Tamir Mendel
ABSTRACT
Privacy in Online Social Networks (OSNs) is a dynamic concept, contingent on changes in technology and usage norms. Social influence is a major avenue for adopting online behaviors in general and privacy practices in particular. In this study, we examine how the source of influence affects the perceived behavioral intention to adopt privacy behavior. Our findings are based on a randomized experiment (167 U.S.-based Amazon Mechanical Turk workers) using a custom Facebook application that collects feedback from participants regarding their intention to adopt privacy practices from different types of sources, including authoritative organizations and friends with varying tie strength correlative. Our results show that the source of social influence affects the susceptibility to adopt certain privacy behaviors and that there are different patterns of influence for security and privacy norms. More interestingly, susceptibility is modulated by the privacy perceptions of the user: users with high perceived behavioral control are more susceptible to peer influence. Additionally, we show that the intention to adopt privacy practices is correlated with the intention to further influence other people.
- A. Acquisti and J. Grossklags. Losses, gains, and hyperbolic discounting: An experimental approach to information security attitudes and behavior. In 2nd Annual Workshop on Economics and Information Security-WEIS, volume 3, 2003.Google Scholar
- I. Ajzen. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2):179--211, 1991.Google Scholar
- S. Aral and D. Walker. Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks. Science, 337(6092):337--341, 2012.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Aral and D. Walker. Tie strength, embeddedness, and social influence: A large-scale networked experiment. Management Science, 60(6):1352--1370, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. J. Armitage and M. Conner. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British journal of social psychology, 40(4):471--499, 2001.Google Scholar
- R. H. Baayen, D. J. Davidson, and D. M. Bates. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of memory and language, 59(4):390--412, 2008.Google Scholar
- M. Balestra, O. Shaer, J. Okerlund, M. Ball, and O. Nov. The effect of exposure to social annotation on online informed consent beliefs and behavior. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, CSCW '16, 2016. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Barberá. Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using twitter data. Political Analysis, 23(1):76--91, 2015.Google ScholarCross Ref
- V. Barker. Older adolescents' motivations for social network site use: The influence of gender, group identity, and collective self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(2):209--213, 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. M. Bond, C. J. Fariss, J. J. Jones, A. D. Kramer, C. Marlow, J. E. Settle, and J. H. Fowler. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415):295--298, 2012.Google ScholarCross Ref
- boyd danah and H. Eszter. Facebook privacy settings: Who cares? First Monday, 15(8), 2010.Google Scholar
- D. Centola. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. science, 329(5996):1194--1197, 2010.Google Scholar
- C. Cheung, Z. W. Lee, and T. K. Chan. Self-disclosure in social networking sites: the role of perceived cost, perceived benefits and social influence. Internet Research, 25(2):279--299, 2015.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. A. Christakis and J. H. Fowler. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. New England journal of medicine, 357(4):370--379, 2007.Google Scholar
- N. A. Christakis and J. H. Fowler. Quitting in droves: collective dynamics of smoking behavior in a large social network. The New England journal of medicine, 358(21):2249, 2008.Google Scholar
- M. J. Darvell, S. P. Walsh, and K. M. White. Facebook tells me so: Applying the theory of planned behavior to understand partner-monitoring behavior on facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(12):717--722, 2011.Google Scholar
- S. Das, T. H.-J. Kim, L. A. Dabbish, and J. I. Hong. The effect of social influence on security sensitivity. In SOUPS, pages 143--157, 2014.Google Scholar
- S. Das, A. D. Kramer, L. A. Dabbish, and J. I. Hong. The role of social influence in security feature adoption. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, CSCW '15, pages 1416--1426. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Dey, Z. Jelveh, and K. Ross. Facebook users have become much more private: A large-scale study. In Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops), 2012 IEEE International Conference on, pages 346--352. IEEE, 2012.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Dienlin and S. Trepte. Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? an in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2014.Google Scholar
- P. Dourish and K. Anderson. Collective information practice: emploring privacy and security as social and cultural phenomena. Human-computer interaction, 21(3):319--342, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Fox and J. J. Moreland. The dark side of social networking sites: An exploration of the relational and psychological stressors associated with facebook use and affordances. Computers in Human Behavior, 45:168--176, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. J. Francis, M. P. Eccles, M. Johnston, A. Walker, J. Grimshaw, R. Foy, E. F. Kaner, L. Smith, and D. Bonetti. Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour. A manual for health services researchers, 2010:2--12, 2004.Google Scholar
- J. F. George. The theory of planned behavior and internet purchasing. Internet research, 14(3):198--212, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Gilbert and K. Karahalios. Predicting tie strength with social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 211--220. ACM, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Granovetter. The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. American Journal of Sociology, 78:1360--1380, 1981.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Gross and A. Acquisti. Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society, pages 71--80. ACM, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Gunaratne and O. Nov. Influencing retirement saving behavior with expert advice and social comparison as persuasive techniques. In International Conference on Persuasive Technology, pages 205--216. Springer, 2015.Google ScholarCross Ref
