1 / 16

Privacy & Self-disclosure online: Implications for Web surveys

Privacy & Self-disclosure online: Implications for Web surveys. Carina Paine (1) , Adam Joinson (1) , Tom Buchanan (2) & Ulf-Dietrich Reips (3) (1) The Open University, UK (2) Westminster University, UK (3) University of Zurich, Switzerland. Presentation Overview. Introduction

loren
Download Presentation

Privacy & Self-disclosure online: Implications for Web surveys

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Privacy & Self-disclosure online: Implications for Web surveys Carina Paine (1), Adam Joinson (1), Tom Buchanan (2) & Ulf-Dietrich Reips (3) (1) The Open University, UK (2) Westminster University, UK (3) University of Zurich, Switzerland

  2. Presentation Overview • Introduction • Self-Disclosure & Privacy Online 2. Overview of 2 Studies: • Aim: to explore the relationship between privacy & self-disclosure online 3. Summary

  3. IntroductionStudy 1 Study 2 Summary Self-Disclosure Online • People are increasingly required to disclose personal information online • Self-disclosure online is a paradox: • Increased disclosure in CMC (Joinson, 2001) • Due to anonymity? (e.g. Joinson, 1999; Reips & Franek, 2004) • Decreased disclosure for commercial websites (e.g. Jupiter, 2002) • Due to privacy concerns? (e.g. Hoffman et al.,1999) & lack of knowledge about how information will be used (Metzger, 2004)

  4. IntroductionStudy 1 Study 2 Summary Self-Disclosure & Online Surveys • Surveys administered online have been associated with higher levels of self disclosure (e.g. Weisband & Kiesler, 1996) • Due to anonymity & likely audience? (Joinson) • Due to increased privacy of research environment? (Tourangeau, 2004) • Reduction in privacy results in reduction in self-disclosure (Joinson et al., in press) • Does privacy play an important role in understanding peoples responses to web-based surveys? • Privacy concerns rarely considered in self-disclosure research in the context of surveys

  5. IntroductionStudy 1 Study 2 Summary Privacy & Online Surveys • Privacy Online • Offline privacy concerns magnified online? (Privacy Knowledge Base, 2005) • Information disclosed is an increasingly valuable (but cheaply available) commodity • Online Surveys & Privacy Concerns • Privacy is more sensitive issue & online surveys can commit multiple violations of privacy – more intense than those found in conventional surveys (Cho & LaRose, 1999) • Perceived Privacy? • Anonymity & confidentiality measures – an issue of trust? (Singer et al., 1993, 1995)

  6. IntroductionStudy 1 Study 2 Summary Overview of Studies • Overall Aim: • to explore the relationship between privacy & self-disclosure, & in particular, any mediating factors (such as trust & perceived privacy) • Initial 2 studies: • Interest in ‘Trait’ & ‘State’ privacy • Study 1: The development & testing of privacy & self-disclosure measures • Study 2: 2 part study; detailed examination of relationship between privacy & self-disclosure • General Methodology: • Online participant panels of OU students • Email invitation to Web based surveys

  7. IntroductionStudy 1 Study 2 Summary Study 1: methodology • Online Survey: Sample of 685 from panel 1 (response rate=75%) • Option posing items: • Privacy Attitude: 48 items, 5-point scalee.g. how concerned are you about people online not being who they say they are? • Privacy Behaviour: 34 items, 5-point scalee.g. do you only register for web sites that have a privacy policy? • Self-Disclosure: 18 items, response options included: ‘please select’ as default & ‘prefer not to say’ option e.g. How many different sexual partners have you had? • Order of item presentation manipulated

  8. IntroductionStudy 1 Study 2 Summary Study 1: results • Psychometric procedures used to develop privacy & self-disclosure scales • Self-disclosure items: pool of 16 items • Privacy attitude: 16 items • Privacy behaviour: 12 items; equally split into: • General caution items • Technical protection of privacy items • Criterion validation study with Usenet groups & OU online discussion groups confirmed scales • Self-disclosure significantly lower when items presented after privacy items [F(1,511)=13.167, p<0.005, partial eta2=0.025]

  9. IntroductionStudy 1 Study 2 Summary Study 2: methodology • ‘Trait’ privacy (from study 1 measures) & ‘State’ effects (perceived privacy) • Study 2, part 1 • Online Survey: Sample of 1931 from panel 2 (response rate=59%) • Option posing items: • Privacy Attitude: Study 1: 16 items, 5-point scale Westin (e.g. 1998): 3 items, 4-point scale IUIPC (Malhotra et al., 2004): 10 items, 7-point scale • Privacy Behaviour 6 ‘general caution’ & 6 ‘technical protection’ items, 5-point scale

  10. IntroductionStudy 1 Study 2 Summary Study 2: methodology (cont) 1 month later…. • Study 2, part 2 • Online Survey: Sample of 1931 OU students (response rate=51%) (67% retention rate) • Option posing items: • Behavioural self-disclosure: Study 1: 16 items, 5-point scale • Dispositional self-disclosure: From IPIP, 10 items, 3-point scale • Social desirability: BIDR (IM & SDE), 40 items, 7-point scale • Trust, Anonymity, Confidentiality items, 5-point scale e.g. I am sure that my responses will remain confidential

  11. IntroductionStudy 1 Study 2 Summary Study 2: results • Non-disclosure: • Active: Mean = 0.45, SD = 1.05, range = 0 - 10 • Passive: Mean = 0.09, SD = 0.57, range = 0 - 13 • Is there a link between privacy & self-disclosure? • Multiple regression analysis -> Significant model [F(3,748)=5.478,p<0.005] Adjusted R square = 0.018 Privacy Concern: Beta = 0.086, p<0.05 Privacy Behaviour (general caution): Beta= 0.102, p<0.05 • Is the link direct? • Multiple regression analysis -> Significant model [F(17,572)=5.198,p<0.0005] Adjusted R square = 0.108 Trust: Beta = -0.251, p<0.0005 BIDR IM score: Beta = 2.316, p<0.05 • Individual effects on self-disclosure?

  12. .48 .69 Perceived Trust Privacy active non .06 -.22 disclosure .12 .10 .31 Privacy Privacy Behaviour: Concern GeneralCaution STATE PROCESS TRAIT PROCESS

  13. IntroductionStudy 1 Study 2 Summary Summary 1. Privacy is important • i. State - as designed into a study (i.e. steps to ensure anonymity & confidentiality, encourage trust) • ii. Trait - general concern / behaviour of respondents 2. Different types of privacy seem to act independently • they have unique effects on self-disclosure – but a cumulative effect too • Some evidence that link between perceived privacy & self-disclosure may be via Trust …….. 4. So, it is possible that steps to increase trust can mitigate impact of lowered perceived privacy 5. People’s ‘trait’ privacy will always remain, which isn’t going to respond to survey design

  14. Further Information Dr. Carina Paine / Dr. Adam Joinson, Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK,MK7 6AA Web: www.prisd.net(for slides & references - next week) Email: info@prisd.net

  15. e1 e2 .48 .69 Perceived Trust Privacy -.22 .06 active non disclosure .10 .12 Privacy Behaviour: .31 Privacy General Caution Concern e4 Model 1

  16. Model 2

More Related