Cited by 345Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionInnovative Human-Technology InteractionMedia and Digital Communication

PRIVACY PROTECTION STRATEGIES ON FACEBOOK: The Internet privacy paradox revisited

Young, Alyson Leigh, Quan-Haase, Anabel·2013·Information, Communication & Society

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

Crossref · 10.1080/1369118x.2013.777757

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

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
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