skip to main content
10.1145/1979742.1979825acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Audience visualization influences disclosures in online social networks

Published:07 May 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

One of the major concerns about online social networks (OSNs) is privacy. We introduce visualization and numeric audience information as potential interface solutions to the problem of privacy behaviors that are misaligned with privacy preferences. Findings from a large experiment with participants of all ages and from a broad range of backgrounds suggest that for both current and potential users, augmenting an interface with a visualization or numeric display of the audience helps people disclose in a way that is more in line with their own preferences. We conclude by proposing that audience visualization and quantification tools have the potential to assist users in achieving their privacy goals while using OSNs and have the potential to enhance privacy in other information systems as well.

References

  1. Acquisti, A. & Gross, R. (2006, June). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4258, 36--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Adu-Oppong, F., Gardiner, C. K., Kapadia, A., & Tsang, P. P. (2008, July). Social Circles: Tackling Privacy in Social Networks. In SOUPS '08: Proc. of the Fourth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. boyd, d. (2007). Social network sites: Public, private, or what? Knowledge Tree, 13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violation: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129--142.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Friendly, M., & Denis, D. J. (2009). Milestones in the history of thematic cartography, statistical graphs and data visualization. Available online: http://www.datavis.ca/milestones/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Kapadia, A., Henderson, T., Fielding, J. J., & Kotz, D. (2007, May). Virtual Walls: Protecting Digital Privacy in Pervasive Environments. In PERVASIVE '07: Proc. of The Fifth International Conference on Pervasive computing (pp. 162--179). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Kisselburgh, L.G. (2008). The social structure and construction of privacy in sociotechnical realms. Unpublished dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Lampe, C., Walsh, R., Velasquez, A., & Ozkaya, E. (2010). Motivations to participate in online communities. In Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference On Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1927--1936). New York: ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. McKeon, M. (2010). The evolution of privacy on Facebook. Retrieved from: http://mattmckeon.com/fac ebook-privacy/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Pew Internet & American Life Project (2010). Raw data from a survey conducted in May 2010. Available online: http://pewinternet.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Audience visualization influences disclosures in online social networks

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI EA '11: CHI '11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2011
      2554 pages
      ISBN:9781450302685
      DOI:10.1145/1979742

      Copyright © 2011 Authors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 May 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • abstract

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader