Yes / Rationale: The Reasoned Action Approach (RAA) developed out of the Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned Behavior but has not yet been widely applied to understanding health behaviors. The present research employed the RAA in a prospective design to test predictions of intention and action for groups of protection and risk behaviors separately in the same sample. Objective: To test the RAA for health protection and risk behaviors. Method: Measures of RAA components plus past behavior were taken in relation to eight protection and six risk behaviors in 385 adults. Self-reported behavior was assessed one month later. Results: Multi-level modelling showed instrumental attitude, experiential attitude, descriptive norms, capacity and past behavior were significant positive predictors of intentions to engage in protection or risk behaviors. Injunctive norms were only significant predictors of intention in protection behaviors. Autonomy was a significant positive predictor of intentions in protection behaviors and a negative predictor in risk behaviors (the latter relationship became non-significant when controlling for past behavior). Multi-level modelling showed that intention, capacity, and past behavior were significant positive predictors of action for both protection and risk behaviors. Experiential attitude and descriptive norm were additional significant positive predictors of risk behaviors. Conclusion: The RAA has utility in predicting both protection and risk health behaviors although the power of predictors may vary across these types of health behavior. / Data collection for this research was funded by a grant from the British Academy to the first three authors.

Yes / Background: Reasoned action approach (RAA) includes subcomponents of attitude (experiential/instrumental), perceived norm (injunctive/descriptive), and perceived behavioral control (capacity/autonomy) to predict intention and behavior. Purpose: To provide a meta-analysis of the RAA for health behaviors focusing on comparing the pairs of RAA subcomponents and differences between health protection and health-risk behaviors. Methods: The present research reports a meta-analysis of correlational tests of RAA subcomponents, examination of moderators, and combined effects of subcomponents on intention and behavior. Regressions were used to predict intention and behavior based on data from studies measuring all variables. Results: Capacity and experiential attitude had large, and other constructs had small-medium-sized correlations with intention; all constructs except autonomy were significant independent predictors of intention in regressions. Intention, capacity, and experiential attitude had medium-large, and other constructs had small-medium-sized correlations with behavior; intention, capacity, experiential attitude, and descriptive norm were significant independent predictors of behavior in regressions. Conclusions: The RAA subcomponents have utility in predicting and understanding health behaviors.

The deployment of human-augmented machine learning (ML) systems has become a recommended organizational best practice. ML systems use algorithms that rely on training data labeled by human annotators. However, human involvement in reviewing and labeling consumers' voice data to train speech recognition systems for Amazon Alexa, Microsoft Cortana, and the like has raised privacy concerns among consumers and privacy advocates. We use the enhanced APCO model as the theoretical lens to investigate how the disclosure of human involvement during the supervised machine learning process affects consumers' privacy decision making. In a scenario-based experiment with 499 participants, we present various company privacy policies to participants to examine their trust and privacy considerations, then ask them to share reasons why they would or would not opt in to share their voice data to train a companies' voice recognition software. We find that the perception of human involvement in the ML training process significantly influences participants' privacy-related concerns, which thereby mediate their decisions to share their voice data. Furthermore, we manipulate four factors of a privacy policy to operationalize various cognitive biases actively present in the minds of consumers and find that default trust and salience biases significantly affect participants' privacy decision making. Our results provide a deeper contextualized understanding of privacy-related concerns that may arise in human-augmented ML system configurations and highlight the managerial importance of considering the role of human involvement in supervised machine learning settings. Importantly, we introduce perceived human involvement as a new construct to the information privacy discourse. Although ubiquitous data collection and increased privacy breaches have elevated the reported concerns of consumers, consumers' behaviors do not always match their stated privacy concerns. Researchers refer to this as the privacy paradox, and decades of information privacy research have identified a myriad of explanations why this paradox occurs. Yet the underlying crux of the explanations presumes privacy concern to be the appropriate proxy to measure privacy attitude and compare with actual privacy behavior. Often, privacy concerns are situational and can be elicited through the setup of boundary conditions and the framing of different privacy scenarios. Drawing on the cognitive model of empowerment and interest, we propose a multidimensional privacy interest construct that captures consumers' situational and dispositional attitudes toward privacy, which can serve as a more robust measure in conditions leading to the privacy paradox. We define privacy interest as a consumer's general feeling toward reengaging particular behaviors that increase their information privacy. This construct comprises four dimensions—impact, awareness, meaningfulness, and competence—and is conceptualized as a consumer's assessment of contextual factors affecting their privacy perceptions and their global predisposition to respond to those factors. Importantly, interest was originally included in the privacy calculus but is largely absent in privacy studies and theoretical conceptualizations. Following MacKenzie et al. (2011), we developed and empirically validated a privacy interest scale. This study contributes to privacy research and practice by reconceptualizing a construct in the original privacy calculus theory and offering a renewed theoretical lens through which to view consumers' privacy attitudes and behaviors. / Doctor of Philosophy / The deployment of human-augmented machine learning (ML) systems has become a recommended organizational best practice. ML systems use algorithms that rely on training data labeled by human annotators. However, human involvement in reviewing and labeling consumers' voice data to train speech recognition systems for Amazon Alexa, Microsoft Cortana, and the like has raised privacy concerns among consumers and privacy advocates. We investigate how the disclosure of human involvement during the supervised machine learning process affects consumers' privacy decision making and find that the perception of human involvement in the ML training process significantly influences participants' privacy-related concerns. This thereby influences their decisions to share their voice data. Our results highlight the importance of understanding consumers' willingness to contribute their data to generate complete and diverse data sets to help companies reduce algorithmic biases and systematic unfairness in the decisions and outputs rendered by ML systems. Although ubiquitous data collection and increased privacy breaches have elevated the reported concerns of consumers, consumers' behaviors do not always match their stated privacy concerns. This is referred to as the privacy paradox, and decades of information privacy research have identified a myriad of explanations why this paradox occurs. Yet the underlying crux of the explanations presumes privacy concern to be the appropriate proxy to measure privacy attitude and compare with actual privacy behavior. We propose privacy interest as an alternative to privacy concern and assert that it can serve as a more robust measure in conditions leading to the privacy paradox. We define privacy interest as a consumer's general feeling toward reengaging particular behaviors that increase their information privacy. We found that privacy interest was more effective than privacy concern in predicting consumers' mobilization behaviors, such as publicly complaining about privacy issues to companies and third-party organizations, requesting to remove their information from company databases, and reducing their self-disclosure behaviors. By contrast, privacy concern was more effective than privacy interest in predicting consumers' behaviors to misrepresent their identity. By developing and empirically validating the privacy interest scale, we offer interest in privacy as a renewed theoretical lens through which to view consumers' privacy attitudes and behaviors.