|Title||Health in exchange for privacy : the adoption of personalised nutrition advices|
|Source||University. Promotor(en): Hans van Trijp, co-promotor(en): Arnout Fischer. - Wageningen : Wageningen University - ISBN 9789462578227 - 165 p.|
Marketing and Consumer Behaviour
|Publication type||Dissertation, internally prepared|
|Keyword(s)||diet studies - privacy - cognitive psychology - nutrition and health - individual feeding - dieetstudies - cognitieve psychologie - voeding en gezondheid - individuele voeding|
To prevent disease and optimise health, nutrition advice is personalised based on an individuals’ lifestyle, health status and/or genetics. Although due to its high degree of personal relevance personalised nutrition advice is highly beneficial, the adoption of such advice may be hindered by the fact that it requires disclosure of personal and sensitive health information which induces the potential risk of privacy loss. This thesis investigates individuals’ intention to adopt personalised nutrition advice from the perspective of a trade-off between perceived privacy risk and perceived personalisation benefit. To understand this trade-off knowledge regarding factors that affect individuals’ perceptions of privacy risk and personalisation benefit is key. This thesis studies such factors by addressing three research lines: 1) How does service design affect the risk-benefit trade-off?; 2) What is the cognitive process behind the risk-benefit trade-off?; 3) How is the cognitive process that drives the risk-benefit trade-off affected by self-regulation?
An overview of personalised nutrition services currently available in the market place shows that the design of personalised nutrition services mainly differs in terms of service providers, the used communication channels, advice scope, and advice frequency (Chapter 2). The required personal information hardly differs between services, with information related to lifestyle and health status being most common. When compared to lifestyle and health status, perceptions of privacy risk increase when a personalised nutrition service requires genotypic information (Chapters 3 and 4). Disclosure of genotypic information does, however, not increase perceptions of personalisation benefit. Furthermore, perceptions of personalisation benefit increase and perceptions of privacy risk decrease when a personalised nutrition service allows for face-to-face communication. In addition, perceptions of personalisation benefit increase when services provide regular follow-up and combined dietary advice with physical activity.
The cognitive process is driven by the trustworthiness and competence of service providers (Chapters 3 and 4). The more trustworthy a service provider seems to be the more control individuals perceive to have over the disclosed personal information, which reduces perceptions of privacy risk. In terms of competence, service providers that induce high perception of competence increase the extent to which a personalised nutrition service is perceived as effective, which in turn amplifies individuals’ perceptions of personalisation benefit. Within the trade-off between perceived privacy risk and perceived personalisation benefit, benefits weigh heavier than risks independent of individuals’ nationality.
Whether individuals eat healthily by volition (i.e. autonomous motivation) or because they feel forced to do so (i.e. controlled motivation) affects the extent to which perceived privacy risk, perceived personalisation benefit, and their determinants predict adoption intention (Chapter 5). Within this cognitive process, high levels of autonomous motivation strengthen relations related to perceived personalisation benefit and weaken relations related to perceived privacy risk. In contrast to autonomous motivation, high levels of controlled motivation strengthen relations related to perceived privacy risk and weaken relations related to perceived personalisation benefit. Autonomous individuals therefore seem to pay more attention to personalisation benefit, while controlled individuals seem to pay more attention to privacy risk. The trustworthiness of a service provider is relevant to all, regardless the level of autonomous or controlled motivation.
Individual’s motivation to either prevent negative outcomes (i.e. prevention focus) or promote positive outcomes (i.e. promotion focus), called regulatory focus also affects perceptions of privacy risk and personalisation benefit (Chapter 6). The effect of the different regulatory foci on perceptions of privacy risk and personalisation benefit occurs through the interaction between an individual’s regulatory focus and the timing of health outcomes. Individuals focused on prevention have lower perceptions of privacy risk and higher perceptions of personalisation benefit when health outcomes are immediate rather than delayed. In the case of individuals with a promotion focus offering immediate or delayed health outcomes does not affect perceptions of privacy risk or perceptions of personalisation benefit.
Overall, this thesis shows that individuals’ intention to adopt personalised nutrition advice mainly depends on perceptions of personalisation benefit, which are largely determined by one’s confidence in the effectiveness of the personalised nutrition service. Individual differences related to motivations do, however, affect the extent to which perceived personalisation benefit determines adoption intention.