Do People Know About Privacy and Data Protection Strategies? Towards the “Online Privacy Literacy Scale” (OPLIS)

  • Sabine Trepte
  • Doris Teutsch
  • Philipp K. Masur
  • Carolin Eicher
  • Mona Fischer
  • Alisa Hennhöfer
  • Fabienne Lind
Chapter
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 20)

Abstract

Empirical research has revealed disparities of internet users’ online privacy attitudes and online privacy behaviors. Although users express concerns about disclosing personal data in the internet, they share personal and sometimes intimate details of their and others lives in various online environments. This may possibly be explained by the knowledge gap hypothesis which states that people are concerned about their privacy and would like to behave accordingly, but that lacking privacy literacy prevents them from reacting the ways that they think would most adequately reflect their attitudes and needs. To implement privacy literacy in future research and policy making, a comprehensive scale to measure privacy literacy will be suggested. The online privacy literacy scale (OPLIS) was developed based on an exhaustive review of prior literature on privacy literacy and a profound content analysis of different sources capturing a variety of aspects relevant to online privacy. The scale encompasses five dimensions of online privacy literacy: (1) Knowledge about practices of organizations, institutions and online service providers; (2) Knowledge about technical aspects of online privacy and data protection; (3) Knowledge about laws and legal aspects of online data protection in Germany; (4) Knowledge about European directives on privacy and data protection; and (5) Knowledge about user strategies for individual privacy regulation.

