Privacy, Risk, Information protection and Social Network Site-Using Behavior in a Sample of Flemish University Students

Transcription

1 Privacy, Risk, Information protection and Social Network Site-Using Behavior in a Sample of Flemish University Students Zsuzsanna Horváth a*, Stefan Bogaerts b, Jelle Sijtsema c, and Karel Demeyer d a Leuven Institute of Criminology, Tilburg University PO. BOX 90153, 5000 LE. Tilburg, The Netherlands zsuzsannahorvath0809@gmail.com b Leuven Institute of Criminology, Tilburg University PO. BOX 90153, 5000 LE. Tilburg, The Netherlands stefan.bogaerts@law.kuleuven.be c Tilburg University PO. BOX 90153, 5000 LE. Tilburg, The Netherlands j.j.sijtsema@tilburguniversity.edu d Leuven Institute of Criminology PO Box 3418, 3000 Leuven, Belgium karel.demeyer@law.kuleuven.be *Corresponding author: Zsuzsanna Horváth (Permanent address: 5. Thomas van Aquinostraat, 5042 HA, Tilburg, the Netherlands)

2 Abstract Hundreds of millions of people from all age categories use social network sites and share a wide range and enormous amount of information of themselves and others, such as personal details and connections with friends, often without realizing the potential privacy, security and profiling risks they take. Objectives: The current paper intends to provide a description of social network site-using behavior of the participants and examine influential factors contributing to the degree to which university students are concerned about their privacy and risk, and the extent to which they engage in information protecting behavior. More specifically, we intend to shed light on predictors, such as unpleasant experience when using social network sites, experience of privacy invasion, type of education (law, informatics and criminology), gender, age, and the personality trait extraversion in a sample of university students. Based on the relevant literature, the following hypotheses are addressed: (1) Age, gender, type of education, unpleasant experience, extraversion, and privacy invasion are expected to significantly contribute to the degree of privacy concerns. (2) Age, gender, type of education, unpleasant experience, extraversion, and privacy invasion are expected to significantly contribute to the degree of risk concerns. (3) Age, gender, type of education, unpleasant experience, extraversion, and privacy invasion are expected to significantly contribute to the degree of information protection. Results: The results regarding students social network site-using behavior reveal that high extraversion traits lead to large online social network size, the majority of the participants have a Facebook profile, are most active on Facebook, use social network sites more than twice per day, spend between 1 and 5 hours a week with checking their profiles, have their total number of friend between 201 and 300, and update their profile more than twice a week. Most of the participants have read the privacy policy but not carefully. Most of the students who have read the privacy policy understood it as a whole. The lack of interest was generally the reason for not reading the privacy policy. The results suggest education type and privacy invasion to be significant predictors of the degree of privacy concerns, with privacy invasion having the largest contribution. The findings also imply that education type, unpleasant experience and privacy invasion are significant predictors of the degree of risk concerns, with unpleasant experience having the largest contribution. The role of education type, age, extraversion in the degree of information protection was also found to be significant, with extraversion having the largest contribution. Conclusion: Further studies are required to investigate the relationship among these variables to raise people s awareness of privacy, risks, and information protection. Furthermore, the identified influential factors, such as experience of privacy invasion and education type should also be taken into account in future research. Keywords: social network site, privacy, risk, information protection, extraversion, education, 2

