the consumers interviewed were extrinsically
motivated to disclose data by financial reward and convenience, but suggests that subsequent
intrinsic motivations may be an influence on the initial motivations. Consumers perceived
transactions as fair if they received the expected rewards, retained control of the data, and
the data was not unilaterally used to their detriment. Concern for privacy was generally low,
provided antecedent conditions were met. The paper concludes with a discussion of
contributions this research makes to academic knowledge and industry practice, and
highlights the implications for insurance organisations.

Keywords: digital privacy; online data sharing; big data; motivations; consumer behaviour

JEL classification: M31

1. Research Context and Purpose

In recent years e-Commerce has changed the way businesses in general, and insurance
providers in particular, interact with their consumers. Whereas previously data was a by-
product of an insurance transaction, data is now central to the pricing of products and the
understanding of consumer behaviour due to two key market developments. First, the vast
amounts of data produced globally (Nunan and Di Domenico, 2013; Verdino, 2013)
generated passively by users of products and services, so-called digital exhaust (Wang,
2013, [online]; Barocas and Nissenbaum, 2014: 32), created by mobile devices (Shilton,
2009) or data explicitly shared on social networking platforms has created an abundance of
publicly-available data (Nov, Naaman and Chen, 2010). Second, advances in the capability
(Mayer-Schnberger and Cukier, 2013) and reductions in the cost of data-processing
technology have enabled this data to be widely and cost-effectively accessible (Richards and
King, 2014, p.399) to companies of all sizes. Both of these developments have been

23
 International Conference Marketing from information to decision 8th Edition 2015

accelerated by the continued growth in the usage of mobile internet devices (Spaid and Flint,
2014) and the effects of widespread use of wireless technology with its subsequent
implications to personal privacy (Culnan and Bies, 2003; Sarathy and Robertson, 2003).
In the insurance sector, in addition to data transforming the sector from within, insurance
consumers and their behaviours have changed significantly in the last 20 years, from a more
traditional retail or telephone-based approach, to a predominantly online market
supplemented by telephone support (Salvin, 2009; Accenture, 2010; Ono, Nakamura, Okuno
and Sumikawa, 2012; Wormleighton, 2013, [online]). In line with global internet trends
growth is likely to continue to increase, and the growth in usage of mobile devices for internet
access (Internet Society, 2014) is likely to further change both how and when consumers
purchase insurance, as well as how products are designed and marketed in future (Kaikkonen,
2008; Ono et al., 2012).
The abundance of data and the act of processing data on a large scale has created the concept
of Big Data which Mayer-Schnberger and Cukier (2013:6) suggest can be defined as
things one can do at a large scale that cannot be done at a smaller one, to extract new insights
or create new forms of value, in ways that change markets, organisations, the relationship
between citizens and governments, and more .
Big Data has a wide variety of applications that can be regarded as beneficial to both
businesses in general and the UK insurance sector. Worldwide, as growing numbers of people
of all ages use the internet regularly, some on a daily basis (Youn, 2009; Deloitte, 2013;
Internet Society, 2014), consumers in general are now familiar with concepts such as
recommendations made by websites and direct-marketing based on purchasing patterns
(Mayer-Schnberger and Cukier, 2013). However, some may not realise the depth of use of
Big Data, which reaches far into sectors such as public health (Mayer-Schnberger and
Cukier, 2013) and national security (Pentland, 2014).
Whilst analysis of Big Data is generally regarded as beneficial to business (Strong, 2013,
[online]), there are widely-held ethical and privacy concerns which dominate the literature
that critiques it (Richards and King, 2014; Romn, 2007; Barocas and Nissenbaum, 2014).
There are also concerns around security (Nunan and Di Domenico, 2013), extraction of
relevant information from the wealth of data (Fulgoni, 2013), mistakes in interpretation
(Mayer-Schnberger and Cukier, 2013), and not least the risk of data breach (Mayer-
Schnberger and Cukier, 2013).
The use of personal data can also be viewed as an opportunity as well as a threat (Strong,
2013, [online]) and can, if managed legally and effectively, lead to competitive advantage
through greater insight into consumer behaviour both online and offline. Insurance
organisations must therefore manage the delicate balance between insight into the behaviour
of their consumers, and violation of their privacy, a commodity not easily measured (Smith,
Milberg and Burke, 1996: 168). The implications of personal and digital privacy and the
potential future applications of so-called dataveillance is a topic of interest and concern for
both academics and organisations (Ashworth and Free, 2006: 107; BBC News, 2010, 2015a,
[online]).
The collection of personal data is key to the UK insurance sector and forms an essential part
of underwriting and effective risk management (McKinsey and Company, 2014, [online]). A
certain degree of data disclosure will always be required to provide enough information to set
up a contract of insurance and provide the necessary identification of risk (Bennett, 2004), but
in addition to this, insurers often request or capture additional data that they can use to inform
marketing, sales and customer analysis. Examples of this include: lifestyle information (such
as number of children), geographical location data, browsing habits and any information not
used directly to calculate the insurance premium itself. It is this type of data that this research
focuses on.

24
 International Conference Marketing from information to decision 8th Edition 2015

Although much has been written about consumer behaviour and approaches to privacy online
(Clarke, 1999) and ethics (Culnan and Armstrong, 1999; Culnan and Bies, 2003) there is a
gap in the literature on digital privacy specific to the UK insurance sector. This research aims
to address this gap and to help in building a better understanding of consumer motivations for
disclosure of personal data and perceptions on ethics and digital privacy as part of an online
insurance transaction.

2. Literature Review

The review of academic and related literature addresses areas of motivations to disclose
personal data online and ethical considerations surrounding digital privacy.

2.1. The Motivation to Disclose Personal Data Online

In the UK the governance of individual personal data is the responsibility of the Information
Commissioners Office (I.C.O.) who defines personal data as data which relate to a living
individual who can be identified from those data or those data and other information (I.C.O.,
2015, [online]). Further protection is afforded to UK consumers online through the Data
Protection Act (The National Archives, 2010, [online]) and within insurance by the Financial
Conduct Authority (2015, [online]).
Before any personal data is shared by a consumer, there has to be a willingness to participate
in a transaction and share this personal space online. Seminal motivation theories, such as
Deci and Ryans (1985) Self-Determination-Theory (SDT), provide a useful insight into
consumer behaviour in this area. Deci and Ryans SDT theory (1985) is based on the concepts
of intrinsic motivation, the innate human need for building competence and self-
determination for reasons of interest, play or learning (Deci and Ryan, 1985) and extrinsic
motivation, connecting the motivation to complete a task to a separate, tangible external
outcome or reward (Ryan and Deci, 2000). These two concepts of motivation are widely
thought to be separate and antagonistic (Hayamizu, 1997), and Organismic Integration Theory
(Deci and Ryan, 1985: 116) suggests that extrinsic motivation can become internalised
through stages but cannot ever become true intrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000: 61).
This suggests that motivations either sourced from external influencing factors, or self-
actualisation, are mutually exclusive. Consumer motivation to disclose personal data online
is felt to be extrinsic in type, as those who share data do so in exchange for a separable
reward, outcome or service (Ibid.). This view is broadly in line with the results of research
conducted by Fagan, Neill and Wooldridge (2008), who found no correlation between levels
of intrinsic motivation and the use of technology, albeit with research conducted in a
workplace environment.
The motivation for insurance consumers to purchase insurance products online is felt to be
extrinsic in type because of the separable outcome (Ryan and Deci, 2000: 55) and security
provided by holding the insurance, and the lack of any intrinsic need satisfaction in the
process (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Whilst it could be argued that insurance products purchased
for leisure pursuits such as golf or cycling (Cycleguard, 2015, [online]; Money.co.uk, 2015,
[online]), or to provide healthcare cover for pets (Post, 2014, [online]), may be purchased
partly through an altruistic desire to protect others from accidental harm, these policies are
ultimately designed to protect the policyholders from financial loss in doing so, meaning they
can only be considered extrinsic in type (Ryan and Deci, 2000).
Behaviour, design and marketing influences as described by Chen and Dibb (2010) can
significantly affect online consumers. Further influences are considered in the Decomposed
Theory of Planned Behaviour (Taylor and Todd, 1995; Sadaf, Newby, and Ertmer, 2008)
which builds upon the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) described by Taylor and Todd
(1995) and the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) presented by Ajzen and Fishein (1980), the
latter being developed into the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Southey, 2011). These

25
 International Conference Marketing from information to decision 8th Edition 2015

theories describe early perspectives on the acceptance and use of technology, but pay little
consideration to emotion (ul-Haque, Azhar and Rehman, 2014) or legal regulation, and are in
need of review in the modern context. The Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour
(DTPB), which Taylor and Todd describe as introducing factors that may influence usage
(1995: 151), better considers the wide variety of societal and peer influences that affect
whether a consumer chooses to participate in an online transaction.
Schimmel and Nicholls (2005) found that external marketing and public relations were the
most important elements of the media mix that motivated consumers to transact online,
however much has changed in the online marketplace since their work was published. More
recently, ease of use (Tang and Chiang, 2009) is cited as a key motivator, and Spaid and Flint
(2014) focus on the mobile device and its impact on consumer behaviour online introducing
social pressures, and contrasting these with extrinsic motivators such as deal-seeking (2014:
80) to good effect. All of these theories suggest that extrinsic motivation is not the sole factor
that motivates consumers to disclose personal data for personal gain. But what about factors
which cause consumers to decline to participate in an online transaction?
There is a large body of research suggesting that consumers who are concerned about trust are
less likely to be motivated to participate in online transactions (Culnan and Armstrong, 1999;
McKnight and Chervany, 2001; Culnan and Bies, 2003; Malhotra, Sung and Agarwal, 2004;
Dinev and Hart, 2006; Eastlick, Lotz and Warrington, 2006; Alreck and Settle, 2007;
Castaeda and Montoro, 2007; Norberg, Horne and Horne, 2007; Janda, 2008; Chen and
Dibb, 2010; Hoffmann, Lutz and Meckel, 2014; Spaid and Flint, 2014; Min and Kim, 2015).
Research has also shown that trust helps build on-going commitment and brand loyalty
(Morgan and Hunt, 1994) and is critical to all types of exchange transactions (Jap and
Anderson, 2003). Bansal and Zahedi (2015) offer a useful model on trust violation and
repair, highlighting the difficulty of retaining customers after a trust violation.
Closely related to trust is concern about privacy, which, according to Janda (2008), is one of
four factors that influence consumer willingness to participate in an online transaction, the
others being: virtual experience, security, and credibility. Chen and Dibb (2010) highlight a
model describing factors influencing trust and consumer intention to use websites. These
theories reinforce the view that along with motivation and external influences, a number of
antecedent conditions need to exist before consumers will disclose personal data. This is
confirmed by research conducted by Castaeda and Montoro (2007), Smith et al. (1996),
Malhotra et al., (2004) and Dinev and Hart (2006). Online consumers are generally
knowledgeable about associated risks (Malhotra et al., 2004), but little research has yet been
conducted as to whether extrinsic rewards outweigh concerns about any of these antecedents.
In addition, consumers involuntarily share personal data online in a number of ways,
including: data collection during online browsing (Sarathy and Robertson, 2003), mobile
device or payment card usage (Mcfedries, 2013, [online]) and usage of public Wi-Fi (Wicker,
2012). In some cases data is collected as a by-product of the voluntary use of a device or
service, known as digital exhaust (Mayer-Schnberger and Cukier, 2013: 152; Wang, 2013,
[online]) posing a number of ethical questions (Sarathy and Robertson, 2003). Data collected
by simply browsing the internet (Janda, 2008; Barocas and Nissenbaum, 2014) is often less
sensitive personal data, albeit of equal or greater value to those who collect it, because it can
be easily anonymised and processed to identify general trends, unlocking a wide variety of
secondary uses (Mayer-Schnberger and Cukier, 2013). This data is also often utilised in
targeted advertising (Alreck and Settle, 2007), a controversial tactic which may lead to a
negative consumer experience, and a potential loss of trust (Alreck and Settle, 2007), trust
being a key antecedent for a successful online transaction (Jap and Anderson, 2003).
It could be argued that consumers choose to use such services, and therefore opt-in to such
use and processing of their data as a trade-off for the reward of the service provided
(Castaeda and Montoro, 2007). This renders their concerns irrelevant if the terms of use are
appropriately worded, assuming they are read and understood (Milne and Culnan, 2004).

