PRIVACY PROTECTION STRATEGIES ON FACEBOOK: The Internet privacy paradox revisited
Abstract
The privacy paradox describes people's willingness to disclose personal information on social network sites despite expressing high levels of concern. In this study, we employ the distinction between institutional and social privacy to examine this phenomenon. We investigate what strategies undergraduate students have developed, and their motivations for using specific strategies. We employed a mixed-methods approach that included 77 surveys and 21 in-depth interviews. The results suggest that, in addition to using the default privacy settings, students have developed a number of strategies to address their privacy needs. These strategies are used primarily to guard against social privacy threats and consist of excluding contact information, using the limited profile option, untagging and removing photographs, and limiting Friendship requests from strangers. Privacy strategies are geared toward managing the Facebook profile, which we argue functions as a front stage. This active profile management allows users to negotiate the need for connecting on Facebook with the desire for increased privacy. Thus, users disclose information, because they have made a conscious effort to protect themselves against potential violations. We conclude that there is a tilt toward social privacy concerns. Little concern was raised about institutional privacy and no strategies were in place to protect against threats from the use of personal data by institutions. This is relevant for policy discu…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Users become aware of the consequences of sharing information at a social privacy level but not at an institutional privacy level.
“By doing so, users become aware of the consequences of sharing information at a social privacy level but not at an institutional privacy level.”
From The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review (2017) · cites this paper as Young and Quan-Haase, 2013
Low transparency about data usage by provider companies leads to misinformation and misinterpretation of how third parties will utilize users' information and data disclosure despite privacy concerns.
“This situation, in combination with low transparency as it pertains to data usage by provider companies, eventually leads to misinformation and misinterpretation of how third parties will utilize users' information and data disclosure despite privacy concerns (Young and Quan-Haase, 2013).”
From The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review (2017) · cites this paper as Young and Quan-Haase, 2013
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 32 · Cited by 345
- Authors
- Young, A. L., & Quan-Haase, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, Baltimore County (US)
- Corresponding author
- Young, Alyson Leigh
- Venue
- Information, Communication & Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-05
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 479-500
- ISSN
- 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4462
- OpenAlex
- W2164837021
- Cited by
- 345
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 77.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Keywords
- privacy protection strategies, Facebook, privacy paradox, social privacy, personal information disclosure, social network sites, privacy settings, profile management, front stage, targeted advertising, personal data collection, undergraduate students
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