ABSTRACT
LITERATURE REVIEW:
Keywords
(“privacy calculus model; social networking sites; self-disclosure;
trust; self-disclosure; privacy concerns; perceived benefits;
gender”).
1. INTRODUCTION
In this era of internet and information technology, the social
networking sites such as Facebook (FB), twitter, Instagram,
WhatsApp etc. have become an essential part of our daily life.
Social networking sites (SNSs) provide users with the chance to
maintain the relationships, social life and are a source of news,
fashion and media trends and also provide entertainment [5].
SNSs are a great source of creating social capital which has
played an important part in modern day society [20, 24, 32].
Social capital creates public value of social networking sites.
Every Social Networking Site shows its dependency on active
users. These active users and the content they create and post on
SNSs are source of sustainability for them and this is done by
keeping the attention of other users. At the same time advertisers
display strong enthusiasm for exploiting consumer data, their
interest is contingent on the consumer-generated content. Thus,
SNS providers are in constant struggle to invoke self-disclosure in
consumers, otherwise their popularity and value dissipates swiftly.
A user by providing the personal information such as interests and
preferences on the Social networking sites also perpetrates the
social disclosure which is then used by the SNSs for the
promotion purposes for different brands. These data disclosures
give rise to privacy concerns about the data leaks to the unwanted
elements which can be used for personal benefits of other users. It
also results in the threats of surveillance by the third party or
governments [25].
The use of SNSs despite the privacy concern is pretty much
described by privacy calculus model which states that self-
disclosure is greater when enjoyment and benefits are greater than
the privacy concerns and consequences [9]. That means if the risk
involved are greater than the perceived benefits of the data
disclosure than people are more reluctant to information
disclosure. Where perceived benefits may include easy
communication, better relationships and entertainment. In
previous studies it was shown that people disclosed data despite
the high privacy risk involved that was referred to as privacy
paradox [29].
In earlier studies effects of user demo graphs on self-disclosure
were investigated that showed the variation in the rate of data
disclosure in different areas [13], and studies regarding role of
culture on self-disclosure were also carried out and its findings
call for greater cultural sensitivity and influencing behavior of
users on SNSs [23]. Study related to role of gender in self-
disclosure showed that female users tended to disclose more data
as compared to male users [33]. Researches also showed that trust
and self-disclosure have a direct relationship that is the more data
disclosure resulted in increased trustworthiness [23]
Aim of this research is earlier finding replication of the privacy
calculus model that is the effect of trust, entertainment, privacy
concerns etc. on data disclosure. Other aim of this research was to
check the universalization of the privacy calculus model by
applying it in a representative Pakistan sample. In addition to that,
the effect of role of gender is also investigated.
2.
Privacy theory:
Definition of privacy varies according to different theorists. As
Burgoon stated that the physical, psychological, informational and
interactional privacies can be distinguished from each other.[4]
Privacy is defined by two different conditions the first one is
withdrawal from others[2] and the other one stated the withdrawal
must happen voluntarily [1][7]. Withdrawal can be represented as
physical aspects and as well as immaterial.[2] Self-withdrawal is
avoiding the negative effects perceived from interactions.[27]
Self-disclosure:
Revealing personal information to others is defined as self-
disclosure.[6, 34] Although verbal or non-verbal disclosure is
treated as self-disclosure but most scholars consider that
intentional revealing is true self-disclosure.[8, 12, 34] Despite the
fact that self-disclosure is closer to self-worth, identity and well-
being [30] But the researcher had been more interested in its
function in relationship building over past years. As mentioned in
social penetration theory by Altaman, self-disclosure has a vital
role in building and keeping a relationship maintained. More self-
disclosure shows the sincerity and depth of the relationship.
Self-disclosure on SNSs:
Interactions on the SNSs are different from the daily interactions.
Communications on SNSs are anonymous.[36] Every individual
SNSs users has profiles which compromise of their pictures, Date
of birth, occupation, relationship status, interests, political and
religious views and education. Also main purpose of SNSs is to
maintain relations with family and friends rather than meeting and
staying in touch with stranger.[11] Status that are posted their
interests are visible to all the SNSs members. Studies showed that
individual disclosed the high amount of information in their
profiles.[15, 31, 34] On the other hand some studies showed that
users had restricted their publically shown data. Although the
status updates are visible to all close friends and others, yet their
status updates can foster the feelings of connections. In other
words greater the trust more is self-disclosure [34].
Privacy calculus:
People take decisions on the basis of perceived risks and the
benefits involved in that task. As they cannot predict those risks
so they prefer to look on the ramifications involved in the past
experiences and intuition. Applying the same outlook with the
SNSs, people tend to value the perceived benefits more than the
risks involved so they disclose data by neglecting without
considering the ramifications. This disclosure is motivated by
benefits[23]. Also the perceived privacy risk induced privacy
concerns in SNSs. [7, 35]
Perceived Benefit Entertainment:
Self-disclosure on SNSs results in improved connectedness, help
in maintaining the relationships [17] and social life[19] well as
keeps the user in-touch with latest fashion and media trends.
Playfulness was identified as an enjoyment factor.[28] The benefit
of entertainment plays a vital role in data disclosure on SNSs.[23]
Positive effects of entertainment is stronger in data disclosure [23,
35]
Privacy concern:
Information shared on the SNSs involves privacy risks like data
disclosure and location sharing to third parties associated with
SNSs, advertisers as well as SNSs service providers can use the
data for commercial gain.[17] When realized SNSs users became
insecure about safety of their shared information.[3][16]
Information posted on the SNSs could be used by strangers for
threats as well as surveillance [21, 35]
Trust:
Whenever a person shares information with someone, that
revealance is dependent upon trust. [26]Risk cannot be eliminated
by trusting believes but their negative impact can be overcome to
some extent.[23][9]When trust is more than the severity of
outcome then person tends to engage in risky behaviour [14, 23]
although the other members of SNSs can involve in the privacy
adverse behaviour as stalking and secret sharing. But for the self-
disclosure to take place trust in SNSs provider and members
should be facilitated. Difference in collectivism versus
individualism dimension may induce distinct mechanism in
formation process of trust.[10, 23] Typical SNSs member with Methodology:
collectivistic background may find it particularly hard to form
trusting believes. On the other hand members with individualistic Instrument:
background may readily form a trusting believe. In order to gather the data for the current study, the items used in
Research Hypothesis: the questionnaire for Trust and Benefit (Enjoyment) were taken
from [18] which were based on [22] whereas the items used for
Perceived enjoyment and data disclosure:
the Privacy Concerns and Self Disclosure were taken from [18]
SNSs users use SNSs for communication, entertainment as well as The questionnaire developed for this study had total of 36 items
maintaining the relationships. These perks of using the SNSs comprising of the items related to Self-Disclosure, Trust,
urges the user to disclose more data on his profile so that he can Enjoyment and Privacy Concerns. The scale of the questionnaire
feel connected to community. was developed with a five point Likert scale coded from 1 to 5. 1
Hypothesis H1: The positive impact of entertainment on self- was coded for Strongly Disagree and 5 for Strongly Agree.
disclosure will be greater. Sampling and Tools:
Privacy concern and data disclosure:
The students as well as faculty members were selected as
Information shared on SNSs add significant privacy risks. respondents from different institutes because of the items taken
Information shared can be used by third parties, advertising or from[18] In order to short list the institutes for distribution of the
state. A part from that stalking and secret sharing also acts as questionnaire, institutes in the suburbs were selected. Those
privacy risk. Such actions and ramifications involved restricts the institutes were reached to via electronic mail for their facilitation
users to self-disclosure on the SNSs. in collection of data but no proper response was received from
Hypothesis H2: Negative impact of privacy concern on self- institutes. Later, questionnaires were disbursed in institutes
disclosure will be greater. randomly where the authors knew the workers as good as scholars
and later, snowball system was used to reach the leisure of the
Trust and data disclosure: shortlisted institutes. The responses were entered into SPSS
Information shared with someone is dependent upon the trust.[26] program and all of the evaluation was executed in SPSS.
When the trust is greater than the level of privacy risk, the person
will involve in risky behaviour.[14] In other words, greater the
References:
trust more will be data disclosure [1] Altman 1975. The environment and social
Hypothesis H3: behavior. Monterey, CA:BrooksCole.
Positive impact of trust be greater on self-disclosure. (1975).
Hypothesis H4:
[2] Boguslaw, R. and Westin, A.F. 1968.
Gender may strengthen or weaken the relationship of privacy
concern and self-disclosure.
Privacy and Freedom. American
Sociological Review. 33, 1 (1968), 173.
Hypothesis H5:
DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2092293.
Gender may strengthen or weaken the relationship of enjoyment
and self-disclosure. [3] Bulgurcu, B. et al. 2010. Understanding
Hypothesis H6: emergence and outcomes of information
Gender may strengthen and weaken the relationship of trust and privacy concerns: a case of Facebook.
self-disclosure. Proc ICIS. Paper 230 (2010), 1–11.
Research model:
[4] Burgoon, J.K. 1982. Privacy and
communication. Communication
Yearbook 6. Communication Yearbook 6.
(1982), 206–249.
[5] Choi, Y.H. and Bazarova, N.N. 2015. Self-
Disclosure Characteristics and Motivations
in Social Media: Extending the Functional
Model to Multiple Social Network Sites.
Human Communication Research. 41, 4
(2015), 480–500.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12053.
[6] Derlega, V.J. and Chaikin, A.L. 1977.
Privacy and Self-Discolsure in Social
Relationships. Journal of Social Issues. 33,
3 (1977), 102–115.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4560.1977.tb01885.x.
[7] Dienlin, T. and Metzger, M.J. 2016. An
Extended Privacy Calculus Model for
SNSs : Analyzing Self-Disclosure and
Self-Withdrawal in a Representative U .
S . Sample. 21, (2016), 368–383.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12163.
[8] Dindia, K. 2000. Self-disclosure, identity,
and relationship development: A workshop on Privacy in the electronic
dialectical perspective. Communication
and personal relationships. (2000), 147–
162.
[9] Dinev, T. and Hart, P. 2006. An extended
privacy calculus model for e-commerce
transactions. Information Systems
Research. 17, 1 (2006), 61–80.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.008
0.
[10] Doney, P. et al. 1998. Understanding the
influence of national culture on the
development of trust. Academy of
Management Review. 23, 3 (1998), 601–
620.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.<s
trong data-auto="strong_text"
xmlns:translation="urn:EBSCO-
Translation">926629</strong>.
[11] Ellison, N.B. et al. 2010. Connection
strategies: social capital implications of
Facebook-enabled communications
practices. Sage. 13, 6 (2010), 873–892.
[12] FISHER, D. V. 1984. A Conceptual
Analysis of Self‐Disclosure. Journal for
the Theory of Social Behaviour. 14, 3
(1984), 277–296.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
5914.1984.tb00498.x.
[13] Fogel, J. and Nehmad, E. 2009. Internet
social network communities: Risk taking,
trust, and privacy concerns. Computers in
Human Behavior. 25, 1 (2009), 153–160.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.
006.
[14] Gefen, D. et al. 2003. The
conceptualization of trust, risk and their
electronic commerce: The need for
clarifications. Proceedings of the 36th
Annual Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences, HICSS 2003. (2003).
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2003.1
174442.
[15] Gross, R. et al. 2005. Information
revelation and privacy in online social
networks. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM
society - WPES ’05. (2005), 71.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1102199.1102
214.
[16] Hoadley, C.M. et al. 2010. Privacy as
information access and illusory control:
The case of the Facebook News Feed
privacy outcry. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications. 9, 1 (2010),
50–60.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2009.
05.001.
[17] Hogben, G. 2007. Security Issues and
Recommendations for Online Social
Networks. ENISA Position Paper,. 1
(2007), 1–31.
[18] Koehorst, R.H.G. 2013. Personal
Information Disclosure on Online Social
Networks An empirical study on the
predictors of adolescences’ disclosure of
personal information on Facebook. (2013),
1–40.
[19] Koroleva, K. et al. 2011. It’s all about
networking! empirical investigation of
social capital formation on social network
sites. Icis 2011. (2011), Paper 24.
[20] Koroleva, K. et al. 2011. It’s All About
Networking! Empirical Investigation of
Social Capital Formation on Social
Network Sites. Ici. (2011), 1–20.
[21] Krasnova, H. et al. 2009. “It Won’t
Happen To Me!”: Self-Disclosure in
Online Social Networks. Amcis 2009
Proceedings. (2009), 343.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.47460.
[22] Krasnova, H. et al. 2010. Online social
networks: why we disclose. Journal of
Information Technology. 25, 2 (2010),
109–125.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2010.6.
[23] Krasnova, H. et al. 2012. Self-disclosure
and privacy calculus on social networking
sites: The role of culture intercultural
dynamics of privacy calculus. Business
and Information Systems Engineering. 4, 3
(2012), 127–135.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-012-
0216-6.
[24] Maksl, A. and Young, R. 2013. Affording
to Exchange: Social Capital and Online
Information Sharing. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking. 16, 8
(2013), 588–592.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.04
30.
[25] Marwick, A.E. and Boyd, D. 2011. I tweet
honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter
users, context collapse, and the imagined
audience. New Media and Society. 13, 1
(2011), 114–133.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448103
65313.
[26] McKnight, D. et al. 2002. The impact of
initial customer trust on intentions to
transact with web site: A trust building
model. Journal of Strategic Information
Systems. 11, (2002), 297–323.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/s0963-
8687(02)00020-3.
[27] Rogers, R.W. 1983. Cognitive and
Physiological Processes in Fear Appeals
and Attitute Change: A Revised Theory of
Porotection Motivation. Social
Psychophysiology: A Sourcebook. (1983),
153–177.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ent031
.
[28] Sledgianowski, D. and Kulviwat, S. 2008.
Social Network Sites: Antecedents of User
Adoption and Usage. Proceedings of the
14th Americas Conference on Information
Systems. (2008), 1–10.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.4018/jantti.2010040
104.
[29] Taddicken, M. 2014. The “Privacy
Paradox” in the Social Web: The Impact of
Privacy Concerns, Individual
Characteristics, and the Perceived Social
Relevance on Different Forms of Self-
Disclosure1. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication. 19, 2 (2014),
248–273.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12052.
[30] Tanis, M. 2008. What makes the internet a
place to seek social support? Mediated
Interpersonal Communication. (2008),
290–308.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.4324/97802039268
64.
[31] Thelwall, M. 2008. Social networks,
gender, and friending: An analysis of
mySpace member profiles. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science
and Technology. 59, 8 (2008), 1321–1330.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20835.
[32] Trepte, S. and Reinecke, L. 2013. The
reciprocal effects of social network site use
and the disposition for self-disclosure: A
longitudinal study. Computers in Human
Behavior. 29, 3 (2013), 1102–1112.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.
002.
[33] Tufekci, Z. 2008. Can You See Me Now?
Audience and Disclosure Regulation in
 Online Social Network Sites. Bulletin of
Science, Technology & Society. 28, 1
(2008), 20–36.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/02704676073
11484.
[34] Utz, S. 2015. Utz , S . ( 2015 ). The
function of self-disclosure on social
networking sites : not only intimate , but
also positive and entertaining self-
disclosures increase the feeling of
connection . (2015), 1–10.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.
076.
[35] Xu, F. et al. 2013. Factors affecting
privacy disclosure on social network sites :
an integrated model. (2013), 151–168.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-013-
9111-6.
[36] Zhao, S. et al. 2008. Identity construction
on Facebook: Digital empowerment in
anchored relationships. Computers in
Human Behavior. 24, 5 (2008), 1816–
1836.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.
012.

PAGE SIZE
All material on each page should fit within a rectangle of 18 ×
23.5 cm (7" × 9.25"), centered on the page, beginning 1.9 cm
(0.75") from the top of the page and ending with 2.54 cm (1")
from the bottom. The right and left margins should be 1.9 cm
(.75").