26
 International Conference Marketing from information to decision 8th Edition 2015

However, Mantelero (2014) argues that traditional models of consent are no longer relevant in
the age of predictive analytics and social media, and Barocas and Nissenbaum (2014: 33)
suggest that big data extinguishes what little hope remains for the notice and choice regime,
because data collection is implicit in the proliferation of modern digital goods and services
available. Societal pressure also plays a role in the widespread usage of such services, with
people of all ages feeling compelled to use convenient, collaborative social media tools such
as Twitter or Facebook, implicitly and explicitly sharing personal data in doing so (Sadaf et
al, 2008; Mantelero, 2014; Mount and Garcia Martinez, 2014; Reinecke, Vorderer and Knop,
2014; Festgens and Janiszewski, 2015). In the same way as mobile phone ownership now
proliferates where once it was scarce (Kumar, 2004), social media and involuntary sharing of
personal data is now almost compulsory, and ironically, dictated by society itself (Chen, Yen
and Hwang, 2012).

2.2. Digital Privacy and Ethical Considerations

Privacy is a subjective term that lacks a common definition (Goodwin, 1991); definitions for
digital privacy are equally elusive with scholars often resulting to alternate theories to assist
in definition (Ashworth and Free, 2006). A clear, concise, relevant and suitable definition for
digital privacy comes from Clarke (1999), who defines privacy as the interest that
individuals have in sustaining a personal space, free from interference by other people and
organisations (1999: 60).
As discussed, trust is a key enabling factor for consumer participation in an online transaction
and subsequent data sharing. The ethical nature of an organisation, or the consumers
perception of the ethical nature of an organisation (Foxman and Kilcoyne, 1993) is a key
antecedent and enabler of trust in relational exchanges (Gundlach and Murphy, 1993; Luo,
2002; Jap and Anderson, 2003). Whilst ethical perceptions of organisations influence
consumers willingness to transact with them, ethical issues surround the use and control of
the involuntary data consumers disclose maintaining a balance between individual privacy
concerns, the good of society and the commercial prosperity of the organisation (Sarathy and
Robertson, 2003: 111) presents a key dilemma for managers.
So-called dataveillance techniques (Ashworth and Free, 2006) can be used to improve
national security, but in a personal or commercial context present opportunities for
exploitation that many consider unacceptable (Foxman and Kilcoyne, 1993; Caudill and
Murphy, 2000; Sarathy and Robertson, 2003; BBC News, 2015b, [online]). Regardless of
perspective, organisations that are custodians of personal data have a duty of care in
maintaining the security and privacy of this data (Romn and Cuestas, 2008) and to use it
ethically (Goodwin, 1991) despite the difficulties measuring such compliance (Smith et al,
1996). This area is further complicated by the subjective nature of whether an individual
feels their privacy has been violated, or not (Foxman and Kilcoyne, 1993), issues relating to
the ambiguity around data ownership (Smith et al, 1996), and opportunism (Malhotra et al,
2004).

2.2.1. A Fair Exchange for Personal Data

Much of the research into service transactions online indicates that consumers evaluate what
they need to offer in return for services, such as currency or personal data (Milne and Culnan,
2004; Ashworth and Free, 2006; Min and Kim, 2015), and then act in order to maximise
beneficial and just outcomes for themselves by either agreeing or declining the transaction
opportunity (Homans, 1958; Gundlach and Murphy, 1993; Culnan and Bies, 2003; Ashworth
and Free, 2006).
Adams (1965) Equity Theory (ET) proves useful for evaluating such transactions. ET
compares the ratio of rewards to investments between parties to a transaction to establish
theoretical parity or inequality, which Homans describes as distributive justice (1958: 603).

27
 International Conference Marketing from information to decision 8th Edition 2015

The theoretical calculation in ET assigns perceived values to the elements of the transaction,
and predicts likely outcomes in the event of inequality between the parties. In the context of
this research, the two parties to the transaction are the online service provider and the
consumer, with data representing the costs, the financial consideration the investment and
rewards the intrinsic security and services provided by holding the insurance (Adams,
1965). An example of the potential use of ET in the context of this research would be: if a
subject attaches a high value to their data in any transaction, according to the framework the
value of their investment in the service should decrease, in order to maintain equity between
the parties. However, ET is not without limitations in this context, as it concentrates on
comparison of factors where all conditions are equal (Adams, 1965: 295), it does not explore
what happens in the event of over-reward inequitable outcomes, and does not elaborate on
subsequent tensions created by inequity (Pritchard, 1969).
Contrasting with Adams (1965) is the view of Jap and Anderson (2003) who state that the
motives of buyers and sellers in transactions are at odds with each other, and propose goal
congruence measures to strive towards parity in exchange. This is pertinent to this research
because in most cases, the perceived value of personal data to a consumer is greater than that
of the payment to the seller at an individual transaction level. However, the overall cost to the
sellers business of a loss of data on the entire customer base would be much more
considerable (I.C.O., 2014, [online]).
The literature on devising strategy for ethical management of digital privacy is scarce in
general. Literature on ethics is abundant but wide in scope, and it rarely considers external
influences, the perceptions of consumers or sector-specific factors (e.g. the insurance sector).
As mentioned before, the way the insurance sector uses data is evolving, and several types of
data-centric products are now offered by many insurance organisations. Products now fully
integrate data into their design and delivery using either hardware monitoring devices (More
Than, 2014, [online]), software applications (Vitality Life, 2014, [online]) or third party
enrichment techniques (Equifax, 2006, [online]; Northdoor, 2012, [online]; Synetics
Solutions, 2015, [online]). These product choices will increase the value of data in the
exchange, therefore influencing consumer perceptions concerning what they might receive in
return (Adams, 1965).

3. Research Methodology

The nature of this research relates to perceptions and views of UK consumers of insurance
products and services. The study seeks to explore and understand UK consumers perceptions
about digital privacy and their motivations to share data online. An interpretive qualitative
approach was used, an approach most suited for the exploratory nature of the study (Malhotra
et al, 2012). In-depth semi-structured interviews with seven consumers of insurance products
and services were conducted in order to collect perceptual data.
To ensure dependability, credibility and transferability of qualitative data (Guba, 1981; Guba
and Lincoln, 1994; Lincoln and Guba, 1985, 2000; Wahyuni, 2012) a range of ages,
employment statuses and professional backgrounds were selected. One participant was aged
under 32 years, one over 59 years, and the remainder evenly spread between 32 and 59 years
of age. Six of the seven participants were in full time employment, and one was retired.
Participants were from mixed backgrounds in various sectors including: law, operations,
sales, finance, administration and IT.
The theories and research frameworks reviewed earlier were used to underpin the design of
the interviews and subsequent analysis of data. Adams Equity Theory (1965) was used to
underpin questions relating to the value of data in an insurance transaction (1956) and any
subsequent after-effects of exchange (1956). Self-Determination Theory (Ryan and Deci,
2000) formed the basis of questions relating to motivations to disclose personal data online,
with a view to determining whether such motivation is intrinsic (Deci and Ryan, 1985) or
extrinsic (Ryan and Deci, 2000).

28
 International Conference Marketing from information to decision 8th Edition 2015

A thematic analysis of qualitative data that allows for iterative review of the interview data
collected (Wahyuni, 2012) was employed in the analysis. Key theoretical concepts such as
motivation and equity in exchange were used to develop analytical frameworks for
analysis and interpretation of first-order data and interpretations (i.e. participants narratives
on their motivations to disclose personal data online) and second-order interpretations (i.e. the
researchers contextualised understanding of first-order data).

4. Research Findings and Discussion

The research findings are discussed following the concepts and theories examined in the
review of the literature relating to consumers motivations to disclose personal data online
and their perceptions about digital privacy and equity in exchange of personal data.

4.1. Themes Surrounding Motivation

The most popular motivations for disclosure of data were convenience and financial reward,
which can be classified as extrinsic in type (Ryan and Deci, 2000: 55). This also supports the
findings of Spaid and Flint (2014) with regard to economics and deal-seeking (:80) but tend
not to highlight any peer or societal influence on motivation, contrary to research by Taylor
and Todd (1995). Themes within convenience-related motivations centred on the ability to
conduct insurance transactions from the home, at any time of the day (or night) without
having to make multiple phone calls. Financial reward themes were mainly related to the
savings afforded by extra data disclosure, or the ability to easily find the most competitive
price from the market of specialist and volume providers. This is illustrated succinctly by the
below comment from one participant:
being able to go into a one-stop shop and get multiple quotations and be able to pick
from the market rather than having to ring many, many individual companies to try and find
what is the most competitive price.
As all participants were either in full-time employment, or retired people keen to make the
most of their leisure time, the extrinsic rewards of extra time and money saved were
important to all. The inferred intrinsic reward of the thrill of finding a bargain was also
important to almost all participants. It is clear from the data that the majority of participants
make a connection between providing their data, and receiving a reward for that data, with
time perceived as such a reward.
The additional leisure time released by the use of convenient services may be spent on
activities for which the motivation is more closely related to Deci and Ryans definition of
intrinsic motivation (1985). Despite Fagan et al (2008) finding no link between intrinsic
motivation and the use of technology, there are indications from the data collected in this
study that the reward of time received by such extrinsically motivated activities may be spent
on activities for which the motivation is intrinsic in nature. It also appears that some
participants continued brand loyalty to data-related services results in an improved
experience of leisure activities such as shopping, and that improved driving skills and better
fitness may be acquired through disclosure of data to integrated insurance products (i.e. data
about driving style, health routines), which could both be argued are intrinsically motivated
activities. In most cases integrated insurance products are primarily linked to extrinsic
financial motivators or loyalty (Amani, 2015), so arguably cannot be deemed true intrinsic
motivators. This is in line with views expressed by Ryan and Deci in their Organismic
Integration Theory (2000).
A secondary yet still prominent theme included the additional security and subsequent
privacy afforded by disclosure of extra data, enabling online accounts to be more secure. In
addition, rewards such as online service improvement, afforded by continued use of and
loyalty to a particular brand of insurance service were a popular motivation to disclose
additional data. This can be explained by the comments from one particular participant:

29
 International Conference Marketing from information to decision 8th Edition 2015

its got an awful lot of data about me and knows my entire shopping history, emails, web
browsing, location,[] its like having a personal assistant who tells you everything that you
need to know and its just useful to know whats going on. Thats the reward for it.
The main reasons for not disclosing data are concerned with associated loss of privacy and
control of the data. Participants were mainly concerned with use of their data for post-sale
marketing, and the loss of control around their choice as consumers, characterised by almost
universal dissatisfaction at attempts to market related products and services to participants,
even with their informed consent. Mantelero suggests improved proactive regulation of big
data (2014: 653), supported by Mayer-Schnberger and Cukiers opinion of a necessary
paradigmatic shift (2013: 172) in regulation, which appears to be a sensible evolution of
current regulation based on these responses. However, the findings herein suggest that the key
element is the control of proactive contact, rather than the consent or detail of the data held.
Participants were generally happy to receive proactive contact and additional services where
the reward to them is convenience-related; however when the reward is more in favour of the
organisation, objections were raised. This supports the findings of Nowak and Phelps (1992).
It also leads to the notable grudging acceptance of the pervasive nature of information
gathering presented by participants, in line with views presented by Mayer-Schnberger and
Cukier (2013) and Shilton (2009) and articulated by two participants as:
regardless of what you disclose, the technology is able to find out a greater amount of
information anyway. So [it] doesnt really matter what you disclose.
I wouldnt feel that thats an invasion of privacy or giving out too much data because pretty
much everything we do is watched, isnt it?

