Expecting Collective Privacy: A New Perspective on Trust in Online Communication

Chapter
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)

Abstract

Digitization has opened unprecedented opportunities for online communication. In contrast to face-to-face communication, online communication often involves large audiences that consist of other social media users (network audience) but also of governmental and private institutions (institutional audiences). Consequently, how users manage their privacy is a key component of digital literacy. Interestingly, users’ privacy-management behaviors may largely be influenced by trust. Here, we argue that traditional conceptualizations of dyadic trust cannot adequately explain this aspect of online communication and therefore need to be extended. Thus, we suggest that when communicating online, users act in a default trust mode based on their trust in collective privacy: users experience a common online phenomenon, such as information overload, and might project this experience onto other users. As such, they might assume that other users also have limited capacities to process all incoming content. As a consequence, users may expect collective privacy; namely, that their disclosed information is not actively processed by large audiences because it is surrounded by so much other “noise”. Moreover, this expectation may take the shape of a stable subjective theory, thereby shaping all privacy-related perceptions and behaviors. We discuss theoretical and empirical evidence for these arguments, as well as their implications for digital privacy regulation.

Keywords

Collective privacy Default trust Online communication Audience expectations Self-disclosure 

References

  1. Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (pp. 36–58). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/11957454_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  3. Ames, D. R. (2004). Inside the mind reader’s tool kit: Projection and stereotyping in mental state inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 340–353. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, C. A., & Lindsay, J. J. (1998). The development, perseverance, and change of naive theories. Social Cognition, 16, 8–30. doi: 10.1521/soco.1998.16.1.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnes, S. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the Unites States. First Monday, 11(9). Accessed September 30, 2015, from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1394/1312
  6. Beaudoin, C. E. (2008). Explaining the relationship between internet use and interpersonal trust: Taking into account motivation and information overload. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 550–468. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00410.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beckedahl, M., & Meister, A. (2013). Überwachtes Netz: Edward Snowden und der größte Überwachungsskandal der Geschichte [Surveillance of the Internet: Edward Snowden and the largest surveillance Scandal in History]. Berlin: epubli GmbH.Google Scholar
  8. Beldad, A., de Jong, M., & Steehouder, M. (2010). How shall I trust the faceless and the intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 857–869. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernstein, M. S., Bakshy, E., Burke, M., Karrer, B., & Park, M. (2013). Quantifying the invisible audience in social networks. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 21–30). doi: 10.1145/2470654.2470658.
  10. Binder, J., Howes, A., & Sutcliffe, A. (2009). The problem of conflicting social spheres: Effects of network structure on experienced tension in social network sites. In: Proceeding of Chi 2009 (pp. 965–974). doi: 10.1145/1518701.1518849.
  11. Bontcheva, K., Gorrell, G., & Wessels, B. (2013). Social Media and information overload: Survey results. CoRR. http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0813
  12. Boyd, D. (2008). Taken out of context: American teen sociality in networked publics. Doctoral Dissertation, School of Information, University of California-Berkeley. http://www.danah.org/papers/TakenOutOfContext.pdf
  13. Brandtzæg, P. B., Lüders, M., & Skjetne, J. H. (2010). Too many Facebook “friends”? Content sharing and sociability versus the need for privacy in Social Network Sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26, 1006–1030. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2010.516719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bromme, R. (2003). On the limitations of the theory metaphor for the study of teachers’ expert knowledge. In M. Kompf & P. Denicolo (Eds.), Teacher thinking twenty years on: Revisiting persisting problems and advances in education (pp. 283–294). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  15. Bromme, R., Rambow, R., & Nückles, M. (2001). Expertise and estimating what other people know: The influence of professional experience and type of knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(4), 317–330.Google Scholar
  16. Burgoon, J. K., Parrott, R., Le Poire, B. A., Kelley, D. L., Walther, J. B., & Perry, D. (1989). Maintaining and restoring privacy through communication in different types of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 131–158. doi:0803973233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Castelfranchi, C., & Falcone, R. (2001). Social trust: A cognitive approach. In C. Castelfranchi & Y. H. Tan (Eds.), Trust and deception in virtual societies (pp. 55–90). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-3614-5_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Counts, S., & Fisher, K. (2011). Taking it all in? Visual attention in microblog consumption. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 97–104). Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  19. Davis, J. L. (2012). Accomplishing authenticity in a labor-exposing space. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1966–1973. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories elaboration and extension of the model. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 322–333. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0604_12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), August 9–12. Keystone, Colorado. http://csis.pace.edu/~dwyer/research/DwyerAMCIS2007.pdf
  22. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & 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), 1143–1168. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The Information Society, 20, 325–344. doi: 10.1080/01972240490507974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fogel, J., & Nehmad, E. (2009). Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 153–160. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Franck, G. (1998). Ökonomie der Aufmerksamkeit—Ein Entwurf [Economy of attention—A blueprint]. München: Hanser.Google Scholar
  26. Frye, N. E., & Dornisch, M. M. (2010). When is trust not enough? The role of perceived privacy of communication tools in comfort with self-disclosure. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1120–1127. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Furnham, A., & Elmsford. (1988). Lay theories: Everyday understanding of problems in the social sciences. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gelman, S. A., & Noles, N. S. (2011). Domains and naïve theories. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(5), 490–502. doi: 10.1002/wcs.124.Google Scholar
  29. Giddens, A. (1996). Konsequenzen der Moderne [Consequences of modernity]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  30. Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1992). Why the child’s theory of mind really is a theory. Mind and Language, 7(1–2), 145–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1992.tb00202.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grainger, C., Williams, D. M., & Lind, S. E. (2014). Metacognition, metamemory, and mindreading in high-functioning adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123(3), 650–659. doi: 10.1037/a0036531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenwald, G. (2014). No place to hide. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  33. Hargittai, E., Neumann, W. R., & Curry, O. (2012). Taming the information tide: Perceptions of information overload in the American home. The Information Society, 28, 161–173. doi: 10.1080/01972243.2012.669450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoadley, C. M., Xu, H., Lee, J. J., & Rosson, M. B. (2010). Privacy as information access and illusory control: The case of the Facebook News Feed privacy outcry. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9, 50–60. doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2009.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Joinson, A. N., Reips, U. D., Buchanan, T., & Paine Schofield, C. B. (2010). Privacy, trust, and self-disclosure online. Human–Computer Interaction, 25(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1080/07370020903586662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones, Q., Ravid, G., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information Systems Research, 15(2), 194–210. doi: 10.1287/isre.1040.0023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Nelson, T. O. (1998). Social metacognition: An expansionist review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(2), 137–154. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0202_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Junco, R. (2013). Comparing actual and self-reported measures of Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 626–631. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keysar, B., Lin, S., & Barr, D. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89, 25–41. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00064-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klapp, O. E. (1986). Overload and boredom: Essays on the quality of life in the information society. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  41. Krasnova, H., Spiekermann, S., Koroleva, K., & Hildebrand, T. (2010). Online social networks: Why we disclose. Journal of Information Technology, 25, 109–125. doi: 10.1057/jit.2010.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. LaRose, R., Connolly, R., Lee, H., Li, K., & Hales, K. D. (2014). Connection overload? A cross cultural study of the consequences of social media connection. Information Systems Management, 31(1), 59–73. doi: 10.1080/10580530.2014.854097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Luhmann, N. (1968). Vertrauen. Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität [Trust. A mechanism to reduce social complexity]. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag.Google Scholar
  44. Lundblad, N. (2004). Privacy in the noise society. Scandinavian Studies in Law, 47, 349–371. http://www.scandinavianlaw.se/pdf/47-16.pdf
  45. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. doi: 10.2307/258792.Google Scholar
  46. Michaelian, K. (2012). (Social) metacognition and (self-)trust. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(4), 481–514. doi: 10.1007/s13164-012-0099-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co. doi: 10.1037/10039-000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding ‘meaning’ in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61, 192–203. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moll, R. (2015). (Meta-) cognitive parameters of privacy regulation on social networking sites. Dissertation Thesis, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany.Google Scholar
