Elsevier

Telematics and Informatics

Volume 41, August 2019, Pages 114-125
Telematics and Informatics

Unpacking the process of privacy management and self-disclosure from the perspectives of regulatory focus and privacy calculus

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.04.006Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Privacy management was classified as preventive, censorship and corrective strategies.

  • Privacy concerns exerted direct effects on privacy strategies across all stages.

  • Self-disclosure was primarily determined by the benefits of social awareness.

  • Social awareness moderated impact of concerns on censorship and corrective strategies.

Abstract

Through the integration of the perspectives from regulatory focus theory and privacy calculus, this study built a model to distinguish between two forms of privacy antecedents (social awareness vs. privacy concerns and prior experience) and privacy behaviors (self-disclosure vs. privacy management). Using survey data collected from 525 active Facebook users, we found that promotion-focused privacy behavior (i.e., self-disclosure) is primarily determined by a promotion-related factor (benefits of social awareness), whereas prevention-focused ones (i.e., privacy management strategies) by prevention-related factors such as privacy concerns. Further, in line with the privacy calculus, we found a significant interaction effect between social awareness and privacy concerns on privacy management strategies. Their effects also vary across privacy management strategies that users employ at different usage stages. The findings demonstrate the utility of our novel research model in examining the dynamic, goal-oriented, and temporal nature of privacy management.

Introduction

Social media platforms provide an ideal venue for users to interact with one another and present themselves; however, they can also cause potential risks to users’ identifiable information, including names, contacts, private photos, etc. (Taddicken, 2014). These aspects of identifiable personal information generally consist of information privacy (Smith et al., 2011). Information privacy violation is common on social media, and most social media users are exposed to and have experienced various types of personal information abuse (Lee, 2018, Lee and Maeve, 2016, Madden, 2012). Though social media brings about diverse benefits to users’ lives, such as maintaining relationships, self-expression, or other tangible advantages (Ellison et al., 2011, Joinson and Paine, 2012, Lee and Maeve, 2016), the prevalence of privacy risks makes users concerned about the security of their private data and unwanted exposure of personal information. Nevertheless, being concerned about privacy risks may not necessarily result in corresponding behaviors, as social media users still disclose a vast amount of personal information (e.g., Debatin et al., 2009, Taddicken, 2014). This phenomenon is known as the “privacy paradox” (Barnes, 2006).

A growing body of research has examined the relationships between privacy antecedents and privacy behaviors, generating mixed and inconsistent findings (for review, see Barth and de Jong, 2017). On the one hand, for instance, previous studies support the “privacy paradox”, such that social media users do not adjust their privacy settings despite concerned with private information (Debatin et al., 2009), and some of them are even unaware of these settings (Lee and Maeve, 2016). On the other hand, other studies challenged the “privacy paradox”, proposing that social media users are not completely naïve (Young and Quan-Haase, 2013). Those who are concerned about privacy employ various strategies for protection, such as limiting friendship requests or deleting tags and photos (Chen and Chen, 2015, Lang and Barton, 2015, Son and Kim, 2008, Youn, 2009).

The mixed results could be due to that most studies focused on a limited aspects of privacy behaviors, which cannot accurately reflect the complex process of these behaviors (Kokolakis, 2017). Social media users simultaneously engage in distinct types of privacy-related behaviors with different (often competing) goals: for instance, information disclosure for the promotion of social networking and privacy preservation for the prevention of privacy loss (Petronio, 2012). In addition, they adopt a pool of diverse activities for privacy boundary regulations (Ellison et al., 2011, Lampinen et al., 2011). Previous literature ignores that a) dyadic privacy behaviors are leveraged by various antecedents (e.g., different goals and motivations), rather than the same one (e.g., privacy concerns) (Wirtz and Lwin, 2009); and b) a variety of privacy rules are adopted to prevent risks at different stages of information disclosure (Child et al., 2012, Petronio, 2012).

To address the aforementioned gaps, this study built a research model by integrating two theoretical perspectives, namely, regulatory focus theory (RFT) (Higgins, 1997) and privacy calculus (Dinev and Hart, 2006, Laufer and Wolfe, 1977). By employing the perspective of RFT, we distinguished between promotion-oriented antecedents/outcomes and prevention-oriented ones, and aligned the privacy antecedents (i.e., prior experiences of privacy violation, privacy concerns, benefits of social awareness) with behavioral outcomes (i.e., self-disclosure and privacy management strategies). By utilizing privacy calculus perspective, we examined the joint effects of privacy antecedents so as to explain how promotion-oriented (vs. prevention-oriented) privacy antecedents compete with or complement one another to determine social media users’ privacy protection strategies. Finally, previous studies suggest that online users take privacy protections before, during, and after their sharing or posting activities (e.g., Child et al., 2012). Considering the variety of privacy protected behaviors, in the proposed model, we categorized privacy management strategies via the criteria of chronology (according to the stages of disclosure). We then validated our research model using survey data collected from 525 active social media users in the US.

Section snippets

Theoretical framework

According to the communication privacy management theory, in a social interaction context, the nature of privacy protection is a dialectic and dynamic process of boundary regulation. Individuals develop privacy rules to keep the balance between privacy (close of the interpersonal boundary) and social connection (open) through dynamic interpersonal boundary management processes (Petronio, 1991, Petronio, 2012). On social media, users disclose information to present themselves for self-promotion

Data collection

Data was collected through an online survey from June to July 2016, in the US. Participants were recruited from a professional research company’s panel, containing nearly 6 million panelists. Eligible participants were invited to complete the survey through Qualtrics and were regular Facebook users (those who visit Facebook at least once in two weeks), who were older than 18 years. Quota sampling, based on age and gender, was then employed to match the proportion of selected participants to

Results

R with the statistical package lavaan (version 0.5-22) was employed for data analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to examine the measurement model, and structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed to test the research model and proposed hypotheses.

Discussion

The key purpose of this study was to attain a holistic understanding about how different privacy antecedents (prior experiences, privacy concerns, and benefits of social awareness) influence the sequential behavioral outcomes (privacy management strategies and self-disclosure) through integrating the perspectives of RFT and privacy calculus. The results show that self-disclosure is solely determined by the benefits of social awareness. In contrast, the influencers of privacy management vary

Limitations and conclusions

A few limitations should be noted in the current study. First, our findings were based on the analysis of cross-sectional survey data, which is difficult to use for establishing causal relationships. Though this is a common drawback of most survey-based studies, our arguments were established on a collection of well-developed theories and existing empirical evidence, therefore, this limitation should not detract heavily from our research claims. Second, the categorization of privacy management

References (77)

  • S. Taddei et al.

    Privacy, trust and control: which relationships with online self-disclosure?

    Comput. Hum. Behav.

    (2013)
  • S. Utz

    The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: not only intimate, but also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection

    Comput. Hum. Behav.

    (2015)
  • R.A. VanMeter et al.

    Of “Likes” and “Pins”: the effects of consumers’ attachment to social media

    J. Interact. Mark.

    (2015)
  • Acquisti, A., 2004. Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification. Paper presented at the...
  • A. Acquisti et al.

    Privacy and human behavior in the age of information

    Science

    (2015)
  • A. Acquisti et al.

    Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook

  • I. Altman et al.

    Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships

    (1973)
  • C.L. Anderson et al.

    The digitization of healthcare: boundary risks, emotion, and consumer willingness to disclose personal health information

    Inf. Syst. Res.

    (2011)
  • S.B. Barnes

    A privacy paradox: social networking in the United States

    First Monday

    (2006)
  • L. Baruh et al.

    Online privacy concerns and privacy management: a meta-analytical review

    J. Commun.

    (2017)
  • N.N. Bazarova et al.

    Self-disclosure in social media: extending the functional approach to disclosure motivations and characteristics on social network sites

    J. Commun.

    (2014)
  • d. boyd et al.

    Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship

    J. Comput.-Mediat.

    (2007)
  • H.-T. Chen et al.

    Couldn't or wouldn't? The influence of privacy concerns and self-efficacy in privacy management on privacy protection

    Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw.

    (2015)
  • H. Cho et al.

    Networked privacy management in Facebook: a mixed-methods and multinational study

  • Y.H. Choi et al.

    Self-disclosure characteristics and motivations in social media: extending the functional model to multiple social network sites

    Hum. Commun. Res.

    (2015)
  • M.J. Culnan et al.

    Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation

    Organ Sci.

    (1999)
  • B. Debatin et al.

    Facebook and online privacy: attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences

    J. Comput.-Mediat.

    (2009)
  • V.J. Derlega et al.

    Appropriateness of self-disclosure

  • T. Dienlin et al.

    An extended privacy calculus model for SNSs: analyzing self-disclosure and self-withdrawal in a representative U.S. sample

    J. Comput.-Mediat.

    (2016)
  • T. Dinev et al.

    An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions

    Inf. Syst. Res.

    (2006)
  • T. Dinev et al.

    Information privacy and correlates: an empirical attempt to bridge and distinguish privacy-related concepts

    Eur. J. Inform. Syst.

    (2013)
  • H. Dreßing et al.

    Cyberstalking in a large sample of social network users: prevalence, characteristics, and impact upon victims

    Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw.

    (2014)
  • N.B. Ellison et al.

    Negotiating privacy concerns and social capital needs in a social media environment

  • R.H. Fazio

    How do attitudes guide behavior?

  • M. Fishbein et al.

    Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research

    (1975)
  • M. Friedman et al.

    The expected-utility hypothesis and the measurability of utility

    J. Polit. Econ.

    (1952)
  • C. Gutwin et al.

    A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real-time groupware

    Comput. Support. Coop. Work.

    (2002)
  • E.T. Higgins

    Beyond pleasure and pain

    Am. Psychol.

    (1997)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text