Self-disclosure in social networking sites

Abstract

. (2015) 'Self-disclosure in social networking sites : the role of perceived cost, perceived bene ts and social in uence.', Internet research., 25 (2). pp. 279-299. Further information on publisher's website:https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-09-2013-0192Publisher's copyright statement:This article is c Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-09-2013-0192. Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Design/methodology/approach -Building upon social exchange theory and privacy calculus theory, an integrated model was developed. The model was tested empirically using a sample of 405 social networking site's users. Users were required to complete a survey regarding selfdisclosure behaviors in Facebook. Findings -The results indicate that social influence is the factor which exhibits the strongest effect on self-disclosure in social networking sites, followed by perceived benefits. Surprisingly, perceived privacy risk does not have any significant impact on self-disclosure. Research limitations/implications -The results inform researchers about the importance to incorporate social influence factors and cultural factors into future online self-disclosure study. Practical implications -The results suggest that users focus on the benefits as well as social influence when they decide to reveal personal information in social networking sites, but pay less attention to the potential privacy risks. Educators are advised to launch educational programs to raise students' awareness to the potential risks of self-disclosure in social networking sites.Service providers of social networking sites are encouraged to provide intuitive privacy indices showing users the levels of privacy protection.Originality/value -This paper is one of the first to develop and empirically tests an integrated model of self-disclosure in social networking sites.

Examining Self-Disclosure on Social Networking Sites: A Flow Theory and Privacy Perspective

“…The unique features of web 2.0, and its role in making the internet a more accessible and interactive environment [9] even for non-technical users, have facilitated the growth and spread of social media [15]. This online space has provided rich opportunities for brands seeking to connect with their consumers, as the number of useful platforms for such interactions have ballooned over the years since the technology was introduced [16].…”

“…Ellison and Boyd [5] defined a social networking site as “a networked communication platform in which participants (1) have uniquely identifiable profiles that consist of user-supplied content, content provided by other users and/or system-level data, (2) can publicly articulate connections that can be viewed and traversed by others, and (3) can consume, produce, and/or interact with streams of user generated content provided by their connections on the site.” In the literature, this process of “making the self known to others,” described as self-disclosure [6] has been in existence at least since the late 1950s for example Jourard & Lasakow [7], and is a well-established phenomenon in the field of psychology [8]. With the introduction of social media, in particular, social networking sites, people have been found to reveal more and more of themselves online than they ordinarily would in traditional/off-line settings [6,9]. This has been attributed to the lack of some social cues that are easily evident in face-to-face communications [6], which frees individuals up to express themselves without fear or favor, as well as the absence of self-consciousness that would be existent in personal communications but is not present in online environments [10].…”

“…Extant studies on the topic include research by Cheung et al [9], Krasnova et al [11], and Walrave et al [14]; however, these have each studied only a few variables limited to a particular social networking site like Facebook. The current study therefore aims to examine the antecedents of self-disclosure from the perspective of privacy related constructs and flow in order to answer the research question: “What factors motivate users to disclose information about themselves on social networking sites?”…”

Personality and Social Framing in Privacy Decision-Making: A Study on Cookie Acceptance

“…A greater willingness to self-disclose information may render individuals vulnerable to privacy and security risks, as they may not think through the consequences of this exposure (Acquisti and Gross, 2006). Individuals are more willing to disclose information when under social influence (Sánchez et al, 2014) and pay less attention to potential privacy risks when under this influence (Cheung et al, 2015). …”

Health in exchange for privacy : the adoption of personalised nutrition advices

“…In addition, our findings identify factors that determine perceptions of privacy risk and personalisation benefit in the health domain. Consistent with the Information Science and Systems literature, perceptions of privacy risk were determined by the extent to which individuals perceived to have control over the disclosed personal information (Cheung, Lee, & Chan, 2015;Krasnova, Spiekermann, Koroleva, & Hildebrand, 2010;H. Li et al, 2014) and the extent to which they perceived the disclosed personal information to be intrusive (Dinev et al, 2013;Kehr et al, 2015).…”