skip to main content
10.1145/3277570.3277581acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesceccConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

What drives the motivation to self-protect on social networks? The role of privacy concerns and perceived threats

Published:15 November 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Social networks offer a wide range of services to their users resulting in a high degree of their involvement in social network users' everyday life. Users are however exposed to a variety of evolving cyberthreats that may be just as harmful as those in the material world even though they are sometimes hard to perceive as such in the cyberspace. To better understand the motivation of social network users to engage in self-protective behavior, we conducted an online survey among social network users (N = 227). The survey aimed to measure the role of perceived threat, privacy concerns and descriptive norms (also known as group norms) in user's intentions to adopt self-protective behavior. Analysis showed statistically significant correlations between mentioned constructs confirming most of our hypotheses. In addition to the well-known importance of perceived threat, results show that privacy concerns are also an important factor in explaining the intention of social network users to engage in self-protective behavior on social networks.

References

  1. Anderson, C.L. and Agarwal, R. 2010. Practicing Safe Computing: A Multimethod Empirical Examination of Home Computer User Security Behavioral Intentions. MIS Quarterly. 34, 3 (2010), 613--643. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bansal, G., Zahedi, F.M. and Gefen, D. 2010. The impact of personal dispositions on information sensitivity, privacy concern and trust in disclosing health information online. Decision Support Systems. 49, 2 (May 2010), 138--150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bernik, I. and Mesko, G. 2011. Internet study of familiarity with cyber threats and fear of cybercrime. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo. 62, 3 (2011), 242--252.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Boss, S.R., Galletta, D.F., Lowry, P.B., Moody, G.D. and Polak, P. 2015. What Do Systems Users Have to Fear? Using Fear Appeals to Engender Threats and Fear that Motivate Protective Security Behaviors. MIS Quarterly. 39, 4 (Apr. 2015), 837--864. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Buchanan, T., Paine, C., Joinson, A.N. and Reips, U.-D. 2007. Development of Measures of Online Privacy Concern and Protection for Use on the Internet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58, 2 (Jan. 2007), 157--165. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Chen, Y. and Zahedi, F.M. 2016. Individuals' Internet Security Perceptions and Behaviors: Polycontextual Contrasts Between the United States and China. MIS Quarterly. 40, 1 (Jan. 2016), 205--222. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Company Info: 2018. https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/. Accessed: 2018-07-09.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Dinev, T., Hart, P. and Mullen, M.R. 2008. Internet privacy concerns and beliefs about government surveillance -- An empirical investigation. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems. 17, 3 (Sep. 2008), 214--233. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S.R. and Passerini, K. 2007. Trust and Privacy Concern Within Social Networking Sites: A Comparison of Facebook and MySpace. AMCIS 2007 Proceedings (2007), Paper 339.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Fogel, J. and Nehmad, E. 2009. Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behavior. 25, 1 (Jan. 2009), 153--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Georgiadis, C.K., Polatidis, N., Mouratidis, H. and Pimenidis, E. 2017. A Method for Privacy-preserving Collaborative Filtering Recommendations. Journal of Universal Computer Science. 23, 2 (2017), 146--166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Herath, T. and Rao, H.R. 2009. Protection motivation and deterrence: a framework for security policy compliance in organisations. European Journal of Information Systems. 18, 2 (2009), 106--125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Hong, W. and Thong, J.Y.L. 2013. Internet Privacy Concerns: An Integrated Conceptualization and Four Empirical Studies. MIS Quarterly. 37, 1 (2013), 275-+. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Ifinedo, P. 2012. Understanding information systems security policy compliance: An integration of the theory of planned behavior and the protection motivation theory. Computers & Security. 31, 1 (Feb. 2012), 83--95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Johnston, A.C. and Warkentin, M. 2010. Fear Appeals and Information Security Behaviors: An Empirical Study. MIS Quarterly. 34, 3 (2010), 549--566. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Kojić, A., Hovelja, T. and Vavpotič, D. 2016. Ogrodje za izboljšanje procesov razvoja informacijskih sistemov z uporabo hevristik za izboljšave splošnih poslovnih procesov. Elektrotehniški vestnik / Electrotechnical Review. 83, 1-2 (2016), 47--53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Krouska, A., Troussas, C. and Virvou, M. 2017. Comparative evaluation of algorithms for sentiment analysis over social networking services. Journal of Universal Computer Science. 23, 8 (2017), 755--768.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Lapinski, M.K. and Rimal, R.N. 2005. An Explication of Social Norms. Communication Theory. 15, 2 (May 2005), 127--147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Lee, D., Larose, R. and Rifon, N. 2008. Keeping our network safe: a model of online protection behaviour. Behaviour & Information Technology. 