Trust into collective privacy? The role of subjective theories for self-disclosure in online communication

Societies

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 770-784

  Moll, Ricarda ^a   Pieschl, Stephanie ^a   Bromme, Rainer ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

Memory; Metacognitive accuracy; Online Social Networks; Privacy; Self disclosure; Subjective theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938846499     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20754698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/soc4040770     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Petronio, S. Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure; State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, USA, 2002.
2. Boyd, D. Taken out of context: American teen sociality in networked publics. Doctoral Dissertation, School of Information, University of California-Berkeley, 2008. Available online: http://www.danah.org/papers/TakenOutOfContext.pdf (accessed on 22 August 2012).
3. Laurenceau, J.P.; Barrett, L.F.; Pietromonaco, P.R. Intimacy as a process: The importance of self-disclosure and responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 1238–1251.
4. Ellison, N.; Steinfield, C.; Lampe, C. The benefits of Facebook ‘friends’: Exploring the relationship between college students’ use of online social networks and social capital. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2007, 12, 1143–1168.
5. Steinfield, C.; Ellison, N.; Lampe, C. Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2008, 29, 434–445.
6. Valenzuela, S.; Park, N.; Kee, K.F. Is there social capital in a Social Network Site? Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2009, 14, 875–901.
7. Cozby, O.C. Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychol. Bull. 1973, 79, 73–91.
8. Altman, I.; Taylor, D.A. Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships; Rinehart & Winston: New York, NY, USA, 1973.
9. Kunnel, A. Eine integrative Theorie der Vertrauenskommunikation in sozialen Onlinenetzwerken [An integretaive theory of trust communication in Online Social Networks]. Unpublished Dissertation Exposé, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster, Germany, 2014.
10. Coleman, J.S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 1988, 94, 95–120.
11. Vitak, J. The impact of context collapse and privacy on Social Network Site disclosures. J. Broadcast Electron. Media 2012, 56, 451–470.
12. Vitak, J.; Ellison, N.B. ‘There’s a network out there you might as well tap’: Exploring the benefits of and barriers to exchanging informational and support-based resources on Facebook. New Media Soc. 2013, 15, 243–259.
13. Vitak, J.; Kim, J. “You can’t block people offline”: Examining how Facebook’s affordances shape the disclosure process. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, Baltimore, MD, USA, 15–19 February 2014.
14. Burke, M.; Marlow, C.; Lento, T. Social network activity and social well-being. In Proceedings of the ACM conference of Computers in Human Interaction, Firenze, Italy, 10–14 April 2010; pp. 1909–1912.
15. Grossklags, J.; Acquisti, A. When 25 Cents is too much: An experiment on willingness-To-sell and willingness-to-protect personal pnformation. In Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on the Economics of Information Security, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 7–8 June 2007.
16. Binder, J.; Howes, A.; Sutcliffe, A. The Problem of Conflicting Social Spheres: Effects of Network Structure on Experienced Tension in Social Network Sites. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, USA, 7 April 2009; pp. 965–974.
17. Rui, J.R.; Stefanone, M. Strategic image management online. Inform Comm. Soc. 2013, 16, 1286–1305.
18. Norberg, P.A.; Horne, D.R.; Horne, D.A. The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. J. Consum. Aff. 2007, 41, 100–126.
19. Altman, I. The Environment and Social Behavior; Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, USA, 1975.
20. Xu, H.; Teo, H.-H.; Tan, B.C.Y.; Agarwal, R. The role of push-pull technology in privacy calculus: The case of location-based services. J. Manage Inform. Syst. 2009, 26, 135–174.
21. Acquisti, A. Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification. In Proceedings of the EC’04, New York, NY, USA, 17–20 May 2004; pp. 21–29.
22. Margulis, S.T. On the status and contribution of Westin’s and Altman’s theories of privacy. J. Soc. Issues 2003, 59, 411–429.
23. Trepte, S.; Dienlin, T. Privatsphäre im Internet [Privacy on the Internet]. In Neue Medien und deren Schatten [New Media and Their Shadows]; Porsch, T., Pieschl, S., Eds.; Hogrefe: Göttingen, Germany, 2014.
24. Solove, D.J. Conceptualizing privacy. Calif. Law Rev. 1997, 90, 1087–1156.
25. Groeben, N.; Scheele, B. Dialogue-hermeneutic method and the “research program subjective theories”. Available online: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1079/2354 (accessed on 11 February 2014).
26. Keil, F.C. Folkscience: Coarse interpretations of a complex reality. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2003, 7, 368–373.
27. Dweck, C.S.; Chiu, C.; Hong, Y. Implicit theories elaboration and extension of the model. Psychol. Inq. 1995, 6, 322–333.
28. Gelman, S.A.; Noles, N.S. Domains and naïve theories. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 2011, 2, 490–502.
29. Beckedahl, M., Meister, A., Eds. Überwachtes Netz: Edward Snowden und der größte Überwachungsskandal der Geschichte [Surveillance of the Internet: Edward Snowden and the Largest Surveillance Scandal in History]; epubli GmbH: Berlin, Germany, 2013.
30. Toffler, A. Future Shock; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 1970.
31. Franck, G. Ökonomie der Aufmerksamkeit—Ein Entwurf [Economy of Attention—A Blueprint]; Hanser: München, Germany, 1998.
32. Lundblad, N. Privacy in the noise society. Scand. Stud. Law 2004, 47, 349–371.
33. Nickerson, R.S.; Baddeley, A.; Freeman, B. Are people’s estimates of what other people know influenced by what they themselves know? Acta Psychol. 1987, 64, 245–259.
34. Michaelian, K. (Social) Metacognition and (Self-)Trust. Rev. Philos. Psychol. 2012, 3, 481–514.
35. Jost, J.T.; Kruglansky, A.W.; Nelson, T.O. Social metacognition: An Expansionist’s view. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 1998, 2, 137–154.
36. Premack, D.; Woodruff, G. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav. Brain Sci. 1978, 1, 515–526.
37. Litt, E. Knock knock. Who’s there? The imagined audience. J. Broadcast Electron. Media 2012, 56, 330–345.
38. Marwick, A.E.; Boyd, D. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media Soc. 2011, 13, 114–133.
39. Hoadley, C.M.; Xu, H.; Lee, J.J.; Rosson, M.B. Privacy as information access and illusory control: The case of the Facebook News Feed privacy outcry. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2010, 9, 50–60.
40. Boyd, D. Facebook’s privacy trainwreck: Exposure, invasion, and social convergence. Convergence 2008, 14, 13–20.
41. Ackoff, R.L. From Data to Wisdom. J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 1989, 16, 3–9.
42. Solove, D.J. ‘I’ve got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy. San Diego Law Rev. 2007, 44, 745–772.
43. Scheele, B.; Groeben, N. Dialog-Konsens-Methoden Zur Rekonstruktion Subjektiver Theorien: Die Heidelberger Struktur-Lege-Technik (SLT), Konsensuale Ziel-Mittel-Argumentation Und Kommunikative Flußdiagramm-Beschreibung von Handlungen; Francke: Tübingen, Germany, 1988.
44. Sperber, D.; Clément, F.; Heintz, C.; Mascaro, O.; Mercier, H.; Origgi, G.; Wilson, D. Epistemic vigilance. Mind Lang. 2010, 25, 359–393.
45. Koriat, A. Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. J. Exp. Psychol. 1997, 126, 349–370.
46. Pintrich, P.R. A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2004, 16, 385–407.
47. Brown, A.; Hornstein, S.; Memon, A. Tracking conversational repetition: An evaluation of target monitoring ability. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2006, 20, 85–95.
48. Gopie, N.; MacLeod, C.M. Destination memory—Stop me if I told you this before. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 20, 1492–1499.
49. Marsh, R.L.; Hicks, J.L. Comparisons of target output monitoring and source input monitoring. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2002, 16, 845–862.
50. Grudin, J. Desituating action: Digital representation of context. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2001, 16, 269–286.
51. Schwarz, N.; Bless, H.; Strack, F.; Klumpp, G.; Rittenauer-Schatka, H.; Simons, A. Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 61, 195–202.
52. McCloy, R.; Byrne, R.M.J.; Johnson-Laird, P.N. Understanding cumulative risk. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2010, 63, 499–515.
53. Moll, R.; Pieschl, S.; Bromme, R. Competent or clueless? Users’ knowledge and misperceptions about their online privacy management. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 41, 212–219.
54. Moll, R.; Pieschl, S.; Bromme, R. Sharing in the dark? Target memory and risk awareness in online communication. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Berlin, Germany, 31 July–3 August 2013; Knauff, M., Pauen, M., Sebanz, N., Wachsmuth, I., Eds.; Cognitive Science Society: Austin, TX, USA, 2013; pp. 3092–3097.
55. Pieschl, S.; Moll, R. For they know not what they do? Target memory and metacognitive monitoring of self-disclosures in Online Social Networks. Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster, Germany. Unpublished work, 2014.
56. Flavell, J.H. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am. Psychol. 1979, 34, 906–911.
57. Nelson, T.O.; Narens, L. Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 1990, 26, 125–173.
58. Pieschl, S. Metacognitive calibration—An extended conceptualization and potential applications. Metacogn. Learn 2009, 4, 3–31.
59. Kruger, J.; Dunning, D. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 77, 1121–1134.
60. Alter, A.L.; Oppenheimer, D.M. Suppressing secrecy through metacognitive ease—Cognitive fluency encourages self-disclosure. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 20, 1414–1419.
61. Metcalfe, J.; Schwartz, B.L.; Joaquim, S.G. The cue-familiarity heuristic in metacognition. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. 1993, 19, 851–864.
62. Molden, D.C.; Dweck, C.S. Finding ‘meaning’ in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. Am. Psychol. 2006, 61, 192–203.
63. Stutzman, F.; Capra, R.; Thompson, J. Factors mediating disclosure in Social Network Sites. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 590–598.
64. Anderson, C.A.; Lindsay, J.J. The development, perseverance, and change of naive theories. Soc. Cogn. Spec. Issue: Naive Theor. Soc. Judgm. 1998, 16, 8–30.
65. Adler, P.S.; Kwon, S.-W. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 17–40.