The potential harm and benefit associated with sharing personal information online is a topic of debate and discussion. Using survey methods (n=872), we explore whether attainment of social capital online relates to greater comfort with sharing personal information. We found that perceptions of bridging and bonding social capital earned from using Facebook are significant predictors of overall comfort levels with sharing personal information. This research raises timely questions about how the perceived benefits of social networking sites influence how personal information is shared online.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
TsukayamaH. 2012. The circuit: FTC privacy report, Facebook passwords, and Google autocorrect. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/the-circuit-ftc-privacy-report-facebook-passwords-google-autocorrect/2012/03/26/gIQAu0KCcS_blog.html. 2012 August 25.
2.
CampbellJE, CarlsonM. Panopticon.com: online surveilance and the commodification of privacy. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 2002; 46:586–606.
3.
DaviesSG. 1998. Re-engineering the right to privacy: how privacy has been transformed from a right to a commodity. AgrePE, RotenbergM. Technology and privacy: the new landscape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 143–65.
4.
EllisonNB, SteinfieldC, LampeC. The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007; 12:article 1.
5.
SheldonP. “I'll poke you. You'll poke me!” Self-disclosure, social attraction, predictability, and trust as important predictors of Facebook relationships. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2009; 3:article 1.
6.
boyddm., EllisonNB.Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007; 13:article 11.
7.
O'NeillN. 2009. Privacy settings every Facebook user should know. All Facebook blog. www.allfacebook.com/facebook-privacy_b3571. 2013 April 4.
8.
Pew Internet and American Life Project. 2010. Reputation management and social media. MaddenM, SmithA. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for People and the Press.
9.
ChristofidesE, MuiseA, DesmaraisS. Information disclosure and control on Facebook: are they two sides of the coin or two different processes?Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 2009; 12:341–5.
10.
BarnesSB. A privacy paradox: social networking in the United States. First Monday, 2006; 11:9.
11.
LivingstoneS. Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society, 2008; 10:393–411.
12.
TidwellLC, WaltherJB. Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 2002; 28:317–48.
13.
PutnamRD. 2000. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
14.
SteinfieldC, EllisonNB, LampeC. Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2008; 29:434–45.
15.
ValenzuelaS, ParkN, KeeKF. Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students' life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2009; 14:875–901.
16.
DonathJ, boydd.Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 2004; 22:71.
17.
LampeC, EllisonN, SteinfieldC. 2006. A Face(book) in the crowd: social searching vs. social browsing. ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Banff, Canada: ACM Press.
18.
EllisonNB, SteinfieldC, LampeC. Connection strategies: social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 2011; 13:873–92.
19.
ParkN, KeeK, ValenzuelaS. Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 2009; 12:729–33.
20.
SheldonKM, AbadNM, HinschC. A two-process view of Facebook use and relatedness need-satisfaction: disconnection drives it and connection rewards it. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 2011; 100:766–75.
21.
WilliamsD. On and off the ’net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2006; 11:article 11.
22.
ReinekeJB, BurchfieldHD.2010. Defending against defriending: understanding self-censorship of online social network profiles. Annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication: Denver, CO.
23.
HayesA, GlynnC, ShanahanJ. Willingness to self-censor: a construct and measurement tool for public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2005; 17:298–323.
24.
ParkN, KeeK, ValenzuelaS. Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 2009; 12:729–33.
