Journal of Information Technology

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 109–125

Online social networks: why we disclose

  • Hanna Krasnova
  • Sarah Spiekermann
  • Ksenia Koroleva
  • Thomas Hildebrand
Research Article
  • 400 Downloads

Abstract

On online social networks such as Facebook, massive self-disclosure by users has attracted the attention of industry players and policymakers worldwide. Despite the impressive scope of this phenomenon, very little is understood about what motivates users to disclose personal information. Integrating focus group results into a theoretical privacy calculus framework, we develop and empirically test a Structural Equation Model of self-disclosure with 259 subjects. We find that users are primarily motivated to disclose information because of the convenience of maintaining and developing relationships and platform enjoyment. Countervailing these benefits, privacy risks represent a critical barrier to information disclosure. However, users’ perception of risk can be mitigated by their trust in the network provider and availability of control options. Based on these findings, we offer recommendations for network providers.

Keywords

online social networks online communities motivation privacy information disclosure structural equation modeling 

References

  1. Acquisti, A. and Gross, R. (2006). Imagined Communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the facebook, in 6th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (Cambridge, UK, 2006); Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 36-58.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagozzi, R.P. and Baumgartner, H. (1994). The Evaluation of Structural Equation Models and Hypothesis Testing, in R.P. Bagozzi (ed.) Principles of Marketing Research, Cambridge: Blackwell, pp. 386–422.Google Scholar
  4. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1): 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life, in D. Buckingham (ed.) Youth, Identity, and Digital Media, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 119–142.Google Scholar
  6. Boyd, D. (2008). Facebook's Privacy Trainwreck: Exposure, invasion and social convergence, Convergence 14 (1): 13–20.Google Scholar
  7. Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M-H. and Wang, E.T.G. (2006). Understanding Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories, Decision Support Systems 42 (3): 1872–1888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chopra, K. and Wallace, W.A. (2003). Trust in Electronic Environments, in 36th Annual Hawaii Conference on System Sciences (Big Island, USA, 2003); Chicago: IEEE Computer Society Press, Track 9, Vol. 9.Google Scholar
  10. Culnan, M.J. (1995). Consumer Awareness of Name Removal Procedures: Implications for direct marketing, Journal of Direct Marketing 9 (2): 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Culnan, M.J. and Armstrong, P. (1999). Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An empirical investigation, Organization Science 10 (1): 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Das, T.K. and Teng, B. (1998). Between Trust and Control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances, Academy of Management Review 23 (3): 491–512.Google Scholar
  13. Dinev, T. and Hart, P. (2003). Privacy Concerns and Internet Use – A model of trade-off factors, in Academy of Management Meeting (Seattle, USA, 2003) [www document] http://www.ebusinessforum.gr/old/content/downloads/Privacy%20Concerns%20And%20Internet%20Use%20_A%20Model%20Of%20Trade-Off%20Factors.pdf (accessed 28th October 2009).
  14. Dinev, T. and Hart, P. (2006). An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions, Information Systems Research 17 (1): 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S.R. and Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and Privacy Concern within Social Networking Sites: A comparison of facebook and myspace, in Americas Conference on Information Systems (Keystone, USA, 2007), [www document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/339 (accessed 28th October 2009). Paper 339.
  16. Ellison, N., Heino, R. and Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing Impressions Online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11 (2), [www document] http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html (accessed 28th October 2009).
  17. Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12 (4), [www document] http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html (accessed 28th October 2009).
  18. Etezadi-Amolo, J. and Farhoomand, A.F. (1996). A Structural Model of end User Computing Satisfaction and User Performance, Information and Management 30 (2): 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Facebook.com (2009). Statistics, Press Center [www document] http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics (accessed 28th October 2009).
  20. Feng, J., Lazar, J. and Preece, J. (2004). Empathy and Online Interpersonal Trust: A fragile relationship, Behavior & IT 23 (2): 97–106.Google Scholar
  21. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research 18 (3): 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garson, G.D. (2009). Structural Equation Modeling, Statnotes: Topics in multivariate analysis, (last updated on 10th August 2009) [www document] http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/structur.htm#amosboot (accessed 28th October 2009).
  23. Gefen, D., Rao, V.S. and Tractinsky, N. (2003). The Conceptualization of Trust, Risk, and their Relationship in Electronic Commerce: The need for clarifications, in 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Big Island, USA, 2003); Chicago: IEEE Computer Society Press, 192–201.Google Scholar
