��� ���������������"����$#%���� Twitter

� � ��!�����(1)

Motivations and behaviors for ensuring privacy on Twitter

Twitter SNS 5

keyword privacy, SNS, privacy settings, self-disclosure, privacy paradox 5

Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Nagoya University Gota SAWADA

Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Nagoya University Tasuku IGARASHI

(SNS) α

SNS. SNS

2 2

Twitter2

3 2

. 2

2 2 2 2

0

Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine what factors motivate Twitter users to use a protected account and how these factors relate to self-disclose on their profile pages. Based on the interviews with 14 undergraduates using Twitter, we developed a questionnaire measuring motivations to use privacy settings on Twitter. We then conducted a survey on 153 undergraduates to report their Twitter usage and personal information disclosed online. Exploratory factor analysis identified three motivational factors to use privacy settings on Twitter: the boundary control for self-disclosure, the avoidance of troubles, and social influence. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to predict which motivational factors prevent or promote users to put personal information on their profile accessible in public. The boundary control motivation was negatively related to the disclosure of real names in public. In contrast, the social influence motivation was positively related to the disclosure of private information, such as facial photos on the public profile. Lower graders and females were also likely to disclose in public than higher graders and males, respectively. The current study implies that motivational factors other than privacy concerns lead people to protect or disclose themselves on social networking services.

1

FacebookTwitter

(social networking service; SNS)

(2017) 201671.6%2SNS 20

97.7% SNSα

boyd & Ellison (2007) SNS

2

2

2 2

2 2

2

SNS

2

.

2 . SNS

(Altman, 1975)

2

( ) (e.g., 1987)

2 () (e.g., Kokolakis, 2017;

, 2016) 2 2

SNS2

. ( , 2011)

SNS ( )

( , 2012) (2011) SNS 2

SNS

2 Twitter

2

. (Junco, Heiberger, & Loken, 2011) SNS

SNS2 SNS

Barnes (2006) .

(privacy paradox) 1.1

SNS 2

2

(Debatin, Lovejoy, Horn, & Hughes, 2009; Dey, Jelveh, & Ross, 2012; Young & Quan-Haase, 2013) SNS

(boyd & Hargittai, 2010; Stutzman, Capra, & Thompson, 2011)

.

2

(Debatin et al., 2009)

. SNS

2 (Christofides, Muise, & Desmarais, 2009)

2 SNS

Facebook

2

2 (Deuker, 2012)LINE ( , 2017)

.

2

.

2

2 .

2

SNSFacebook (Rains

& Brunner, 2015) Facebook SNS

Twitter

1.2 Twitter

Twitter 2006SNS

Twitter 10 20 ( , 2017)

Twitter ()

( ) 2

2 ( , 2016)Twitter

. 2

2

2

Facebook

TwitterFacebook .

2

1 1LINE Twitter

()

(RT) Twitter

Twitter

( , 2011)

2

2 Twitter

( ) 2

2

( )

.

Twitter Facebook LINE2

. 2

2 Twitter

Facebook LINETwitter

. 2

1.3

Twitter2 .

.

.

SNS2 . (Hunt, Atkin,

& Krishnan, 2012; Special and Li-Barber, 2012) 2

2

SNS 2 2

(Walrave, Vanwesenbeeck, & Heirman., 2012)

2 (Fox et al., 2000) 2

2

2

2.1 2017 10 11

Twitter

(2)

Google

.

. .

2

2 3153 ( 85 67 1 ; 1

70 2 18 3 44 421 )

Twitter

1

Twitter

2

2

SNS ( LINEInstagram ) ID 16

. () Twitter

Twitter (@

2 )

2 .

SNS ( ) (e.g.,

) 2

( , 2012)

( )

( ) (

) 1 .

Twitter 14 (12 2 )

Twitter

.

TwitterTwitter

2.

2

(17 ) 2

. 1. 4.4

�1 ��������� �������

1 2 3

.66 -.09 -.09 .29 2.03 1.12

.62 .04 .13 .33 2.33 1.06

.61 .08 .11 .35 2.18 1.15

.57 -.06 -.19 .26 1.95 1.16

-.17 .91 .01 .43 3.27 0.98.08 .72 -.06 .45 3.20 0.94.33 .44 .01 .37 3.01 1.06

.01 -.03 1.00 .38 2.16 0.98-.06 .00 .57 .34 1.91 1.05

����� 1 2 31 �7,�\jtlsur ― .38 .092 � (\�5 ― .11= ��\ &\1) ―

M SD

�TRMXh#[YK^Qcfe�XSLUYIdREHc

��3.6

��PejopmkiZ�gQVD>C@BB?AW`�^�LhPeR_

��

+;��v�7,�\jtlsur:(α = .70)

�4�

-�\U]aJh/cfRKYE�I�'ZEeHc

+<��v� (\�5:(α = .76)����\$�IEaSHc

�&Ylqnrh5LeR_

2I-�\U]aJh^VEe\Hh !NVGJREHc

�%��"\�ZU]aJh^cfeMXZ��h�OeHc

+=��v*�'�9:(α = .72)��\�Z8�70�ZPebF�_cfRHc

��\�I8�70�W &NVERHc

3. 3.1

2(3) 66%

2 1

1 ( ) (3.80, 1.75, 1.60, 1.29, )

33 (

) .40

2.409 (4)

1 1 (e.g.,

2 ; 4 , = .70)2 (e.g., 2 ; 3 , = .76) 3

(e.g., . ; 2 , = .72)

3.2

12 .

Twitter (1 = 0 = ) 1

( 2)1

2

3.3 2

( )

16

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 �� !�� & %# �� & $" ― .12 .22 ** -.03 .09 .09 .12 -.052 � 2.12 1.18 ― .32 ** .01 -.29 ** .10 -.02 .023 ��� 45.48 22.20 ― .10 .07 .15 -.09 -.25 **

4 0��'*(/+� 25.56 86.69 ― -.03 -.11 -.01 -.18 *

5 ���'��'� 5.35 2.79 ― -.03 -.02 -.02

6 ���').+-/, 2.12 0.81 ― .36 * .037 ���'�� 3.16 0.82 ― .048 ����� 2.04 0.90 ―

*p < .05, **p < .01

�2 �����������������

2

.

1.

2 6 (3.9%) 2.

(3.

$��� B SE (OR) B SE (OR) B SE (OR)

��+,��+1+0.+��+1+/- 0.47 .35 (1.60) 0.28 .47 (1.32) 0.17 .37 (1.18)

�� -0.28 .15 (0.76) + 0.42 .19 (1.52) * -0.24 .15 (0.78)

�'# ;ANDMPL -0.40 .23 (0.67) + 0.79 .30 (2.21) ** -0.37 .24 (0.69)

� ;�& 0.08 .23 (1.08) -0.32 .31 (0.73) 0.06 .25 (1.06)

"���( -0.09 .19 (0.91) -0.47 .27 (0.63) + 0.50 .21 (1.64) *

Nagelkerke R 2

$��� B SE (OR) B SE (OR) B SE (OR)

��+,��+1+0.+��+1+/- -0.57 .36 (0.56) -0.80 .45 (0.45) + 0.43 .38 (1.54)

�� -0.46 .15 (0.63) ** -0.26 .20 (0.77) -0.62 .16 (0.54) **

�'# ;ANDMPL 0.17 .23 (1.18) 0.76 .29 (2.13) ** -0.19 .24 (0.83)

� ;�& -0.13 .23 (0.88) -0.30 .30 (0.74) 0.29 .25 (1.33)

"���( 0.21 .19 (1.23) -0.05 .24 (0.95) -0.01 .20 (0.99)

Nagelkerke R 2

$��� B SE (OR) B SE (OR) B SE (OR)

��+,��+1+0.+��+1+/- 0.30 .35 (1.34) -1.02 .38 (0.36) ** -2.04 .50 (0.13) **

�� -0.32 .15 (0.72) ** -0.47 .17 (0.62) ** -0.69 .22 (0.50) **

�'# ;ANDMPL -0.28 .23 (0.76) -0.27 .24 (0.76) 0.20 .30 (1.22)

� ;�& -0.07 .23 (0.93) -0.34 .24 (0.71) -0.29 .31 (0.75)

"���( 0.35 .19 (1.42) + 0.43 .20 (1.54) * -0.10 .25 (0.91)

Nagelkerke R 2

**p < .01, *p < .05, +p < .10

� HNELGPI�OFC@GPI

?�<JPBP;�

.09 .16 .11

.11 .18 .27

���� �* ��

�%�=�%� )8�7>�!�9:6>�;545

;KN@=32

.11 .12 .17

� 1 �! �������������������������� ��

) 2 2 10%

32

2

2

2

2 2

2

2

SNS ID2

2

SNS ID2

4 4.1

Twitter

2

32 Twitter

2

.

SNS2

(Deuker, 2012) 2

.

SNS2 Lewis,

Kaufman & Christakis (2008) 2Facebook

SNS Twitter2

Twitter 1

Twitter.

2 2

.

2 4.2

2

2 2

2

2 (, 2016)

2

Twitter2

2

2

2

2

2

Twitter 2

.

2

( ) 2

2

.

2 Twitter2

.

. 2

2 4.3

2

2 2

2 2

3 4SNS

2

10 11 32

. 2 2

2

2

Twitter 2

2 Walrave et al. (2012) (10 19 ) (20 )

SNS 2

2 2 .

2

2 .

.2 SNSID Twitter

2

2 Haferkamp, Eimler, Papadakis, & Kruck (2012)

SNS

2 Tifferet & Vilnai-Yavetz (2014)

SNS2

SNS2

2

4.4

2

2

.

. (e.g., , 2013) 2

. 2 Twitter

2

.

2

2 2

2

2

Instagram SNSTwitter

SNS

. SNS.

Twitter

Twitter

Twitter

.

(1) 2 29

59 (2)

snowball sampling .

(3)

.

(4)

Twitter 22

166% 2

2

2

2 2

2

5

2

1

Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social

behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Barns, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11. <http://firstmonday.org/article/ view/1394/1312> Accessed 2018, November 12.

boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, pp. 210-230.

boyd, d., & Hargittai, E. (2010). Facebook privacy settings: Who cares? First Monday, 15, pp. 1-24.

Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2009). Information disclosure and control on Facebook: Are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, pp. 341-45.

Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A., & Hughes, B. N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, pp. 83-108.

Deuker, A. (2012). Friend-to-friend privacy protection on social networking sites: A grounded theory study. in AMCIS 2012 Proceedings, Seattle, WA.

Dey, R., Jelveh, Z., & Ross, K. (2012). Facebook users have become much more private: A large-scale study. in 2012 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops, pp. 346-352.

Fox, S., Rainie, L., Horrigan, J., Lenhart, A., Spooner, T., & Carter, C. (2000). Trust and Privacy Online: Why Americans Want to Rewrite the Rules. The Pew Internet & American Life Project. <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2000/

08/20/trust-and-privacy-online/> Haferkamp, N., Eimler, S. C., Papadakis, A., &

Kruck, J. V. (2012). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus? Examining gender differences in self-presentation on social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, pp. 91-98.

(2012). α

, pp. 193-215.

(1987).

3, pp. 11-16. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011).

The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades: Twitter and student engagement. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, pp. 119-32.

(2016).

Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security, 64, pp. 122-34.

Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., & Christakis, N. (2008). The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, pp. 79-100.

(2015). SNS

, 53, pp. 65-77. (2011).

Twitter,

EIP , 53, pp. 1-17. (2017). 27

<http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/internship/1387145.htm> Accessed 2018, November 13.

(2017). LINE

, 40, pp. 367-377. (2012).

, 27, pp. 59-66. Rains, S. A., & Brunner, S. R. (2015). What can

we learn about social network sites by studying Facebook? A call and recommendations for research on social network sites. New Media & Society, 17, pp. 114-31.

(2013).

, 21, pp. 312-315. (2016).

SNS :

, 1, pp. 15-26. (2011). 23

<http://www.soumu.go.jp/johotsusintokei/whitepaper/h23.html> Accessed 2019, January 11.

(2017). 29<http://www.soumu.go.jp/johotsusintokei/whitepaper/h29.html> Accessed 2018, November 13.

Special, W. P., & Li-Barber, K. T. (2012). Self-disclosure and student satisfaction with Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, pp. 624-630.

Stutzman, F., Capra, R., & Thompson, J. (2011). Factors mediating disclosure in social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, pp. 590-98.

(2016). SNS

, 25, pp. 26-34. Tifferet, S., & Vilnai-Yavetz, I. (2014). Gender

differences in Facebook self- presentation: An international randomized study. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, pp. 388-399.

Walrave, M., Vanwesenbeeck, I., & Heirman, W. (2012). Connecting and protecting? Comparing predictors of self-disclosure and privacy settings use between adolescents and adults. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 6. doi: 10.5817/CP2012-1-3.

Young, A. L., & Quan-Haase, A. (2013). Privacy protection strategies on Facebook: The Internet privacy paradox revisited. Information, Communication & Society, 16, pp. 479-500.