The Psychology of Privacy: Analyzing Processes of Media Use and Interpersonal Communication
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Hohenheim Doctoral Thesis The psychology of privacy: Analyzing processes of media use and interpersonal communication Tobias Dienlin Fakultät Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft Fachgebiet für Kommunikationswissenschaft insb. Medienpsychologie 2017 First advisor: Prof. Dr. Sabine Trepte Second advisor: Prof. Dr. Nicole Krämer Chair of the committee : Prof. Dr. Jens Vogelgesang Dean: Prof. Dr. Dirk Hachmeister Day of defense: 05.12.2016 The psychology of privacy: Analyzing processes of media use and interpersonal communication Tobias Dienlin Dissertation University of Hohenheim 2017 Copyright © Tobias Dienlin Contents Abstract 9 1 Introduction 13 1.1 A brave new privacy?....................... 13 1.2 Thesis: Our privacy has decreased................ 14 1.3 Antitheses: Post privacy or total privacy?............ 16 1.4 Toward a privacy synthesis.................... 18 2 The privacy process model 27 2.1 Introduction............................. 28 2.2 Theories of privacy......................... 28 2.3 The privacy process model.................... 31 2.3.1 Privacy context....................... 31 2.3.2 Privacy perception..................... 33 2.3.3 Privacy behavior...................... 34 2.3.4 The privacy regulation process and controllability... 35 2.3.5 Integration of the privacy process model........ 36 2.4 The privacy process model in the context of the media.... 38 2.5 Discussion of the privacy process model............ 42 2.5.1 Implications......................... 42 2.5.2 Limitations......................... 43 2.5.3 Conclusion......................... 44 3 Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? 50 3.1 Introduction............................. 52 3.2 Theory................................ 52 3.2.1 The privacy paradox.................... 52 3.2.2 The privacy paradox explicated............. 54 3.3 Methods............................... 60 3.3.1 Procedure and participants................ 60 3.3.2 Measures........................... 61 3.3.3 Data analysis........................ 66 3.4 Results................................ 67 3.4.1 Research questions..................... 67 3.4.2 Hypotheses......................... 68 3.5 Discussion.............................. 75 3.5.1 Implications......................... 75 3.5.2 Limitations and future perspective............ 77 3.5.3 Conclusion......................... 78 4 The extended privacy calculus model for SNSs 88 4.1 Introduction............................. 90 4.2 Theory................................ 92 4.2.1 Privacy theory....................... 92 4.2.2 The privacy calculus.................... 93 4.3 A new privacy calculus model.................. 94 4.3.1 Distinction of self-disclosure and self-withdrawal... 94 4.3.2 Privacy concerns as costs................. 95 4.3.3 Integrating privacy self-efficacy............. 96 4.4 Hypotheses............................. 96 4.4.1 Benefits........................... 96 4.4.2 Privacy concerns...................... 97 4.4.3 Self-efficacy......................... 98 4.4.4 The extended privacy calculus model.......... 99 4.5 Method................................ 100 4.5.1 Procedure and participants................ 100 4.5.2 Measures........................... 100 4.5.3 Data analysis........................ 102 4.6 Results................................ 104 4.6.1 Model fit........................... 104 4.6.2 Hypotheses......................... 105 4.7 Discussion.............................. 108 4.7.1 Implications......................... 108 4.7.2 Limitations and future perspective............ 110 4.7.3 Conclusion......................... 111 5 Predicting the desire for privacy 118 5.1 Introduction............................. 120 5.2 Theory................................ 121 5.2.1 Desire for privacy..................... 121 5.2.2 Integrity........................... 121 5.2.3 The relation between integrity and desire for privacy. 122 5.3 Study 1 ................................ 124 5.3.1 The relation between personality and desire for privacy 124 5.3.2 Method............................ 127 5.3.3 Results............................ 130 5.3.4 Discussion.......................... 132 5.4 Study 2 ................................ 134 5.4.1 Method............................ 136 5.4.2 Results............................ 140 5.4.3 Discussion.......................... 142 5.5 General discussion......................... 144 5.5.1 Implications......................... 144 5.5.2 Limitations and future perspective............ 145 5.5.3 Conclusion......................... 147 6 Overall discussion 155 6.1 Summary............................... 155 6.2 Implications............................. 