1 Barnes, 2006; Norberg et al.,2007; Utz and Kramer, 2009; Boyd and Hargittai, 2010; Oetzel and Gonja, 2011; Baek, 2014 SNS

Transcription

1 SNS SNS SNS SNS In recent years, as the rapid diffusion of SNS, huge amount of personal information has been distributed in society, resulting in many cases of privacy infringement. Although general privacy concerns are high, disclosures of personal information on SNS are increasing, which is currently known as privacy paradox. In this study, the author conducted a survey to university students and testified the privacy paradox hypothesis. The result shows that the privacy concerns can be measured in a one-dimensional scale and that the privacy concerns were stronger in women than in men. Those who take care of their privacy are more likely to take protective action to other s privacy than those less take protective actions. There were no significant relations between privacy concerns and selfdisclosure on SNS, which suggests the existence of privacy paradox. While those who had high privacy concerns tended to take privacy protective actions in their daily life, which are contradictory to 1

2 privacy paradox hypothesis. In sum, this study showed no consistent phenomenon of privacy paradox. There may be a lot of factors for determining the privacy paradox. Therefore, future research is needed, expanding sample subjects and including multiple factors in the analysis. SNS Facebook twitter 1 Barnes, 2006; Norberg et al.,2007; Utz and Kramer, 2009; Boyd and Hargittai, 2010; Oetzel and Gonja, 2011; Baek, 2014 SNS Acqisiti and Gross, 2006; Tufekci, 2008; Dihnlin and Trepte, 2014; Taddicken, Facebook Barnes(2006) Boyd(2014) 2 Tufekci (2008) Dihlin and Trepte 595 Facebook (Debatin et al., 2009 ) 2

3 (Blank et al, 2015) Facebook 3 SNS SNS SNS SNS SNS ! SNS SNS Facebook Twitter SNS SNS Facebook Twitter Facebook 95.3% Twitter 34.7% Facebook 0.9% Twitter 38.1% SNS Facebook Facebook

4 Facebook Twitter 61.1% 35.1% Facebook Twitter 2 Facebook 68.9% Twitter 26.4% Facebook 57.5% Twitter 14.6% Twitter Facebook Twitter Facebook Twitter 4

5 Facebook Twitter 2 Facebook Twitter 2.!

6 12 2 Pearson Cronbach t, p<o.o5 (2013) 37.3% 55.1% 7.6% 46.4% 49.8% 3.8% 2 ; p<

7 3.! SNS Facebook Twitter SNS Facebook 4 Twitter Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter 7

8 4 SNS Facebook Twitter Facebook 56.6% 18.9% 24.5% Twitter 57.6% 22.6% 19.3% Facebook 6 Twitter 4 Dihnin & Trenpte(2014) 595 SNS 5 boyd and Hrgittai(2010) Facebook Facebook 8

9 Facebook 7 =20.9; p< ! (Boyd and Hargittai, 2010; ) 6 6 Boyd and Hargittai(2010) Facebook 9

10 8 9 ( ; p<0.01) ( ; p>0.05) SNS ! (Gross and Acquisiti, 2005; Barnes, 2006; Baek, 2014) (Barnes, 2006; Gross and Acquisti, 2005; 10

11 Nordenberg et al., 2007) (Hargittai, 2009; Park, 2011) (Xu et a., 2011) (Marvick and boyd, 2011) 7 (Taddicken,2014) SNS Taddicken (2014) SNS Facebook Twitter 90.9% Facebook 40.3% 7 Debatin (2008) 119 Facebook Davison(1983) 11

12 6.! Blank (Blank et al., 2015) Oxford Internet Study (OxIS) SNS Blank Barnes 2006 SNS (Bank, 2015) SNS 12

13 Blank Baek, Y.M. (2014). Solving the privacy paradox: a counter-argument experimental approach, Computers in Human Behaviors, 38, Barnes, S. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9) Blank, G., Bolsover, G. and Dubois, E. (2015). A New Privacy Paradox: Young people and privacy on social network sites. Global Cyber Security Capacity Center: Draft Working Paper. University of oxford. Boyd, D. and Hargittai, E. (2010). Facebook privacy settings: Who cares?. First Monday, 15(8). Boyd, D. (2014). It s Complecated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale University Press. (2014). Retrieved from Davison, P.W. (19873). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quartery, 47(1),1-15. Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J.P., Hom, A,K. and Hughes, B.N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Commmunication, 25(1), Gross, R. and Acqusti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society, Alexandria, VA, USA. Dienlin, T. and Trepte, S. ( 2014). Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors, European Journal of Social Psychology,45, Hargittai, E. (2010). An update on survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science Computer Review, 27(1), Marvick, A.E. and boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13(1), Nordenberg, P.A., Horne, D.R. and Horne, D.A. (2007) The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1),

14 Oetzel M.C. and Gonja, T. (2011). The online privacy paradox: A social representations perspective. Vancouver, Canada. Work in progress. Park, Y. (2013). Digital literacy and privacy behavior online. Communication Research, 40(2) (2014).. 118, Taddicken, M. (2014). The privacy paradox in the social web : The impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the social relevance on different forms of self-disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2) Tufekci, Z. (2008). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online soial network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(1), Utz, S. and Kramer, N.C. (2009). The privacy paradox on social network sites revisited: The role of individual characteristics and group norms. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3 (2). Xu, H. Carroll, J.M. and Rosson, M.B. (2011). The personalization privacy paradox: An exploratory study of decision making process for location-aware marketing. Decision Support Systems, 51(1)