Privacy & Self-disclosure online: Implications for Web surveys Carina Paine (1), Adam Joinson (1), Tom Buchanan (2) & Ulf-Dietrich Reips (3) (1) The Open.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ethical Considerations
Advertisements

The Challenge of the New Data Mark Elliot, Social Sciences University of Manchester January 2013
Is it time to revisit the problem young driver? Mrs Bridie Scott-Parker (PhD candidate-under-examination) 1.
Specialist leaders of education Briefing session for potential applicants 2013.
Champions Inside and Outside the Classroom: Analyzing extracurricular activities, academic self- efficacy, & academic achievement. Shults, L. S., Gibson,
Motorcycle Attitudinal Research 22 July Aim & Sample Structure Aims of research: – To explore the knowledge, attitudes and self-reported behaviour.
Identifying the Presence of Psychopathy in the Community A Study into Social Functioning and Deception Freya Samson, James Freeman, Gavan Palk | Queensland.
Mary R. Callahan, Ed. D.. Study Description Mixed-methods study (April, 2013) Use of survey (PSSDS,2009) and 10 semi-structured interview questions Three.
Police officers’ acceptance of stereotypes about rape and rape victims: A comparison study Dr. Emma Sleath and Professor Ray Bull.
NETT Recruitment-Admissions Interactive Review Congruence Survey for case study 1 Relationship between recruitment and admissions activity.
Online questionnaires Jane and Clare 2.
The financial practices and perceptions behind separate systems of household financial management Dr Katherine Ashby, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences,
Why do this research? Over recent years there has been a proliferation of on-line self-help groups, yet there have been few studies looking at what these.
Is Psychosocial Stress Associated with Alcohol Use Among Continuation High School Students? Raul Calderon, Jr. Ph.D., Gregory T. Smith, Ph.D., Marilyn.
Recruitment of online tutors Sharon Slade, Fenella Galpin OU Business School.
Chapter 14: Surveys Descriptive Exploratory Experimental Describe Explore Cause Populations Relationships and Effect Survey Research.
Noyce Program Evaluation Conference Thursday, December 6, 2007 Frances Lawrenz Michelle Fleming Pey-Yan Liou Christina Madsen Karen Hofstad-Parkhill 1.
Company LOGO B2C E-commerce Web Site Quality: an Empirical Examination (Cao, et al) Article overview presented by: Karen Bray Emilie Martin Trung (John)
Maria Cristina Matteucci, Dina Guglielmi
Washington State Prevention Summit Analyzing and Preparing Data for Outcome-Based Evaluation Using the Assigned Measures and the PBPS Outcomes Report.
Multiple Regression – Basic Relationships
Research Design and Tools for Internet Research Claire Hewson University of Bolton ESRC e-society Programme and Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods.
Hypotheses (1) The seven factors (sexual experience, experience of childhood sexual abuse, rape proclivity, rape myth acceptance, non-sexual aggression,
N318b Winter 2002 Nursing Statistics Specific statistical tests: Correlation Lecture 10.
Using the Internet to Conduct Research What Investigators and IRB Members Should Know -- January 29, Lisa Shickle, MS Analyst, VCU Massey Cancer.
1 Who's filtering health information? The role web masters play in disseminating health information on the Internet Julie Becker, Ph.D., MPH Temple University.
How stressed do you get? A negative personality constellation is associated with higher feelings of stress but lower blood pressure, heart rate, and hormone.
Who’s watching you? Power, personalization and on-line compliance. Adam Joinson Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University Acknowledgements:
Canadian English LING 202, Fall 2007 Dr. Tony Pi Research Ethics.
Maternal Romantic Relationship Quality, Parenting Stress and Child Outcomes: A Mediational Model Christine R. Keeports, Nicole J. Holmberg, & Laura D.
Disclosure of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Continuing Medical Education Michael D. Jibson, MD, PhD and Jennifer Seibert, MD University of Michigan.
The Costly Pursuit of Self-Esteem Amy Canevello Institute for Social Research University of Michigan.
DEVELOPEMENT OF A HOLISTC WELLNESS MODEL FOR MANAGERS IN TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS Petrus Albertus Botha Tshwane University of Technology Polokwane Delivery.
Extremes of Online Interpersonal Relationships Brian Coleman Angela Lutheran April
360 Feedback A Tool For Improving Individual And Organizational Effectiveness.
CALL in TESOL Teacher Training Greg Kessler Ohio University.
Janis L. Whitlock Cornell University.   Previous research show that human beings develop in multiple social ecologies but school connectedness and the.
Personally Important Posttraumatic Growth as a Predictor of Self-Esteem in Adolescents Leah McDiarmid, Kanako Taku Ph.D., & Aundreah Walenski Presented.
LibQUAL Survey Results Customer Satisfaction Survey Spring 2005 Sidney Silverman Library Bergen Community College Analysis and Presentation by Mark Thompson,
A COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF DETECTING INATTENTIVE RESPONDENTS Avi Fleischer M.S.
Online shoppers’ perceptions of e-retailers’ ethics, cultural orientation, and loyalty An exploratory study in Taiwan MA Chu-Yi, Chen.
Behavioral Advertising Privacy, Consumer Attitudes and Best Practices Carolyn Hodge, VP of Communications, TRUSTe David W. Stark CIPP, VP & North America.
◦ th and 11 th grade high school students (54% girls) ◦ 63% Caucasian; 24% African-American; 13% Hispanic; remaining were Asian or “other” ◦ Mean.
Perceived Risk and Emergency Preparedness: The Role of Self-Efficacy Jennifer E. Marceron, Cynthia A. Rohrbeck Department of Psychology, The George Washington.
Template provided by: “posters4research.com”   Ideals: mental constructs that represent an idea of traits we are attracted to in potential partners (Fletcher.
Housing discrimination, housing status, and HIV risk behavior among U.S. mid-Atlantic sexual and gender minority individuals Ariella R. Tabaac 1, Laurie.
Inclusive Assessment Dr Helen May Higher Education Academy Academic Registrars Council Assessment Practitioners Working Group
Fairness in Financial Services Dr Harjit Singh Sekhon
1 Psychology 320: Psychology of Gender and Sex Differences Lecture 31.
AN EXPLORATION OF PERSON- CENTRED CARE ACROSS ACUTE HOSPITAL SETTINGS IN IRELAND By Dr R Parlour & Dr P Slater.
Australian Smokers Support Stronger Regulatory Controls on Tobacco: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project David Young,
University of Cologne / Rheinische Fachhochschule Cologne Christian Bosau Who do you trust: Facebook or your friends? Analyzing predictors of privacy protection.
T Relationships do matter: Understanding how nurse-physician relationships can impact patient care outcomes Sandra L. Siedlecki PhD RN CNS.
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., &
Attachment style and condom use across and within dating relationships
Florida International University, Miami, FL
Patricia M. Alt, Ph.D. Dept. of Health Science Towson University
Can Online Course-Based Assessment Methods be Fair and Equitable?
Parental Alcoholism and Adolescent Depression?
DECEPTION ACROSS DIFFERENT MODES OF COMMUNICATION
Investigation of social identity and mood in people with MS: Can family identity predict mood? Alex Barker, Nadina Lincoln, Roshan das Nair, Nigel Hunt.
Facebook, Friends and Faith -Trusting online friends
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY
Brotherson, S., Kranzler, B., & Zehnacker, G.
Sociosexuality and Perceptions of Partner Over Time
To use or not to use? An exploration of cannabis use motives and constraints Dr Liz Temple
Research Ethics and Integrity Officer
How to write a good Introduction
Tracy L. Tylka, Ph.D., FAED ohio state university
Presentation transcript:

Privacy & Self-disclosure online: Implications for Web surveys Carina Paine (1), Adam Joinson (1), Tom Buchanan (2) & Ulf-Dietrich Reips (3) (1) The Open University, UK (2) Westminster University, UK (3) University of Zurich, Switzerland

Presentation Overview  Introduction –Self-Disclosure & Privacy Online 2. Overview of 2 Studies: –Aim: to explore the relationship between privacy & self-disclosure online 3. Summary

Self-Disclosure Online  People are increasingly required to disclose personal information online  Self-disclosure online is a paradox: –Increased disclosure in CMC (Joinson, 2001) Due to anonymity? (e.g. Joinson, 1999; Reips & Franek, 2004) –Decreased disclosure for commercial websites (e.g. Jupiter, 2002) Due to privacy concerns? (e.g. Hoffman et al.,1999) & lack of knowledge about how information will be used (Metzger, 2004) Introduction Study 1 Study 2 Summary

Self-Disclosure & Online Surveys  Surveys administered online have been associated with higher levels of self disclosure (e.g. Weisband & Kiesler, 1996) –Due to anonymity & likely audience? (Joinson) –Due to increased privacy of research environment? (Tourangeau, 2004) Reduction in privacy results in reduction in self- disclosure (Joinson et al., in press)  Does privacy play an important role in understanding peoples responses to web-based surveys? –Privacy concerns rarely considered in self-disclosure research in the context of surveys Introduction Study 1 Study 2 Summary

Privacy & Online Surveys  Privacy Online –Offline privacy concerns magnified online? (Privacy Knowledge Base, 2005) –Information disclosed is an increasingly valuable (but cheaply available) commodity  Online Surveys & Privacy Concerns –Privacy is more sensitive issue & online surveys can commit multiple violations of privacy – more intense than those found in conventional surveys (Cho & LaRose, 1999)  Perceived Privacy? –Anonymity & confidentiality measures – an issue of trust? (Singer et al., 1993, 1995) Introduction Study 1 Study 2 Summary

Overview of Studies  Overall Aim: –to explore the relationship between privacy & self-disclosure, & in particular, any mediating factors (such as trust & perceived privacy)  Initial 2 studies: –Interest in ‘Trait’ & ‘State’ privacy –Study 1: The development & testing of privacy & self- disclosure measures –Study 2: 2 part study; detailed examination of relationship between privacy & self-disclosure  General Methodology: –Online participant panels of OU students – invitation to Web based surveys Introduction Study 1 Study 2 Summary

Study 1: methodology  Online Survey: Sample of 685 from panel 1 (response rate=75%)  Option posing items: –Privacy Attitude: 48 items, 5-point scale e.g. how concerned are you about people online not being who they say they are? –Privacy Behaviour: 34 items, 5-point scale e.g. do you only register for web sites that have a privacy policy? –Self-Disclosure: 18 items, response options included: ‘please select’ as default & ‘prefer not to say’ option e.g. How many different sexual partners have you had?  Order of item presentation manipulated Introduction Study 1 Study 2 Summary

Study 1: results  Psychometric procedures used to develop privacy & self-disclosure scales –Self-disclosure items: pool of 16 items –Privacy attitude: 16 items –Privacy behaviour: 12 items; equally split into: 1.General caution items 2.Technical protection of privacy items  Criterion validation study with Usenet groups & OU online discussion groups confirmed scales  Self-disclosure significantly lower when items presented after privacy items [F (1,511) =13.167, p<0.005, partial eta 2 =0.025] Introduction Study 1 Study 2 Summary

Study 2: methodology  ‘Trait’ privacy (from study 1 measures) & ‘State’ effects (perceived privacy)  Study 2, part 1 –Online Survey: Sample of 1931 from panel 2 (response rate=59%) –Option posing items: Privacy Attitude: Study 1: 16 items, 5-point scale Westin (e.g. 1998): 3 items, 4-point scale IUIPC (Malhotra et al., 2004): 10 items, 7-point scale Privacy Behaviour 6 ‘general caution’ & 6 ‘technical protection’ items, 5-point scale Introduction Study 1 Study 2 Summary

Study 2: methodology (cont) 1 month later….  Study 2, part 2 –Online Survey: Sample of 1931 OU students (response rate=51%) (67% retention rate) –Option posing items: Behavioural self-disclosure: Study 1: 16 items, 5-point scale Dispositional self-disclosure: From IPIP, 10 items, 3-point scale Social desirability: BIDR (IM & SDE), 40 items, 7-point scale Trust, Anonymity, Confidentiality items, 5-point scale e.g. I am sure that my responses will remain confidential Introduction Study 1 Study 2 Summary

Study 2: results  Non-disclosure: –Active: Mean = 0.45, SD = 1.05, range = –Passive: Mean = 0.09, SD = 0.57, range =  Is there a link between privacy & self-disclosure? –Multiple regression analysis -> Significant model [F (3,748) =5.478,p<0.005] Adjusted R square = Privacy Concern: Beta = 0.086, p<0.05 Privacy Behaviour (general caution): Beta= 0.102, p<0.05  Is the link direct? –Multiple regression analysis -> Significant model [F (17,572) =5.198,p<0.0005] Adjusted R square = Trust: Beta = , p< BIDR IM score: Beta = 2.316, p<0.05  Individual effects on self-disclosure? Introduction Study 1 Study 2 Summary

Privacy Concern Perceived Privacy.69 Trust.48 Privacy Behaviour: General Caution active non disclosure STATE PROCESS TRAIT PROCESS

Summary 1. Privacy is important –i. State - as designed into a study (i.e. steps to ensure anonymity & confidentiality, encourage trust) –ii. Trait - general concern / behaviour of respondents 2. Different types of privacy seem to act independently –they have unique effects on self-disclosure – but a cumulative effect too 3.Some evidence that link between perceived privacy & self-disclosure may be via Trust …….. 4. So, it is possible that steps to increase trust can mitigate impact of lowered perceived privacy 5. People’s ‘trait’ privacy will always remain, which isn’t going to respond to survey design Introduction Study 1 Study 2 Summary

Further Information Dr. Carina Paine / Dr. Adam Joinson, Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK,MK7 6AA Web: (for slides & references - next week)

.06 active non disclosure.48 Trust e2 e1 Privacy Concern.10 Privacy Behaviour: General Caution e4 Perceived Privacy Model 1

Model 2