156 6.2.1 Privacy is contingent, tripartite, and multidimensional 156 6.2.2 Privacy behaviors are not paradoxical.......... 159 6.2.3 Privacy is a powerful predictor.............. 162 6.2.4 Privacy is profoundly psychological........... 163 6.3 Criticism and future perspectives................. 166 6.3.1 Stronger emphasis on control............... 166 6.3.2 Reanalysis of privacy dimensions............ 167 6.3.3 Integration of affordances................. 170 6.3.4 Increase of explained behavioral variance........ 172 6.3.5 Further elaboration of integrity.............. 174 6.4 Societal and practical implications................ 175 6.4.1 Increasing privacy literacy................ 175 6.4.2 Encouraging change.................... 177 6.4.3 Spreading the knowledge................. 177 6.4.4 Updating the legislative system............. 178 6.4.5 Establishing a Privacy-Knigge.............. 180 6.4.6 Making considerate inferences.............. 182 6.4.7 Having a two-sided privacy discourse.......... 183 6.4.8 Designing new cultural artifacts............. 183 6.5 The privacy synthesis........................ 184 List of figures 194 List of tables 195 Acknowledgments 196 Declaration of pre-published parts 198 Abstract What is the psychology of privacy? How do we perceive privacy? Why do we disclose personal information about ourselves on the Internet, and what does this reveal about our own personalities? In six chapters, this dissertation discusses potential answers to these questions. Chapter 1 provides a general introduction to the overarching research question, Chapters 2-5 include the four main studies that either have already been published (Study 1, 2, and 3) or have been submitted for publication (Study 4), and Chapter 6 summarizes the dissertation and offers a concluding privacy synthesis. In Study 1, I propose a new privacy theory, the so-called Privacy Pro- cess Model (PPM). The PPM states that privacy consists of three major el- ements: the privacy context, the privacy perception, and the privacy behav- ior. In order to balance the three elements people constantly engage in a privacy regulation process, which can be either explicit / conscious or im- plicit / subconscious. Through concrete examples of new digital media, sev- eral implications of the PPM are demonstrated. In Study 2 and 3, I analyze aspects of privacy that pertain to the Internet in particular. Both studies explain and predict concrete online privacy behav- iors on social network sites (SNSs). An observation known as privacy paradox states that privacy behaviors cannot be predicted sufficiently by means of psychological antecedents such as privacy concerns. In Study 2 (Is the Pri- vacy Paradox a Relic of the Past?), which is co-authored by Prof. Dr. Sabine Trepte, we analyze this observation through the results of an online question- naire with 579 respondents from Germany. By adopting a theory of planned behavior-based approach, the results showed that self-disclosure could be ex- plained by privacy intentions, privacy attitudes, and privacy concerns. These findings could be generalized for three different privacy dimensions: infor- mational, social, and psychological privacy behaviors. Altogether, Study 2 therefore suggests that the privacy paradox does not exist. 9 Study 3 (An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for SNSs), co-authored by Prof. Dr. Miriam J. Metzger, builds upon the results of Study 2 and investigates whether psychological antecedents can explain not only online self-disclosure but also online self-withdrawal, all within one single theoretical and empiri- cal framework. Using a privacy calculus-based approach, the study analyzes data from a U.S.-representative online sample with 1,156 respondents. The re- sults showed that self-disclosure could be explained both by privacy concerns and expected benefits. In addition, self-withdrawal could also be predicted by both privacy concerns and privacy self-efficacy. In conclusion, Study 3 demonstrates that perceived benefits, privacy self-efficacy, and privacy con- cerns together predict both online self-disclosure and online self-withdrawal. Study 4 (Predicting the Desire for Privacy), also co-authored by Miriam J. Metzger, then again broadens the perspective and analyzes the relationship between the desire for privacy and different facets of personality, with a focus on aspects of personal integrity. Building on Altman’s privacy regu- lation theory, we tested our hypotheses with a 2-study approach: First, we conducted an online questionnaire with 296 respondents and second, we ran a laboratory experiment with 87 participants. The results of the ques- tionnaire showed several significant relationships: For example, respondents who reported lacking integrity and being more shy, less anxious, and more risk averse were all more likely to desire privacy. The experiment, for