3 1. Introduction Hundreds of millions of people of all ages use social network sites and share a wide range and enormous amount of information of themselves and others, such as personal details and connections with friends often without realizing the potential privacy, security and profiling risks they take. Trading personal information without permission and identity theft are common violations of consumers privacy. Therefore, in order to prevent misuse of personal data on social media networks, it is essential for internet users to be aware of potential danger of their privacy and the possibility of personal data protection. The current paper intends to provide a description of social network site-using behavior of the participants and examine influential factors contributing to the degree to which university students are concerned about their privacy and risk, and the extent to which they engage in information protecting behavior. More specifically, we intend to shed light on predictors, such as unpleasant experience when using social network sites, experience of privacy invasion, type of education (law, informatics and criminology), gender, age, and the personality trait extraversion in a sample of university students. 2. Theory Facebook, MySpace and other social network sites are getting increasingly popular among students in the world. Golder, Wilkinson, Bernardo and Huberman (2007) reported that 90% of American undergraduate students use at least one social network site regularly. Similar results have been found in the United Kingdom among young adults using social network sites on a daily bases (Comscore, 2011). Furthermore, it has been shown that the majority of university students spend tremendous quantity of time using various social network sites (Budden, Anthony, Budden, & Jones, 2007). Using social network sites seems to be essential for students as they use them on a daily bases (Smith & Caruso, 2010) not only to keep contact with friends but also for education purposes (Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, & Witty, 2010). Despite the increasing popularity of social network sites among university students, the literature addressing this issue is rather limited (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Ross Orr, Mia Sisic, Arseneault, Simmering, & Orr, 2009). The other side of the coin is that social network sites store an enormous amount of information about their users and such amount of personal information requires high confidentiality. These sites provide the users with the option to hide personal details, such as birth date, address or phone number. Furthermore, it is also possible to make such details visible only for those accepted as friends. Even though, social network sites constantly work on improving their privacy settings, full protection against privacy violations is not possible 3

4 (Chahal, 2011). With the help of certain technology companies, people can be easily tracked down and monitored (Acohido, 2011; Murphy, 2012). People especially students are getting increasingly concerned about privacy and cyber- security of their data (Bryer & Chen, 2010). Govani and Pashley (2005) found that even though the majority of the students are aware of the risks, they take by providing or restricting private information, they do not take actions in order to protect their personal data. In another study Newk-Fon Hey Tow, Dell and Venable (2010) reported that the reason for this lack of actions might be that students are either not aware of the risks or they perceive them as too low to take protective actions. The literature suggests the existence of several factors influencing the degree to which individuals are concerned about their privacy and risk, and the extent to which they engage in information protecting behavior, such as age, gender, extraversion and unpleasant experience when using social network sites (Byrnes, Miller, & Schafer, 1999; Christofides, Muise, & Desmarais, 2009; Petronio, 2002; Skeel, Neudecker, Pilarski, & Pytlak, 2007). One of these factors is age. According to Christofides et al. (2009), it seems to be that adults use their privacy settings more often than youngsters. The authors also found that it is common to know how to change the privacy settings both among youth and adults; however, the actual usage seems to be rather limited in both groups. On the other hand, the Pew Internet & American Life Project (Lenhart & Madden, 2007) showed a decreased use of the privacy settings as age increases. Several studies have implied the presence of gender differences in privacy and risk concerns, and reported that women/girls are more concerned about these issues than men/boys (e.g., Lenhart & Madden, 2007; Moscardelli & Divine, 2007; Moscardelli & Liston-Heyes 2004; Fogel & Nehmad, 2009). An unpleasant experience in the past also plays an essential role in extent to which students engage in information protecting behavior. Christofides, Muise, and Desmarais (2012) reported that adolescents who have had unpleasant experiences with using the internet are more concerned about the potential risks and tend to restrict their profile, with knowledge of privacy settings serving as a mediator between the two variables. Sociability refers to the individual s social presence in other words, one s ability to socialize which is considered as the most important aspect of extraversion. Individuals who meet the extraversion trait can be described as active and assertive. They are generally positive in life and get inspiration from others. Extroverts are especially outgoing and energetic while introverts are solitary and reserved (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Extraverted individuals like having a lot of people around them and enjoy getting to know new people; thus, based on the fact that social network sites are the online representation of one s real social life, respondents with a high extraversion trait, measured by the relevant subscales of the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) have been reported to have 4

5 a large online social network size (Ong, Ang, Ho, Lim, Goh, & Lee et al. 2011). Extraversion has also been found to be relevant in the context of privacy concerns, given that it reflects one s sociability, social activity, flexibility, and interpersonal activity (Digman, 1990), thus, more extraverted people disclose more information about themselves and are less likely to protect their personal data. Additionally, Skeel et al. (2007) found that extraverted individuals tend to have high risk taking scores in general. As the literature lacks information about the influence of experience of privacy invasion and the participants study program on the degree of privacy and risk concerns and the extent to which students engage in information protecting behavior, the current study intends to shed light on these issues as well. We assume that students who have previously experienced that their personal information was used against them or made them feel uncomfortable by for instance, an embarrassing photo or a video has been posted on a social network site without their permission, are more concerned about their privacy and the potential risks, therefore, protect their personal data more. Furthermore, we also expect to notice differences across education type (or current study program). As informatics students have the best computer skills, it is expected that they engage in information protecting behavior to a greater extent than law or criminology students, therefore, assumed to be less concerned about privacy and potential risk factors. Moreover, law and criminology students are expected to be the most concerned about their privacy due to the fact that they learn a lot about privacy issues in general, however, might lack the necessary computer skills to protect their data. Based on the relevant literature, the following hypotheses are addressed: (1) Age, gender, type of education, unpleasant experience, extraversion, and privacy invasion are expected to significantly contribute to the degree of privacy concerns. (2) Age, gender, type of education, unpleasant experience, extraversion, and privacy invasion are expected to significantly contribute to the degree of risk concerns. (3) Age, gender, type of education, unpleasant experience, extraversion, and privacy invasion are expected to significantly contribute to the degree of information protection. 3. Methods and Materials Data have been collected from 455 Flemish university students. Selection of the target groups was based on the availability of the sample. 67% of the participants were females and 33% were males. The mean age of the patients during the research was 22.9 years (SD=2.14; range years). 47.3% were law students, 10.9% were informatics students, and 41.8% were criminology students. All participants were officially enrolled to a full-time informatics, law or criminology study program at the University of Leuven in Belgium. The participants 5

6 have been contacted via their university , and those who agreed to participate were presented with a link to access the standardized online questionnaire. The program Limesurvey was used to conduct the survey, which was also available via Facebook groups created and used by law, informatics and criminology students of the same university. All questions and answers were provided in Dutch. Demographical details, such as age, gender, and education type were documented. Furthermore, the following questions were asked to acquire information about the social network site-using behavior of the participants: On which social network sites do you have a profile? The following options were addressed: Facebook, MySpace, Hi5, Orkut, Friendster, Google+, Hyves, Badoo, other:... and I do not have any (the participants were provided with the possibility to select more than one option); On which social network site are you the most active? (the answer categories here were the same as in the previous question); In general how often do you use these social network sites? ; (more than twice a day, once-twice a day, more than twice a week, once-twice a week, more than once-twice a month, once-twice a month, less than once a month); How many hours a week do you spend on these social network sites? (less than an hour, 1-5 hours, 5-10 hours, hours, more than 20 hours); Approximately many friends do you have on these social network sites? (0-1, 11-50, , , , , , more than 600); How often do you update your profile? (More than twice a day, once-twice a day, more than twice a week, once-twice a week, more than once-twice a month, once-twice a month, less than once a month); Have you ever read the privacy policy of these social network sites? (Yes, I have read it carefully; Yes, but not carefully; No, I know that it exists but I have never read it; I did not know about the existence of it); In case if you have read the privacy policy, did you understand it? (I understood the terminology; I understood it as a whole; I understood the details, but did not understand it as a whole); In case if you did not read the privacy policy, why not? (I am not interested in it; I assume that my data will be handled confidentially; I could not find the privacy policy anywhere; I find the privacy policy too long and difficult to understand; other reason). The dependent variable degree of privacy concerns was assessed by the item: To what extent are you concerned about your privacy on the social network sites? The answer categories very unconcerned, unconcerned, neutral, concerned, and very concerned were measured on a five point Likert scale. The dependent variable degree of risk concerns was examined based on the composite scores created from the 6 items assessing potential sources of risk on social network sites, such as: Are you concerned about identity theft? The answer categories very unconcerned, unconcerned, neutral, concerned, and very 6

