The Concept <i>Privacy</i> and Its Biological Basis

Klopfer, Peter H.; Rubenstein, Daniel I.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01882.x

Cited by 90 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The conceptualizations of information privacy can be done through three different ways. The fi rst way, referred to as the information exchange lens, conceptualizes privacy as a "privacy calculus" which contributes to the understanding of the trade-offs that consumers are willing to make when they exchange their personal information for certain benefi ts (Klopfer and Rubenstein 1977 ;Stone and Stone 1990 ). The second way, referred to as the social contract lens, frames the discussion of the bond of trust between organizations and individuals over information privacy based on the Integrative Social Contract Theory (Donaldson and Dunfee 1994, 1995.…”

Section: Conceptualizations Of Consumer Privacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer Interests and Economic Wellbeing

Xiao

2015

Consumer Economic Wellbeing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter discusses consumer economic wellbeing from a political perspective: how consumers pursue their rights in the marketplace through a public decision-making process to preserve and improve their economic wellbeing. In this chapter, we discuss consumer interests, consumer issues, consumer rights, and consumer representation. Because consumer right to privacy is a relatively new right, we summarize research on this right in a separate section. In addition, we also discuss the concept of consumer sovereignty and strategies for individual consumers to protect themselves in the marketplace.

show abstract

Section: Conceptualizations Of Consumer Privacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer Interests and Economic Wellbeing

Xiao

2015

Consumer Economic Wellbeing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Having reviewed the social (societal) importance of privacy as a social issue, we turn to privacy's importance as a behavioral phenomenon. The strongest and most controversial support are (a) Altman's (1977) conclusion that privacy may be a cultural universal (also see Nucci, 1997) and (b) Klopfer and Rubenstein's (1977) conclusion that privacy may be a “universal” in mammals and birds. Support for Klopfer and Rubenstein is provided by studies of a wide range of species of the mechanisms used by prey to avoid detection by predators (Krebs & Davies, 1993).…”

Section: The Behavioral Sciences and The Importance Of Privacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Privacy as a Social Issue and Behavioral Concept

Margulis

2003

Journal of Social Issues

229

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This introduction, to an issue on privacy as a social issue and behavioral concept, discusses what privacy is, by examining definitions and theories of privacy, and what privacy does, by reviewing the benefits of obtaining privacy and the costs of failing to achieve and of losing privacy. It provides a possible bridge between social psychological and social issues approaches to privacy and examines privacy as a social issue for Americans as citizens, health-care recipients, consumers, and employees. It then briefly explores behavioral aspects of privacy, including indicators of privacy's importance and the generally overlooked status of privacy in psychology.This issue is primarily about privacy as a social issue and secondarily about privacy as a behavioral concept. This reflects what I have found in my readings over the last decade or so. I believe there has been an increasing level of scholarly interest in privacy as a social issue. The debate often emphasizes threats to privacy, how serious the threats are, and if and how these threats should be addressed. By comparison, there continues to be relative indifference to privacy, as a theoretical or research interest, among psychologists in general. Both themes are discussed below.This introduction discusses what privacy is by examining issues in defining privacy and how privacy has been construed in two influential theories of privacy. It then examines what privacy does by reviewing theory and research on the benefits of obtaining privacy and the costs of failing to achieve and of losing privacy. Given this base, we suggest a bridge between psychological and social issues

show abstract

“…In general, an organism's relative fitness is related to its ability to correctly perceive and interpret its surroundings. 51 We need accurate -or at least broadly reliable -information to actually optimize the choice we make. We should worry about so-called 'filter bubbles' and 'halls or mirrors' and the extremely coercive power such affordance space control has over our choice.…”

Section: Biology Insight Iii: Anonymity and Partial Information As Rementioning

confidence: 99%

Privacy in public and the contextual conditions of agency

Brincker¹

2017

Privacy in Public Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:As traditional public spaces rapidly change the question arises whether pervasive surveillance is actually compatible with the nature of individual agency. It is known that new and largely unregulated technologies often both erode old de facto limitations of access, and erect new asymmetric barriers of knowledge, but how should we understand the harms of these new contexts? Based on our psychological and biological knowledge of social perception, embodiment and action choice it seems that these conditions present a toxic mix for our ability to gauge what I call our "relational privacy", and thereby for our autonomous and purposeful action planning. If this functional analysis is right then boundless surveillance of our bodies and behaviors threatens rather than supports basic personal freedom and responsibility. However, in contrast to this analysis, the private-public dichotomy often implied in existing debates assumes that privacy concerns can be theorized without much attention to the functional and relational dynamics of our embodied agency. Building on among others Nissenbaum and Reidenberg's work, this chapter seeks to counter this tendency. Two conclusions stand out: Firstly, it seems that our action choices depend on the existence of limited contexts also in public, and thus actions in what we might term "unbounded contexts" are typically performed through some kind of denial. Secondly, abundant availability of data traceable to persons can not only undermine and coerce our choices, but even to a large extent completely bypass our current volitional action choices. Thus it seems that the contextual nature of our agency should be of utmost importance to political and legal privacy issues, and could usefully guide attempts to re-create more bounded public spaces.

show abstract

The Concept Privacy and Its Biological Basis

Cited by 90 publications

References 16 publications

Consumer Interests and Economic Wellbeing

Consumer Interests and Economic Wellbeing

Privacy as a Social Issue and Behavioral Concept

Privacy in public and the contextual conditions of agency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About