References

  1. acatech. Internet Privacy. Options for Adequate Realisation (Acatech Study). Heidelberg et al.: Springer Verlag, 2013.Google Scholar
  2. acatech. Privatheit Im Internet. Chancen wahrnehmen, risiken einschätzen, Vertrauen gestalten (Acatech Position). Heidelberg u.a.: Springer Verlag, 2013.Google Scholar
  3. Ackerman, Phillip L. “Knowledge and Cognitive Aging.” Chap. 9 In The Handbook of Aging and Cognition, edited by F. I. M. Craik and T. A. Salthouse, 445–89. New York: Psychology Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  4. Acquisti, Alessandro, and Ralph Gross. “Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy on the Facebook.” Paper presented at the 6th Workshop on privacy enhancing technologies, June 28 – June 30 2006, Cambridge, June 2006.Google Scholar
  5. Altman, Irwin. The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1975.Google Scholar
  6. Barnes, Susan B. “A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the Unites States.” First Monday 11, no. 9 (2006). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1394/1312.
  7. boyd, danah. “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications.” In A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, edited by Zizi Papacharissi, 39–58. New York: Routledge, 2011.Google Scholar
  8. Cho, Hichang, Jae-Shin Lee, and Siyoung Chung. “Optimistic Bias About Online Privacy Risks: Testing the Moderating Effects of Perceived Controllability and Prior Experience.” Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010): 987–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, Lee A., and David Watson. “Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale Development.” Psychological Assessment 7, no. 3 (1995): 309–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Culnan, Mary J. “Consumer Awareness of Name Removal Procedures: Implications for Direct Marketing.” Journal of Direct Marketing 9, no. 2 (1995): 10–19.Google Scholar
  11. Debatin, Bernhard, Jennette P. Lovejoy, Ann-Kathrin Horn, and Brittany N. Hughes. “Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (2009): 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellison, Nicole B., and danah boyd. “Sociality through Social Network Sites.” In The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies., edited by W. H. Dutton. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  13. Ellison, Nicole B., Jessica Vitak, Charles Steinfield, Rebecca Gray, and Cliff Lampe. “Negotiating Privacy Concerns and Social Capital Needs in a Social Media Environment.” Chap. 3 In Privacy Online. Perspectives on Privacy and Self-Disclosure in the Social Web, edited by Sabine Trepte and Leonard Reinecke, 19–32. Berlin: Springer, 2011.Google Scholar
  14. Eurobarometer. “E-Communications Household Survey.” edited by Directorate General Communication. Brussels: European Commission, 2010.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. “Special Eurobarometer 359: Attitudes on Data Protection and Electronic Identity in the European Union.” edited by Survey coordinated by Directorate-General Communication. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, 2011.Google Scholar
  16. Gläser, Jochen, and Grit Laudel. Experteninterviews und Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen [in German]. 4th ed. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2010.Google Scholar
  17. Hargittai, Eszter “Survey Measures of Web-Oriented Digital Literacy.” Social Science Computer Review 23, no. 3 (2005): 371–79.Google Scholar
  18. Hoofnagle, Chris J., Jennifer King, Su Li, and Joseph Turow. “How Different Are Young Adults from Older Adults When It Comes to Information Privacy Attitudes and Policy.” 2010.Google Scholar
  19. Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach. “Awa 2013 – Allensbacher Marktanalyse Und Werbeträgeranalyse.” (2013). http://www.ifd-allensbach.de/fileadmin/AWA/AWA2013/Codebuchausschnitte/AWA_2013_BandMedien_Basistabelle.pdf.
  20. Jensen, Carlos, Colin Potts, and Christian Jensen. “Privacy Practices of Internet Users: Self-Reports Versus Observed Behavior.” Human-Computer Studies 63 (2005): 203–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lenhart, Amanda, and Mary Madden. “Teens, Privacy & Online Social Networks. How Teens Manage Their Online Identities and Personal Information in the Age of Myspace.” Pew Research Center, 2007.Google Scholar
  22. Madejski, Michelle, Maritza Johnson, and Steven M. Bellovin. “A Study of Privacy Settings Errors in an Online Social Network.” Paper presented at the Tenth Annual IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications, Lugano, Switzerland, 2012.Google Scholar
  23. Marwick, Alice E., and danah boyd. “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience.” New Media & Society 13 (2011): 114–33.Google Scholar
  24. Milne, George R., and Andrew J. Rohm. “Consumer Privacy and Name Removal across Direct Marketing Channels: Exploring Opt-in and Opt-out Alternatives.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 19, no. 2 (2000): 238–49.Google Scholar
  25. Morrison, Bobbi. “Do We Know What We Think We Know? An Exploration of Online Social Network Users’ Privacy Literacy.” Workplace Review, no. April 2013 (2013): 58–79.Google Scholar
  26. Nowak, Glen J., and Joseph Phelps. “Direct Marketing and the Use of Individual-Level Consumer Information: Determining How and When Privacy Matters.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 11, no. 4 (1997): 94–108.Google Scholar
  27. Park, Yong J. “Digital Literacy and Privacy Behavior Online.” Communication Research 40, no. 2 (2013): 215–36.Google Scholar
  28. Park, Yong J., Scott W. Campbell, and Nojin Kwak. “Affect, Cognition and Reward: Predictors of Privacy Protection Online.” Computers in Human Behavior 28, no. 3 (May 2012): 1019–27.Google Scholar
  29. Peter, Jochen, and Patti M. Valkenburg. “Adolescents’ Online Privacy: Toward a Developmental Perspective.” Chap. 16 In Privacy Online. Perspectives on Privacy and Self-Disclosure in the Social Web, edited by Sabine Trepte and Leonard Reinecke, 221–34. Berlin: Springer, 2011.Google Scholar
  30. Schmidt, Jan. Das Neue Netz. Merkmale, Praktiken und Folgen des Web 2.0. Konstanz: UVK, 2009.Google Scholar
  31. Simon, Herbert A. “Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning.” Organization Science 2, no. 1 (1991): 125–34.Google Scholar
  32. SurPRISE. “Surveillance, Privacy and Security: A Large Scale Participatory Assessment of Criteria and Factors Determining Acceptability and Acceptance of Security Technologies in Europe – D 3.1 – Report on Surveillance Technology and Privacy Enhancing Design.” 2013.Google Scholar
  33. Taddei, Stefano, and Bastianina Contena. “Privacy, Trust and Control: Which Relationships with Online Self-Disclosure?” Computers in Human Behavior 29, no. 3 (2013): 821–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trepte, Sabine “The Paradoxes of Online Privacy.” Youth 2.0. Connecting, Sharing, and Empowering? Affordances, Uses and Risks of Social Media, edited by Michel Walrave, Koen Ponnet, Ellen Vanderhoven, Jacques Haers en Barbara Segaert.Google Scholar
  35. Trepte, Sabine, Tobias Dienlin, and Leonard Reinecke. “Privacy, Self-Disclosure, Social Support, and Social Network Site Use. Research Report of a Three-Year Panel Study.” Stuttgart: Universität Hohenheim, 2013. http://opus.uni-hohenheim.de/volltexte/2013/889/pdf/Trepte_Dienlin_Reinecke_2013_Privacy_Self_Disclosure_Social_Support_and_SNS_Use.pdf.
  36. Trepte, Sabine, Tobias Dienlin, and Leonard Reinecke. “Risky Behaviors: How Online Experiences Influence Privacy Behaviors.” In Von Der Gutenberg-Galaxis Zur Google-Galaxis. From the Gutenberg Galaxy to the Google Galaxy. Surveying Old and New Frontiers after 50 Years of DGPuK, edited by B. Stark, O. Quiring and N. Jackob. Wiesbaden: UVK, 2014.Google Scholar
  37. Trepte, Sabine, and Leonard Reinecke. “The Social Web as Shelter for Privacy and Authentic Living.” Chap. 6 In Privacy Online. Perspectives on Privacy and Self-Disclosure in the Social Web, edited by Sabine Trepte and Leonard Reinecke, 61–74. Berlin: Springer, 2011.Google Scholar
  38. Trepte, Sabine, Philipp K. Masur, and Doris Teutsch. “Measuring Internet Users’ Online Privacy Literacy. Development and Validation of the Online Privacy Literacy Scale (OPLIS).” in prep.Google Scholar
  39. Tufekci, Zeynep. “Can You See Me Now? Audience and Disclosure Regulation in Online Social Network Sites.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 28, no. 1 (2008): 20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turow, Joseph. “Americans and Online Privacy. The System Is Broken. A Report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.” Philadelphia, 2003.Google Scholar
  41. Turow, Joseph, Lauren Feldman, and Kimberly Meltzer. “Open to Exploitation: America’s Shoppers Online and Offline. Report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.” In Annenberg School for Communication Departmental Papers (ASC). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2005.Google Scholar
  42. Turow, Joseph, Michael Hennessey, and Amy Bleakley. “Consumers’ Understanding of Privacy Rules in the Marketplace.” Journal of consumer affairs 42, no. 3 (2008): 411–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Westin, Alan F. Privacy and Freedom. New York, NY: Atheneum, 1967.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabine Trepte
    • 1
  • Doris Teutsch
    • 1
  • Philipp K. Masur
    • 1
  • Carolin Eicher
    • 1
  • Mona Fischer
    • 1
  • Alisa Hennhöfer
    • 1
  • Fabienne Lind
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Media PsychologyInstitute of Communication Science, University of HohenheimStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations