The personalization–privacy paradox in social commerce: Why privacy concern does not deter willingness to be profiled on Tiktok shop
Main Article Content
Abstract
Purpose – This study examines how online personalization, technical protection, and privacy awareness are associated with privacy concern, customer trust, and willingness to be profiled online for personalization among TikTok Shop users in Vietnam. Integrating Privacy Calculus Theory (PCT) and the Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) framework, the study explores how personalization-related stimuli shape users’ privacy evaluations and acceptance of profiling in the context of short-video social commerce.
Design/methodology/approach – Data from 300 TikTok Shop users were analyzed using PLS-SEM in SmartPLS 4.0 with 5,000 bootstrap resamples.
Findings – Online personalization increased privacy concern, customer trust, and willingness to be profiled. Technical protection strengthened customer trust but did not reduce privacy concern. Contrary to the proposed negative relationship, privacy awareness increased privacy concern, while also strengthening customer trust. Privacy concern was positively related to willingness to be profiled, also contrary to the hypothesized direction. Customer trust was the strongest predictor of profiling acceptance.
Originality/value – The study extends the personalization–privacy paradox to TikTok Shop in an emerging market. It shows that personalization can simultaneously increase privacy concern, trust, and profiling acceptance, while customer trust serves as the dominant predictor and mediating mechanism.
Practical implications – TikTok Shop and similar platforms should strengthen customer trust by clearly communicating data-protection practices, explaining how personal data are used, and providing meaningful consent and user-control options. Personalization should remain valuable without becoming overly intrusive.
Social implications – Greater transparency, informed consent, and user control can support more informed data-sharing decisions and more responsible algorithmic profiling in social commerce.
Keywords
Customer trust; Online personalization; Privacy concern; TikTok shop; Willingness to be profiled
Article Details
Field of Economic (JEL Codes)
M30 - General - M31 - Marketing - M37 - Advertising - Marketing and Advertising
References
Bansal, G., Zahedi, F. M., & Gefen, D. (2010). The impact of personal dispositions on information sensitivity, privacy concern, and trust in disclosing health information online. Decision Support Systems, 49(2), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.01.010
Barth, S., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2017). The privacy paradox – Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1038–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013
Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011). Privacy in the digital age: A review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 1017–1041. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409971
Bélanger, F., Hiller, J. S., & Smith, W. J. (2002). Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: The role of privacy, security, and site attributes. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3–4), 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687(02)00018-5
Bleier, A., & Eisenbeiss, M. (2015). Personalized online advertising effectiveness: The interplay of what, when, and where. Marketing Science, 34(5), 669–688. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2015.0930
Chellappa, R. K., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002). Perceived information security, financial liability, and consumer trust in electronic commerce transactions. Logistics Information Management, 15(5-6), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/09576050210447046
Chellappa, R. K., & Sin, R. G. (2005). Personalization versus privacy: An empirical examination of the online consumer’s dilemma. Information Technology and Management, 6(2–3), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-005-5879-y
Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0080
Draper, N. A., & Turow, J. (2019). The corporate cultivation of digital resignation. New Media & Society, 21(8), 1824–1839. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819833331
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hoang, V. T., & Dang, H. P. (2024). Exploring how the characteristics of live streaming affect impulse buying behaviour in live streaming commerce: The mediating effect of trust and flow experience. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 19(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.69864/ijbsam.19-1.184
Kezer, M., Dienlin, T., & Baruh, L. (2022). Getting the privacy calculus right: Analyzing the relations between privacy concerns, expected benefits, and self-disclosure using response surface analysis. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2022-4-1
Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2009). Trust and satisfaction, two stepping stones for successful e-commerce relationships: A longitudinal exploration. Information Systems Research, 20(2), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1080.0188
Kim, S. S. (2020). Purchase intention in the online open market: Do concerns for e-commerce really matter?. Sustainability, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030773
Le, M. T. H., Pham, H. N. M., Nguyen, L. T. T., Le, T. T. X., & Nguyen, S. T. M. (2025). Augmenting TikTok Shop adoption: The mediating role of key opinion consumers (KOCs) in live streaming, video content, and artificial intelligence (AI) recommendations. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science – Economics and Business Administration, 15(2), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.46223/HCMCOUJS.econ.en.15.2.2939.2025
Li, T., & Unger, T. (2012). Willing to pay for quality personalization? Trade-off between quality and privacy. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(6), 621–642. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.13
Lwin, M. O., Wirtz, J., & Stanaland, A. J. S. (2016). The privacy dyad: Antecedents of promotion- and prevention-focused online privacy behaviors and the mediating role of trust and privacy concern. Internet Research, 26(4), 919–941. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-05-2014-0134
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0032
Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017). The role of data privacy in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(2), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0495-4
Melgarejo-Espinoza, R., Gonzales-Cruz, M., Chavez-Perez, J., & Iparraguirre-Villanueva, O. (2025). Impact of the TikTok algorithm on the effectiveness of marketing strategies: A study of consumer behavior and content preferences. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 16(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2025.0160215
Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., & Horne, D. A. (2007). The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x
Pappas, I. O., Kourouthanassis, P. E., Giannakos, M. N., & Chrissikopoulos, V. (2014). Shiny happy people buying: The role of emotions on personalized e-shopping. Electronic Markets, 24(3), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-014-0153-y
Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275
Sah, J., & Jun, S. (2024). The role of consumers’ privacy awareness in the privacy calculus for IoT services. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(12), 3173–3184. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2184102
Saha, R. K., & Ali, M. B. (2024). Does enduring brand loyalty in mobile financial service platforms require strong commitment? A stimulus–organism–response (S-O-R) perspective. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 29(4), 1623–1634. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-024-00289-1
Shah, M. H., Peikari, H. R., & Yasin, N. M. (2014). The determinants of individuals’ perceived e-security: Evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Information Management, 34(1), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.10.001
Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989–1015. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409970
Tam, K. Y., & Ho, S. Y. (2006). Understanding the impact of web personalization on user information processing and decision outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 865–890. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148757
Xu, H., Luo, X., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2011). The personalization privacy paradox: An exploratory study of decision-making process for location-aware marketing. Decision Support Systems, 51(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.017