  24. Gibbs, J.L., Ellison, N.B. and Heino, R.D. (2006). Self-Presentation in Online Personals, Communication Research 33 (2): 152–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grabner-Kräuter, S. and Kaluscha, E.A. (2003). Empirical Research in On-line Trust: A review and critical assessment, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58 (6): 783–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gross, R. and Acquisti, A. (2005). Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks, in ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (Alexandria, VA, USA, 2005); New York, NY, USA: ACM, 71–80.Google Scholar
  27. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, 5th edn, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Hann, I.-H., Hui, K.L., Lee, S.-Y.T. and Png, I.P.L. (2007). Overcoming Information Privacy Concerns: An information processing theory approach, Journal of Management Information Systems 24 (2): 13–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoelter, J.W. (1983). The Analysis of Covariance Structures: Goodness-of-fit indices, Sociological Methods & Research 11: 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hogben, G. (2007). Security Issues and Recommendations for Online Social Networks, ENISA Position Paper No. 1 [www document] http://www.enisa.europa.eu/doc/pdf/deliverables/enisa_pp_social_networks.pdf (accessed 28th October 2009).
  31. Homans, G.C. (1958). Social Behavior as Exchange, American Journal of Sociology 63: 597–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Homburg, C. and Baumgartner, H. (1995). Beurteilung von Kausalmodellen – Bestandsaufnahme und Anwendungsempfehlungen, Marketing Zeitschrift für Forschung und Praxis 17 (3): 162–176.Google Scholar
  33. Homburg, C. and Giering, A. (1996). Konzeptualisierung und Operationalisierung komplexer Konstrukte, Marketing – Zeitschrift für Forschung und Praxis 18 (1): 5–24.Google Scholar
  34. Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1998). Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification, Psychological Methods 3: 424–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling 6 (1): 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hui, K.-L., Tan, B.C.Y. and Goh, C.-Y. (2006). Online Information Disclosure: Motivators and measurements, ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 6 (4): 415–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. insidefacebook.com (2009). Fastest Growing Demographic on Facebook: Women over 55, [www document] http://www.insidefacebook.com/2009/02/02/fastest-growing-demographic-on-facebook-women-over-55/ (accessed 28th October 2009).
  38. Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Tractinsky, N. (1999). Consumer Trust in an Internet Store: A cross-cultural validation, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 5 (2), [www document] http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol5/issue2/jarvenpaa.html (accessed 28th October 2009).
  39. Joinson, A.N. and Paine, C.B. (2007). Self-Disclosure, Privacy and the Internet, in A.N. Joinson, K. McKenna, T. Postmes and U. Reips (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 237–252.Google Scholar
  40. Jöreskog, K.G. (1974). Analyzing Psychological Data by Structural Analysis of Covariance Matrices, in D.H. Krantz, R.C. Atkinson, R.D. Luce and P. Suppes (eds.) Contemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 2, San Francisco: Freeman, pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
  41. Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörborm, D. (1989). LISREL-7 User's Reference Guide, Mooresville: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
  42. Jöreskog, K.G. and Wold, H. (1982). The ML and PLS Techniques for Modeling with Latent Variables: Historical and comparative aspects, in H. Wold and K. Jöreskog (eds.) Systems Under Indirect Observation: Causality, structure, prediction, Vol. 1, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 263–270.Google Scholar
  43. Kim, D.J., Ferrin, D.L. and Rao, R.H. (2008). A Trust-Based Consumer Decision-Making Model in Electronic Commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents, Decision Support Systems 44 (2): 544–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krasnova, H., Hildebrand, T., Günther, O., Kovrigin, S. and Nowobilska, A. (2008). Why Participate in an Online Social Networks: An empirical analysis, in W. Golden, T. Acton, K. Conboy, H. van der Heijden and V.K. Tuunainen, (eds.) Proceedings of 16th European Conference on Information Systems (Galway, Ireland; 2008), 2124–2135.Google Scholar
  45. Krasnova, H., Kolesnikova, E. and Günther, O. (2009). It Won’t Happen To Me!: Self-Disclosure in Online Social Networks, in Americas Conference on Information Systems (San Francisco, USA, 2009), [www document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2009/343 (accessed 28th October 2009). Paper 343.
  46. Kruglanski, A.W. (1975). The Human Subject in the Psychology Experiment: Fact and artifact, in L. Berkowitz, (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 8, New York: Academic Press, pp. 101–147.Google Scholar
  47. Lampe, C., Ellison, N. and Steinfield, C. (2007). A Familiar Face(book): Profile elements as signals in an online social network, in SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, USA, 2007); New York: ACM, 435-444.Google Scholar
  48. Landis, J.R. and Koch, G.G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data, Biometrics 33 (1): 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. and Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet Users’ Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model, Information Systems Research 15 (4): 336–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust, Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 709–734.Google Scholar
  51. McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V. and Kacmar, C. (2002a). Developing and Validating Trust Measures for E-commerce: An integrative typology, Information Systems Research 13 (3): 334–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V. and Kacmar, C. (2002b). The Impact of Initial Consumer Trust on Intentions to Transact with a Web site: A trust building model, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 11: 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Metzger, M.J. (2004). Privacy, Trust, and Disclosure: Exploring barriers to electronic commerce, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 9 (4), [www document] http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol9/issue4/metzger.html (accessed 28th October 2009).
