Understanding Privacy Paradox in Social Media among Adolescents from Religious Perspectives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/r6gj1508Keywords:
Privacy Paradox, Social Media, Adolescents, Religious Orientations, Multiple MediationAbstract
Social norms and individual characters of Malaysians are mainly shaped by religious elements. Depending on how religion is being perceived by an individual, it shapes one’s attitudes toward social media and hence affects how one discloses personal information on social media. Using a moderated mediation approach, this study examines the roles of perceived benefits and privacy risks in using social media as predictors of the information disclosure behaviors mediated by religious orientations and ethnicity as a moderator that influences the strength of the implied indirect effect. A survey study was conducted involving 471 students from nine secondary schools in the southern region of Malaysia. The result shows that certain types of information disclosure behaviors in social media that were significantly mediated by religious orientations could be predicted by the proposed benefits and privacy risks perceived from using the media, such that the predictions varied across ethnic groups. The implications of religion and ethnicity on users’ attitudes and behaviors in social media are discussed.
Downloads
References
[1] Flender C. Type Indeterminacy in Privacy Decisions: The Privacy Paradox Revisited. Lect Notes Computer
Sci., 2012;Q1(LNCS 7620):148–59.
[2] Monteleone S. The Privacy Paradox between Users ’ Attitudes , Stringent Legal Framework and the Lack
of ) Adequate Implementation Tools Data Disclosure vs New Privacy Perception: The Eurobarometer ’ s
Results. In: Science LN in C, editor. International Conference on Human Aspects of Information Security,
Privacy and Trust. Nevada, USA: Springer, 2013. p. 284–94.
[3] Miltgen CL, Peyrat-guillard D. Cultural and generational influences on privacy concerns: a qualitative study
in seven European countries. Eur J Inf Syst [Internet]. 2014; 23(2): 103–25.
[4] Blank G, Bolsover G, Dubois E. A New Privacy Paradox: Young People and Privacy on Social Network
Sites. Oxford, 2014.
[5] Taddicken M., The ‘Privacy Paradox’ in the Social Web: The Impact of Privacy Concerns, Individual
Characteristics and the Perceived Social Relevance on Different Forms of Self-Disclosure. J Comput
Commun [Internet]. 2014;19(2):248–73.
[6] Oomen I, Leenes R. Privacy Risk Perceptions and Privacy Protection Strategies. Policies Res Identity
Manag [Internet]. 2008; 261: 121–38.
[7] Stutzman F, Kramer-Duffield J. Friends Only: Examining a Privacy-Enhancing Behavior in Facebook. In:
CHI 2010. Georgia, USA: ACM; 2010. p. 1553–62.
[8] Brandimarte L, Acquisti a., Loewenstein G. Misplaced Confidences: Privacy and the Control Paradox. Soc Psychol Personal Sci [Internet]. 2013;4(3):340–7
[9] Farag Awad N, Krishnan MS. The Personalization Privacy Paradox: An Empirical Evaluation of
Information Transparency and the Willingness to be Profiled Online for Personalization, MIS Q. 2006;
30(1): 13–28.
[10] Norberg P a., Horne DR, Horne D a. The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus
behaviors. J Consum Aff [Internet]. 2007;41(1):100–26.
[11] Culnan MJ, Armstrong PK. Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An
Empirical Investigation. Organ Sci. 1999;10(1):104–15.
[12] Laufer RS, Wolfe M. Privacy as a Concept and a Social Issue: A Multidimensional Developmental Theory.
J Soc Issues. 1977;33(3):22–42.
[13] Baboo SB, Pandian A, Prasad N V., Rao A. Young People and New Media in Malaysia: An Analysis of
Social uses and practices. J Arts, Sci Commer. 2013;IV(2):50–6.
[14] CyberSAFE. A National Survey Report 2013 Safety Net : Growing Awareness among Malaysian School
Children on Staying Safe Online. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; 2013.
[15] Department of Statistics Malaysia. Unjuran Penduduk Malaysia 2010-2040. 2010.
[16] Lim L. Cultural Attributes of Malays and Malaysian Chinese: Implications for Research and Practice.
Malaysian Manag Rev. 1998;33(2):81–90.
[17] Im TC. Managing a Plural Society: Issues and Challenges of Multiculturalism in Malaysia. In: The
Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Cultural Studies 2012. Osaka, Japan: The International Academic
Forum; 2012. p. 58–68.
[18] The Commissioner of Law Revision Malaysia. Federal Constitution of Malaysia. The Commissioner of Law
Revision, Malaysia; 2010.
[19] Bond MH, Al Au KL, Tong K-K, Carrasquel SR, Murakami F, Yamaguchi S, et al. Culture-Level
Dimensions of Social Axioms and Their Correlates across 41 Cultures. J Cross Cult Psychol. 2004; 35(5):
548–70.
[20] Schwartz SH. A Theory of Cultural Value Orientations: Explication and Applications. Comp Sociol. 2006;
5(2): 137–82.
[21] Bari AA. Religion, Law, and Governance in Malaysia. Islam Civilis Renew. 2010;2(1):60–77.
[22] Gelfand MJ, Raver JL, Nishii L, Leslie LM, Lun J, Lim BC. Differences between Tight and Loose Cultures:
A 33-Nation Study. SCIENCE. 2011;332:1100–4.
[23] Ratcliff AJ, McCarty J, Ritter M. Religion and New Media: A Uses and Gratifications Approach. J Media
Relig. 2017;16(1):15–26.
[24] Petronio S. Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. New York, USA.: State University of New York
Press; 2002. 65-71 p.
[25] Altman I. Privacy Regulation: Culturally Universal or Culturally Specific? J Soc Issues [Internet]. 1977;
33(3): 66–84.
[26] Rokeach M. The Nature of Human Values. Free Pr; 1973.
[27] Schwartz SH. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests
in 20 Countries. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1992;25:1–65.
[28] Krauss SE, Hamzah AH, Suandi T, Noah SM, Juhari R, Manap JH. Exploring Regional Differences in
Religion among Muslim Youth in Malaysia. Rev Relig Res. 2006;473:238–52.
[29] Tamuri AH, Othman MY, Dakir J, Ismail AM, Stapa Z. Religious Education and Ethical Attitude of Muslim
Adolescents in Malaysia. Multicult Educ Technol J. 2013;7(4):257–74.
[30] Fontaine R, Richardson S. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese, Malays, and Indians compared. Cross Cult
Manag An Int J. 2005;12(4):63–77.
[31] Allport GW, Ross JM. Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1967;5(4):432–43.
[32] Gallagher SE, Savage T. Cross-cultural analysis in online community research: A literature review. Comput
Human Behav [Internet]. 2012;29(3):1028–38.
[33] LaRose R, Connolly R, Lee H, Li K, Hales KD. Connection Overload? A Cross Cultural Study of the
Consequences of Social Media Connection. Inf Syst Manag [Internet]. 2013;31(1):59–73.
[34] Robbins SS, Stylianou AC. A longitudinal study of cultural differences in global corporate web sites. J Int
Bus Cult Stud. 2009;3.
[35] A Rahim R. Krisis Remaja dan Media Massa di Malaysia: Suatu Tinjauan dari Perspektif Islam. J Usuluddin.
1999;10:125–34.
[36] Ahmad F, Peng Kee C, Mustaffa N, Ibrahim F, Wan Mahmud WA, Dafrizal. Information Propagation and
the Forces of Social Media in Malaysia. Asian Soc Sci [Internet]. 2012;8(5).
[37] Daud MN, Coombes L, Venkateswar S, Ross K. Globalisation: The Experience of Malay Adolescents with
Conduct Problems. In: Doing Psychology: Manawatu Doctoral Research Symposium. 2013. p. 73–80.
[38] Halim AA. Cultural globalisation & its impact upon Malaysian teenagers. J Pengaj Umum Asia Tenggara
[Internet]. 2007; 8:179–93.
[39] Hoffstaedter G. Modern Muslim Identities: Negotiating Religion and Ethnicity in Malaysia. Copenhagen,
Denmark: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies Press; 2011.
[40] Suet Kay RC, Edo J, Hussain RB. Global Habitus: Collectivist and Individualist Values in Cultural Capital
among Chinese Malaysian youth. Kaji Malaysia. 2016;34(1):35–57.
[41] Abdullah A., Lim L. Cultural Dimensions of Anglos, Australians, and Malaysians. Malaysian Manag Rev
[Internet]. 2001 [cited 2015 Sep 21];36(2):1–17.
[42] Ho KT, Li C. From privacy concern to uses of social network sites: A cultural comparison via user survey.
Proc. 2011 IEEE Int Conf Privacy, Secur Risk Trust IEEE Int Conf Soc Comput PASSAT/SocialCom 2011.
2011;457–64.
[43] Long K, Zhang X. The Role of Self-Construal in Predicting Self-Presentational Motives for Online Social
Network use in the UK and Japan. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw [Internet]. 2014;17(7):454–9.
[44] Wijesundara TR. Motivations and Usage Patterns of Social Networking Sites: Exploring Cultural
Differences Between the United States & Sri Lanka. 2014;10(6):176–85.
[45] Ibrahim SZ, Masrom M. Perceived benefits, privacy risks, and the use of privacy strategies on Facebook:
An explorative study. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci. 2015;
[46] Krasnova H, Veltri NF. Privacy calculus on social networking sites: Explorative evidence from Germany
and USA. Proc Annu Hawaii Int Conf Syst Sci. 2010;1–10.
[47] Boyd D, Marwick AE. Social Privacy in Networked Publics: Teens’ Attitudes, Practices, and Strategies. In:
A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford
Internet Institute; 2011.
[48] Feng Y, Xie W. Teens’ Concern for Privacy when using Social Networking Sites: An Analysis of
Socialization agents and relationships with privacy-protecting behaviors. Comput Human Behav., 2014;
33: 153–62.
[49] Liu D, Brown BB. Self-disclosure on social networking sites, positive feedback, and social capital among
Chinese college students. Comput Human Behav [Internet]. 2014;38:213–9.
[50] Shibchurn J, Yan X. Information disclosure on social networking sites: An intrinsic-extrinsic motivation
perspective. Comput Human Behav [Internet]. 2015;44:103–17.
[51] Ibrahim SZ, Blandford A, Bianchi-Berthouze N. Privacy settings on Facebook: Their roles and importance.
Proc. 2012 IEEE Int Conf Green Comput Commun GreenCom 2012, Conf Internet Things, iThings 2012
Conf Cyber, Phys Soc Comput CPSCom 2012. 2012;(December):426–33.
[52] Allport GW, Ross JM. Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1967;5:432–43.
[53] Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based
Approach. The Guilford Press; 2013.
[54] Hayes AF. The PROCESS Macro for SPSS and SAS [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2017 Jan 14]. Available from:
www.processmacro.org
[55] Boyd Danah. Living Life in Public: Why American Teens Choose Publicity Over Privacy. boyd danah, editor. Association of Internet Researchers 2010 (AOIR 2010). Gothenburg, Sweeden: Association of Internet Researchers; 2010.
[56] Cohen J., Cohen P. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Second. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1983.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 AUTHOR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
