Linking loose ends: An interdisciplinary privacy and communication model

Bräunlich, Katharina; Dienlin, Tobias; Eichenhofer, Johannes; Helm, Paula; Trepte, Sabine; Grimm, Rüdiger; Seubert, Sandra; Gusy, Christoph

doi:10.1177/1461444820905045

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is a community perspective on privacy, shifting away the locus of control from the individual to the group, and to explicit and implicit norms. Bräunlich et al (2020) similarly approach privacy “as a social practice situated in a digital age” (p. 4), observing that “ [w]ith the increasing digitalization the social and political dimensions of privacy have come to the fore , which is why new protection needs emerge that extend existing ones […]” (p. 11).…”

Section: Has Privacy Changed?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Privacy Is Dead, Long Live Privacy!

Dienlin

Breuer

2023

Journal of Media Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Privacy is a hotly debated topic in academia and society. The digitalization of our world has had enormous implications for our privacy. Some researchers and public figures agree that privacy has changed substantially, that we are living in a post-privacy world, and that we need to address privacy differently. Conversely, others maintain that privacy remains a relevant concept in our society, and that, although facets and degrees of privacy change, the conceptual core and societal relevance remain unchanged and intact. In this paper, we discuss the current state and future of privacy, presenting two opposing stances on four central questions: Has privacy changed? Is privacy dead? Have we lost control over our own privacy? How should we react? With this dialogue we hope to provide an overview of current positions on privacy by presenting divergent lines of reasoning and thinking, while outlining potential paths forward.

show abstract

Section: Has Privacy Changed?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Privacy Is Dead, Long Live Privacy!

Dienlin

Breuer

2023

Journal of Media Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sense of dataveillance will primarily affect the person's attitude toward digital communication (see Bräunlich et al, 2021)—basically, the individual's evaluation of whether digital communication, and thus leaving digital traces, is “a good idea”—this evaluation need not be extensively processed cognitively. More technically: “attitude toward the behavior is assumed to be a function of readily accessible beliefs regarding the behavior's likely consequences” (Ajzen, 2020: 2).…”

Section: Inhibited Digital Communication Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

The Chilling Effects of Digital Dataveillance: A Theoretical Model and an Empirical Research Agenda

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People's sense of being subject to digital dataveillance can cause them to restrict their digital communication behavior. Such a chilling effect is essentially a form of self-censorship in everyday digital media use with the attendant risks of undermining individual autonomy and well-being. This article combines the existing theoretical and limited empirical work on surveillance and chilling effects across fields with an analysis of novel data toward a research agenda. The institutional practice of dataveillance—the automated, continuous, and unspecific collection, retention, and analysis of digital traces—affects individual behavior. A mechanism-based causal model based on the theory of planned behavior is proposed for the micro level: An individual's increased sense of dataveillance causes their subjective probability assigned to negative outcomes of digital communication behavior to increase and attitudes toward this communication to become less favorable, ultimately decreasing the intention to engage in it. In aggregate and triggered through successive salience shocks such as data scandals, dataveillance is accordingly hypothesized to lower the baseline of free digital communication in a society through the chilling effects mechanism. From the developed theoretical model, a set of methodological consequences and questions for future studies are derived.

show abstract

“…Policymakers, too, have signaled privacy's importance and complexity through attempts at regulation, with efforts that include the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and others. Yet, privacy research (and thus regulation and development of privacy-relevant technology) continues to evolve within epistemological silos (Bräunlich et al 2020), while privacy theories and conceptualizations continue to be developed and validated through work conducted mostly within WEIRD contexts and among their affluent populations (Wu, Vitak and Zimmer 2020). Privacy research has been criticized as sustaining inherent systemic vulnerabilities by enacting an ethnocentric approach (Arora 2019) and for reifying power structures that are rooted in deterministic, technocentric, capitalistic worldviews that preserve existing forms of marginalization and enable new ones, consisting of the 'privacy rich' and 'privacy poor' (Marwick and boyd 2018).…”

Section: Problematizing Privacy Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Privacy Research: Literature Review, Framework, and Research Agenda

Masur¹,

Epstein²,

Quinn³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ways in which privacy is defined, perceived, and enacted are contingent on cultural, social, political, economic, and technological structures. Privacy research, however, is often conducted in settings that do not account for variations in how privacy is perceived and enacted. A comparative perspective explicitly addresses this shortcoming by requiring the contextualization of privacy through investigating structural similarities and differences. This paper outlines a comparative privacy research framework, which proposes five interrelated structures (cultural, social, political, economic, and technological) as fruitful units of comparison and disentangles how these structures affect and interact with privacy processes at the micro-, meso-, and macro levels. We conclude by proposing a comparative privacy research agenda, which acknowledges the embeddedness of privacy in such structural settings, and informs efforts to address privacy as a valued outcome through policy formation, education, and research.

show abstract

Linking loose ends: An interdisciplinary privacy and communication model

Cited by 18 publications

References 42 publications

Privacy Is Dead, Long Live Privacy!

Privacy Is Dead, Long Live Privacy!

The Chilling Effects of Digital Dataveillance: A Theoretical Model and an Empirical Research Agenda

Comparative Privacy Research: Literature Review, Framework, and Research Agenda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About