27, 5 (Sep. 2008), 445--454. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Liang, H. and Xue, Y. 2010. Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 11, 7 (2010), 394--413.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Livingstone, S. 2008. Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society. 10, 3 (Jun. 2008), 393--411.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Lwin, M., Wirtz, J. and Williams, J.D. 2007. Consumer online privacy concerns and responses: a power--responsibility equilibrium perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 35, 4 (Nov. 2007), 572--585.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Maddux, J.E. and Rogers, R.W. 1983. Protection motivation theory and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 19, 5 (1983), 469--479.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Mihelič, A. and Vrhovec, S. 2018. A model of self-protection in the cyberspace / Model samozaščite v kibernetskem prostoru. Elektrotehniški vestnik / Electrotechnical Review. 85, 1--2 (2018), 13--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mihelič, A. and Vrhovec, S. 2017. Explaining the employment of information security measures by individuals in organizations: The self-protection model. Advances in cybersecurity 2017. I. Bernik, B. Markelj, and S. Vrhovec, eds. University of Maribor Press. 23--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Nam, T. 2018. Untangling the relationship between surveillance concerns and acceptability. International Journal of Information Management. 38, 1 (Feb. 2018), 262--269. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Rimal, R.N. and Real, K. 2003. Understanding the Influence of Perceived Norms on Behaviors. Communication Theory. 13, 2 (May 2003), 184--203.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Rohm, A.J. and Milne, G.R. 2004. Just what the doctor ordered - The role of information sensitivity and trust in reducing medical information privacy concern. Journal of Business Research. 57, 9 (Sep. 2004), 1000--1011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J. and Griskevicius, V. 2007. The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms. Psychological Science. 18, 5 (May 2007), 429--434.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Shahriari, M., Haefele, S. and Klamma, R. 2017. Using Content to Identify Overlapping Communities in Question Answer Forums. Journal of Universal Computer Science. 23, 9 (2017), 907--931.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Sheeran, P. and Orbell, S. 1999. Augmenting the Theory of Planned Behavior: Roles for Anticipated Regret and Descriptive Norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 29, 10 (Oct. 1999), 2107--2142.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Shen, L. and Dillard, J.P. 2005. Psychometric Properties of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment. 85, 1 (Aug. 2005), 74--81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Smith, H.J., Dinev, T. and Xu, H. 2011. Information Privacy Research: An Interdisciplinary Review. MIS Quarterly. 35, 4 (2011), 989--1015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Thielman, S. 2016. Yahoo hack: 1bn accounts compromised by biggest data breach in history. The Guardian.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Vance, A., Siponen, M. and Pahnila, S. 2012. Motivating IS security compliance: Insights from Habit and Protection Motivation Theory. Information & Management. 49, 3-4 (May 2012), 190--198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Vrhovec, S. 2016. Safe mobile device use in the cyberspace / Varna uporaba mobilnih naprav v kibernetskem prostoru. Elektrotehniški vestnik / Electrotechnical Review. 83, 3 (2016), 144--147.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Vrhovec, S.L.R. 2016. Challenges of mobile device use in healthcare. 39th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO 2016) (Opatija, Croatia, 2016).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Wirtz, J., Lwin, M.O. and Williams, J.D. 2007. Causes and consequences of consumer online privacy concern. International Journal of Service Industry Management. 18, 3--4 (Aug. 2007), 326--348.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Wisniewski, P., Xu, H., Rosson, M.B. and Carroll, J.M. 2017. Parents Just Don't Understand: Why Teens Don't Talk to Parents about Their Online Risk Experiences. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing - CSCW '17 (2017), 523--540. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Wurtele, S.K. and Maddux, J.E. 1987. Relative Contributions o f Protection in Motivation Theory Components Predicting Exercise Intentions Behavior. Health Psychology. 6, 5 (1987), 453--466.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Zhang, C., Sun, J., Zhu, X. and Fang, Y. 2010. Privacy and Security for Online Social Networks: Challenges and Opportunities. IEEE Network. 24, 4 (2010), 13--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. van Zoonen, L. 2016. Privacy concerns in smart cities. Government Information Quarterly. 33, 3 (Jul. 2016), 472--480.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. What drives the motivation to self-protect on social networks? The role of privacy concerns and perceived threats

        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 Other conferences
          CECC 2018: Proceedings of the Central European Cybersecurity Conference 2018
          November 2018
          109 pages
          ISBN:9781450365154
          DOI:10.1145/3277570

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 15 November 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          CECC 2018 Paper Acceptance Rate19of30submissions,63%Overall Acceptance Rate38of65submissions,58%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader