friends only: examining a privacy-enhancing behavior in facebook
DESCRIPTION
Slides from my CHI 2010 TalkTRANSCRIPT
Friends Only:Examining a Privacy-Enhancing Behavior in Facebook
Fred Stutzman and Jacob Kramer-Duffield, UNC
1/1/
01
9/1/
01
5/1/
02
1/1/
03
9/1/
03
5/1/
04
1/1/
05
9/1/
050
10
20
30
40
50
47% SNS use in 2009
Source: Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2009, 2010
Changes in SNS adoption landscape
Source: Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2009, 2010
Changes in SNS landscape
1/1/
01
9/1/
01
5/1/
02
1/1/
03
9/1/
03
5/1/
04
1/1/
05
9/1/
050
1020304050607080
Teens and Young AdultsAdults 35 and Older
Changes in Facebook
2004 2005 2006 20072008 2009
Facebookat Harvard
Open to most colleges
News Feedintroduced
Open toselectworkplaces
Open toregionalnetworks
BeaconEnd ofregionalnetworks
Terms ofservicechange
Publicprofiles
2004 2005 2006 2007 20080
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Growth of Facebook (Millions)UNC Undergrad Privacy (Percentage)
Changes in Facebook
Implications of Change Shift from common
identity to common bond e.g. Ren, Kraut & Kiesler,
2007; Sassenberg, 2002 Uses, flows of social
capital and social support e.g. Lampe et al. 2008
Management of disclosureboundaries and contexts
Managing Contexts
Presence of multiple social groups Behavioral strategies Mental
strategies “Least common
denominator”
Source: Lampinen et al., 2009
Context Tension Connections across status and power
boundaries Propriety, work, family
Harms from crossed boundaries Inadvertent
disclosures across contexts
Source: Skeels and Grudin, 2009
Putting Context in Context
Friendster “Burners, gay
men, and bloggers”
Myspace Teens and mirror
profilesTwitter
Practical obscurity
Source: boyd, 2006, 2007, Stutzman and Hartzog, 2009
Going Friends-Only Moving profile from
network-viewable to viewable only by Friends
Implications: Searching, browsing and
finding Networked information
contribution, apps Person perception,
relational formation
Going Friends-Only
Publicly available information: Name, city, gender, photo, list of friends, fan pages, networks, friends list (temporarily)
Going Friends-Only
2004 2005 2006 2007 20080
10203040506070
UNC Undergrad Privacy (Percent-
age)
Use Privacy Settings: 83.2%
Friends-only: 58.3%
2005: 5% (+/-1), 2006: 12% (+/- 1), 2007: 23% (+/- 4), 2008: 58% (+/- 5)
Going Friends-Only RQ: What factors are
associated with having a friends-only profile?
Boundary regulation theories of privacy Altman, Derlega and Chaikin
Applied in HCI, Social Computing Palen and Dourish, Tufekci, Dwyer
Applied in Organizations (Allen et al.), Education (Mazer et al.), Communication (Petronio, Child et al.)
Self
Others
Petronio’s CPM Process of Communication Privacy
Management
Rule Development Who gets to know what
Boundary coordination Applying rules-in-context
Boundary turbulence Reacting to events,
managing and regulating rules
Source: Petronio, 2003
Study Design Web-based survey
Pilot test, n=76 Full survey, June 2008,
n=494
Response Analysis 94% of respondents used
Facebook Analytical sample, n=444 Males, minorities,
youngerstudents under-represented
Analysis is unweighted, FPCnot applied
Gende
r
Scho
ol Y
ear
Race
Frie
nds-
Only
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
68
17
80
58
32
36
842
28
7195
Analytic Plan RQ: What factors are associated with having a
friends-only profile? DV: Having a friends only profile
Models Null and demographic baselines Rule development Boundary coordination Boundary turbulence
Evaluation Within comparison likelihood ratio test Between comparison with AIC, BIC, ROC
Males Females0
50100150200250300
Friends-OnlyPublic
Baseline Model Demographic factors
School year, gender, ethnicity Facebook use factors
Number of friends, length of membership, time spent on site
Step 1 Step 2
School Year .996 1.089
Gender .596* .620*
Ethnicity 1.34 1.44
# FB Friends 1.001**
FB Mem Length .882
FB Min/Day .999
L-R Test F:0.0171*
Rule Development Who do you tell what?
H1: Strong ties = inward-focused
H2: Random ties = outside-focused e.g. Strahilevitz, 2005
Evaluation No items, blocks significant Problems: Lack of variation
due to normative orientation in friending practices; Instrumentation
Ties
Strong Ties
Family Members 11.2%
Best Friends 98.6%
Weak Ties
Casual Friends 95.1%
Campus Acq. 95.1%
Outside Ties
Faculty 1.6%
Potential Employers
2.8%
Marketers 28.3%
Law Enforcement
1.6%
Scale: Lampe et al., 2006, 2008; Ellison et al. 2007
Boundary Coordination Coordinating
permeability rules Friends can know
my gossip People around
campus shouldn’t
Salient audiences Intended audience Expected audience
Ties Intended
Expected
Strong Ties
Family Members 14.3% 38.4%***
Best Friends 94.9% 88.5%***
Weak Ties
Casual Friends 75.4% 56.9%***
Campus Acq. 75.4% 56.9%***
Outside Ties
Faculty 2.6% 10.5%**
Potential Employers
3.0% 9.4%**
Marketers 9.6% 7.9%
Law Enforcement
2.6% 4.3%
Boundary Coordination Exploring the effects of “expectancy
violations” Violations effects coded Analyzed simultaneously
Evaluation Weak tie expectancy
violations result in 3.31 increase in odds of beingfriends-only
The meaningful externalboundary?
Violation Odds
Gender (control) .629*
Family Members 1.105
Best Friends .85
Weak Ties 3.32**
Faculty .52
Potential Employers .866
Marketers .895
Law Enforcement 1.16
Boundary Turbulence Maintenance and (re)negotiation of disclosure
boundaries
Predictors Conversant privacy scale
Advised someone to change FB profile/picture…
Wall management scale Removed wall post
(self/other)
Covariates Gender, profile management effort
Alphas: Conversant: .69, Wall: .73, Effort: .79
Boundary Turbulence Exploring effects of interpersonal privacy
management Analyzed simultaneously
Evaluation Individuals who engage in
higher amounts of conversant management more likely to have friends-only profile
Gender, effort not significant
Violation Odds
Gender (control) .681
Effort (control) .952
Wall Management .967
Conversant Management
1.28**
Model Comparison Compare predictive strength of the
models Non-nested comparisons employ AIC, BIC, ROC,
etc. All models represent incremental improvements
Rank Model
1 Behavioral – Facebook Use
2 Boundary Turbulence – Interpersonal Management
3 Boundary Coordination – Expectancy Violations
Goals Explore the process of
going friends-only Apply theories of
boundary regulation, and Communications Privacy Management, in SNS context
Identify and prioritize models for further exploration
Implications Dynamic identification of functional network
boundary Opportunity to create
non-reciprocal communication interfaces
Increase opportunities for collaboration around privacy settings
Thank you!
Fred [email protected]://twitter.com/fstutzman
Jacob [email protected]://twitter.com/jaykaydee