- U. Hugl. Reviewing person's value of privacy of online social networking. Internet Research, 21(4):384--407, 2011.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Kang, S. Brown, L. Dabbish, and S. Kiesler. Privacy attitudes of mechanical turk workers and the us public. In Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), 2014.Google Scholar
- S. Kokolakis. Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security, 2015. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Kühberger. The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 75(1):23--55, 1998.Google Scholar
- L. Lessig. Code and other laws of cyberspace. Basic books, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Lewis. The co-evolution of social network ties and online privacy behavior. In Privacy online, pages 91--109. Springer, 2011.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Lewis, J. Kaufman, and N. Christakis. The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1):79--100, 2008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Madden. Privacy management on social media sites. Pew Internet Report, pages 1--20, 2012.Google Scholar
- M. Madden and L. Rainie. Americans' attitudes about privacy, security and surveillance. Technical report, Pew Research Center, 2015.Google Scholar
- M. Madejski, M. Johnson, and S. M. Bellovin. A study of privacy settings errors in an online social network. In Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops), 2012 IEEE International Conference on, pages 340--345. IEEE, 2012.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Nakagawa and H. Schielzeth. A general and simple method for obtaining r2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2):133--142, 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Oestreicher-Singer and A. Sundararajan. Recommendation networks and the long tail of electronic commerce. Available at SSRN 1324064, 2010.Google Scholar
- S. Patil, X. Page, and A. Kobsa. With a little help from my friends: Can social navigation inform interpersonal privacy preferences? In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW '11, pages 391--394, NY, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. L. Pfleeger and D. D. Caputo. Leveraging behavioral science to mitigate cyber security risk. Computers & security, 31(4):597--611, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. M. Romero, B. Meeder, and J. Kleinberg. Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web, pages 695--704. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. W. Schultz, J. M. Nolan, R. B. Cialdini, N. J. Goldstein, and V. Griskevicius. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological science, 18(5):429--434, 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Sheeran. Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European review of social psychology, 12(1):1--36, 2002.Google Scholar
- F. Stutzman. An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities. Journal of the International Digital Media and Arts Association, 3(1):10--18, 2006.Google Scholar
- F. Stutzman, R. Capra, and J. Thompson. Factors mediating disclosure in social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1):590--598, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Stutzman, R. Gross, and A. Acquisti. Silent listeners: The evolution of privacy and disclosure on facebook. Journal of privacy and confidentiality, 4(2):2, 2013.Google Scholar
- N. Wang, J. Grossklags, and H. Xu. An online experiment of privacy authorization dialogues for social applications. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, CSCW '13, pages 261--272. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Wang, P. G. Leon, K. Scott, X. Chen, A. Acquisti, and L. F. Cranor. Privacy nudges for social media: an exploratory facebook study. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web companion, pages 763--770. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Wang, G. Norcie, S. Komanduri, A. Acquisti, P. G. Leon, and L. F. Cranor. I regretted the minute i pressed share: A qualitative study of regrets on facebook. In Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, page 10. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Wang, G. Norice, and L. F. Cranor. Who is concerned about what? a study of american, chinese and indian users' privacy concerns on social network sites. In Trust and trustworthy computing, pages 146--153. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Zhang, J. Sun, X. Zhu, and Y. Fang. Privacy and security for online social networks: challenges and opportunities. Network, IEEE, 24(4):13--18, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
-
Susceptibility to Social Influence of Privacy Behaviors: Peer versus Authoritative Sources
-
Recommendations
-
The Influence of Enjoyment Factor Toward the Acceptance of Social Commerce
Social commerce is a new extension of electronic commerce that involves using social media in the online shopping process. Although the adoption of social technologies was studied in several researches, it is still needed to investigate the specific ...
-
Online social networks: Why do students use facebook?
The growth and popularity of online social networks has created a new world of collaboration and communication. More than a billion individuals around the world are connected and networked together to create, collaborate, and contribute their knowledge ...
-
A theoretical model of intentional social action in online social networks
Online social networks (Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and the like) have become truly significant new phenomena in human communication and interaction patterns and may have a profound impact in the way people communicate and connect with each other. In ...
Comments