Mobile App Runtime Permissions and the Privacy Paradox: Hot‐State Decisions, Digital Literacy, and Consumer Consent

Fan Yang

Journal of Consumer Affairs2026https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.70044article
AJG 1ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Runtime permission prompts are intended to enable informed privacy choices, yet they interrupt consumers mid‐task and may undermine meaningful consent. We examine this issue among Chinese Android users in a mixed‐methods study. Study 1 ( N = 525) combined a survey with a custom app that tracked whether 15 mainstream apps requested key runtime permission types (e.g., location, camera, microphone) over 2 weeks and whether consumers granted or denied those requests. Privacy concerns did not predict the permission grant rate, while digital literacy was positively associated with granting more permissions. Study 2 (18 interviews) explains these patterns: hot‐state interruptions create cognitive overload and functional pressure, leading to coping heuristics (e.g., vendor/government trust) and contextual resignation. Digitally literate “power users” grant more permissions due to feature dependence and perceived controllability (e.g., revoking later). Findings suggest consumer education alone is insufficient; designs and policy should reduce cognitive burden and constrain coerced consent.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.70044

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{fan2026,
  title        = {{Mobile App Runtime Permissions and the Privacy Paradox: Hot‐State Decisions, Digital Literacy, and Consumer Consent}},
  author       = {Fan Yang},
  journal      = {Journal of Consumer Affairs},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.70044},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Mobile App Runtime Permissions and the Privacy Paradox: Hot‐State Decisions, Digital Literacy, and Consumer Consent

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.