An Investigation of Attitudes of Students Towards Privacy on Facebook

Year 2018, , 368 - 384, 30.06.2018

Uğur Bakan

https://doi.org/10.31123/akil.441782

Abstract

The social media studies have frequently investigated the changes occurring in the

individual’s behaviors within the social network, and the cause-and-effect relationship

of these changes focuses on personality, but very little research has investigated

the relationship between Facebook and privacy within the theoretical framework of

individualism. In this study, it was aimed to determine whether there is a relationship

between the tendency of students to hide their problems and their attitudes towards

this tendency. This study is a descriptive one, and was evaluated by surveys. A

Likert-type online questionnaire including 36 items was answered by 568 high school

students from 26 classes (grades 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th) in Ordu, Turkey (Male=279,

49.1%, Female=289, 50.9%) in March and April in 2016. Participants ranged from

14 to 18 years of age (M = 16.15, SD = 1.00). Mean and standard deviation values

were calculated for the obtained data and those were indicated in findings by making

interpretations of the tables. As to the results of t-test and One Way ANOVA test which

was conducted to determine the reasons of usage of social media by the students in

terms of gender, monthly income and family attitude, there was a significant difference

among variables. Findings point to the complex ways of the problems of privacy of

adolescents on Facebook. The study results will raise more questions for future studies

in terms of social media usage and privacy management.

Keywords

Self-problems, Risky Behaviors, Privacy, Education, Social Media, Facebook

References

• Ahern, D., Eckles, D., Good, N., King, S., Naaman, M., Nair, R. (2007). Over –Exposed? Privacy Patterns and Considerations in online and Mobile Photo Sharing. Paper available on http: infolab. standford.edu.
• Allen, A. L. (1988). Uneasy access: Privacy for female in a free society. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Almuhimedi, H., Schaub, F., Sadeh, N., Adjerid, I., Acquisti, A., Gluck, J., Cranor, L., F., Agarwal, Y. (2015). Your Location has been Shared 5,398 Times! Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’15. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702210.
• Barney, L. J., Griffiths, K. M., Christensen, H., & Jorm, A. F. (2010). The Self-Stigma of Depression Scale (SSDS): development and psychometric evaluation of a new instrument. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 19(4), 243–254. doi:10.1002/mpr.325.
• Berkup, S. B. (2015). Individual privacy sharing in social networks: A comparative analysis between X and Y generations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ege University, Graduate School of Social Sciences, İzmir.
• Bowen, N. K., & Bowen, G. L. (1999). Effects of Crime and Violence in Neighborhoods and Schools on the School Behavior and Performance of Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14(3), 319–342. doi:10.1177/0743558499143003.
• Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. doi:10.1111/j.1083- 6101.2007.00393.x.
• Chan, Y., E., and Greenaway, K., E. (2005). Theoretical Explanations for Firms’ Information Privacy Behaviors, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(6), 171-198.
• Child, J. T., Pearson, J. C., & Petronio, S. (2009). Blogging, communication, and privacy management: Development of the Blogging Privacy Management Measure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2079–2094. doi:10.1002/ asi.21122.
• Church, E. M., Thambusamy, R., & Nemati, H. (2017). Privacy and pleasure: A paradox of the hedonic use of computer-mediated social networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 121–131. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.040.
• Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A.-K., & Hughes, B. N. (2009). Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 83–108. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01494.x.
• Facebook. (2017). Company information: Stats. Retrieved from www.newsroom.fb.com/companyinfo/.
• Harris, A. D., McGregor, J. C., Perencevich, E. N., Furuno, J. P., Zhu, J., Peterson, D. E., & Finkelstein, J. (2006). The Use and Interpretation of Quasi-Experimental Studies in Medical Informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13(1), 16–23. doi:10.1197/ jamia.m1749.
• Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2009). The fairyland of Second Life: Virtual social worlds and how to use them. Business Horizons, 52(6), 563–572. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.07.002.
• Kaplan, İ. (2017). Privacy Perception of University Students on Social Media (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Anadolu University, Graduate School of Social Sciences, Eskişehir.
• Kanter, J. W., Rusch, L. C., & Brondino, M. J. (2008). Depression Self-Stigma. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 196(9), 663–670. doi:10.1097/nmd.0b013e318183f8af.
• Kayes, I., & Iamnitchi, A. (2017). Privacy and security in online social networks: A survey. Online Social Networks and Media, 3-4, 1–21. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2017.09.001.
• Keijsers, L., & Poulin, F. (2013). Developmental changes in parent-child communication throughout adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 49(12), 2301–2308. doi:10.1037/a0032217.
• Krishnan, A., & Atkin, D. (2014). Individual differences in social networking site users: The interplay between antecedents and consequential effect on level of activity. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 111–118. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.045.
• Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and Technology: Youth are Leading the Transition to a Fully Wired and Mobile Nation. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
• Ledbetter, A. M. (2009). Measuring Online Communication Attitude: Instrument Development and Validation. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 463–486. doi:10.1080/03637750903300262.
• Margulis, S. T. (1977). Conceptions of privacy: Current status and next steps. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 5–21.
• Margulis, S. T. (2003), Privacy as a Social Issue and Behavioral Concept. Journal of Social Issues, 59: 243–261. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00063.
• Mislove, A., Marcon, M., Gummadi, K.P., Druschel, P., and Bhattacharjee, B. (2007). Measurement and analysis of online social networks, Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet measurement. San Diego, California, USA.
• Morgan, S. R. (1994). At-risk youth in crises: A team approach in the schools (Second Edition). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
• Morgan, S., & Sørensen, A. (1999). Parental Networks, Social Closure, and Mathematics Learning: A Test of Coleman’s Social Capital Explanation of School Effects. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 661-681.
• Mullen, C., & Hamilton, N. F. (2016). Adolescents’ response to parental Facebook friend requests: The comparative influence of privacy management, parent-child relational quality, attitude and peer influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 165-172.
• Newell, P. B. (1998). A cross-cultural comparison of privacy definitions and functions: A systems approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 357–371.
• O’Keeffe, G. S., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families. PEDIATRICS, 127(4), 800–804. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0054.
• Patton, D. U., Eschmann, R. D., & Butler, D. A. (2013). Internet banging: New trends in social media, gang violence, masculinity, and hip-hop. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A54–A59. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.035.
• Pensa, R. G., & Di Blasi, G. (2017). A privacy self-assessment framework for online social networks. Expert Systems with Applications, 86, 18–31. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2017.05.054.
• Pew Research Center. (2017). In America, Does More Education Equal Less Religion?. Washington, DC: Michael Dimock, Claudia, Deane and Conrad Hackett. Ranzini, G., & Hoek, E. (2017). To you who (I think) are listening: Imaginary audience and impression management on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 228–235. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.047.
• Recuero, R. (2015). Social Media and Symbolic Violence. Social Media + Society, 1(1), 205630511558033. doi:10.1177/2056305115580332.
• Shin, H. M. (2010). An analysis of validity of the examination for employing secondary school English teachers and the curriculum of English education department in the college of education. (Unpublished master dissertation). Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea.
• Slors M. (2000). Personal Identity and Responsibility for Past Actions. In: van den Beld T. (eds) Moral Responsibility and Ontology. Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht.
• Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Portfolio.
• Warren, C., & Laslett, B. (1977). Privacy and secrecy: A conceptual comparison. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 43–51.
• Weiss, A. G. (1986). The Patient’s Experience Of Privacy In Psychotherapy (self-disclosure, Intimacy) (Order No. 8629419). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (303411848).
• Wright, K. B. (2006). Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Survey Research, Online Questionnaire Authoring Software Packages, and Web Survey Services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005. tb00259.x.
• Van Den Hoven, J. (2009). Information Technology, Privacy, and the Protection of Personal Data. In Van den Hoven, J., & Weckert, J. (Eds.). Information Technology and Moral Philosophy, (pp.301–321). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511498725.016.