Advertisement

The Co-evolution of Social Network Ties and Online Privacy Behavior

  • Kevin LewisEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

What is the nature of personal privacy in an increasingly digital world? To what extent should we foster greater information exchange among the public at large, versus protect the ability to limit disclosure to the people of one’s choosing? And to what extent do people say they care about either? Previous research on online privacy has predominantly been concerned with questions such as these. Noticeably absent, however, has been research examining actual online privacy behavior and its causes. In other words, regardless of whether people say they care about online privacy – and regardless of whether they should care about online privacy – given the option to disclose more information or less, what factors are predictive of the actual privacy decision that people make?

Keywords

Transition Period Privacy Setting Social Selection Public Profile Triadic Closure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Davis JA (1963) Structural balance, mechanical solidarity, and interpersonal relations. Am J Sociol 68:444–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. de Klepper M, Sleebos E, van de Bunt G, Agneessens F (2010) Similarity in friendship networks: selection or influence? The effect of constraining contexts and non-visible individual attributes. Social Netw 32:82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Debatin B, Lovejoy JP, Horn A-K, Hughes BN (2009) Facebook and online privacy: attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. J Comput Mediat Commun 15:83–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Feld SL (1981) The focused organization of social ties. Am J Sociol 86:1015–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Freeman LC (1978) Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Social Netw 1:215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gladwell M (2002) The tipping point: how little things can make a big difference. Little, Brown and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Goodreau SM, Kitts JA, Morris M (2009) Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? Using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks. Demography 46:103–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Huisman M, Steglich C (2008) Treatment of non-response in longitudinal network studies. Social Netw 30:297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kandel DB (1978) Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. Am J Sociol 84:427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaufman J, Patterson O (2005) Cross-national cultural diffusion: the global spread of cricket. Am Sociol Rev 70:82–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kossinets G, Watts DJ (2009) Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. Am J Sociol 115:405–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis K, Kaufman J, Christakis N (2008a) The taste for privacy: an analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. J Comput Mediat Commun 14:79–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewis K, Kaufman J, Gonzalez M, Wimmer A, Christakis N (2008b) Tastes, ties, and time: a new social network dataset using Facebook.com. Social Netw 30:330–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Livingstone S (2008) Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media Soc 10:393–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marmaros D, Sacerdote B (2006) How do friendships form? Q J Econ 121:79–119zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Marsden PV (1987) Core discussion networks of Americans. Am Sociol Rev 52:122–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marsden PV (1988) Homogeneity in confiding relations. Social Netw 10:57–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mayer A, Puller SL (2008) The old boy (and girl) network: social network formation on university campuses. J Public Econ 92:329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27:415–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mercken L, Snijders TAB, Steglich C, Vartiainen E, de Vries H (2010) Dynamics of adolescent friendship networks and smoking behavior. Social Netw 32:72–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Newcomb TM (1961) The acquaintance process. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Newman MEJ (2002) Assortative mixing in networks. Phys Rev Lett 89:208701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pattison P, Robins G (2002) Neighborhood-based models for social networks. Sociol Methodol 32:301–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rivera MT, Soderstrom SB, Uzzi B (2010) Dynamics of dyads in social networks: assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annu Rev Sociol 36:91–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith KP, Christakis NA (2008) Social networks and health. Annu Rev Sociol 34:405–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Snijders TAB, Steglich C, Schweinberger M, Huisman M (2008) Manual for SIENA version 3.2. University of Groningen, ICS, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  28. Snijders TAB, van de Bunt G, Steglich C (2010) Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Netw 32:44–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Steglich C, Snijders TAB, Pearson M (2010) Dynamic networks and behavior: separating selection from influence. Sociol Methodol 40:329–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Steglich C, Snijders TAB, West P (2006) Applying SIENA: an illustrative analysis of the coevolution of adolescents’ friendship networks, taste in music, and alcohol consumption. Methodology 2:48–56Google Scholar
  31. Tufekci Z (2008) Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. B Sci Technol Soc 28:20–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van de Bunt GG, Groenewegen P (2007) An actor-oriented dynamic network approach: the case of interorganizational network evolution. Organ Res meth 10:463–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Duijn MAJ, Zeggelink EPH, Huisman M, Stokman FN, Wasseur FW (2003) Evolution of sociology freshmen into a friendship network. J Math Sociol 27:153–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wimmer A, Lewis K (2010) Beyond and below racial homophily: ERG models of a friendship network documented on Facebook. Am J Sociol 116:583–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Youn S, Hall K (2008) Gender and online privacy among teens: risk perception, privacy concerns, and protection behaviors. CyberPsychol Behav 11:763CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations