Young adults’ acceptance of data-driven personalized advertising: Privacy and Trust Equilibrium (PATE) model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to examine young social media users’ differential acceptance of data-driven ad personalization depending on the types of personal data used, and to propose and test the Privacy and Trust Equilibrium (PATE) model, a new conceptual model developed to explain the intertwined nature of the competing influences of platform-related factors (privacy concern, trust, and privacy fatigue) on acceptance of ad personalization. Design/methodology/approach A survey of 440 Instagram users aged 18–24 in Australia was conducted to examine the relationships between the three factors of the PATE model and acceptance of ad personalization utilizing overt vs covert data collection methods. Findings This study shows the highest level of acceptance for personalization using overtly collected data and the lowest for covert data. The results also support the PATE model, revealing the competing dynamics of how the platform-related factors shape consumers’ acceptance of data-driven ad personalization. Privacy concern discourages Instagram users from accepting personalized ads, while trust encourages them. When the pushing influence of privacy concern and the pulling influence of trust form equilibrium, generating cognitive dissonance, privacy fatigue seems to play a significant role in resolving the dissonance, leading to increased acceptance. Originality/value This study advances the understanding of how concurrent push–pull-resigning factors affect young consumers’ acceptance of data-driven ad personalization practices, expanding the scope of research on data-driven personalized advertising and privacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".