Advertisement

Reminding Users of their Privacy at the Point of Interaction: The Effect of Privacy Salience on Disclosure Behaviour

  • Thomas Hughes-RobertsEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9190)

Abstract

Privacy is a well-documented issued for users of social networks were observable behaviour does not appear to match stated levels of concern. Given that the User Interface (UI) is the environment with which users react to, it would appear to be ideally placed to address the potential causes of poor privacy. This paper looks at the use of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and its Behavioral Attitude aspect to examine how users could be reminded or informed of the behavioral consequences of information disclosure. A series of “Privacy Lights” are presented that aim to highlight the potential sensitivity of data items. An experiment explores the effect of these lights on participants who are asked to register to a new social network by answering a series of questions of varying sensitivity. Exposure to the lights in the treatment group resulted in significantly less disclosure than the control suggesting that simple UI additions can be utilized to address the privacy problem.

Keywords

Privacy Social networks Human computer interaction (HCI) Theory of planned behaviour 

References

  1. 1.
    Barnes, S.B.: A privacy paradox: social networking in the united states. First Monday, 11(9) (2006) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Breakwell, G.M.: Research Methods in Psychology. Sage Publications Ltd., Oxford (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ajzen, I.: The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosenblum, D.: What anyone can know: the privacy risks of social networking. IEEE Secur. Priv. 5(3), 40–49 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fogg, B.J., Iizawa, D.: Online persuasion in facebook and mixi: a cross-cultural comparison. In: Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Hasle, P., Harjumaa, M., Segerståhl, K., Øhrstrøm, P. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5033, pp. 35–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Livingstone, S.: Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media Soc. 10(3), 393–411 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Houghton, D.J., Joinson, A.: Privacy, social network sites, and social relations. J. Technol. Hum. Serv. 28(1–2), 74–94 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kolter, J., Pernul, G.: Generating user-understandable privacy preferences. In: International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, pp. 299–306 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller, R.E., Salmona, M., Melton, J.: Students and social networking site: a model of inappropriate posting. In: Proceedings of the Southern Association for Information Systems Conference, Atlanta (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Strater, K., Richter, H.: Examing privacy and disclosure in a social networking community. In: Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, pp. 157–158 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Acquisti, A., Gross, R.: Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In: Danezis, G., Golle, P. (eds.) PET 2006. LNCS, vol. 4258, pp. 36–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bonneau, J., Anderson, J., Church, L.: Privacy suites: shared privacy for social networks. In: 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fogg, B.J.: The behaviour grid: 35 ways behaviour can change. In: PERSUASIVE 2009, Clairemont, California (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Masiello, B.: Deconstructing the privacy experience. IEEE Secur. Priv. 7(4), 68–70 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baek, Y.M.: Solving the privacy paradox: a counter-argument experimental approach. Comput. Hum. Behav. 38, 33–42 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hughes-Roberts, T.: Privacy as a secondary goal problem: an experiment examining control. In: HAISA 2014, Plymouth, pp. 69–79 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lew, L., et al.: Of course I wouldnʼt do that in real life: advancing the arguments for increasing realism in HCI experiments. In: Computer Human Interaction (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brandimarte, M., Acquisti, A., Loewenstien, G.: Misplaced confidences: privacy and the control paradox. In: Workshop on the Economics of Information Security, Harvard (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Debatin, B., et al.: Facebook and online privacy: attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. 15(1), 83–108 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang, Y., et al.: Privacy nudges for social media: an exploratory Facebook study. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web companion, International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do, Grudin, J., Nielsen, J., Card, S.K (eds.). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nottingham Trent University, Computing and TechnologyNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations