Skip to main content
Log in

Privacy and biometrics: An empirical examination of employee concerns

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Advances in authentication technology have led to a proliferation of biometric-based systems in the workplace. Although biometric technologies offer organizations a cost-effective method of increasing security, employees are often hesitant to permit use. The collection and storage of employee biometric data raises concerns about proper use of these intensely personal identifiers. This work draws from organizational privacy practices, electronic monitoring, procedural fairness, self-construal, and technology adoption theories. We investigate the effects of independent and interdependent self-construal on three newly developed dimensions of employee privacy concern related to organizational use of biometric technology. These dimensions include perceived accountability, perceived vulnerability, and perceived distrust toward the organization. We test the predictive power of our model using data from an organization deploying a new biometric system designed to track employee work assignments under the auspices of improving personnel safety. Results indicate that self-construal plays a significant role in the formulation of privacy concerns and both perceived accountability concerns and perceived vulnerability concerns are significant predictors of attitude toward using biometric technology in the workplace.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2005). The effects of self-construal and commitment on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 841–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiello, J. R., & Kolb, K. J. (1995). Electronic performance monitoring and social context: impact on productivity and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(3), 339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 27–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing A TpB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations.

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1972). Attitudes and normative beliefs as factors influencing behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alder, S. (2001). Employee reactions to electronic performance monitoring. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12, 323–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alder, S., & Ambrose, M. (2005). Toward understanding fairness judgements associated with computer performance monitoring: an integration of the feedback, justice, and monitoring research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 43–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alge, B. J. (2001). Effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 797–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alhussain, T., & Drew, S. (2012). Employees’ perceptions of biometric technology adoption in e-government: An exploratory study in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In E-adoption and technologies for empowering developing countries: Global advances (p. 129). Hershey: Information Science Reference.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, M., Alder, S., & Noel, T. (1998). Electronic performance monitoring: A consideration of rights. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anandarajan, M., D’ovidio, R., & Jenkins, A. (2013). Safeguarding consumers against identity-related fraud: examining data breach notification legislation through the lens of routine activities theory. International Data Privacy Law, 3(1), 51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, K., Daniel, E. M., & Stride, C. (2012). Dimensions of employee privacy: An empirical study. Information Technology & People, 25(4), 376–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbanell, J. (2015). Needing a new approach to address employee data breaches in the american workplace. Journal of Law and Cyber Warfare, 4(3).

  • Beeler, J. D., & Hunton, J. E. (1997). The influence of compensation method and disclosure level on information search strategy and escalation of commitment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10(2), 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011). Privacy in the digital age: A review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 1017–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benitez, P. (2015). Record data breaches in 2014 teach important lessons. Retrieved From Http://Blog.Gemalto.Com/Blog/2015/01/27/Record-Data-Breaches-In-2014-Teach-Important-Lessons/

  • Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation model perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonett, D. G., & Wright, T. A. (2015). Cronbach’s alpha reliability: Interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandimarte, L., Acquisti, A., & Loewenstein, G. (2010). Misplaced Confidences: Privacy and the Control Paradox. Paper Presented at the Ninth Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (Weis 2010), Harvard University.

  • Brockner, J., De Cremer, D., Van Den Bos, K., & Chen, Y.-R. (2005). The influence of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(2), 155–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulgurcu, B., Cavusoglu, H., & Benbasat, I. (2010a). Information security policy compliance: an empirical study of rationality-based beliefs and information security awareness. MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 523–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulgurcu, B., Cavusoglu, H., & Benbasat, I. (2010b). Understanding Emergence and Outcomes of Information Privacy Concerns: A Case of Facebook. Paper Presented at the ICIS.

  • Carpenter, D. (2011). The impact of user privacy concerns and ethnic cultural values on attitudes toward the use of biometric technology. Proquest.

  • Chau, P. Y. K. (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, R., & Sharma, S. K. (2013). Self-disclosure at social networking sites: An exploration through relational capitals. Information Systems Frontiers, 15(2), 269–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. V., Yen, D. C., Pornpriphet, W., & Widjaja, A. E. (2015). E-commerce web site loyalty: A cross cultural comparison. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(6), 1283–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 22(1), 7–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999). Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 10(1), 104–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. (Doctoral), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston.

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinnel, D. L., Kleinknecht, R. A., & Tanaka-Matsumi, J. (2002). A cross-cultural comparison of social phobia symptoms. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 24(2), 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, C. (2007). Digital Relationships in the “Myspace” Generation: Results from a Qualitative Study. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

  • Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and Privacy Concern Within Social Networking Sites: A Comparison of Facebook and Myspace. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the Thirteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Keystone, Colorado.

  • Eddy, E. R., Stone, D. L., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1999). The effects of information management policies on reactions to human resource information systems: An integration of privacy and procedural justice perspectives. Personnel Psychology, 52, 335–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elgarah, W., & Falaleeva, N. (2005). Adoption of Biometric Technology: Information Privacy in TAM. AMCIS 2005 Proceedings, 222.

  • Fishbien, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B. A., & Reed, L. J. (2007). Workplace privacy: Employee relations and legal implications of monitoring employee e-mail use. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 19(2), 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fusilier, M. R., & Hoyer, W. D. (1980). Variables affecting perceptions of invasion of privacy in a personnel selection situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(5), 623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 91–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(1), 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. (2003). Trust and tam in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. A., Higgins, C. A., & Irving, R. H. (1988). Computerized performance monitors: Are they costing you customers? MIT Sloan Management Review, 29(3), 39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenaway, K. E., & Chan, Y. E. (2005). Theoretical explanations for firms’ information privacy behaviors. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(6), 171–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting‐Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22(4), 510–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. (2004). A beginner’s guide to partial least squares analysis. Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hann, I., Hui, K. L., Lee, T., & Png, I. (2002). Online information privacy: Measuring the cost-benefit trade-off. Paper presented at the twenty-third international conference on information systems, Barcelona.

  • Hann, I., Hui, K., Lee, S.-Y. T., & Png, I. (2007). Overcoming online information privacy concerns: An information-processing approach. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2), 13–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, D., Novak, T., & Peralta, M. (1999). Information privacy in the marketspace: Implications for the commercial uses of anonymity on the web. The Information Society, 15(2), 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’ consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovorka-Mead, A. D., Ross, W. H., Jr., Whipple, T., & Brenchin, M. B. (2002). Watching the detectives: Seasonal student employee reactions to electronic monitoring with and without advance notification. Personnel Psychology, 55(2), 329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hui, K., Teo, H., & Lee, S.-Y. T. (2007). The value of privacy assurance: An exploratory field experiment. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, A. K., & Kumar, A. (2010). Biometrics of next generation: An overview. Second Generation Biometrics, 12(1), 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, A. K., Ross, A., & Pankanti, S. (2006). Biometrics: A tool for information security. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 1(2), 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000). Consumer trust in an internet store. Information Technology and Management, 1, 45–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. M. (2006). Why do smart businesspeople do ethically dumb things? Corporate Finance Review, 11(3), 38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, L., Anton, A., & Earp, J. (2007). Toward Understanding User Perceptions of Authentication Technologies. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Workshop on Privacy in Electronic Society, Alexandria, VA.

  • Josang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007). A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems, 43, 618–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplowitz, M., Hadlock, T., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kofman, J., & Potter, N. (2011). Rupert murdoch’s news of the world accused of more phone hacks. Retrieved from Http://Abcnews.Go.Com/Technology/News-World-Phone-Hacking-Scotland-Yard-Investigates-Links/Story?Id=14007604.

  • Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2005). A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 461–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M., & Turban, E. (2001). A trust model for consumer internet shopping. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Lee, J.-N., & Tan, B. C. (2015). Antecedents of cognitive trust and affective distrust and their mediating roles in building customer loyalty. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(1), 159–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C., & Arnett, K. P. (2000). Exploring the factors associated with web site success in the context of electronic commerce. Information & Management, 38(1), 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C., Marchewka, J., & Ku, C. (2004). American and Taiwanese perceptions concerning privacy, trust, and behavioral intentions in electronic commerce. Journal of Global Information Management, 12(1), 18–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C., Marchewka, J., Lu, J., & Yu, C. S. (2005). Beyond concern—a privacy-trust-behavioral intention model of electronic commerce. Information & Management, 42, 289–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, N., Kim, S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users’ information privacy concerns IUIPC: The contruct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, N. (2003). Shifting selves and decision making: The effects of self-construal priming on consumer risk-taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 30–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marakas, G., Johnson, R., & Clay, P. F. (2007). The evolving nature of the computer self-efficacy construct: An empirical investigation of measurement construction, validity, reliability and stability over time. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(1), 15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcoulides, G. A., & Saunders, C. (2006). PLS: A silver bullet? MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcknight, D., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milberg, S. J., Smith, H. J., & Burke, S. J. (2000). Information privacy: Corporate management and national regulation. Organization Science, 11(1), 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nov, O., & Wattal, S. (2009). Social computing privacy concerns: antecedents and effects. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, 333–336.

  • Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002a). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002b). Rethinking inividualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oz, E., Glass, R., & Behling, R. (1999). Electronic workplace monitoring: What employees think. Omega, 27(2), 167–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pato, J. N., Millett, L. I., & Whither Biometrics Committee. (2010). Biometric recognition: Challenges and opportunities. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polyorat, K., Alden, D. L., & Alden, D. L. (2005). Self-construal and need-for-cognition effects on brand attitudes and purchase intentions in response to comparative advertising in Thailand and the United States. Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prabhakar, S., Pankanti, S., & Jain, A. K. (2003). Biometric recognition: Security and privacy concerns. IEEE Security and Privacy, 1(2), 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reay, I., Beatty, P., Dick, S., & Miller, J. (2013). Privacy policies and national culture on the internet. Information Systems Frontiers, 15(2), 279–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, S. (2005). Smartpls 2.0 (M3) Beta. Hamburg: Http://Www.Smartpls.De/.

  • Roca, J., García, J., & De La Vega, J. (2009). The importance of perceived trust, security and privacy in online trading systems. Information Management & Computer Security, 17(2), 96–113.

  • Salvagnini, P., Bazzani, L., Cristani, M., & Murino, V. (2013). Person re-identification with a ptz camera: an introductory study. 20th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2013.

  • Schumann, A., & Monari, E. (2014). A soft-biometrics dataset for person tracking and re-identification. 11th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance (AVSS), 2014.

  • Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2003). Succession planning as planned behavior: Some empirical results. Family Business Review, 16(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan, K. B. (1999). An investigation of gender differences in on-line privacy concerns and resultant behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13(4), 24–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), 240–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singelis, T. M., Bond, M. H., Sharkey, W. F., & Lai, C. S. Y. (1999). Unpackaging culture’s influence on self-esteem and embarrassability the role of self-construals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(3), 315–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H., Milberg, S., & Burke, S. (1996). Information privacy: Measuring individual’s concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 167–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soper, D. (2013). Post Hoc Statistical Power Analysis. Retrieved From Http://Www.Danielsoper.Com/Statcalc3/.

  • Spitzmüller, C., & Stanton, J. M. (2006). Examining employee compliance with organizational surveillance and monitoring. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(2), 245–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, J. M., & Weiss, E. (2000). Electronic monitoring in their own words: An exploratory study of employees’ experiences with new types of surveillance. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(4), 423–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, K. A., & Segars, A. H. (2002). An empirical examination of the concern for information privacy instrument. Information Systems Research, 13(1), 36–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, E. F., & Stone, D. L. (1990). Privacy in organizations: Theoretical issues, research findings, and protection mechanisms. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 8, 349–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. L., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1998). A multiple stakeholder model of privacy in organizations. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes (pp. 35–59). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone-Romero, E. F., Gueutal, H. G., Gardner, D. G., & Mcclure, S. (1983). A field experiment comparing information-privacy values, beliefs, and attitudes across several types of organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 459–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Y., & Upadhyaya, S. (2015). Secure and privacy preserving data processing support for active authentication. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(5), 1007–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swaminathan, V., Page, K. L., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2007). “My” brand or “our” brand: The effects of brand relationship dimensions and self-construal on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 248–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(2), 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolchinsky, P. D., Mccuddy, M. K., Adams, J., Ganster, D. C., Woodman, R. W., & Fromkin, H. L. (1981). Employee perceptions of invasion of privacy: A field simulation experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(3), 308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbaczewski, A., & Jessup, L. M. (2002). Does electronic monitoring of employee internet usage work? Communications of the ACM, 45(1), 80–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakunuma, K. J., & Stahl, B. C. (2014). tomorrow’s ethics and today’s response: an investigation into the ways information systems professionals perceive and address emerging ethical issues. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walczuch, R., & Lundgren, H. (2004). Psychological antecedents of institution-based consumer trust in e-retailing. Information & Management, 42(1), 159–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westin, A. F. (2003). Social and political dimensions of privacy. Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), 431–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, J. D. (1997). Biometrics: Privacy’s foe or privacy’s friend? Proceedings of the IEEE, 85(9), 1480–1492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, H. (2007). The effects of self-construal and perceived control on privacy concerns. ICIS 2007 Proceedings, 125.

  • Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, J., & Hart, P. (2008). Examining the Formulation of Individual’s Privacy Concerns: Toward an Integrative View. Paper Presented at the Twenty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, Paris.

  • Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, J., & Hart, P. (2011). Information privacy concerns: Linking individual perceptions with institutional privacy assurances. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(12), 798.

  • Zhou, T. (2015). Understanding user adoption of location-based services from a dual perspective of enablers and inhibitors. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(2), 413–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zorkadis, V., & Donos, P. (2004). On biometrics-based authentication and identification from a privacy-protection perspective: Deriving privacy-enhancing requirements. Information Management & Computer Security, 12(1), 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zweig, D., & Scott, K. (2007). When unfairness matters most: Supervisory violations of electronic monitoring practices. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(3), 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zweig, D., & Webster, J. (2002). Where is the line between benign and invasive? An examination of psychological barriers to the acceptance of awareness monitoring systems. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(5), 605–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Portions of this research were supported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology Building and Fire Research Laboratory via Fire Research Grant #05-388, Award # 70NANB6H6124 for a project entitled “The Integration of Biometric Technologies with Fire Fighting Information Systems”. Support included funding for the pilot system implemented in the study and faculty support during the research effort.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Darrell Carpenter.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

1.1 User opinions about biometric log-on systems: A research study

The Fire Department is continually exploring new methods of improving fire fighter safety. As part of those efforts the Department, in conjunction with UTSA researchers, will soon test a new system designed to ensure accurate personnel information is available to on-scene incident commanders. This new system will use biometric authentication to verify the identity of a fire fighter reporting for duty. A biometric authentication system is one that uses some feature of an individual, in this case finger pattern recognition, to discern one person from another.

Because biometric systems are not widely utilized by the general population, we would like your input about potential privacy concerns that are often mentioned in association with biometric systems. Please circle the number to the right of each statement that best describes the extent to which you, as an individual, agree or disagree with each statement. If you neither agree nor disagree with a statement please circle “4” as a neutral rating. There is no right or wrong answer. Your answers are confidential. Thank you for participating.

figure afigure afigure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carpenter, D., McLeod, A., Hicks, C. et al. Privacy and biometrics: An empirical examination of employee concerns. Inf Syst Front 20, 91–110 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9667-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9667-5

Keywords

Navigation