Facebook: Risk Taking and Privacy Concerns among Maltese Young Adults. Noelle Camilleri, 2011

Facebook, Risk Taking and Privacy Concerns: A study

amongst young Maltese adults.

Noelle Camilleri

Supervisor: Dr Noellie Brockdorff

Submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requisites

for the degree of

Bachelor of Psychology (Honours Conversion)

Department of Education

September 2011

© 2011 N. Camilleri

ABSTRACT

The importance of social networking sites, especially amongst young adults has been increasing

in recent years. There are growing concerns that users of social networking sites divulge too

much personal information, thereby putting themselves at risk. This has led to an interest in

factors that may have a bearing on the type and amount of information that users of social

networking sites divulge online. Amongst the factors examined is the attitude to risk taking and

privacy concerns (Fogel and Nehmad, 2009). This study replicates part of the Fogel and Nehmad

(2009) study amongst 18 to 25 year old Maltese users of Facebook. Data was collected by means

of an anonymous questionnaire through which information about behaviour on social networking

sites, measures relating to privacy and disclosure and attitude to risk was obtained. It identified

factors that co-vary with risky behaviour online and how these vary between genders.

Keywords: Social networking sites, Privacy concerns, Risk-taking attitude, Disclosure

behaviour, Risky behaviours, Gender difference.

UNIVERSITY OF MALTA

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

DECLARATION

I, Noelle Camilleri the undersigned, hereby declare that I am the legitimate author of this

dissertation and that it is my original work.

No portion of this work has been submitted in support of another degree or qualification of this

or any other university or institution of learning.

___________________

NOELLE CAMILLERI - ID. 572688(M)

Student code: 11BPSY052

September 2011

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It would not have been possible for me to complete this Dissertation without the help and support

of a number of people. I would first like to acknowledge my tutor, Dr Noellie Brockdorff, for

giving me the chance to deal with this dissertation subject. I would also like to sincerely thank

her for her advice, guidance and feedback throughout the course of this study.

Furthermore, ackowledgement is for all the people who in some way or another encouraged and

helped me with their vital advice. I would like to thank the staff and management of the

department of Psychology at the University of Malta, with special thanks going to the lecturers

who shared their knowledge and helped me into becoming the person I am today.

I would like to thank all the people who took part in the study by filling in the surveys and taking

the burden of sending the surveys to their friends. Last but not least, I would like to show my

gratitude to my fellow Psychology students for the interest shown in the dissertation, to my

family and to my boyfriend for the ongoing support and patience they showed, and to my cousins

Ms Silvana Bugeja and Ms Fiona Sammut for devoting some of their precious time to help me

with the statistical analysis of the data and the formulation of the dissertation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ v

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. vi

TABLE OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Preamble ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Research Theme ............................................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................................. 2

1.5 Dissertation Structure .................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 4

2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 An Overview of Facebook and its Uses ........................................................................................... 4

2.3 Privacy Concerns ............................................................................................................................ 5

2.3.1 What do we mean by privacy concerns?.................................................................................. 5

2.3.2. Theories about self-disclosure ................................................................................................ 6

2.3.3. Self –disclosure online ............................................................................................................ 7

2.3.4 Privacy concerns, self-disclosure, and Gender ......................................................................... 9

2.4 Risk Taking ................................................................................................................................... 10

2.4.1 What is risk taking? ............................................................................................................... 10

2.4.2 Risk taking online and on Social Networking Sites .................................................................. 12

2.4.3 Risk taking and Gender .......................................................................................................... 13

2.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 14

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 15

3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 15

3.2 Research Rationale ...................................................................................................................... 15

3.3.Participants ................................................................................................................................. 16

3.4 Sampling Method ........................................................................................................................ 16

3.5 Pilot Study ................................................................................................................................... 17

3.6 Survey.......................................................................................................................................... 18

3.6.1 Demographics ....................................................................................................................... 18

3.6.2 Social Networking site characteristics .................................................................................... 18

3.6.3 Risk-taking and privacy concerns ........................................................................................... 19

3.7 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 22

3.8 Reliability ..................................................................................................................................... 23

3.9 Generalizability ............................................................................................................................ 23

3.10 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 24

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 25

4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 25

4.2 Demographic Characteristics........................................................................................................ 25

4.3 Research Question 1 .................................................................................................................... 26



4.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... 35

5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 35

5.2 Typical Daily Behaviour on Facebook and Gender ........................................................................ 35

5.3 Individual Facebook Security Settings and Gender ....................................................................... 36

5.4 Risk Taking, Privacy Concerns, and Gender................................................................................... 38

5.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 38

5.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 39

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 40

6.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 40

6.2 Implications of the Study ............................................................................................................. 40

6.3 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................................... 41

6.4 Recommendations for Future Research ....................................................................................... 41

6.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 42

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 43

APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................................... 48

APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................................................... 56

APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................................................... 57

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Risk Thermostat .............................................................................................................. 11

Figure 2 The percentage of individuals who use a networking site other than Facebook ......................... 26

Figure 3 Distribution of the number of friends for each gender separately .............................................. 29

Figure 4 The percentage of participants and what they include in their Facebook profile ........................ 31

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the sample of Maltese young adults aged 18-25 ........................ 25

Table 2 Descriptive statistics: the association between the typical daily use of Facebook and gender ...... 27

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of the association between the individual Facebook security settings and

gender ................................................................................................................................................... 30

Table 4 Descriptive statistics and comparisons between gender, Risk Taking and Privacy concerns ....... 33

1 Facebook, Risk Taking and Privacy Concerns

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

“Over the past decade, the Internet has become an important and ubiquitous feature of da ily life

in the developed world. As is often the case, the technology is somewhat of a double-edged

sword. Although it may enhance our lives in many ways, as our world becomes an „information

society‟ it also raises new concerns. For much of that information relates to not just things but to

people.” (Bunchanan et al, 2006: 57)

1.1 Preamble

As time passes and years go by, technology is becoming more ingrained into our

lifestyles, re-shaping people‟s lives and the societies they make part of. The internet has played a

major role in dropping the borders and making the world a more global one, of which every

individual may be part, regardless of sex, age, race and social class.

Social Networking Sites are a relatively new addition to the World Wide Web. A Social

Networking site gives the possibility to users to build social platforms which may be used to

interact with others online. Popular social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook and

LinkedIn, are gaining more importance, with people joining, and accessing their profiles on these

online communities every day.

The social networking site phenomenon has also grabbed the attention of scholars and

encouraged research through different perspectives and fields of thought. Such studies

investigate the role that social networking sites are playing in people‟s lives and their power over

modern society; investigating how they may affect privacy and disclosure issues (Acquisti &

Gross, 2006; Bunchanan et al, 2006; De Crew, 1997; Hew, 2011; Lovejoy et al, 2009; Stutzman,


2006; Westin, 1999; Xu et al, 2008), youth tendencies (Christofides et al., 2010; Ybarra et al,

2008), education (Hew, 2011; Roblyer, 2010), risk taking patterns (Ammann et al, 1999; Hew,

2011; Lerner & Keltner, 2001) and the way by which they can shape a person‟s identity (Le

Brenton, 2004).

1.2 Research Theme

As a Facebook user myself I was interested in seeing how Maltese people reacted to

social networking sites, something that had never been done beforehand. Hence, I am here part-

replicating a study by Fogel and Nehmad (2001) entitled: Internet Social Network

Communities: Risk Taking, Trust and Privacy Concerns in a Maltese context. The aim of this

study is to seek and explore any relationship between gender and Facebook use, risk taking, and

privacy concerns amongst Maltese young adults aged between 18 and 25.

1.3 Research Questions

The research questions explored in this study were:

1. Are there gender differences in typical daily use of Facebook?

2. Are there gender differences in setting individual Facebook security settings?

3. Do risk-taking behaviour and privacy concerns online vary with gender?

1.4 Theoretical Framework

This study investigates how Facebook is used among the young adult Maltese population.

Theories from the psychology literature dealing with gender difference, privacy issues,

disclosure and risk taking provide the theoretical framework for this study. These concepts will

be further investigated and supported by relevant research. Other theories such as self-disclosure


theory, social exchange theory, social penetration theory, decision theory and prospect theory

will also be discussed.

1.5 Dissertation Structure

This chapter outlines the main topics that are being studied in this dissertation. The next

chapter will give a detailed account of the literature related to the subjects and the underlying

theory. Chapter three will then shed light on the way the research was conducted while Chapter

four will illustrate the findings. Chapter five will include a discussion of the previous literature in

conjunction with the results of this study and finally the dissertation will be concluded in chapter

six.


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

In the beginning of this chapter, reasons for using Facebook will be portrayed while

Privacy, Disclosure and Risk Taking will also be addressed with special interest in the way these

phenomena differ between genders and manifest themselves online and on Facebook..

2.2 An Overview of Facebook and its Uses

A social networking site is an online space, specifically designed to help people to

communicate, share and create information. Examples of social networking sites are Facebook,

LinkedIn and Twitter. Although the latter are still a relatively new addition to the Internet,

extensive literature has been conducted with special interest in how these sites are influencing

the people who use them and those who do not. Media Psychology is the specific field in

Psychology which addresses these issues. In fact it is the practice of understanding how people

perceive and use media-technology. It studies the ways by which media affects society both

positively and negatively and hence finds new ways to integrate technology into people‟s lives in

a more constructive manner (Fremlin et al., 2008).

Facebook gives the possibility to users to share their pictures and post on „Friends‟ walls‟

but there is also much more to it. People use it to play online games, to map out relatives, to find

old friends and also to chat with family and friends (Ellison et al., 2007). It is also used to keep

in touch with business friends and to promote and advertise one‟s business online (Corwin,

2011).


Three quarters of students in the United States have a social networking profile, 75% of

whom have a Facebook page. They spend an average of one hour a day viewing profiles and

have an average of 239 profile friends (Fogel & Nehmad, 2009) which is more than the average

number of friends per person published by the same Facebook which amounted to 130

(Facebook Statistics, 2011). Stutzman (2006) and Hargittai (2007) report Facebook as being the

most popular social networking site by 90% and 78.8% respectively. Ellison, Stanfield and

Lampe (2006) found that undergraduate students spent an average of 10-30 minutes everyday on

the site while having 150-200 friends.

Brandtzæg and Heim (2009) found that 30% of the people in the United States use Social

Networking Sites in order to get in touch with new people, 21% use them to communicate with

their friends while 14% use them for socialising in general (Brandtzæg & Heim, 2009). Other

research states that most students tend to use Facebook as a means of communication, to connect

and keep contact with friends (Acquisti & Gross, 2006; Charnigo & Barnett-Ellis, 2007; Ellison

et al., 2006), while others use it just for fun and killing time as opposed to gathering information

(Ellison et al.,2006). Facebook is also used to maintain relationships which started offline such

as keeping in touch with school friends, getting to know classmates better (Ellison et al., 2007)

and also for dating (Acquisti & Gross, 2006; Charnigo & Barnett–Ellis, 2007).

2.3 Privacy Concerns

2.3.1 What do we mean by privacy concerns?

Privacy is considered to be directly related to the right of a person to be let to live life

alone (Warren & Brandeis, 1890; as cited in Bunchanan et al, 2006), while information privacy

relates to the right of an individual to choose when and how information about him/her is


disclosed to other people and organisations (Westin, 1999). Accessibility privacy and

information privacy overlap when “acquisition or attempted acquisition of information involves

gaining access to an individual” (De Crew, 1997: 76). Physical privacy is the extent to which a

person is physically accessible to other individuals (as cited in Bunchanan et al, 2006). Examples

of a breach of physical privacy when online are viruses and spam mail (De Crew, 1997).

Expressive privacy, on the other hand, is the ability of a person to decide if to continue or modify

ones behaviour. Expressive privacy protects against the “interference, pressure and coercion

from government or from other individuals” (De Crew, 1997: 77) hence, expressive privacy

helps an individual in keeping control over his/her ability of self-expression and of building

interpersonal relationships (Bunchanan et al, 2006).

