Sub-Question Six

“How can the concept of the Privacy Paradox be said to apply to the participants?”

Now, it has been discussed in relation to CPM theory which prevailing factors likely have an influence

on the participants as they argue for their privacy concerns. Even though these rules might help the

participants to create privacy boundaries, the interviews also indicate that the participants might not

necessarily be willing to change their online behaviour, even though are aware of their privacy

concerns. This matter shall now be illuminated and discussed in relation to the Privacy Paradox

theory. In this relation, four patterns emerged from the interviews (Cf. section 5.5.2).

1) Those participants who reported more online privacy concerns also exhibited lower privacy literacy.

Drawing on the study by Baruh et al. (2017) who have studied the associations between online privacy concerns, privacy literacy, online service use and adoption of privacy protective measures, this meta-analysis will assist the emerging pattern to help explain characteristics that are influencing the participants’ online privacy concerns.

Pattern one was indicated during the interviews, as those participants who had high concerns for privacy were not able to stay on topic and tended to provide very brief and shallow explanations, which seemed to be due to a lack of privacy literacy. Drawing on the study by Baruh et al. (2017), it was found that those with high privacy literacy reported higher concern for privacy. This finding is inconsistent with the findings in this paper, as it suggests the opposite, namely that those who report a high concern for privacy does not have a low privacy literacy, rather they have a high privacy literacy. Thus, pattern one is not supported by this conclusion. Though, this finding by Baruh et al. (2017) is not behavioural but attitudinal, as respondents report on how they think their concerns are for privacy, this study is still deemed appropriate to provide insight to the relationship between privacy literacy and privacy concern.

Another finding by Baruh et al. (2017), points to an alternative explanation why those with high privacy concerns might not be able to comment adequately on questions regarding data and security. Those with higher privacy concerns also tended to use online services less (Baruh et al., 2017) Thus, the reason that participants in the interview groups of this paper had high privacy concerns might not be due to a low privacy literacy, as suggested by this paper’s finding, but rather due to less use of online services. This relationship denotes: due to less use of online services, there might be a lack of understanding of online services, not necessarily a lack of privacy literacy. Hence, participants in this paper might have unnecessary concerns for their online privacy due to a lack of understanding of online services as they use these less.

2) Those participants who reported less online privacy concerns also exhibited higher privacy literacy.

This finding is not supported by Baruh et al. (2017) as it was found that ‘Those with higher privacy

literacy reported higher concern for privacy’.

3) Younger adults exhibited in general a higher privacy literacy than the older adults

The study by Zeissig et al. (2017) has been used to illuminate pattern three. When asked, on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘I agree’ to ‘I do not agree’, how much they agreed to have privacy self-efficacy, (viz. another expression for privacy literacy) young adults reported less privacy literacy M=3.14 whereas older adults reported a higher level of privacy literacy M= 3.39 (Zeissig et al., 2017).

Though there is no significant difference between the age groups, older adults tended to be somewhat more confident about their knowledge of data protection matters and even more confident than young adults. This suggests the opposite of pattern three in this paper. Though it critical to note that the study by Zeissig et al. (2017) is not a behavioural measurement of privacy, thus the findings are only revealing the person’s own intentions.

Another finding by Zeissig et al. (2017) illustrates that participants agreed with the following statement “privacy protection has become so complex that I do not know how to protect my privacy anymore” (Zeissig et al., 2017, pp. 193-194). Older adults agreed more than young adults with this statement. This finding denotes that older adults tend to, more often that young adults, think that privacy protection has become more complicated and challenging to understand and thus feel that they cannot adequately protect the privacy of their data. Accordingly, there are indications that this result supports the finding of this paper i.e. older adults generally have lower privacy literacy than young adults.

If the third pattern in this paper true, it might be conflicting if older adults at the same time feel too confident about controlling their own privacy settings, if they are in fact not capable.

This would mean that older adults have a sense of false consciousness as they are not able to protect their data properly even though they think they are.

4) Participants in both groups did in general report concerns for their online privacy though they did not exhibit any intentions to adopt privacy protective measures.

This finding will be discussed in relation to the Privacy Paradox theory, as this theory suggests that while individuals are revealing personal data to websites and mobile APPs their behaviours do not mirror those concerns (Hargittai and Marwick, 2016).

In regard to group one, there seemed to be two different cases to why participants did

not exhibit any intentions to perform any privacy protective measures. In the first case it was indicated

that participants did not exhibit any privacy protective measures, even though there was a consensus

about the individual’s responsibility for their own privacy protection (Cf. section 5.5.2). This case indicates that the participants have a sense of indolence as they did not exhibit any intentions to protect their online privacy in spite of their agreement to the individual’s own responsibility for online privacy.

Drawing on the findings by Hargittai and Marwick (2016), it is found that young adults have a sense of apathy about online privacy as the young adults found it inevitable to be violated on their privacy and in spite of this they did not consider opting out of using social services. Accordingly, this supports the findings of this paper, namely that young adults might have a sense of indolence which refrain them from protecting their online privacy. However, Hargittai and Marwick (2016) conclude that there it is not paradoxical that young adults share information online. As today’s

‘networked privacy’ has become very complex to understand Hargittai and Marwick (2016) argues that the young adults’ attempts to protect their data have proven not to be adequate to protect their privacy, thus they are left with a feeling of insufficiency. Therefore, this suggests that the young adults in group two might also come to terms when they try to understand their privacy settings which results in a sense of indolence to protect their online privacy.

In a related disposition, the second case from group one can be answered. As mentioned, it was indicated by one woman (SI) that she might make a deliberate decision about giving up some of her privacy in return for social benefits from free social services (Cf. section 5.5.2). However, according to Hargittai and Marwick (2016) young adults do lack a sophisticated understanding of privacy risks as young adults find themselves incapable of protecting themselves against the rapid changing landscape of privacy-settings, identity theft and so on. According to this finding, it is likely that the woman (SI) might not have had the required knowledge to make a deliberate decision about what data she should give up in return for free social services, and essentially not as networked privacy landscape has become too complex (Hargittai and Marwick, 2016).

Summarising the findings in this paper, the older adults, group two, exhibited little

intentions to use privacy protective measures as they agreed to terms in APPs and used online services

like Facebook. Also, several participants seemed to have the perception that small print and privacy

terms are written in a way that they cannot understand. Further, one woman (GI) indicated that she

had accepted and given up trying to understand the small print and that she put her faith in that nothing

would happen to their privacy, thus suggesting a sense of indolence. Also another woman (LI)

revealed a sense of indolence as she seemed hesitant to change her behavior even though she affirms

the importance of privacy in relation to Facebook. The abovementioned examples of indolence

indicate that the problem might not be that the small print is too difficult for the participants to read, but rather that the participants revealed little intentions to read the small print and thus to change their behavior. Ultimately, it might seem paradoxical that the two women express concerns for their online privacy but are behaving contradictory as they exhibited little intentions to use privacy protective measures and thus change their behaviour.

Drawing on the research by Zeissig et al. (2017) there is found no privacy paradox to report in relation to older adults, as Zeissig et al. (2017) find a relation between those who had more privacy concerns also tend to exhibit more protective behaviours.

It should be noted that the study by Zeissig et al. (2017) uses intentions as its

operationalization measure. It would be interesting to have a study that measures participants’ actual

privacy behaviour and not merely their wish or intention to protect their privacy. This sort of study

might provide insight into what are the actual causal factors that individuals tend not to protect their

online privacy. Thus, if the older adults’ intention to protect themselves are high, as suggested by

Zeissig et al., (2017), but their actual privacy behaviour shows to be low, it might rather be a problem

of knowledge to protect themselves rather than the intention (Zeissig et al., 2017). However, this is

not possible to determine before the actual privacy behaviour of older adults has been covered in the

literature.

In document An Attitudinal Analysis of Privacy Concerns Related to AI and Data (Sider 61-65)