Contextualised Concerns

1. Contextualised Concerns The Online Privacy Attitudes of Young Adults Michael Dowd August 2010

2. Presentation structure • Brief summary and critical evaluation of existing research. • Outline of research approach. • Presentation of interim findings.

3. VOME • Visualisation and Other Methods of Expression • Exploring how people engage with concepts of privacy and consent in online interactions. • Collaborative project: The University of Salford, RHUL, Cranfield University, Sunderland City Council and Consult Hyperion. • Funded by TSB/EPSRC/ESRC under the EPAC (Ensuring Privacy and Consent) programme. • http://www.vome.org.uk

4. Existing research

5. Survey based research: key findings • ‘Determinant factors’: • Gender (Hoy and Milne, 2010; Coles-Kemp et al, 2010; Cho et al, 2009; Garbarino & Strahilevitz, 2004; Sheehan, 1999). • Age (Cho et al, 2009; Bellman et al, 2004; Nowak & Phelps, 1992). • Levels of education (Milne & Gordon, 1994; Wang & Petrison, 1993; Nowak & Phelps, 1992) • Levels of internet experience? • ‘Privacy paradox’

6. Qualitative research into social networking sites • Not just Danah Boyd! • Sonia Livingstone, Kate Raynes-Goldie, Susannah Stern, Jenny Ryan, Jane Lewis and Anne West… • Generation of rich, contextual data: • Innovative privacy protective behaviours. • Provides a nuanced picture. • Shortcomings: • More ‘niche’ sites neglected. • Cross-contextual comparisons cannot be made.

7. Research approach • Sample: Young adults (16-20, born between 1990 and 1994). • Method: semi-structured interviews. • “…instead of asking abstract questions, or taking a ‘one-size-fits-all’ structured approach, you may want to give maximum opportunity for the construction of contextual knowledge by focusing on relevant specifics in each interview […] The point really is that if what you are interested in, ontologically and epistemologically speaking, is for example a social process which operates situationally, then you will need to ask situational rather than abstract questions.” (Mason, 2002: 64). • Take place next to a laptop with internet access.

8. Interim findings • Self-confidence: • Frank: “I got an ‘A’ in ICT so I know most stuff about computers and the internet” • Personal responsibility: • Luke: “…it’s just what you get yourself into, what you allow yourself to get into” • Deception: • Strangers vs. Known parties.

9. Interim findings • ‘Identity theft’: threat to reputation. • Gender issues: • Meeting ‘new girls’ • Frank: “Obviously you’re gonna try and get chatting on to them” • Online harassment • Julie: “Ah, all the men and stuff adding me all the time” • Stereotypes • ‘Dirty old men’ • Vulnerable women

10. Conclusion • Provided outline of research and its relationship with existing literature. • Contended that the value of social science in this area is in contributing rich, situated data which can help us understand privacy attitudes in context. • Called for more qualitative research into online privacy attitudes: not just into Facebook! Thank you for listening!

11. Bibliography • boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics. In D. Buckingham, ed. Youth, Identity and Digital Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 119–142 • Cho, H; Rivera-Sanchez, M. and Lim, S.S. (2009) ‘A multinational study on online privacy: global concerns and local responses’ New Media Society 11(3): 395-416 • Coles-Kemp, L.; Lai, Y. L. and Ford, M. (2010) Privacy on the Internet: Attitudes and Behaviours. A survey by VOME. • Garbarino, E. and Strahilevitz, M. (2004). Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation. Journal of Business Research. 57 (1): 768– 775. • Hoy, M. G. and Milne, G.(2010) ‘Gender Differences In Privacy-Related Measures For Young Adult Facebook Users’, Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 28-45. • Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media Society, 10(3): 393-411. • Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching, London: Sage. • Milne, G. and Gordon, M.E. (1994) ‘A Segmentation Study of Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Direct Mail’, Journal of Direct Marketing 8(2): 45–52. • Moscardelli, D.M. and Divine, R. (2007). Adolescents' Concern for Privacy When Using the Internet: An Empirical Analysis of Predictors and Relationships With Privacy-Protecting Behaviors. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 35(3), 232-252. • Nowak, G. J. and Phelps, J. (1992). "Understanding Privacy Concerns: An Assessment of Consumers' Information-Related Knowledge and Beliefs," Journal of Direct Marketing, 6(4), 28-39. • Raynes-Goldie, K. (2010). Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in the age of Facebook. First Monday, Volume 15 (1). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2775/2432 (Accessed: 1/2/2010). • Sheehan, K. B. (1999). An investigation of gender differences in online privacy concerns and resultant behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing 13(4): 24–38. • Wang, P. and L.A. Petrison (1993) ‘Direct Marketing Activities and Personal Privacy: A Consumer Survey’, Journal of Direct Marketing 7(1): 7–19.