Cited by 119Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionMedia and Digital CommunicationInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Why we share: a uses and gratifications approach to privacy regulation in social media use

Open access
Quinn, Kelly·2016·Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media

Abstract

The contradiction between the stated preferences of social media users toward privacy and actual privacy behaviors has suggested a willingness to trade privacy regulation for social goals. This study employs data from a survey of 361 social media users, which collected data on privacy attitudes, online privacy strategies and behaviors, and the uses and gratifications that social media experiences bring. Using canonical correlation, it examines in detail how underlying dimensions of privacy concern relate to specific contexts of social media use, and how these contexts relate to various domains of privacy-protecting behaviors. In addition, this research identifies how specific areas of privacy concern relate to levels of privacy regulation, offering new insight into the privacy paradox. In doing so, this study lends greater nuance to how the dynamic of privacy and sociality is understood and enacted by users, and how privacy management and the motivations underlying media use intersect.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08838151.2015.1127245

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Habit probably inhibits engagement in privacy management tools on social networks, despite increased experience with social networking, leading to a disconnection between privacy concerns and behaviors.

    “Quinn (2016) found that habit (habit was identified as one out of nine uses and gratifications) probably inhibits engagement in privacy management tools on social networks, despite increased experience with social networking, which eventually leads to a disconnection between privacy concerns and behaviors.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 59 · Cited by 119

Authors
Quinn, K.
Corresponding author
Quinn, Kelly
Venue
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media
Published
2016-01-02
Volume
60
Issue
1
Pages
61-86
ISSN
  • 0883-8151 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-6878
OpenAlex
W2291207401
Cited by
119
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3
FWCI
36.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
privacy paradox, privacy regulation, social media use, uses and gratifications theory, privacy concerns, privacy attitudes, sociality, privacy management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review