4.2. Themes Surrounding Equity in Exchange

Findings surrounding equity in exchange of data are in line with the findings of Milne and
Culnan (2004), Ashworth and Free (2006) and Min and Kim (2015), who all suggest that
consumers evaluate the transaction and proceed if they perceive it to be fair. Overall,
participants felt that disclosure of personal data for insurance was a fair exchange, provided
they had control over answering non-mandatory questions online, therefore making their own
judgements on fair information disclosure. Where the locus of control resided with the
consumer, participants were almost always willing to participate in a transaction, avoiding
disclosing or obfuscating data they felt helped them maintain that, which resonates with the
views of Romn and Cuestas (2008: 641). A few participants answered all questions on the
basis of full and fair disclosure, whereas the majority opted to not answer optional questions.
This is well illustrated by the response below:
Youve got to take each one as an individual case and youve got to decide how much
information they need based on what it is that youre trying to get out of the service.
The main areas of interest in the findings related to when inequity was felt by participants
(Adams, 1965). Much of the dissatisfaction expressed by participants related to events that
transpired after the transaction had taken place, such as post-sale direct marketing.
Participants disliked both proactive marketing contact about unrelated products and targeted
advertisements based on their browsing history. One particular response highlights this
opinion well:
the purpose has to be tied to what I have chosen to do with them, not what theyre
choosing and they want to know about me.
This finding suggests Synders (2011) concerns about behavioural advertising are pertinent to
consider, reinforces views stated by Romn and Cuestas (2008) and is reflected in several
participants commenting on their dislike of such approaches. Even considering this, it is
interesting to note that whilst almost all participants expressed this view, few described it as
invasion of privacy, most merely citing it as an irritant, allowing two possible

30
 International Conference Marketing from information to decision 8th Edition 2015

interpretations. Firstly, it may be that society is modifying its views on what constitutes
invasion of privacy in the insurance context, contrary to both Foxman and Kilcoynes
findings (1993) and more recently, concerns reported by Akhter (2014). This is indicative of a
general theme noted throughout this research of a reluctant acceptance of information
collection, evidenced by one participants comment:
Well, thats obviously what they think because they want to gather as much as they can
about you
Secondly and conversely, it could be inferred that because the information disclosed for
insurance is of a sensitive nature, it is in context with the transaction, and consumers are less
concerned about it. If this information was requested for social media, for example, it would
likely cause more concern. This is in line with a view described by one participant:
From a social media point of view, I will put the bare minimum information on there about
myself because I dont think they really have any need to have it.
Clearly, further research would be required to validate either interpretation.
Outside of insurance, participants understood the exchange of their data in return for services
such as Google Now (Google, 2014, [online]), or similar free services. Many made the case
that the convenience value such services provided, particularly the Google product, was much
greater than the value of disclosing data to them, and they were reassured by the brands
offering these services. However, where the return to participants was perceived as less
valuable, or the sole basis of the providers business model was to mine the data, they were
more cautious, and in some cases opted to not use the services. This was especially evident
for social media services. The recognition and acceptance that internet browsing and service
usage is heavily monitored was evident across almost all participants, and in some cases
participants were resigned to the fact it was unavoidable, whereas others felt an indignation
and took active avoidance or obfuscation techniques. This pattern is common in responses
surrounding motivation to disclose and equitable exchange of data.
As mentioned earlier in the paper, other antecedent conditions need to exist in order for an
exchange to take place. Brand image positively influenced participants to disclose the
information, as did security, user experience and website content themes which run through
all findings. To one participant, different types of brands held surprisingly more value than
others, in line with Jap and Andersons (2003) views on brand loyalty:
I think Ive put up with a bad online experience for an insurance company, but I wouldnt
with a bank because youre expecting that to be a long-term relationship.
The key antecedents to both fairness in transactions, and willingness to disclose, were cited
almost universally by participants as: brand familiarity, trust, size of organisation and website
experience. Price comparison sites (Accenture, 2010) were used by the majority of
participants, meaning that both barriers to switching brands are low. The mandatory nature of
certain types of motor cover (UK Government, 2014, [online]) means that such antecedents
will be of increasing importance in a market where no substitution is possible (Porter, 2008).
Building loyalty around an offering centred on these antecedents could be a useful way to
seek competitive advantage in a crowded market. It is important to note that in the one
example of a participant who lost trust, and declined to participate in a transaction, this
experience had a considerable damaging effect on their entire approach to online activity
(Tomlinson and Mayer, 2009), further underlining the importance of trust as an antecedent.

5. Conclusions

This research found that insurance consumers perceive fair exchange, secure storage, control
and fair use of data for originally intended purposes to be ethical. Insurance consumers are
aware of the value and potential uses of their data, and generally seek fairness in exchange for
this data. They are motivated by extrinsic rewards for such exchanges of which time, financial

31
 International Conference Marketing from information to decision 8th Edition 2015

reward and additional security were the principal choices of those interviewed. They are not
generally concerned about how much data they disclose, provided they maintain control of
this data and it is not used unilaterally for the benefit of the insurance organisation, or in a
fashion they perceived as unethical. Such unethical uses are perceived by them to include
distribution to a third party without permission, unwarranted direct marketing techniques and
use of data for unrelated, unilateral gain by the insurance provider.
This study makes several contributions. First, by exploring consumers perceptions on
disclosure of personal data and digital privacy, the study contributes to knowledge in the areas
of motivation, applied ethics and online consumer behaviour in the context of the insurance
sector. The findings have identified areas where further research is needed in order to
investigate potential links between extrinsic and intrinsic motivators in online consumer
behaviour, and the development of a framework for ethical data management and digital
privacy specific to insurance.
Second, the research findings contribute to the insurance practice, providing a preliminary
understanding of insurance consumers motivations, useful insight that can be used to
increase the effectiveness of the marketing of insurance products by considering the value
online insurance services may add to users everyday life and, implicitly, the ethical
challenges around these type of services. Without doubt, the use of innovative ethical data is
an effective strategy to increase sales revenue, and has the benefit of providing the insurance
organisation with valuable insight for its on-going research and marketing activity. In the
quest for ethical data and practices the insurance industry may benefit from updated, relevant
and centralised ethical standards on data privacy. Research that further develops ethical
frameworks in the context of insurance, by capturing wider consumer perceptions on ethics,
could aide in the creation of such a code.
Last, this preliminary exploratory study was designed as a platform for further research into
consumers motivations to disclose personal data online and their perceptions on digital
privacy. Research designed to further explore this area, by using larger research samples and
by means of other suitable mixed research methods, may enable a better understanding of
consumers views and opinions on digital privacy and online data disclosure.

References

1. Accenture (2010). The Evolution of Aggregators: Impacts & Future Challenges for Insurers,
London: Accenture.
2. Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange, In: L. Berkowitz (Ed), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology: 267-299, New York: Academic Press.
3. Ajzen, I. and Fishein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
4. Akhter, S.H. (2014). Privacy Concern and Online Transactions: The Impact of Internet Self-
Efficacy and Internet Involvement, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31 (2): 118-125.
5. Alreck, P.L. and Settle, R.B. (2007). Consumer Reactions to Online Behavioural Tracking and
Targeting, Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 15 (1): 11-23.
6. Amani, Z. (2015). Commitment as a Mediator of the Relationship between Trust and Relationship
Loyalty to Retailer, Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 6 (3): 144-163.
7. Ashworth, L. and Free, C. (2006). Marketing Dataveillance and Digital Privacy: Using Theories of
Justice to Understand Consumers Online Privacy Concerns, Journal of Business Ethics, 67 (2):
107-123.
8. Bansal, G. and Zahedi, F.M. (2015). Trust Violation & Repair: The Information Privacy
Perspective, Decision Support Systems, 71 (1): 62-77.
9. Barocas, S. and Nissenbaum, H. (2014). Big Datas End Run Around Procedural Privacy
Protections, Communications of the ACM, 57 (11): 31-33.

32
 International Conference Marketing from information to decision 8th Edition 2015

10. BBC News (2010). Zurich Insurance Fined 2.3m Over Customers Data Loss [Online], Available
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11070217 [Accessed 14 February 2015].
11. BBC News (2015a). Millions of US Government Workers Hit By Data Breach [Online], Available
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33017310 [Accessed: 05 June 2015].
12. BBC News (2015b). US Senate in Urgent Surveillance Debate as Deadline Looms [Online],
Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32950120 [Accessed 22 June 2015].
13. Bennett, C. (2004). Dictionary of Insurance (2nd Ed.), Harlow: Pearson Education.
14. Castaeda, J.A. and Montoro, F.J. (2007). The Effect of Internet General Privacy Concern On
Customer Behaviour, Electronic Commerce Research, 7 (2): 117-141.
15. Caudill, E.M. and Murphy, P.E. (2000). Consumer Online Privacy: Legal and Ethical Issues,
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19 (1): 7-19.
16. Chen, J. and Dibb, S. (2010). Consumer Trust in the Online Retail Context: Exploring the
Antecedents and Consequences, Psychology & Marketing, 27 (4): 323-346.
17. Chen, S.C., Yen, D.C. and Hwang, M.I. (2012). Factors Influencing the Continuance Intention to
the Usage of Web 2.0: An Empirical Study, Computers In Human Behaviour, 28 (3): 933-941.
18. Clarke, R. (1999). Internet Privacy Concerns Confirm the Case for Intervention, Communications
of the ACM, 42, (2): 60-67.
19. Culnan, M.J. and Armstrong, P.K. (1999). Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and
Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation, Organization Science, 10 (1): 104-115.
20. Culnan, M.J. and Bies, R.J. (2003). Consumer Privacy: Balancing Economic and Justice
Considerations, Journal of Social Issues, 59 (2): 323-342.
21. Cycleguard (2015). Urban & Leisure, Active and Electric Bike: Summary of Cover [Online],
Available from: http://www.cycleguard.co.uk/documents/2014/CycleUrbanPolicySummary.pdf
[Accessed: 08 March 2015].
22. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behaviour, New York: Plenum.
23. Deloitte (2013). Technology, Media and Telecommunications Predictions: 2013, London: Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu Ltd.
24. Dinev, T. and Hart P. (2006). An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for e-Commerce Transactions,
Information Systems Research, 17 (1): 61-80.
25. Eastlick, M.A., Lotz, S.L. and Warrington, P. (2006). Understanding Online B-to-C Relationships:
An Integrated Model of Privacy Concerns, Trust and Commitment, Journal of Business Research,
59 (8): 877-886.
26. Equifax (2006). Concerned About Your Credit Score? [Online], Available from:
http://www.equifax.co.uk/Products/credit/credit-score.html [Accessed 04 July 2015].
27. Fagan, M.H., Neill, S. and Wooldridge, B.R. (2008). Exploring the Intention to Use Computers:
An Empirical Investigation of the Role of Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation and Perceived
Ease of Use, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 48 (3): 31-37.
28. Festgens, A. and Janiszewski, C. (2015). The Value of Time, Journal of Consumer Research, 42
(2): 178-195.
29. Financial Conduct Authority (2015). About Us [Online], Available from:
http://www.fca.org.uk/about [Accessed 15 September 2015].
30. Foxman, E.R. and Kilcoyne, P. (1993). Information Technology, Marketing Practice, and
Consumer Privacy: Ethical Issues, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12 (1): 106-119.
31. Fulgoni, G. (2013). Big Data: Friend or Foe of Digital Advertising? Five Ways Marketers Should
Use Digital Big Data to their Advantage, Journal of Advertising Research, 53 (4): 372-376.
32. Goodwin, C. (1991). Privacy: Recognition of a Consumer Right, Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 10 (1): 149-166.

33
 International Conference Marketing from information to decision 8th Edition 2015

33. Google (2014). Google Now. The Right Information at Just the Right Time [Online], Available
from: https://www.google.co.uk/landing/now/ [Accessed 06 September 2015].
34. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research, In: N.K.
Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research: 105-117, Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications.
35. Guba, E.G. (1981). Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Enquiries,
Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29 (2): 75-91.
36. Gundlach, G.T. and Murphy, P.E. (1993). Ethical and Legal Foundations of Relational Marketing
Exchanges, Journal of Marketing, 57 (4): 35-46.
37. Hayamizu, T. (1997). Between Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: Examinations of Reasons for
Academic Study Based on the Theory of Internalization, Japanese Psychological Research, 39 (2):
98-108.
38. Hoffmann, C.P., Lutz, C., and Meckel, M. (2014). Digital Natives or Digital Immigrants? The
Impact of User Characteristics on Online Trust, Journal of Management Information Systems, 31
(3): 138-171.
39. Homans, G.C. (1958). Social Behaviour as Exchange, American Journal of Sociology, 63 (6): 597-
606.
40. I.C.O. (2014). Claiming Compensation [Online], Available from: https://ico.org.uk/for-the-
public/compensation/ [Accessed 05 July 2015].
41. I.C.O. (2015). Key Definitions of the Data Protection Act [Online], Available from:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/key-definitions [Accessed 05 April
2015].
42. Internet Society (2014). Internet Society Global Internet Report 2014, Geneva: Internet Society.
43. Janda, S. (2008). Does Gender Moderate the Effect of Online Concerns on Purchase Likelihood?,
Journal of Internet Commerce, 7 (3): 339-358.
44. Jap, S.D. and Anderson, E. (2003). Safeguarding Interorganizational Performance and Continuity
Under Ex Post Opportunism, Management Science, 49 (12): 1684-1701.
45. Kaikkonen, A. (2008). Full or Tailored Mobile Web Where and How do People Browse on Their
Mobiles?, Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Technology: 1-28.
46. Kumar, S. (2004). Mobile Communications: Global Trends in the 21st Century, International
Journal of Mobile Communications, 2 (1): 67-86.
47. Luo, X. (2002). Trust Production and Privacy Concerns on the Internet A Framework based on
Relationship Marketing and Social Exchange, Industrial Marketing Management, 31 (2): 111-118.
48. Malhotra, N.K, Birks, D.F. and Wills, P. (2012). Marketing Research An Applied Approach (4th
Ed.), Harlow: Pearson Education.
49. Malhotra, N.K., Sung, S.K. and Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet Users Information Privacy Concerns
(IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale and a Causal Model, Information Systems Research, 15 (4):
336-355.
50. Mantelero, A. (2014). The Future of Consumer Data Protection in the E.U. Re-thinking the
Notice and Consent Paradigm in the New Era of Predictive Analytics, Computer Law & Security
Review, 30 (6): 643-660.
51. Mayer-Schnberger, V. and Cukier, K. (2013). Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How
We Live, Work and Think, New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
52. Mcfedries, P. (2013). Tracking the Quantified Self IEEE Spectrum [Online] 25.07.2013, Available
from: http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/test-and-measurement/tracking-the-quantified-self
[Accessed 21 June 2015].
53. McKinsey and Company (2014). Unleashing the Value of Advanced Analytics In Insurance
[Online], Available from:
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/financial_services/unleashing_the_value_of_advanced_analyti
cs_in_insurance [Accessed 07 June 2015].

34
 International Conference Marketing from information to decision 8th Edition 2015

54. McKnight, D.H. and Chervany, N.L. (2001). What Trust Means in E-Commerce Customer
Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Conceptual Typology, International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 6 (2): 35-59.
55. Milne, G.R. and Culnan, M.J. (2004). Strategies for Reducing Online Privacy Risks: Why
Consumers Read (or Dont Read) Online Privacy Notices, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18
(3): 15-29.
56. Min, J. and Kim, B. (2015). How are People Enticed to Disclose Personal Information Despite
Privacy Concerns in Social Network Sites? The Calculus between Benefit and Cost, Journal of the
Association for Information Science & Technology, 66 (4): 839-857.
57. Money.co.uk (2015). Compare Golf Insurance [Online], Available from
http://www.money.co.uk/golf-insurance.htm [Accessed 08 March 2015].
58. More Than (2014). Telematics | Young Driver Quotes [Online], Available from:
http://www.morethan.com/car-insurance/young-driver-insurance [Accessed July 2015].
59. Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing,
Journal of Marketing, 58 (3): 20-38.
60. Mount, M. and Garcia Martinez, M. (2014). Social Media: A Tool for Open Innovation, California
Management Review, 56 (4): 124-143.
61. Norberg, P.A., Horne, D.R. and Horne, D.A. (2007). The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information
Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviours, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41 (1): 100-126.
62. Northdoor (2012). Sanctions Checker [Online], Available from:
http://www.northdoor.co.uk/sanctionschecker [Accessed 04 July 2015].
63. Nov, O., Naaman, M. and Chen, Y. (2010). Analysis of Participation in an Online Photo-Sharing
Community: A Multidimensional Perspective, Journal of the American Society of Information
Science and Technology, 61 (3): 555-566.
64. Nowak, G.J. and Phelps, J. (1992). Understanding Privacy Concerns: An Assessment of
Consumers Information-Related Knowledge and Beliefs, Journal of Direct Marketing, 6 (4): 28-
39.
65. Nunan, D. and Di Domenico, M.L. (2013). Market Research and the Ethics of Big Data,
International Journal of Market Research, 55 (4): 2-13.
66. Ono, A., Nakamura, A., Okuno, A. and Sumikawa, M. (2012). Consumer Motivations in Browsing
Online Stores with Mobile Devices, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16 (4): 153-
178.
67. Pentland, A. (2014). Saving Big Data from Itself, Scientific American, 311 (2): 65-67.
68. Porter, M.E. (2008). The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy, Harvard Business Review,
86 (1): 78-93.
69. Post (2014). More Than Exploring Pet Telematics Offering [Online], Available from
http://www.postonline.co.uk/post/news/2390194/more-than-exploring-pet-telematics-offering
[Accessed 12 February 2015].
70. Pritchard, R.D. (1969). Equity Theory: A Review and Critique, Organizational Behaviour and
Human Performance, 4 (2): 176-211.
71. Reinecke, L., Vorderer, P. and Knop, K. (2014). Entertainment 2.0? The Role of Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Need Satisfaction for the Enjoyment of Facebook Use, Journal of Communication, 64
(3): 417-438.
72. Richards, N.M. and King, J.H. (2014). Big Data Ethics, Wake Forest Law Review, 49 (2): 393-432.
73. Romn, S. and Cuestas, P. (2008). The Perceptions of Consumers Regarding Online Retailers
Ethics and Their Relationship with Consumers General Internet Expertise and Word of Mouth: A
Preliminary Analysis, Journal of Business Ethics, 83 (4): 641-656.
74. Romn, S. (2007). The Ethics of Online Retailing: A Scale Development and Validation from the
Consumers Perspective, Journal of Business Ethics, 72 (2): 131-148.

