In today’s digital society, individuals’ online activities are often observed by others. When people feel like they are being watched online, they may adjust their behavior to protect their privacy. To measure such perceptions and understand their antecedents and consequences, the Perceived Surveillance Scale (PSS) has been proposed to capture individuals’ perceptions of being watched in digital environments. However, the PSS focuses on surveillance by corporate actors and does not address surveillance by actors such as family members or friends. This is a significant issue, as the literature on vertical and horizontal privacy indicates that distinguishing between corporate and peer actors facilitates more insightful and comprehensive analyses of individuals’ online behavior. Therefore, the present study aimed to develop a version of the PSS that captures individuals’ perceived surveillance in relation to their peers. To this end, the original PSS was adapted to measure perceived peer surveillance, and then both the original and peer PSS were tested on a sample of 1,666 Internet users from Slovenia. Five distinct measurement properties were assessed for each scale: structural validity, internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, measurement invariance, and construct validity (15 hypotheses per scale). The results revealed that corporate and peer PSSs measure two distinct types of perceived surveillance. Both scales exhibited excellent psychometric properties, with only minor deviations. Overall, the study provides a valid and reliable version of the PSS for peer contexts and highlights the value of distinguishing between perceived corporate and peer surveillance in digital environments.
ZuboffS. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. Public Affairs: New York, NY; 2019.
2.
TreiblmaierH, PollachI. The influence of privacy concerns on perceptions of web personalisation. IJWS2011;1(1/2):3–20; doi: 10.1504/IJWS.2011.044079
3.
SamuelssonL. Accepting or rejecting online surveillance: The case of Swedish students. In: Everyday Life in the Culture of Surveillance. (SamuelssonL, CocqC, GelfgrenS, EnbomJ. eds.) Nordicom, University of Gothenburg: Göteborg; 2023; pp. 125–144.
4.
RuckensteinM, GranrothJ. Algorithms, advertising and the intimacy of surveillance. J Cult Econ2020;13(1):12–24; doi: 10.1080/17530350.2019.1574866
5.
BackhausN. Context sensitive technologies and electronic employee monitoring: A meta-analytic review. In: Proc 2019 IEEE/SICE Int Symp Syst Integr (SII). IEEE; 2019; pp. 548–553; doi: 10.1109/SII.2019.8700354
6.
Ollier-MalaterreA. Living with Digital Surveillance in China: Citizens’ Narratives on Technology, Privacy, and Governance. Routledge: London; 2023.
7.
BüchiM, FesticN, LatzerM. The chilling effects of digital dataveillance: A theoretical model and an empirical research agenda. Big Data Soc2022;9(1); doi: 10.1177/20539517211065368
8.
PrattB, ParkerM, BullS. Equitable design and use of digital surveillance technologies during COVID-19: Norms and concerns. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics2022;17(5):573–586; doi: 10.1177/15562646221118127
9.
BartolJ, QuinnKA, VehovarV, et al.Dimensions of vertical and horizontal information privacy concerns: A qualitative reassessment and revised definition. Inf Commun Soc2025;28(16):3013–3031; doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2025.2493341
SegijnCM, Van OoijenI. Perceptions of techniques used to personalize messages across media in real time. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw2020;23(5):329–337; doi: 10.1089/CYBER.2019.0682
12.
SegijnCM, KimE, SifaouiA, et al.When you realize that big brother is watching: How informing consumers affects synced advertising effectiveness. J Mark Comm2023;29(4):317–338; doi: 10.1080/13527266.2021.2020149
13.
SegijnCM, OpreeSJ, Van OoijenI. The validation of the Perceived Surveillance Scale. Cyberpsychol J Psychosoc Res Cyberspace2022;16(3); doi: 10.5817/CP2022-3
14.
StrycharzJ, SegijnCM. Ethical side-effect of dataveillance in advertising: Impact of data collection, trust, privacy concerns and regulatory differences on chilling effects. J Bus Res2024;173:114490; doi: 10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2023.114490
15.
SifaouiA, LeeG, SegijnCM. Brand match vs. mismatch and its impact on avoidance through perceived surveillance in the context of synced advertising. In: Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. XII): Communicating, Designing and Consuming Authenticity and Narrative. (VignollesA, WaigunyMKJ. eds.) Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden; 2023; pp. 137–147.
16.
SegijnCM, KimE, van OoijenI. The role of perceived surveillance and privacy cynicism in effects of multiple synced advertising exposures on brand attitude. J Curr Issues Res Advert2024;45(4):506–522; doi: 10.1080/10641734.2024.2318711
17.
SegijnCM, KimE, LeeG, et al.The intended and unintended effects of synced advertising: When persuasion knowledge could help or backfire. Int J Res Mark2024;41(1):156–169; doi: 10.1016/J.IJRESMAR.2023.07.001
18.
SifaouiA, SegijnCM. Surveillance in the advertising landscape: Application of the DEAL framework to investigate online behavioral advertising, surveillance, and users’ responses on Instagram. J Curr Issues Res Advert2025;46(4):524–538; doi: 10.1080/10641734.2024.2419602
19.
GuanB, LiX, LuoZ, et al.Can (A)I arouse you? The impact of AI services on consumer pro-environmental behavior. J Hosp Tour Res2025;49(5):932–945; doi: 10.1177/10963480241256602
20.
SağlamMH, Kırcovaİ. Under the lens of ads: Digital surveillance and pre-roll advertising avoidance dynamics. BMIJ2024;12(4):1083–1105; doi: 10.15295/BMIJ.V12I4.2491
21.
WangLH, MetzgerMJ, LiuX, et al.Seeing ad transparency more clearly: Public perception, use of ad transparency tools, and responses to dataveillance. J Advert2025;54(2):213–232; doi: 10.1080/00913367.2025.2451993
22.
ZhangD, StrycharzJ, BoermanSC, et al.Google knows me too well! Coping with perceived surveillance in an algorithmic profiling context. Comput Human Behav2025;165:108536; doi: 10.1016/J.CHB.2024.108536
23.
BüchiM, Fosch-VillarongaE, LutzC, et al.The chilling effects of algorithmic profiling: Mapping the issues. Comput Law Secur Rev2020;36:105367; doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105367
24.
ManokhaI. Surveillance, panopticism, and self-discipline in the digital age. SS2018;16(2):219–237; doi: 10.24908/ss.v16i2.8346
25.
QuinnK, EpsteinD. Dimensionalizing privacy to advance the study of digital disempowerment. Big Data Soc2023;10(2); doi: 10.1177/20539517231221739
26.
BazarovaNN, MasurPK. Towards an integration of individualistic, networked, and institutional approaches to online disclosure and privacy in a networked ecology. Curr Opin Psychol2020;36:118–123; doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.05.004
27.
BartolJ, VehovarV, PetrovčičA. Cross-contextual analysis of the effects of vertical and horizontal privacy perceptions on willingness to disclose personal information on the internet. Int J Hum Comput Interact2026;42(1):478–491; doi: 10.1080/10447318.2025.2508310
28.
BartolJ, VehovarV, PetrovčičA. Systematic review of survey scales measuring information privacy concerns on social network sites. Telemat Inform2023;85:102063; doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2023.102063
29.
NevesJ, TurelO, OliveiraT. SNS use reduction: A two-facet privacy concern perspective. INTR2023;33(3):974–993; doi: 10.1108/INTR-01-2022-0012
30.
FultonJM, KibbyMD. Millennials and the normalization of surveillance on Facebook. Continuum J Media Cu2017;31(2):189–199; doi: 10.1080/10304312.2016.1265094
31.
SoloveDJ. A taxonomy of privacy. U Pen Law Rev2006;154(3):477–564; doi: 10.2307/40041279
32.
PrinsenCAC, MokkinkLB, BouterLM, et al.COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res2018;27(5):1147–1157; doi: 10.1007/S11136-018-1798-3
33.
de GruijterDNM, van der KampL. Statistical Test Theory for the Behavioral Sciences. Chapman and Hall/CRC: New York, NY; 2008.
34.
EpsteinD, QuinnK. Markers of online privacy marginalization: Empirical examination of socioeconomic disparities in social media privacy attitudes, literacy, and behavior. Soc Media Soc2020;6(2); doi: 10.1177/2056305120916853
35.
MarwickAE. The Private Is Political. Yale University Press; 2023.
36.
ZhangD, BoermanSC, HendriksH, et al.A peak into individuals’ perceptions of surveillance. In: Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. XII): Communicating, Designing and Consuming Authenticity and Narrative. (VignollesA, WaigunyMKJ eds.) Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden; 2023; pp. 163–178.
37.
MothersbaughDL, FoxxWK, BeattySE, et al.Disclosure antecedents in an online service context: The role of sensitivity of information. J Serv Res2012;15(1):76–98; doi: 10.1177/1094670511424924
38.
WangL, YanJ, LinJ, et al.Let the users tell the truth: Self-disclosure intention and self-disclosure honesty in mobile social networking. Int J Inf Manage2017;37(1):1428–1440; doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.10.006
39.
XuH, DinevT, SmithHJ, et al.Examining the formation of individual’s privacy concerns: Toward an integrative view. In: Twenty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2008). ICIS: Paris, France; 2008. Available from: https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2008/6 [Last accessed: September19, 2025].
40.
Hafner-FinkM, UhanS, Filipovič HrastM, et al.Slovensko javno mnenje 2022/1: Ogledalo javnega mnenja, raziskava o družini in spolnih vlogah (ISSP 2022), brezdomci, uporaba interneta. Available from: https://www.adp.fdv.uni-lj.si/raziskave/raziskava_sjm221/ [Last accessed: September13, 2025].
HarknessJ, PennellB, Schoua‐GlusbergA. Survey questionnaire translation and assessment. In: Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires. (PresserS, RothgebJM, CouperMP, LesslerJT, MartinE, SingerE. eds.) John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ; 2004; pp. 453–473.
43.
MilneGR, PettinicoG, HajjatFM, et al.Information sensitivity typology: Mapping the degree and type of risk consumers perceive in personal data sharing. J Consum Aff2017;51(1):133–161; doi: 10.1111/JOCA.12111
44.
Hafner-FinkM, HočevarM, GrošeljD, et al.Slovensko javno mnenje 2018/1: Ogledalo javnega mnenja, mednarodna raziskava socialna omrežja in socialni viri (ISSP 2017), vrednote prostora in okolja, uporaba novih tehnologij/interneta. Available from: https://old.adp.fdv.uni-lj.si/opisi/sjm181/ [Last accessed: September13, 2025].
45.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [version 4.2.2]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna; 2022.
46.
RosseelY. lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Soft2012;48(2):1–36; doi: 10.18637/JSS.V048.I02
47.
NewmanDA. Missing data: Five practical guidelines. Organ Res Methods2014;17(4):372–411; doi: 10.1177/1094428114548590
48.
KlineRB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 5th ed. The Guilford Press: New York, NY; 2023.
49.
BrowneMW, CudeckR. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res1992;21(2):230–258; doi: 10.1177/0049124192021002005
50.
HairJF, BlackWC, BabinBJ, et al.Multivariate data analysis, 8th ed. Cengage Learning, EMEA: Andover; 2019.
51.
FornellC, LarckerDF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res1981;18(1):39–50; doi: 10.2307/3151312
52.
PutnickDL, BornsteinMH. Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Dev Rev2016;41:71–90; doi: 10.1016/J.DR.2016.06.004
53.
MaddenM, GilmanM, LevyK, et al.Privacy, poverty, and big data: A matrix of vulnerabilities for poor Americans. Wash Univ Law Rev2017;95.
MarwickAE. The public domain: Surveillance in everyday life. SS2012;9(4):378–393; doi: 10.24908/ss.v9i4.4342
56.
AbidinC. Visibility labour: Engaging with influencers’ fashion brands and #OOTD advertorial campaigns on Instagram. Media Int Aust2016;161(1):86–100; doi: 10.1177/1329878X16665177
57.
Raynes-GoldieK. Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in the age of Facebook. FM2010;1(15); doi: 10.5210/fm.v15i1.2775
58.
DuffyBE, ChanNK. “You never really know who’s looking”: Imagined surveillance across social media platforms. New Media Soc2019;21(1):119–138; doi: 10.1177/1461444818791318
59.
BartolJ, BošnjakM, VehovarV, et al.Big five personality dimensions and disintegration as antecedents of vertical and horizontal internet privacy concerns. Cyberpsychol J Psychosoc Res Cyberspace 2025;19(3); doi: 10.5817/CP2025-3-9
60.
MungerK. Temporal validity as meta-science. Res & Polit2023;10(3):1–10; doi: 10.1177/20531680231187271
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
