GPCP A G ERMAN V ERSION OF THE S CALE FOR O NLINE P RIVACY C ONCERN AND P ROTECTION FOR U SE ON THE I NTERNET Authors: Oostlander, J., Reips, U.-D., & Buchanan, T. (2008)

O VERVIEW 1 Aim of this study: a) Translation of the „Scale for Online Privacy and Protection (PCP)“ (Buchanan, Paine, Joinson & Reips, 2007) b) Evaluation of: reliability factorial validity (factorial structure) criteria validity (technical knowledge)

Multidimensional definition of „Privacy“ by Burgoon, Parrot, LePoire, Kelley, Walther & Perry (1989): „the ability to control and limit physical, interactional, psychological and informational access to the self or to one’s group“ Central factor of all dimensions: “Desire, to keep personal information out of hands of others” (Buchanan et al., 2007) D EFINITION OF P RIVACY 2

 based on a multidimensional definition of privacy  includes attitudinal and behavioral aspects  validated for use on the Internet PCP S CALE, B UCHANAN ET AL. (2007) 3 behavior General Caution 6 Items ( α =.75) Technical Protection 6 Items ( α =.74) attitude Privacy Concern 16 Items ( α =.93)

Privacy Concern (Attitude) Are you concerned about online identity theft? Are you concerned that a computer virus could send out s in your name? General Caution (Behavior) Do you hide your bank card PIN number when using cash machines / making purchases? Do you look for a privacy certification on a website before you register your information? Technical Protection (Behavior) Do you check your computer for spy ware? Do you use a pop up window blocker? Answers on 5-point scales I TEM -E XAMPLES 4

Assumption of Buchanan et al. (2007): Technical students (e.g. computer science) are more aware of threats to their privacy on the Internet than non-technical students (e.g. social science) C RITERIA V ALIDITY OF THE PCP 5

1. Technical Knowledge by “field of study” (Buchanan et al., 2007)  Aim: Checking the translation 2. Questionnaire for “objective technical computer knowledge” INCOBI – Inventory of Computer Knowledge (Richter, Naumann & Groeben, 2002) out of it: TECOWI – Scale for technical computer knowledge 13 Items, α =.90,  Aim: Further validation of the PCP C RITERIA V ARIABLES OF THIS S TUDY 6

Aim: Checking the translation (Hypothesis similar to results from Buchanan et al., 2007) Hypothesis 1a People with a technical field of study do not differ in their level of Privacy Concern (attitude) compared to people with a non- technical field of study. Hypothesis 1b People with a technical field of study have higher scores on the General Caution Scale (behavior) compared to people with a non-technical field of study. Hypothesis 1c People with a technical field of study have higher scores on the Technical Protection Scale (behavior) compared to people with a non-technical field of study. H YPOTHESIS „F IELD OF S TUDY “ 7

Aim: Further validation of the Online Privacy Scale (Hypothesis similar to the original hypothesis of Buchanan et al., 2007). Hypothesis 2a People with a high technical computer knowledge have higher Privacy Concerns (attitude) compared to people with a low technical knowledge. Hypothesis 2b People with high technical computer knowledge have similar scores on the General Caution Scale (behavior) compared to people with a low technical knowledge. Hypothesis 2c People with high technical computer knowledge have higher scores on the Technical Protection Scale (behavior) compared to people with a low technical knowledge. H YPOTHESIS „O BJECTIVE T ECHNICAL K NOWLEDGE “ 8

Online survey with WEXTOR pages 1. Welcome 2. Privacy Concern items 3. General Caution and Technical Protection items 4. Instruction and items of TECOWI (4 pages) 5. demographical variables Same item order compared to Buchanan et al. (2007) Average time to fill in the online survey: M = 7:39 minutes D ATA C OLLECTION 9

E XAMPLE : O NLINE S URVEY, GPCP 10

E XAMPLE : O NLINE S URVEY, TECOWI 11

N = 566 age: M = 25.0 years sex: 56% male, 44% female recruited by Sample consists of: ETH students and assistants (n = 379) Psychology students of UNZH (n = 44) personal requests (no students) (n = 91) S AMPLE 12

D ROPOUT 13

Reliability: Privacy Concern Scale: α =.86 (.93 engl.) General Caution Scale : α =.75 (.75 engl.) Technical Protection Scale : α =.65 (.74 engl.) Factorial validity: Factorial structure was replicated in every of the three subscales. R ELIABILITY & F ACTORIAL V ALIDITY 14

Hypothesis 1a People with a technical field of study do not differ in their Privacy Concern (attitude). M tec (28.38) = M non-tec (27.81); p =.57 Hypothesis 1b People with a technical field of study get higher scores on General Caution Scale (behavior). M tec (10.43) = M non-tec (10.28); p =.71 Hypothesis 1c People with a technical field of study get higher scores on Technical Protection Scale (behavior). M tec (16.34) > M non-tec (14.42); p = <.001 R ESULTS „F IELD OF S TUDY “ 15

Hypothesis 2a People with high technical computer knowledge get higher scores on Privacy Concern Scale (attitude). r =.11; p =.01 Hypothesis 2b People with high technical computer knowledge do not differ in scores on General Caution Scale (behavior). r =.07; p =.10 Hypothesis 2c People with high technical computer knowledge get higher scores on Technical Protection Scale (behavior). r =.30; p <.001 R ESULTS : O BJECTIVE T ECHNICAL K NOWLEDGE 16

Translation of PCP was successful! Further advancement and validation is required. Weaknesses of PCP/GPCP: Ceiling- und floor effects in many items Items of Technical Protection Scale are highly dependent from technical changes (e.g. spyware filter or pop-up blocker). C ONCLUSION 17