35
 International Conference Marketing from information to decision 8th Edition 2015

75. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and
New Directions, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, (1), 54-67.
76. Sadaf, A., Newby, T.J. and Ertmer, P.A. (2008). Exploring Factors that Predict Pre-Service
Teachers Intentions to Use Web 2.0 Technologies Using Decomposed Theory of Planned
Behavior, Journal of Research on Technology In Education, 45(2): 171-196.
77. Salvin, A. (2009). Contact Me if you can, Bests Review, 109 (11): 26-29.
78. Sarathy, R. and Robertson, C.J. (2003). Strategic and Ethical Considerations in Managing Digital
Privacy, Journal of Business Ethics, 46 (2): 111-126.
79. Schimmel, K. and Nicholls, J. (2005). Media Mix Elements that Motivate Online Shopping,
Journal of Website Promotion, 1 (1): 53-63.
80. Shilton, K. (2009). Four Billion Little Brothers? Privacy, Mobile Phones and Ubiquitous Data
Collection, Communications of the ACM, 52 (11): 48-53.
81. Smith, H.J., Milberg, S.J., and Burke, S.J. (1996). Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals
Concerns about Organizational Practices, MIS Quarterly, 20 (2): 167-196.
82. Southey, G. (2011). The Theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behaviour Applied to Business
Decisions: A Selective Annotated Bibliography, Journal of New Business Ideas & Trends, 9 (1):
43-50.
83. Spaid, B.I. and Flint, D.J. (2014). The Meaning of Shopping Experiences Augmented By Mobile
Internet Devices, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 22 (1): 73-90.
84. Strong, C. (2013). Beyond Big Data: How Big Data Needs Consumer Insights in Order to Realise
its Full Potential www.warc.com [Online] 01.06.2015, Available from:
http://www.warc.com/Home.aspx [Accessed 08 February 2015].
85. Synder, W. (2011) Making the Case for Enhanced Advertising Ethics, Journal of Advertising
Research, 51 (3): 477-483.
86. Synetics Solutions (2015). SIRA [Online], Available from: http://www.synectics-
solutions.com/Products/Sira [Accessed 04 July 2015].
87. Tang, J.E. and Chiang, C. (2009). Towards an Understanding of the Behavioural Intention to Use
Mobile Knowledge Management, WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications,
9 (6): 1601-1613.
88. Taylor, S. and Todd, P.A. (1995). Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of
Competing Models, Information Systems Research, 6 (2): 144-176.
89. The National Archives (2010). Data Protection Act 1988 [Online], Available from:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents [Accessed 15 September 2015].
90. Tomlinson, E.C. and Mayer, R.C. (2009). The Role of Causal Attribution Dimensions in Trust
Repair, Academy of Management Review, 34 (1): 85-104.
91. UK Government (2014). Vehicle Insurance [Online], Available from: https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-
insurance/overview [Accessed 08 March 2015].
92. ul-Haque, M., Azhar, S.M. and Rehman, M.U. (2014). Incorporating Emotions as Antecedents and
Mediators in Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) Model, IBA Business Review, 9 (2): 40-47.
93. Verdino, G. (2013). From the Crowd to the Cloud, Marketing Insights, 35 (2): 26-30.
94. Vitality Life (2014). Get Rewarded for Being Healthy [Online], Available from:
http://www.pruprotect.co.uk/rewards/ [Accessed 04 July 2015].
95. Wahyuni, D. (2012). The Research Design Maze: Understanding Paradigms, Cases, Methods and
Methodologies, Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 10 (1): 69-80.
96. Wang, R. (2013). Beware Trading Privacy for Convenience Harvard Business Review [Online]
10.06.2013, Available from: https://hbr.org/2013/06/beware-trading-privacy-for-con [Accessed 25
May 2015].
97. Wicker, S.B. (2012). The Loss of Location Privacy in the Cellular Age, Communications of the
ACM, 55 (8): 60-68.

36
 International Conference Marketing from information to decision 8th Edition 2015

98. Wormleighton, A. (2013). Rise of the Internet www.insuranceage.co.uk [Online] 03.09.2013,

Available from: http://www.insuranceage.co.uk/insurance-age/feature/2292114/rise-of-the-
internet# [Accessed 07 June 2015].
99. Youn, S. (2009). Determinants of Online Privacy Concern and Its Influence on Privacy Protection
Behaviors among Young Adolescents, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 43 (3): 389-418.

Discussant: Associate Prof. Mihai Florin BCIL, PhD., Babe-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca

37
Copyright of Proceedings of the International Conference Marketing - from Information to
Decision is the property of Risoprint Publishing House and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.