7 concerned were measured on a five point Likert scale. The dependent variable degree of information protection was examined based on the composite scores made from the 14 items examining information protecting behavior, such as: I access my privacy settings. The answer categories I never do it, I hardly ever do it, I sometimes do it, I often do it, and I always do it were measured on a five point Likert scale. The independent variable unpleasant experience was calculated based on the composite score of the 9 items describing the different kinds of unpleasant experiences that may happen while using social network sites, such as: Have you ever experienced disturbing commercials and to what extent did it influence you?. The answer categories range from no to yes, and I was very shocked on a four point Likert scale. Privacy invasion was assessed by the item: Has anybody in the last 6 months shared a photo or video of you on a social network site on which you were obviously recognizable and that you did not want to see online? The answer categories were yes and no. A composite score of extraversion was computed from the 12 items of the Dutch version of the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO-FFI consists of 60 items and is a shorter version of the NEO-RI-R measuring five personality dimensions, namely: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. In the current study we focused on the personality trait extraversion measured by three subscales: sociability, positive affectivity and activity. The internal consistency of this dimension is.79 and the test-retest reliability is.82. An example question is: I like having a lot of people around me. The answer categories range from strongly disagree to strongly agree. 4. Calculation Descriptive statistics were computed to analyze the demographical variables and to provide information regarding the students internet-using behavior. Ordinal logistic regression was used to determine the role of age, gender, education type, extraversion, unpleasant experience and experience of privacy invasion by a video or photo in predicting the degree of privacy and risk concerns, and information protecting behavior. 5. Results Descriptive statistics revealed that 99% of the participants indicated to have a Facebook profile, 15.4% to have Google+ profile, 6.6% to have a Myspace profile, and 0.4% or less to have other profiles. 98.8% of the participants rated to be most active on Facebook,.8% on Google+,.2% on Myspace, and.2% on Orkut. 60.9% of the participants specified their social network site use as more than twice per day, 27% as once or twice per day, 6.5% as more than twice a week, and less than 3.8% as once or twice per week or less frequently. 51.2% of the 7

8 participants spend between 1 and 5 hours per week with checking their social network profiles, 20.1% between 5 and 10 hours, 20.1% less than an hour, 5.9% between 10 and 20 hours and less than 2.8% more than 20 hours. 26.2% of the participants indicated their total number of friends to be between 201 and 300, 20.7% to be between 101 and 200, 20.1% to be between 301 and 400, 20.1% to be between 401 and 600, 5.5% to be more than 600, and less than 5% to be 100 or less. 22.1% of the participants updates their profile more than twice a week, 20.1% once or twice a week, 13.7% more than once or twice a month, 13.7% once or twice a month, 12.3% less than once a month, 12.3% once or twice a day, and 5.7% more than twice a day. 44.7% of the participants have read the privacy policy, but not carefully, 37.3% have not read the privacy policy but knew about the existence of it, only 16.2% have read the privacy policy carefully, and 1.8% did not know about the existence of it. 64% of those who have read the privacy policy understood it as a whole, 31.3% understood the terminology and 4.7% understood the details but did not understand it as a whole. 42.4% of those who did not read it indicated that they were not interested in it, 29.4% indicated that they found the privacy policy too long and difficult to understand, 23.9% indicated that they assumed that their data will be handled confidentially, and 4.3% reported that they could not find the privacy policy anywhere. Ordinal logistic regression (N= 474) analyses were carried out with degree of privacy concerns, degree of risk concerns and degree of information protection as dependent variables, and gender, age, education type, extraversion, unpleasant experience, and privacy invasion as predictor variables. The first ordinal logistic regression analysis tested the presence of an effect of the six independent variables on the odds of one step increase on the degree of privacy concerns scale. The model fit indices ( 2 LL = ; χ2 (7) = , p < 0.000) demonstrate that the model fits the data well, the explained variance by the model is 11% (Cox & Snell R2 =.103, Nagelkerke R2 =.112). Education type and privacy invasion have been confirmed to be significant predictors of the degree of privacy concerns (p <.05). More specifically, informatics students have been shown to significantly differ from law students in the sense that they have.814 times lower chances to be in a higher category on the degree of privacy concern scale, while keeping all other variables constant. Criminology students have been found to differ from informatics students in the sense that they have.737 times lower chances to be in a higher category on the degree of privacy concern scale, while keeping all other variables constant. Furthermore, moving to a higher category on the degree of privacy concerns scale leads to a.556 increase on the privacy invasion scale while keeping all other variables constant. No significant contribution of Age, gender, extraversion and unpleasant experience to the degree of privacy concerns have been found. With 95% 8

9 certainty we can say that when moving from the law student category to the informatics student category on the education type scale, one step decrease in odds on the degree of privacy concerns scale is times higher than in one category below; and moving from the informatics student category to the criminology student category on the education type scale, one step decrease in odds on the degree of privacy concerns scale is times higher than in one category below. With 95% certainty we can say that with an increase of one step on the privacy invasion scale, the odds of one step increase on the degree of privacy concerns scale is times higher than in one category below (See Table 1). Std. 95% Confidence Interval 95% Confidence Interval for Exp(B) Parameter B Error Lower Upper Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper threshold 1 threshold 2 threshold 3-6,967-4,319-2,381 1,5415 1,5191 1,5109-9,988-7,296-5,343-3,946-1,341,580,000,004,115,784,001,013,092 4,594E- 5,001,005,019,261 1,786 threshold 4 -,419 1,5288-3,415 2,578,224,658,033 13,170 extraversion -,383,3152-1,001,235,224,682,367 1,264 unpleasant experience privacy invasion females males age law students informatics students criminology students -,285,556,208 0 a -,145 -,814 -,737,2347,2084,2021.,0399,1896,3396 -,745,147 -,188. -,223-1,186-1,402,175,964,604. -,067 -,442 -,071,008,303.,000,000,030.,752 1,743 1,231 1,865,443,479,475 1,159,829.,800,306,246 1,191 2,622 1,830.,936,642, a Table 1: Parameter estimates of the effect of extraversion, unpleasant experience, privacy invasion, gender, age, and education type on the degree of privacy concerns The second ordinal logistic regression analysis tested the presence of an effect of the six independent variables on the odds of one step increase on the degree of risk concerns scale. The model fit indices ( 2 LL = ; χ2 (7) = , p < 0.000) show that the model fits the data well, the explained variance by the model is approximately 9% (Cox & Snell R2 =.087, Nagelkerke R2 =.097). Education type, unpleasant experience and privacy invasion (marginally, p=.053) have been confirmed to be significant predictors of the degree of risk concerns (p <.05). More specifically, informatics students have been found to significantly differ from law students in the sense that they have.698 times lower chances to be in a higher category on the degree of risk concerns scale while keeping all other variables constant. However, no significant difference has been found between criminology and informatics students. Moving to a higher category on the degree of risk concerns scale leads to a increase on the unpleasant experience scale while keeping all other variables constant. No significant contribution of Age, gender, privacy invasion, and extraversion to the degree 9

10 of risk concerns has been found. With 95% certainty we can say that when moving from the law student category to the informatics student category on the education type scale, one step decrease in odds on the degree of risk concerns scale is times higher than in one category below. With 95% certainty we can say that with an increase of one step on the unpleasant experience scale, the odds of one step increase on the degree of risk concerns scale is times higher than in one category below (See Table 2). 95% Confidence Interval 95% Confidence Interval for Exp(B) Lower Upper Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper Parameter B Std. Error threshold 1,582 1,4943-2,347 3,510,697,697 1,789,096 threshold 2 2,879 1,5003 -,061 5,820,055,055 17,798,940 threshold 3 5,292 1,5208 2,311 8,273,001, ,751 10,087 extraversion,178,3171 -,443,800,574,574 1,195,642 unpleasant experience 1,006,2411,534 1,479,000,000 2,735 1,705 privacy invasion -,403,2083 -,811,005,053,053,668,444 females,283,2007 -,110,677,158,158 1,328,896 males 0 a age -,002,0410 -,082,079,971,971,998,921 law students,698,1899,326 1,070,000,000 2,009 1,385 informatics students,583,3387 -,081 1,247,085,085 1,792,923 criminology students 0 a Table 2: Parameter estimates of the effect of extraversion, unpleasant experience, privacy invasion, gender, age, and education type on the degree of risk concerns The third ordinal logistic regression analysis tested the presence of an effect of the six independent variables on the odds of one step increase on the degree of information protection scale. The model fit indices ( 2 LL = ; χ2 (7) = , p = 0.002) indicate that the model fits the data well, the explained variance by the model is approximately 8% (Cox & Snell R2 =.074, Nagelkerke R2 =.092). Education type, age and extraversion have been confirmed to be significant predictors of the degree of information protection (p <.05). More specifically, informatics students have been shown to significantly differ from law students in the sense that they have.794 times higher chances to be in a higher category on the degree of information protection scale, while keeping all other variables constant. However, no significant difference has been found between criminology and informatics students. Moving to a higher category on the degree of information protection scale leads to a.128 decrease on the age scale, while keeping all other variables constant. Additionally, moving to a higher category on the degree of information protection scale leads to a.955 increase on the extraversion scale, while keeping all other variables constant. No significant contribution of gender, privacy invasion, and unpleasant experience to the degree of information protection has been found. With 95% certainty we can say that when moving from the law 10

11 student category to the informatics student category on the education type scale, one step decrease in odds on the degree of information protection scale is times higher than in one category below. With 95% certainty we can say that with an increase of one step on the age scale, the odds of one step increase on the degree of information protection scale is times higher than in one category below. With 95% certainty we can say that with an increase of one step on the extraversion scale, the odds of one step increase on the degree of information protection scale is times higher than in one category below (See Table 3). 95% Confidence Interval 95% Confidence Interval for Exp(B) Lower Upper Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper Parameter B Std. Error threshold 1-2,317 2,0980-6,429 1,795,269,099,002 6,020 threshold 2 1,847 2,0775-2,225 5,919,374 6,341, ,993 threshold 3 6,006 2,1612 1,770 10,242, ,992 5, ,252 extraversion,955,4425,087 1,822,031 2,598 1,091 6,184 unpleasant experience,434,3215 -,196 1,065,177 1,544,822 2,900 privacy invasion -,082,2740 -,619,455,765,921,539 1,576 females -,146,2870 -,708,417,612,864,493 1,517 males 0a age -,128,0617 -,249 -,007,038,880,780,993 law students,794,2666,272 1,317,003 2,213 1,312 3,731 informatics students,471,4320 -,376 1,317,276 1,601,687 3,733 criminology students 0a Table 3: Parameter estimates of the effect of extraversion, unpleasant experience, privacy invasion, gender, age, and education type on the degree of information protection 6. Discussion One of the aims of the current study was to shed light on the social network site-using behavior of the sampled university students. These findings imply that the majority of the participants have a Facebook profile, are most active on Facebook, use social network sites more than twice per day, spend between 1 and 5 hours a week with checking their profiles, have their total number of friend to be between 201 and 300, and update their profile more than twice a week. Most of the participants have read the privacy policy but not carefully. The majority of the students who have read the privacy policy understood it as a whole. A lack of interest was mostly the reason for not reading the privacy policy, which is in line with the findings of Govani and Pashley (2005). The main goal of the current study was to investigate the degree to which university students are concerned about their privacy, the potential risks they take when using social network sites, and the extent to which they engage in information protecting behavior as a function of their gender, age, education type, extraversion, unpleasant experience while using 11