  50. Moll, R., Pieschl, S., & Bromme, R. (2014a). Competent or clueless? Users’ knowledge and misconceptions about their online privacy management. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 212–219. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moll, R., Pieschl, S., & Bromme, R. (2014b). Trust into collective privacy? The role of subjective theories for self-disclosure in online social networks. Societies, 4, 770–784. doi: 10.3390/soc4040770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moll, R., Pieschl, S., & Bromme, R. (2015a). Blessed oblivion? Knowledge and metacognitive accuracy in online social networks. International Journal of Developmental Science, 9(2), 57–60. doi: 10.3233/DEV-14155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moll, R., Pieschl, S., & Bromme, R. (2015b). Achieving collective privacy—The impact of noise cues onto online users’ audience expectations. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  54. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737–759. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nickerson, R. S., Baddeley, A., & Freeman, B. (1987). Are people’s estimates of what other people know influenced by what they themselves know? Acta Psychologica, 64, 245–259. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(87)90010-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., & Horne, D. A. (2007). The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100–126. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01494.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  58. Pieschl, S., Kuhlmann, C., & Porsch, T. (2015). Beware of publicity! Perceived distress of negative cyber incidents and implications for defining cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 14(1), 111–132. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2014.971363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pieschl, S., & Moll, R. (2015). For they know not what they do? Target memory and metacognitive monitoring of self-disclosures on online social networks. Unpublished manuscript, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany.Google Scholar
  60. Pieschl, S., & Porsch, T. (2014). Cybermobbing—mehr als “Ärgern im Internet” [Cyberbullying—More than “teasing on the Internet”]. In T. Porsch & S. Pieschl (Eds.), Neue Medien und deren Schatten. Mediennutzung, Medienwirkung und Medienkompetenz [New media and their shadows. Media use, media effects, and media literacy] (pp. 133–158). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  61. Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  62. Quandt, T. (2012). What’s left of trust in a network society? An evolutionary model and critical discussion of trust and societal communication. European Journal of Communication, 27(1), 7–21. doi: 10.1177/0267323111434452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Reinecke, L., Aufenanger, S., Beutel, M. E., Dreier, M., Quiring, O., Wölfling, K., et al. (2015). Digital stress over the life span: The effects of communication load and internet multitasking on perceived stress and psychological health impairments in a German probability sample. In: Proceedings of the 65th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association (ICA). San Juan, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
  64. Rodriguez, M. G., Gummadi, K., & Schoelkopf, B. (2014). Quantifying information overload in social media and its impact on social contagions. In: Proceedings of the 8th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), June 2014. Ann Arbor, MI. http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6838
  65. Schaar, P. (2009). Das Ende der Privatssphäre – Der Weg in die Überwachungsgesellschaft [The end of privacy—Living in the surveillance society]. München: Bertelsmann Verlag.Google Scholar
  66. Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisén, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 26–32. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Solove, D. J. (2007). ‘I’ve got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy. San Diego Law Review, 44, 745–772.Google Scholar
  68. Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., et al. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25, 359–393. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Taddei, S., & Contena, B. (2013). Privacy, trust and control: Which relationships with online self-disclosure? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 821–826. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  71. Trepte, S., & Dienlin, T. (2014). Privatsphäre im Internet [Privacy on the internet]. In T. Porsch & S. Pieschl (Eds.), Neue Medien und deren Schatten. Mediennutzung, Medienwirkung und Medienkompetenz [New media and their shadows. Media use, media effects, and media literacy] (pp. 53–80). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  72. Trepte, S., Teutsch, D., Masur, P. K., Eicher, C., Fischer, M., Hennhöfer, A., et al. (2015). Do people know about privacy and data protection strategies? Towards the “Online Privacy Literacy Scale” (OPLIS). In S. Gutwirth, R. Leenes, & P. de Hert (Eds.), Reforming European data protection law (pp. 333–365). Heidelberg: Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-9385-8.Google Scholar
  73. Van Alsenoy, B., Verdoodt, V., Heyman, R., Ausloos, J., & Wauters, E. (2015). From social media service to advertising network—A critical analysis of Facebook’s revised policies and terms. Accessed September 30, 2015, from http://www.law.kuleuven.be/icri/en/news/item/facebooks-revised-policies-and-terms-v1-1.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations