Contextualised Concerns
The Online Privacy Attitudes of Young
Adults
Michael Dowd
August 2010
Presentation structure
• Brief summary and critical evaluation of
existing research.
• Outline of research approach.
• Presentation of interim findings.
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
Existing
research
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’
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.
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-sizefits-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.
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.
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
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!
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.