12 social network sites, and experience of privacy invasion. The results show that the study program and experience of privacy invasion in the form of a photo or video significantly contribute to the extent to which these students are concerned about their privacy. The findings also suggest that experience of privacy invasion plays the greatest role in this context. Moreover, the results imply that informatics students in the current sample are less concerned than law students, and criminology students are less concerned than informatics students about their privacy. These findings are in line with our expectations. The current order might be due to the fact that law and criminology students are aware of the legal issues with regard to privacy, but might lack the necessary informatics skills to protect their personal data. On the other hand, informatics students know more about the available options to protect their privacy; therefore, they are less concerned. Education type, unpleasant experience while using social network sites and experience of privacy invasion play a significant role in the degree to which these students are concerned about risk. The findings also suggest that an unpleasant experience while using social network sites in the past has the greatest influence on the degree to which students are concerned about potential risk. In terms of risk concerns difference has only been found between informatics and law students in the sense that informatics students seem to be less concerned about the risks than law students. Interestingly, informatics and criminology students seem to be less concerned about risks compared with law students, which might be due to the extensive lexical knowledge in combination with a potential lack of technical skills of law students. Having unpleasant experience with using social network sites appears to be another contributing factor to risk concerns, which is in line with our hypothesis and previous finding of Christofides et al. (2012). The authors concluded that adolescents with a history of unpleasant experiences when using the internet are more concerned about the potential risks thus; tend to restrict their profile to a greater extent. The results showed that education type, age, extraversion play a significant role in information protecting behavior among the participating students and that extraversion has the largest impact on performing such behavior. Informatics students have been found to significantly differ from law students but not from criminology students- in terms of their information protecting behavior, in a way that they protect their personal data to a greater extent. An interesting finding is that information protection leads to a decreased level of privacy and risk concerns, and these behaviors are also education type-specific. Age has been shown to be a significant predictor of information protection in the manner that younger students have been found to take more actions in order to protect their privacy, which is in line with our assumptions and with the findings of the Pew Internet & American Life Project (Lenhart & Madden, 2007). In this survey, authors revealed a decrease of using the privacy 12

13 settings as age increases. In spite of our expectations and contrary to the literature it seems to be that more extraverted participating students protect their data more than less extraverted people (e.g., Digman, 1990). Age and extraversion seem to have an influence only on information protection in our sample, which may be due to the fact that the sample consisted of university students from approximately the same age group and with similar levels of extraversion, given that the majority of the participants were law students, and in this field extraversion is an essential personality trait. Or it might be the case that even those students with a high level of extraversion are more aware of the danger of using such social network sites therefore, they pay more attention to protect their personal data than students following different study programs, such as art or architecture students. Gender, privacy invasion, and unpleasant experience have found to be non-significant with regard to the contribution to information protection. 7. Conclusion With regard to students social network site-using behavior it can be concluded that most of the participants did not read the privacy policy carefully, the majority of the students who have read the privacy policy reported that they understood it as a whole, and those who did not read the privacy policy indicated that they were not interested in it. To summarize the findings about privacy, risk, information protection and influential factors we can say that in the researched sample, experience of privacy invasion appeared to be the most influential factor in predicting the degree to which university students are concerned about their privacy. Furthermore, unpleasant experience when using social network sites seems to play the greatest role in predicting the level of risk concerns. Extraversion has been found to have the greatest impact on information protecting behavior. Finally, education type appears to have an impact on all three dependent variables, suggesting that education type plays an essential role in studying privacy, and needs to be included in future research. 8. Limitations and future research As the research was carried out among university students, the results cannot be extrapolated to a wider population. Remarks need to be mentioned with regard to gender differences and extraversion. In contrast to the majority of previous research, in the current study no gender differences have been found and extraversion seems to increase the chances for information protection. These findings might be biased due to homogeneity problems in the sample, given that the majority of the participants were either law or criminology students, which is an important limitation of this study. Furthermore, the variables degree of privacy concerns and privacy invasion were measured by one item; therefore the findings concerning 13

14 these two variables need to be taken with caution. Moreover, the contribution of the variables was rather low (11 %, 9%, and 8%), which implies that other skills, such as computer skills or personality-related variables, such as conscientiousness and self-esteem might also have an impact on the degree to which students are concerned about their privacy and risk, and on the extent to which they engage in information protecting behavior. Despite the limitations we believe that our research contributes to the scientific development of a comprehensive framework for privacy protection by strengthening the findings of previous research and by giving prominence to influential factors that have not been involved in privacy research in the past. Further studies are required to investigate the relationship among these variables to raise people s awareness of privacy, risks, and information protection. Finally, the identified influential factors, such as experience of privacy invasion and education type should also be taken into account in future research. 14

15 References Acohido, B. (2011). Facebook privacy: Social network tracks users after they leave site. USA Today. Boyd, D. & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 1, Budden, C., Anthony, J., Budden, M., & Jones, M. (2007). Managing the evolution of a revolution: marketing implications of Internet media usage among college students. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 3, 1, Bryer, T. A., & Chen, B. (2010). Using social networks in teaching public administration. In C. Wankel, (Ed.), Cutting-edge social media approaches to business education: Teaching with LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Second Life, and Blogs (pp ). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 3, Chahal Shirin (2011). Balancing the scales of justice: undercover investigations on social networking sites. The Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 9, 1, Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2009). Information disclosure and control on Facebook: Are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 3, Christofides, E., Muise, A. & Desmarais, S. (2012) Risky Disclosures on Facebook: The Effect of Having a Bad Experience on Online Behavior." Journal of Adolescent Research, 27, 6, Clark, L. A., & Roberts, S. J. (2010). Employer s use of social networking sites: A socially irresponsible practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 4, ComScore (2011). It's a social world. Top 10 need-to-knows about social networking and where it s headed. _1212.pdf Costa. P. T. Jr. & McCrae. R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Fiva Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual, Odessa. FL: 15

16 Psychological Assessment Resources. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual review of psychology, 41, Fogel, J. & Nehmad, E., Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1, Golder, S., Wilkinson, D., & Huberman, B. (2007). Rhythms of social interaction: messaging within a massive online network. Communities and Technologies, Govani, T., & Pashley, H. (2005). Student Awareness of the Privacy Implications while Using Facebook. Unpublished manuscript. Lenhart, A. & Madden, M., (2007). Teens, Privacy and Online Social Networks. Networks.aspx Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) (2006). Online panel survey, administered by CentERdata. Madden, M. & Smith, A. (2010). Reputation management and social media, Pew Internet & American Life Project. Moscardelli, D.M. & 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, Moscardelli, D. M. & Liston-Heyes, C. (2004) Teens Surfing The Net: How Do They Learn To Protect Their Privacy? Journal of Business and Economics Research, 2, 9, Murphy, D. (2012). Google sued over safari privacy problem. PC Magazine. Newk-Fon Hey Tow, W., Dell, P., & Venable, J. R. (2010), Understanding Information Disclosure Behaviour in Australian Facebook Users. Journal of Information Technology, 25, Ong, E. Y. L., Ang, R. P., Ho, J. C. M., Lim, J. C. Y., Goh, D. H., & Lee, C. S., et al. (2011). Narcissism, extraversion and adolescents self-presentation on Facebook. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 2, Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: State 16

17 University of New York Press. Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010) Findings on Facebook in higher education: a comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 3, Ross, C., Orr, E., Mia Sisic, B., Arseneault, J., Simmering, M., & Orr, R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behaviour, 25, 1, Skeel, R. L., Neudecker, J., Pilarski, C., & Pytlak, K. (2007). The utility of personality variables and behaviorally-based measures in the prediction of risk-taking behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1, Smith, S. D., & Caruso, J. B. (2010). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. 17