  54. Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation, Information Systems Research 2 (2): 192–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Muniz, A. and O’Guinn, T. (2001). Brand Community, Journal of Consumer Research 27: 412–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nambisan, S. and Baron, R.A. (2007). Interactions in Virtual Customer Environments: Implications for product support and customer relationship management, Journal of Interactive Marketing 21 (2): 42–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Novak, G.J. and Phelps, J. (1995). Direct Marketing and the Use of Individual-Level Consumer Information: Determining how and when ‘privacy’ matters, Journal of Direct Marketing 9 (3): 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  59. Pavlou, P.A. (2003). Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model, International Journal of Electronic Commerce 7 (3): 101–134.Google Scholar
  60. Reiss, S. (2004). Multifaceted Nature of Intrinsic Motivation: The theory of 16 basic desires, Review of General Psychology 8 (3): 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ridings, C., Gefen, D. and Arinze, B. (2002). Some Antecedents and Effects of Trust in Virtual Communities, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 11 (3-4): 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rizk, R., Marx, D., Schrepfer, M., Zimmermann, J. and Günther, O. (2009). Media Coverage of Online Social Network Privacy Issues in Germany – A thematic analysis, in Americas Conference on Information Systems (San Francisco, USA, 2009), [www document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2009/342 (accessed 28th October 2009). Paper 342.
  63. Rosen, P. and Sherman, P. (2006). Hedonic Information Systems: Acceptance of social networking websites, in Americas Conference on Information Systems (Acapulco, Mexico, 2006), [www document] http://works.bepress.com/peterrosen/2 (accessed 28th October 2009). Paper 162.
  64. Ryan, G.W. and Bernard, H.R. (2000). Data Management and Analysis Methods, in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 769–802.Google Scholar
  65. Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar Big-Five markers, Journal of Personality Assessment 63 (3): 506–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schmidt, H. (2008). Verweildauer in sozialen Netzwerken sinkt, in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 59 [www document] http://www.faz.net/s/RubE2C6E0BCC2F04DD787CDC274993E94C1/Doc~EF2AB62A5295040F3B76B3AF37BC4187E~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html (accessed 28th October 2009).
  67. Segars, A.H. and Grover, V. (1993). Re-Examining Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis, MIS Quarterly 17 (4): 517–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Skinner, E.A. (1996). A Guide to Constructs of Control, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (3): 549–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sledgianowski, D. and Kulviwat, S. (2008). Social Network Sites: Antecedents of user adoption and usage, in Americas Conference on Information Systems (Toronto, Canada, 2008), [www document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2008/83 (accessed 28th October 2009). Paper 83.
  70. Son, J.-Y. and Kim, S.S. (2008). Internet Users’ Information Privacy-Protective Responses: A taxonomy and a nomological model, MIS Quarterly 32 (3): 503–529.Google Scholar
  71. Strater, K. and Richter, H. (2007). Examining Privacy and Disclosure in a Social Networking Community, in Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (Pittsburgh, USA, 2007), New York, NY, USA: ACM, 157–158.Google Scholar
  72. Stutzman, F. (2006). An Evaluation of Identity-Sharing Behavior in Social Network Communities, International Digital and Media Arts Journal 3 (1): 10–18.Google Scholar
  73. Walczuch, R. and Lundgren, H. (2004). Psychological Antecedents of Institution-Based Consumer Trust in e-Retailing, Information and Management 42 (1): 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction, Communication Research 23 (1): 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Walther, J.B., Slovacek, C.L. and Tidwell, L.C. (2001). Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? Photographic Images in Long-term and Short-term Computer-mediated Communication, Communication Research 28 (1): 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wheeless, L.R. and Grotz, J. (1976). Conceptualization and Measurement of Reported Self-disclosure, Human Communication Research 2 (4): 338–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wieschowski, S. (2007). Studenten demonstrieren gegen das SchnüffelVZ, [www document] http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,523906,00.html (accessed 28th October 2009).
  78. Xu, X., Dinev, T., Smith, H.J. and Hart, P. (2008). Examining the Formation of Individual's Privacy Concerns: Toward an integrative view, in International Conference on Information Systems (Paris, France, 2008), [www document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2008/6 (accessed 28th October 2009). Paper 6.

Copyright information

© Association for Information Technology Trust 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanna Krasnova
    • 1
  • Sarah Spiekermann
    • 2
  • Ksenia Koroleva
    • 1
  • Thomas Hildebrand
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Information Systems, Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Management Information Systems, Vienna University of Economics and BusinessViennaAustria
  3. 3.European School of Management and TechnologyBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations