skip to main content
10.1145/1753326.1753559acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Friends only: examining a privacy-enhancing behavior in facebook

Authors Info & Claims
Published:10 April 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Privacy practices in social network sites often appear paradoxical, as content-sharing behavior stands in conflict with the need to reduce disclosure-related harms. In this study we explore privacy in social network sites as a contextual information practice, managed by a process of boundary regulation. Drawing on a sample survey of undergraduate Facebook users, we examine a particular privacy-enhancing practice: having a friends-only Facebook profile. Particularly, we look at the association between network composition, expectancy violations, interpersonal privacy practices and having a friends-only profile. We find that expectancy violations by weak ties and increased levels of interpersonal privacy management are positively associated with having a friends-only profile. We conclude with a discussion of how these findings may be integrated into the design of systems to facilitate interaction while enhancing individual privacy.

References

  1. AAPOR. Standard Dentitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys (5th Ed.). Lenexa, KS: AAPOR, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman, M.S. Augmenting organizational memory: a field study of answer garden. ACM TOIS 16, 3 (1998) 203--224. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Acquisti, A. and Gross, R. Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. Proc. PET 2006, Springer (2006), 36--56. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Altman, I. The Environment and Social Behavior. Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA, 1975.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnes, S. A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday 11, 9 (2006).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Bose, J. Nonresponse bias analyses at the National Center for Education Statistics. Proc. Statistics Canada Symposium 2001. (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. boyd, d. Why Youth (heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In Buckingham, D. (Ed.), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007, 119--142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. boyd, d. and Ellison, N.B. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. JCMC 13, 1 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Burgoon, J.K. A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research 4, 2 (1978), 129--142.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Couper, M.P., Kapteyn, A., Schonlau, M., and Winter, J. Noncoverage and nonresponse in an Internet survey. Social Science Research 36, 1 (2007), 131--148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Derlega, V. & Chaikin, A. Privacy and self-disclosure in social relationships. J Social Issues 33, 3 (1977), 102--115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Donath, J. Signals in Social Supernets. JCMC 13, 1 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Donath, J. and boyd, d. Public displays of connection. BT Tech J 22, 4 (2004), 71--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Dourish, P. and Anderson, K. Collective Information Practice: Exploring Privacy and Security as Social and Cultural Phenomena. Human Computer Interaction 21, 3 (2006), 319--342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., and Lampe, C. The Benefits of Facebook "Friends:" Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites. JCMC 12, 4 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Fogel, J. and Nehmad, E. Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 1 (2009), 153--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Gilbert, E. and Karahalios, K. Predicting tie strength with social media. Proc. CHI 2009, ACM Press (2009), 211--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Groves, R.M. Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys. POQ 70, 5 (2006), 646--675.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Lampe, C., Ellison, N.B., and Steinfield, C. Changes in use and perception of Facebook. Proc CSCW 2008, ACM Press (2008), 721--730. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lampe, C., Ellison, N., and Steinfeld, C. A Face(book) in the Crowd: Social Searching vs. Social Browsing. Proc. CSCW 2006, ACM Press (2006), 167--170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Lampinen, A., Tamminen, S., and Oulasvirta, A. All My People Right Here, Right Now: management of group co-presence on a social networking site. Proc. GROUP 2009, ACM Press (2009), 281--290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Lenhart, A. Adults and Social Network Websites. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved January 14, 2009 from http://www.pewinternet.org /PPF/r/272/report_display.asp, (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., and Christakis, N. The Taste for Privacy: An Analysis of College Student Privacy Settings in an Online Social Network. JCMC 14, 1 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Margulis, S.T. On the Status and Contribution of Westin's and Altman's Theories of Privacy. J Social Issues 59, 2 (2003), 411--429.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. McCroskey, J.C. and Young, T.J. The use and abuse of factor analysis in communication research. Human Communication Research 5, 4 (1979), 375---382.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Palen, L. and Dourish, P. Unpacking "privacy" for a networked world. Proc. CHI 2003, ACM Press (2003), 129--136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Petronio, S. Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. SUNY, Albany, NY, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ren, Y., Kraut, R., and Kiesler, S. Applying Common Identity and Bond Theory to Design of Online Communities. Organizational Studies 28, 3 (2007), 377--408.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Sassenberg, K. Common bond and common identity groups on the Internet: Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6, 1 (2002), 27--37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Skeels, M.M. and Grudin, J. (2009). When social networks cross boundaries: a case study of workplace use of Facebook and Linkedin. Proc GROUP 2009, ACM Press (2009), 95--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Solove, D.J. The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet. Yale: New Haven, CT, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Tufekci, Z. Can You See Me Now? Audience and Disclosure Regulation in Online Social Network Sites. Bulletin STS 28, 1 (2008), 20--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Wellman, B. and Wortley, S. Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support. American Journal of Sociology 96, 3 (1990), 558--588Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Valenzuela, S., Park, N., and Kee, K.F. Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site? JCMC 14, 4, (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Friends only: examining a privacy-enhancing behavior in facebook

      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 '10: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        April 2010
        2690 pages
        ISBN:9781605589299
        DOI:10.1145/1753326

        Copyright © 2010 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: 10 April 2010

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader