The Online Privacy Divide: Testing Resource and Identity Explanations for Racial/Ethnic Differences in Privacy Concerns and Privacy Management Behaviors on Social Media

IF 4.9 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Communication Research Pub Date : 2024-08-13 DOI:10.1177/00936502241273157
Laurent H. Wang, Miriam J. Metzger
{"title":"The Online Privacy Divide: Testing Resource and Identity Explanations for Racial/Ethnic Differences in Privacy Concerns and Privacy Management Behaviors on Social Media","authors":"Laurent H. Wang, Miriam J. Metzger","doi":"10.1177/00936502241273157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Do existing social inequalities translate into social media privacy management? This study examined racial/ethnic differences in privacy concerns and privacy management behaviors on social media to evaluate empirical evidence for an online privacy divide in the U.S. In addition, we tested two prominent theoretical perspectives–resource-based and identity-based explanations–for such divides. Results from an online survey ( N = 1,401) revealed that compared to White social media users, Latinx and Asian users reported higher horizontal and vertical privacy concerns, Latinx users employed horizontal privacy management strategies more frequently, Black users reported higher horizontal and vertical privacy self-efficacy, and Latinx users reported higher vertical privacy self-efficacy. While unequal distribution of resources (i.e., socioeconomic status) explained some differences among Asian (vs. White) participants, identity-based factor (i.e., perceived discrimination) served to motivate cautious privacy management among Black participants. Theoretical contributions to the privacy and marginalization literature are discussed. Practical implications are provided.","PeriodicalId":48323,"journal":{"name":"Communication Research","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241273157","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Do existing social inequalities translate into social media privacy management? This study examined racial/ethnic differences in privacy concerns and privacy management behaviors on social media to evaluate empirical evidence for an online privacy divide in the U.S. In addition, we tested two prominent theoretical perspectives–resource-based and identity-based explanations–for such divides. Results from an online survey ( N = 1,401) revealed that compared to White social media users, Latinx and Asian users reported higher horizontal and vertical privacy concerns, Latinx users employed horizontal privacy management strategies more frequently, Black users reported higher horizontal and vertical privacy self-efficacy, and Latinx users reported higher vertical privacy self-efficacy. While unequal distribution of resources (i.e., socioeconomic status) explained some differences among Asian (vs. White) participants, identity-based factor (i.e., perceived discrimination) served to motivate cautious privacy management among Black participants. Theoretical contributions to the privacy and marginalization literature are discussed. Practical implications are provided.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在线隐私鸿沟:测试社交媒体上种族/族裔隐私关注和隐私管理行为差异的资源和身份解释
现有的社会不平等现象会转化为社交媒体隐私管理吗?本研究考察了社交媒体上隐私关注和隐私管理行为的种族/民族差异,以评估美国网络隐私鸿沟的实证证据。此外,我们还检验了两种著名的理论观点--基于资源的解释和基于身份的解释--对这种鸿沟的解释。在线调查(1,401 人)结果显示,与白人社交媒体用户相比,拉丁裔和亚裔用户对横向和纵向隐私的关注度更高,拉丁裔用户更频繁地使用横向隐私管理策略,黑人用户对横向和纵向隐私的自我效能感更高,拉丁裔用户对纵向隐私的自我效能感更高。资源分配不均(即社会经济地位)解释了亚裔(与白人)参与者之间的一些差异,而身份因素(即感知到的歧视)则促使黑人参与者谨慎地进行隐私管理。本文讨论了对隐私和边缘化文献的理论贡献。并提供了实际意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Communication Research
Communication Research COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
17.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Empirical research in communication began in the 20th century, and there are more researchers pursuing answers to communication questions today than at any other time. The editorial goal of Communication Research is to offer a special opportunity for reflection and change in the new millennium. To qualify for publication, research should, first, be explicitly tied to some form of communication; second, be theoretically driven with results that inform theory; third, use the most rigorous empirical methods; and fourth, be directly linked to the most important problems and issues facing humankind. Critieria do not privilege any particular context; indeed, we believe that the key problems facing humankind occur in close relationships, groups, organiations, and cultures.
期刊最新文献
Personality, Attachment, and Pornography: A Meta-Analysis Expansion and Exploration of the Superdiffuser Model With Agent-Based Modeling “I’ll Change My Beliefs When I See It”: Video Fact Checks Outperform Text Fact Checks in Correcting Misperceptions Among Those Holding False or Uncertain Pre-Existing Beliefs “None of Us Wanted to be at This Party, But What a Guest List”: How Technology Workers Position Themselves on LinkedIn Following Layoffs Caught Within the Family System: An Examination of Emerging Adults’ Dilemmas in Navigating Sibling Depression
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1