## 5 Discussion
### Limitations and Research Avenues  
The results of this study on the impact of nudges on disclosure could be due to some limiting factors. First, the inconclusive results could be due to the fact that not enough questions were asked per nudge combination and per question sensitivity level to find significant differences in information disclosure. Second, the nature of the interactions between the users and chatbots in the experiment consisted of a series of questions and answers. Considering these points, future research could explore consumers' information disclosure behaviors when they communicate with chatbots in the form of extended conversations, rather than in a question-and-answer format. Another explanation for these partially supported results could be due to limitations in choosing to conduct this experiment in a lab setting. In fact, this research was conducted under high ethical standards. Participants were informed that their responses would be anonymized and were asked to sign consent forms before the start of the experiment. Additionally, the websites used to host the chatbot prototypes were all fictional. This environment might have made participants overly trusting towards the chatbots by reminding them they are in a lab setting that is controlled by high ethical standards and in turn increasing their disclosure. Future research on information disclosure should try to mitigate this by conducting their experiment in association with real websites. Considering the choice of nudges (i.e., sensitivity signal and social proof) in this experiment, this research also provides potential avenues for other nudges that could promote informed decision- making when it comes to information disclosure to chatbots and could be explored in the future. For example, in our experimental design, participants were told that they could choose to not answer a question if they did not want to. Future research could explore the difference in information disclosure when users are given the cue that they can choose not to respond versus no cue. The peculiarities of our stimulus materials and study design may have restricted the study's findings. We placed the information disclosure nudges in locations that were conducive for the use of the eye-tracking technology used in this research. The nudges were thus placed on either side of the chatbot. In addition, although the nudges were uniform in size and color, it is possible that varying the design of the nudges would have made them more impactful. Future research could investigate the optimal location and design for information disclosure nudges to be maximally influential on users' behaviors. Finally, the results of this study showed that more than a third of the participants (seven out of nineteen) answered all questions prompted by the chatbots, regardless of their sensitivity level. This heterogeneous data suggests that some users are comfortable sharing information online with chatbots, being general or sensitive. Given the small sample size of this study, our results did not make it possible to find a distinguishing factor better for the group that answered all questions versus the group that skipped some questions. Although the sample size used is typical for NeuroIS research [119] future research could still replicate and extend this study by increasing the sample size in order to investigate if some personal characteristics impact disclosure decisions. For example, measuring the users' level of comfort with online privacy and sensitive issues [50] or taking into account the cultural background of individuals [120] could bring out behavioral differences between groups. Considering that the participants in this study were located in North America, it is plausible that the results would differ greatly in other regions of the world where the very definition of sensitive matters may vary.