Several studies have tried to explain privacy concerns. The (CFIP) Concern for

Information Privacy Scale by Smith, Milberg and Burke (1996) found four areas of privacy

concern (collection, errors, secondary use and unauthorized access to information). It is

described by Xu et al as “one of the most reliable instrument measuring individuals‟ concerns

towards organizational privacy practices” (Xu et al, 2008: 3).

2.3.2. Theories about self-disclosure

Privacy issues and self-disclosure are two facets of the same dime and they are

fundamental subjects in the study of Psychology. The Self Disclosure Theory, (Forgas, 2011)

states that if one person is willing to disclose information about the self with another, the other

will feel more comfortable disclosing and vice versa. Social Exchange Theory is also relevant in

that it describes disclosure as the outcome equilibrium of costs and rewards (Farber, 2006).

Disclosure has been studied in psychology in order to help patients deal with stigmatised


situations such as traumas. The DPM (Disclosure Processes Model) examines when and in what

ways disclosure is beneficial. It states that the environment one lives in affects the level of ease

in disclosing personal information and by alleviating the inhibitions and offering support one

may make a person feel more at ease (Chaudior & Fisher, 2010). The Social Penetration Theory

compares personality to an onion with four layers. As one discloses more information, the layers

are peeled away, hence the more personal the information disclosed is, the more intimate the

relationship becomes (Derlega, 1993). Furthermore disclosure has been found to be affected by

mood. In fact when an individual is in a positive mood it is more likely that he/she feels

comfortable to disclose more information (Forgas, 2011).

2.3.3. Self –disclosure online

Other studies build on the theories in Section 2.3.2 and study the levels of disclosure

involved in „Computer-Mediated Communication‟. Privacy concerns are very subjective but are

highly correlated to values and perceptions of the individual (Bunchanan et al, 2006).The level of

self-disclosure is in fact higher online when compared to face-to face encounters. When visually

anonymous, individuals tend to feel even more comfortable to disclose intimate information

about the self (Joinson, 2001). When comparing Canadian, high school students and adults, to

see how age is associated with information disclosure and privacy on Facebook, it was noticed

that youth and adults have similar patterns of disclosure on Facebook. Furthermore, adults used

the security settings more often and individuals who had higher needs of popularity and were

less informed about the consequences of disclosure gave out more personal information about

themselves. On the other hand individuals, who reported a negative experience on the social

networking site, were more controlling when it came to disclosing personal information

(Christofides et al., 2010).


In contrast with individuals who did not have a Facebook account, people with a

Facebook account were more likely to be concerned about people knowing where they lived and

their school timetable(Acquisti & gross, 2006). In spite of this, Acquisti and Gross (2006) found

no relationship between the concerns participants had of people knowing their address and

schedule, and whether or not they gave the information. In fact out of 16% of the participants

who expressed such concerns, 22% divulged at least their home address and 40% even revealed

their school time table on their Facebook page (Acquisti & Gross, 2006). On the other hand in a

study by Stutzman (2006), college students said it was important for them to protect their

personal information. They agreed that their family, friends and classmates have access to their

Facebook page but still did not find anything against strangers viewing their profile.

Dwyer, Passerini and Hilts (2007) compared Facebook and My Space in order to see how

the willingness of people to share information and form new relationships online correlates with

their internet privacy concerns. They gathered information about Facebook and MySpace,

compared the two and subsequently found that people on Facebook disclosed more personal and

identifying information than those on MySpace. 100% of the population sample revealed their

real names on their profile on Facebook and 94% wrote their email address. When asked whether

they used other communication channels such as instant messenger and emails in order to deepen

the relationship after making friends on Facebook, 34% reported taking the relationship a step

further in instant messenger. Only 27% reported meeting the person face to face and 40% said

they did not contact people they met on Facebook through other communication media (Dwyer

et al., 2007).

In a study by Antòn et al. (2009) internet users' privacy concerns were collected and

compared to their previous 2002 study about the same subject to see how privacy concerns had


evolved in the previous six years. In the 2002 study, it was found that internet users were most

concerned about the transfer, storage and awareness of the information that was disclosed.

Furthermore, privacy policies at the time took into consideration the security of the data, the way

in which it was collected and the internet users‟ consent and as a result there was a notable

difference between the users‟ privacy concerns and the privacy policies which secured them

(Antòn et al, 2009). In the 2008 survey the participants were found to be more concerned about

information collection and they were especially concerned with websites collecting their

browsing history and using it for marketing and research purposes (Antòn et al., 2009).

2.3.4 Privacy concerns, self-disclosure, and Gender

Through a meta-analysis of 205 studies about self-disclosure and sexual differences, it

was found that self-disclosure was higher when there was an existent relationship. Furthermore

women were found to disclose more than men while when disclosing with strangers the levels of

disclosure were similar for males and females (Dindia & Allen, 1992).

On the other hand, when charting the differences between the ways males and females

disclose information, Farber (2006) found that they both tend to disclose most information earlier

on in a relationship while leaving more intimate issues for later. Women see disclosure as a way

of enhancing a relationship while men mostly self-disclose while keeping a balance between

self-control and vulnerability. While men felt more comfortable disclosing with the opposite sex,

women attributed more importance to communication with friends of the same sex (Farber,

2006).

In Fogel and Nehmad‟s (2009) work which is being partly replicated in this study, people

with social networking profiles had greater risk taking attitudes than others who did not have


such a profile. Men had greater risk taking attitudes while women scored higher when it came to

privacy concerns. In spite of this no difference between genders was evident in privacy

behaviour and privacy attitudes. 10% of the participants of this study gave their phone number

on their social networking profile and another 10% gave their home address. Women were found

to have less identity- information disclosure and needed to be reassured that their privacy was

being protected before creating a profile on a social networking site. Men tended to disclose their

Instant Messenger address more than women and had a higher mean when it came to number of

added friends on their profile. Women on the other hand wrote more on other people‟s profiles

but were “more private when it comes to allowing strangers to become their friends” (Fogel &

Nehmad, 2009: 160).

2.4 Risk Taking

2.4.1 What is risk taking?

Although the tendency to take risks exists in everyone, it varies between individuals and

is influenced by the possible rewards associated with the risk. As portrayed in Figure 1. (The

Risk Thermostat) below, one‟s perception of risk is influenced by one‟s experiences and the

experiences of those around him/her. An individual weighs risk perception against the

willingness to take a risk and the reward or loss associated with it. The more risk a person takes,

the greater the rewards or the losses would be (Ammann et al, 1999).


Figure 1: The Risk Thermostat

Risk may be analysed through a number of different perspectives; two theories that deal

with risk are Decision Theory and Prospect Theory. Decision Theory tries to identify the balance

between values and uncertainties. Only when the rationality of an uncertain decision is

identified, an optimal decision can be made (Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981). On the other hand,

Prospect Theory takes into account the different alternatives of a given decision by analysing the

risk involved. It aims towards a „real-life‟ decision as opposed to the optimal decision

(Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).

When making a decision which has an uncertain outcome, one needs to take into

consideration that cognitive bias, cultural differences and groupthink may play a role in the

decision making process (Whyte, 1998). Fear is also an innate form of „risk assessment‟. People

rely on fear in order to stay away from uncertain and unwanted situations. In fact while an angry

person would be more willing to take risk, a fearful person would be less willing to participate in

such peril (Lerner & Keltner, 2001).

Risk-taking in young people may also be a cry for help and a way of finding a meaning in

life. Hence it can be positive in that it may increase independence, improve self-image and help a

young adult in developing his/her identity (Le Brenton, 2004). Additionally research has also


shown that risk-taking (involving thrill-seeking such as extreme sports and risky business) may

be connected to the mechanisms of arousal and pleasure in the brain. Hence, it may function in

the same way as an addiction, and it may also involve negative outcomes. People who enjoy high

risk are usually bored easily and have low job satisfaction. This thrill-seeking attitude may also

lead to dangerous vices such as drug abuse, promiscuity and gambling (Roberts, 2010).

2.4.2 Risk taking online and on Social Networking Sites

Following concerns around the use of Social Networking sites amongst young people,

Ybarra et al. (2008), conducted a study among 1588 youths aged 10 to 15 in order to shed light

on online places where they might come to terms with sexual solicitation and harassment. 15%

reported that they were sexually solicited online while 4% had been sexually solicited on a

Social Networking site. 9% also reported being sexually harassed while on a Social Networking

Site. In spite of this, it was found that most sexual solicitation and harassment happened on

instant messenger and chat rooms while only 27% and 28% of the cases respectively happened

on Social Networking sites (Ybarra et al, 2008).

In a qualitative study by Livingstone (2008), most of the teenage participants claimed that

they disclosed certain personal things only offline but that they were not ashamed of disclosing

details such as their name, their age, their political views, information about their income,

religion and sexual preferences which they felt were not too personal (Livingstone, 2008). When

the teenagers were asked to modify their privacy settings they were nervous since they knew that

if such a thing is done irresponsibly, they could have to face a number of risks such as: “risk of

stranger danger, parental approbation, viruses, unwanted advertising and unpleasant chain

messages” (Livingstone, 2008: 406).Young teenagers first passed through a phase of “play-


display”, where they decorated their profiles and built up a fancy online identity on the Social

Networking sites. As they grew older, they were found to have more authentic relationships on

such sites. This shift from one phase to the other may influence their online risk and

opportunities (Livingstone, 2008).

From a study of 119 Americans, most of whom were females aged 22-24, 18% said that

they had even experienced the “negative effects of Facebook, such as unwanted advances,

stalking and harassment, damaging gossip or rumours or data theft” (Lovejoy et al, 2009). Most

users in the same study stated that the risks associated with Facebook are less than the actual

benefits. Also the risk on Facebook was perceived by most participants of the study through a

third person point of view. The risk of another person‟s privacy breach is bigger than the risk to

one‟s personal privacy (Lovejoy et al., 2009).

2.4.3 Risk taking and Gender

When writing about risky and thrill-seeking activities, Roberts (2010) states that one in

four people has a higher chance of being involved in risky behaviour. The tendency to take risk

is more frequent in males and it decreases with age (Roberts, 2010). On the other hand in another

study of male and female entrepreneurs, no correlation was found between gender and risk

perception. In fact gender was deemed to have a secondary effect on risk since the individual‟s

history, age, personality and risk preferences had a primary effect on whether or not the person

engaged in risk (Yordanova & Alexandrova-Boshnakova, 2011).

In 2007, Pompili et al., observed a sample of 312 college students the result of which was

that “those with higher scores on the reasons for living inventory had lower scores on the

physical risk taking inventory” (as cited in Fogel and Nehmad, 2009:154). When it came to


difference in risk-taking behaviour on Social Networking sites, persons owning an online profile

were found to have greater risk taking attitudes than those who did not with males having higher

risk taking attitudes than females (Fogel & Nehmad, 2009). In a meta-analysis of 150 previous

studies, Byrnes, Miller and Scafer (1999) compared the risk-taking tendencies between males

and females. The results showed that males were more likely to take risks while the gender

difference in risk taking grew smaller with age.

2.5 Conclusion

This chapter included a review of the relevant literature with special interest in how

gender and the internet may affect privacy and disclosure issues (Acquisti & Gross, 2006;

Bunchanan et al., 2006; De Crew, 1997; Hew, 2011; Lovejoy et al., 2009; Stutzman, 2006;

Westin, 1999; Xu et al., 2008) and risk-taking patterns (Ammann et al., 1999; Hew, 2011; Lerner

& Keltner, 2001). In the next chapter, the research methodology used will be presented.


CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter gives a description of how this study was conducted. It includes the research

rationale of the study: how the questionnaire was constructed, the pilot testing, the sampling

methodology, the sample composition and a description of how the data was collected and

analysed.

3.2 Research Rationale

A quantitative research design was used in order to carry out the study on 167 Maltese

Facebook users, aged between 18 and 25. Data was collected through an online survey, which

was made public directly through Facebook.

This dissertation is a partial replication of a study by Fogel and Nehmad (2009) entitled:

Internet Social Network Communities: Risk Taking, Trust and Privacy Concerns. The latter

was conducted amongst undergraduate students, sitting for a 4 year course at an American

college. The collection of the data happened in May 2007 and it included a convenience sample

of 205 responses (response rate of 96.2%) which were approached in different locations within

the college grounds (Fogel & Nehmad, 2009). The main objective of the Fogel and Nehmad

(2009) study was to observe how risk taking, trust and privacy concerns, were related to

undergraduate students‟ activities on two Social Networking sites; Facebook and MySpace.

The study by Fogel and Nehmad (2009), was modified in order to make it better fit the

Maltese young-adult population. A total of 231 responses were collected of which 187 were

complete (response rate- 81%) and 20 were not valid for this study since they didn‟t fit the


demographic specifications (age: 18-25, Maltese). Hence 167 responses were left for further

analysis. The main aim of this study was that of analyzing how risk taking attitudes and privacy

concerns are related to the participants‟ social networking habits on Facebook.

The research questions I investigated were:

4. Are there gender differences in typical daily use of Facebook?

5. Are there gender differences in setting individual Facebook security settings?

6. Do risk taking behaviour and privacy concerns online vary with gender?

3.3.Participants

A total of 167 participants were chosen for this study through an online survey, all of

whom were Maltese Facebook users. Of these, 61 were male while 106 were females. All of the

participants were young adults aged between 18 and 25. Other respondents who were not

Maltese and out of the age range specified above were not included in the study since the

dissertation is focusing on a specific age group of the Maltese population.

3.4 Sampling Method

A Facebook-Attitude survey was constructed for the sole purpose of collecting the

relevant responses for this research. Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants by

means of a snowball technique. A survey was sent to a number of random participants who were

on my „friends list‟ of Facebook. In turn, they were asked to forward it to others. A covering

letter (Appendix A; Appendix B, Figure 2), which included all the necessary information the

participants needed to know about the survey had been previously set up and attached to the

survey itself. The participants were informed that they were going to fill in a questionnaire about


Facebook but Risk taking and Privacy concerns were not mentioned at this stage in order to

minimise bias.

A Public Facebook Event was created and the survey was publicised there through a link

as well as the covering letter (Appendix B, Figure 2). Since snowball technique was being used,

it was also specified that I wished participants to invite their Facebook friends to fill in the

survey. I also made sure to set the „Event‟ in such a way that the guest list was not shown on the

event page in order to safeguard the anonymity of the participants (Appendix B, Figure 1).

Seventy five people were invited and subsequently they invited their friends. By the closing of

the survey the number of people invited for the „Event‟ went up to 907 of whom 231 answered

the survey. Of these 167 were valid responses.

3.5 Pilot Study

A pilot study was distributed to fifteen Maltese young adults aged between 18 and 25.

The survey was sent through a link in a private message on Facebook and they were asked to

give their feedback and comments since this could help improve the study.

Some of the participants commented that the instructions were clear, the questions were

straight forward and hence the survey was easy to complete. On the other hand seven

participants commented that the survey was too long and that it had some repetition between two

specific scales. Following this observation two scales were removed: the “Time pressure scale”

and the “Perceived ability to control information scale” (Fogel & Nehmad, 2009) since they

were not directly related to privacy and risk taking on the internet.


3.6 Survey

The survey was made up of close ended questions which made it easier and faster for the

participants to fill in (Appendix A). It included a demographics section, a section about the

individual‟s social networking website characteristics and also five scales which were previously

used in Fogel and Nehmad (2009) to measure risk taking behaviour and privacy concerns.

3.6.1 Demographics

The demographics section included four close ended questions about nationality, age,

gender and level of education. When it came to the questions about nationality and age,

participants were given only two choices (Nationality- Maltese/ Other, Age- 18-25/ Other) and if

they did not choose „Maltese‟ and „18-25‟ respectively the responses were filtered and were not

used further in the analysis.

3.6.2 Social Networking site characteristics

In this section of the survey, the participants were asked about their typical use of

Facebook. The initial question inquired whether they had any social networking profile other

than Facebook. Categorical variables found in Fogel and Nehmad (2009) were used, amongst

which “How many years have you had your Facebook profile displayed?”, “On a typical day

how many times per day do you visit your profile?”, “On a typical day how many profiles from

others do you view?” and “On a typical day how many hours do you spend viewing profiles?” A

continuous variable asking the participants for the approximate number of „friends‟ on their

Facebook profile, was also included.


Additionally, questions about the Facebook settings were added, where the participants

had to choose from a set of answers. These questions included; “Who can view your Facebook

profile?” (with possible responses : Everyone, Friends of Friends, Friends only, Other ; out of

which only one had to be chosen), “Which of these do you include on your Facebook profile?”

(with possible responses: a picture of yourself, your e-mail address, etc , of which more than one

could be chosen), and categorical variables with yes or no answers of which; “Do you use your

real name on your profile pages?”, “Do you group your friends on your facebook profile?”, “Do

you customize your privacy settings?” and “Do you know that apps, games and websites allowed

on Facebook have access to your personal information?”

3.6.3 Risk-taking and privacy concerns

The following scales were taken from Fogel and Nehmad (2009) without being modified in any

way.

a. RISK AVERSENESS SCALE

This scale which was originally constructed by Pan and Zinkhan (2006) contained five

statements which were measured „on a Likert-style scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=

strongly agree‟ (Fogel & Nehmad, 2009). The higher the sum of the scores for each participant,

the higher the risk taking behaviour of the individual. The Cronbach alpa reliability in the Fogel

and Nehmad (2009) study was that of 0.76 while in this sample it was 0.67 hence less than the

0.7 treshold (Nunnaly, 1978). This did not necessarily mean that the scale was not reliable.

In this scale risk averseness was measured through five questions. Since the scale

included less than seven questions this might have caused the low Cronbah alpha value.

“Pedazur and Schmelkin (1991) proposed that the reported reliability should be evaluated by


taking into account the specific circumstances of each study before claiming lack of reliability

for a developed outcome measure” (as cited in Spiliotapoulou, 2009: 4).

The average inter-item correlation of the scale which is not affected by scale length may

be calculated by using the formula: p = α / n-(n-1)α 1formulated by Cronbach in 1951

(Spiliotapoulou, 2009). In the case of this scale n was 5 and α was 0.677 therefore the estimate of

reliability was worked out to be 0.295. Clark and Watson (1995) claim that for broad

characteristics such as risk averseness in this case, the recommended average inter-item

correlation should be greater than 0.15 and nearer to 1 to be considered reliable. The actual value

of the mean inter-item correlation was also calculated by working out the average of the

correlation of all the pairs through : Analyze, Correlate, Bivariate and taking all the Risk

Averseness items (Appendix C) , for which the average outcome was 0.03037 and hence can be

said to be reliable (Spiliotapoulou, 2009).

b. PRIVACY BEHAVIOUR SCALE

The privacy behaviour scale was originally named the “General Caution Scale” by

Bunchanan, Paine, Joinson and Reips (2007) and it is made up of six questions which are

measured by means of a “5-point scale from 1=never to 5=always”(Fogel & Nehmad, 2009). As

in the previous scale the higher the sum of the scores for each participant, the higher level of

privacy behaviours the individual possessed. Originally this scale had a Cronbach alpha

reliability of 0.75 (Bunchanan et al., 2007). In Fogel and Nehmad‟s study it had a Cronbach

alpha reliability of 0.80 while in this sample it was 0.82.

1 where p is the estimate of reliability, n is the number of questions in the scale and α is the Cronbach alpha

value of the scale.


c. PRIVACY CONCERNS SCALE

This scale which was constructed by Dinev and Hart (2004) is made up of three items,

measured on a likert scale where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. “Higher scores

indicate more concern with information provided over the Internet” (Fogel & Nehmad, 2009:

155). Cronbach alpha in the original scale was 0.90, in Fogel and Nehmad‟s study it was 0.92

and in this study it was 0.81.

d. PRIVACY ATTITUDES SCALE

This scale was originally constructed by Bunchanan et al, (2007) and it is made up of 16

questions which are „measured on a 5-point scale‟ where 1= not at all and 5= very often. The

higher the scores the higher the privacy concerns of the individual. In the original study

Cronbach alpha was 0.93, in Fogel and Nehmad (2009) it was 0.94 and in this sample it was

0.92.

e. IDENTITY INFORMATION DISCLOSURE SCALE

This scale was originally set up by Stutzman (2006) and is made up of eight statements

for which the participants had to choose according to what extent they agreed with the

statements. It was measured by a 5-point Likert scale where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly

agree. In the Fogel and Nehmad (2009) study the Cronbach Alpha reliability was very low,

hence, it was divided into two subsets and the questions of one subset were analysed separately.

In this study, Cronbach alpha for this scale resulted negative due to a negative average

covariance among items. This violates reliability model assumptions. When analysing the

statements of the scale it was noticed that most of the latter were about sharing information,


while the statements; “It is important to me to protect my identity information” and “I am

concerned with the consequences of sharing identity information” were more about protection.

They were subsequently recoded and Cronbach‟s Alpha was measured to check for reliablility

again with an outcome value of 0.703, which is larger than the treshold of 0.7 which is

recommended in literature (Nunnaly, 1978).

3.7 Data Analysis

The data collected through the survey was analysed using SPSS version 19.0. The main

aims were to check whether gender is associated to; typical daily use of Facebook (Q1),

individual Facebook security settings (Q2) and Risk taking and Privacy concerns (Q3). Since

gender was a categorical variable, when checking the association with questions about typical

behaviour on Facebook, which were also categorical, Pearson Chi Square test was used if the

expected frequencies were larger than 5. If the expected frequencies where lower than 5, Fisher

Exact test was used. The same procedure was used in order to check if there was any association

between gender and individual Facebook security settings.

Finally the existence of any sigificant difference in gender mean scores of the scales was

checked. Since gender is a categorical variable and the scores of the scales were continuous

variables, different tests where used. First normality was checked for males and females

separately by using Kolmogrov Smirnov and Shapiro Wilk tests. When both scores of males and

females resulted to be normal for the two independent groups, Independent samples t-test was

used. If at least one set of scores resulted to be non-normal, then Mann Whitney test was used to

check for any significant difference due to gender. For Privacy Attitudes Scale the independent

sample t-test was used while for the other scales Mann-Whitney test was used.


Throughout this study:

H0 = there is no association between gender and the specific variable being analysed.

H1 = there is an association between gender and the specific variable being analysed.

The H0 was accepted whenever p>.05 and rejected when p<.05.

3.8 Reliability

All the scales and tests used had been previously tested for reliability by previous users

(Bunchanan et al., 2007; Dinev & Hart, 2004; Fogel & Nehmad, 2009; Pan & Zinkhan, 2006;

Stutzman, 2006). In this study internal consistency was used to measure whether or not

participants were answering the questionnaire consistently. This is best measured by finding the

Cronbach alpha which checks the inter-item correlation of the questions in the questionnaire

(Spiliotapoulou, 2009).

3.9 Generalizability

According to NSO‟s (National Statistics Office) Demographic Review of 2009, published

by NSO in 2010, the Maltese population 2009 (estimated total of 412,970 of whom 96% were

Maltese citizens) is made up of more females than males. Another NSO Education Statistics

survey published in 2010 states that in 2005/6 the number of students at post-secondary

education were 5,571 (which comprises of students attending Junior College, government/private

higher secondary and sixth form). 4,314 students were enrolled in a full-time vocational course,

and 8,922 students of whom 57% were females were attending the University of Malta.


Since no national statistics about the Maltese online population were found,

generalizability of this study had to be analysed with correspondence to the statistics stated

above. Hence, it was concluded that the sample of this study could not be generalised for the

whole population since the gap between genders was very high. (106 females -63.5% , 61 males-

36.5%) and because the level of education of the participants (Secondary- 9.6%, Vocational-

10.8%, Undergraduate- 46.7%, Post-graduate- 32.9%) did not reflect that of the Maltese

population.

3.10 Conclusion

This chapter addresed the research methodology used in this study. It gave a thorough

description of all the steps which were necessary in formulating the research question. The

following chapter will now review the results obtained through this research.


CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter an overview of the results obtained in this study will be given. Firstly

demographic information will be described and afterwards the findings will be grouped

according to the research questions of this study. The relationship of gender with typical use of

Facebook, security settings on Facebook and risk-taking and privacy concerns of the sample will

be outlined.

4.2 Demographic Characteristics

All the participants of the study were aged 18 to25 and were Maltese. Table 1 illustrates

the demographic characteristics of the sample. The results accompanying the level of education

were highly influenced by the sampling method used (snowball technique) and hence were not

comparable to the whole population.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the sample of Maltese young adults aged 18-25

Count M* Gender Male 61 36.5 Female 106 63.5 Level of Education Secondary 16 9.6 Vocational 18 10.8 Undergraduate 78 46.7 Postgraduate 55 32.9 Total 167 100.0 *Percentages were taken out of the whole sample population


Figure 2 represents the other Social Networking sites used by Maltese young adults. Out of the

167 participants who were already users of Facebook, the absolute majority state that they only

use Facebook, followed by Twitter, MySpace, Tagged and Hi5. 8% of the participants used other

social networking websites of which; Bebo, InterPals, Flickr, MSN Messenger, Google+, Gmail,

Tumblr, GetGlue and StumbleUpon.

Figure 2 The percentage of individuals who use a networking site other than Facebook

4.3 Research Question 1

Are there gender differences in typical daily use of Facebook?

Table 2 outlines the descriptive statistics related to typical daily use of Facebook. Since

gender was a categorical variable, when checking the association with questions about typical

behaviour on Facebook, which were also categorical, Pearson Chi Square test was used if the

expected frequencies were larger than 5. If the expected frequencies where lower than 5, Fisher

Exact test was used. The outcome values of the test and the p-value which in this case will show

how gender is associated with the latter will be reported. When analysing the association

between gender and the individual questions H0 = there is no association between gender and the

particular question being analysed. H0 was accepted if the p>.05 and was rejected if the p<.05.


Table 2 Descriptive statistics: the association between the typical daily use of Facebook and gender

Male Female Total

Frequency %* Frequency %* Frequency %* χ² p-Value

How many years have you had your Facebook profile displayed?

7.62

0.329

Less than 1 year 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years More than 6 years

0 0.0 1 0.9 1 0.6 4 6.6 4 3.8 8 4.8

13 21.3 32 30.2 45 26.9 28 45.9 31 29.2 59 35.3 13 21.3 26 24.5 39 23.4

2 3.3 9 8.5 11 6.6 1 1.6 2 1.9 3 1.8 0 0.0 1 0.9 1 0.6

On a typical day how many times per day do you visit your profile?

2.19

0.835

Once a day Twice a day 3 times a day 4 times a day 5 times a day More than 5 times a day

8 13.1 18 17.0 26 15.6 12 19.7 16 15.1 28 16.8 11 18.0 16 15.1 27 16.2

6 9.8 11 10.4 17 10.2 6 9.8 7 6.6 13 7.8

18 29.5 36 34.0 56 33.5

On a typical day how many profiles from others do you view?

2.06

0.841

1-3 4-6 7-10 More than 10

27 44.3 48 45.3 75 44.9 20 32.8 40 37.7 60 35.9

5 8.2 11 10.4 16 9.6 9 14.8 7 6.6 16 9.6

On a typical day how many hours do you spend viewing profiles?

3.53

0.788

Less than 1 hour 1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4 hours 5 hours More than 5 hours

29 47.5 43 40.6 72 43.1 15 24.6 30 28.3 45 26.9

8 13.1 17 16.0 25 15.0 5 8.2 10 9.4 15 9.0 0 0.0 2 1.9 2 1.2 1 1.6 0 0.0 1 0.6 3 4.9 4 3.8 7 4.2

Write on other people’s pages

3.92

0.088

Yes No

52 85.2 100 94.3 152 91.0 9 14.8 6 5.7 15 9.0

Spend time personalising the profile

0.92

0.337

Yes No

21 34.4 29 27.4 50 29.9 40 65.6 77 72.6 117 70.1

Total

61 100.0 106 100.0 167 100.0

*Percentages are column percentages of total number of males, females, and total sample respectively. N = 167, ν = 1


In the first question (How many years have you had your Facebook profile displayed?)

the maximum percentage of males (M=45) answered approximately 3 years while the maximum

of the females answered approximately 2 years (M=30). The total percentage mean was that of 3

years (M=35). Fisher‟s Exact test was used in order to show that the number of years the

Facebook profiles were displayed did not differ by gender, χ²(1, N=167) = 7.62, p=.329.

In the second question (How many times per day do you visit your profile?) both males

and females (M=30; M=34 respectively) visit their profile more than five times a day. Chi-

Square test was used to show that gender is not associated with the number of times one accesses

the profile, χ²(1,N=167)=2.19, p=.835. In the next question (On a typical day how many profiles

from others do you view?) the results were again similar between genders with most males

(M=44) and females (M=45) stating that they view 1 to 3 profiles a day. Pearson Chi-Square

showed no association with gender χ²=(1,N=167)=2.06, p=.369. Most males and females replied

„less than 1 hour‟ when asked how long they spend viewing profiles every day. Fisher‟s Exact

test showed and no association with gender χ²=(1,N=167)=3.53, p=.788.

Both males and females agreed on writing on other people‟s pages with the absolute

majority stating that they write on other people‟s „Walls‟ (M=85; M=94 respectively). Chi-

Square test was used and no relation to gender was found χ²=(1,N=167)=3.92, p=.048. The

same applies to spending time personalising the profile page. Chi-Square test showed no

association with gender, χ²=(1,N=167)=0.92, p=.337, with 66% of males and 73% of females

stating that they do not spend time personalising their profile pages.

When checking if any correlation existed between number of friends and gender, Mann-

Whitney test was used after checking for normality in both genders. No significant difference in


means was found (Males, M=86; Females, M=83). There was also no association between

number of friends on Facebook and Gender since p >.05.

Through the box plots below it can be observed that though there is not much difference

in the mean of number of friends between genders, for the females there are more outliers who

have very high numbers of friends while for the males there are only two outliers who are still

near to high quartile.

Figure 3 Distribution of the number of friends for each gender separately

These statistics show no association at all between gender and typical daily use of Facebook. The

next section will analyse the relation between privacy settings on Facebook and gender.


Are there gender differences in setting individual Facebook security settings?

Table 3. below outlines the numbers and means of males and females and their their

security settings on Facebook. Fisher‟s Exact test or Pearson‟s Chi-Square test were used. χ² and

p-values , which show any association between gender and the settings on Facebook, are also

displayed in the following table.


Table 3 Descriptive statistics of the association between the individual Facebook security settings and gender

Male Female Total

Frequency %* Frequency %* Frequency %* χ² p-Value

Do you use your real name 1.23 0.356 Yes 58 95.1 104 98.1 162 97.0 No 3 4.95 2 1.9 5 3.0 Who can view your Facebook profile?

25.45

<0.0001

Everyone Friends of Friends Friends only

12 19.7 3 2.8 15 9.0 8 13.1 1 0.9 9 5.4

41 67.2 102 96.2 143 85.6

Which of these do you include on your Facebook profile?

A picture of yourself

59 97.0 105 99.1 164 98.2 1.20 0.555

e-mail address 25 41.0 42 39.6 67 40.1 0.03 0.863 IM address 15 24.6 10 9.4 25 15.0 6.99 0.008 Phone number 6 9.8 4 3.8 10 6.0 2.52 0.173 Home address 2 3.3 1 0.9 3 1.8 1.20 0.555 Information about interests

53 86.9 72 67.9 125 74.9 7.40 0.007

Information about personality

31 50.8 36 34.0 67 40.1 4.58 0.032

Do you group friends on Facebook?

0.40

0.528

Yes 14 23.0 20 18.9 34 20.4 No 47 77.0 86 81.1 133 79.6 Customize privacy settings

23.03

<0.0001

Yes No

44 72.1 103 97.2 147 88.0 17 27.9 3 2.8 20 12.0

Know that apps, games etc. have access to personal information

3.59

0.078

Yes No

43 70.5 88 83.0 131 78.4 18 29.5 18 17.0 36 21.6

Total 61 100 106 100 167 100 * Percentages are column percentages of total number of males, females, and total sample respectively. N = 167, ν = 1

When asked if they give out their real name on their Facebook profile all the participants

but five answered „Yes‟. Fisher‟s Exact test was conducted, showing no association between


gender and the use of one‟s real name on Facebook, χ²=(1,N=167)= 1.23, p=.356. On the other

hand for the question „Who can view you Facebook profile‟ the average of females who

answered „Friends only‟ (M= 96.2) was higher than that of the males (M= 67.2). Fisher‟s Exact

test showed an association between gender and „who can view the Facebook profile‟,

χ²=(1,N=167)= 25.45, p=<.0001.

Figure 4 The percentage of participants and what they include in their Facebook profile

As seen in the bar chart above, the participants were asked what they included in their

Facebook profile out of a list of seven items, of which they could choose more than one option.

Most participants included a picture of themselves, and information about their interests, while

very few included their IM (Instant Messaging) address, their phone number and their home

address.

The majority of males and females included a picture of themselves and Fisher‟s Exact

test showed no association with gender, χ²=(1,N=167)= 1.20, p=.555. Furthermore 41% of males

and 40% of females included their e-mail address. Chi-Square test was used and no association

with gender was found, χ²=(1,N=167)= 0.03, p=.863 .On the other hand 25% of males did not

mind giving out their IM (Instant Messaging) address but females were more reserved with only


9% giving out theirs. For this question, Fisher‟s Exact was conducted and an association between

gender and giving out the IM address was found, χ²=(1,N=167)= 6.99, p=.008. Only 10% of

males and 4% of females gave out their phone numbers on their Facebook profile while 3% of

males and 1% of females uploaded their home address. For both questions, Fisher‟s Exact test

was used, giving out p-values >.05 therefore no association was found between gender and

uploading phone number, χ²=(1,N=167)= 2.53, p=.173, and home address, χ²=(1,N=167)= 1.20,

p=.555. When it came to giving information about interests 87% of males and 68% of females

did. Pearson Chi-Square test was used showing an association between gender and „giving out

information about interests‟ χ²=(1,N=167)= 7.40, p=.007. Same applies to giving out

information about personality for which Chi-Square test showed an association, χ²=(1,N=167)=

4.58, p=.032, where 51% of males and 34% of females gave out information about their

personality online.

When asked if they group friends on Facebook, 23% of males and 19% of females replied

that they did. Pearson Chi-Square test showed no association between gender and the grouping

of friends on Facebook χ²=(1,N=167)= 0.40, p=.528. In spite of this an association with gender

was found, when asking about customizing privacy settings. Pearson‟s Chi-Square test gave an

outcome of χ²=(1,N=167)= 23.03, p=<.0001, where 72% of males and 97% of females answered

„Yes‟. Most of the participants also knew that applications, games etc. on Facebook had access to

their personal information with 71% of males and 83% of females answering „Yes‟. After

performing Chi-square test, no association was found between knowing that apps., games etc.

had access to personal information and gender, χ²=(1,N=167)= 3.59, p=.078.

To conclude it can be stated that although for most of the questions, no relation with

gender was found, there is an association between gender and the items; „Who can view your


Facebook profile?‟ „Do you include your IM address?‟, „Do you include information about your

interests?‟, „Do you include information about your personality?‟ and „Do you customize your

privacy settings?‟


Do risk-taking behaviour and privacy concerns online vary with gender?

Five scales were used to establish whether risk-taking behaviour and privacy concerns

vary with gender. In this case, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference

between genders on the Risk Averseness, Privacy Behaviour, Privacy Concerns, Privacy

Attitudes and Identity Information Disclosure scales. Normality testing was first conducted for

males and females separately and Independent samples t-test or Mann Whitney test was used

accordingly. If p < .05, H0 was rejected and a significant difference between the genders on the

particular scale was found.

Table 4 Descriptive statistics and comparisons between gender, Risk Taking and Privacy concerns

Variable n M χ² p-Value

Risk Averseness Scale

Male

61

81.45

-0.522

0.602

Female

106 85.47

Privacy Behaviour Scale Male 61 67.60 -3.333 0.001 Female

106 93.44

Privacy Concerns Scale Male 61 68.21 -3.252 0.001 Female

106 93.08

Privacy Attitudes Scale Male 61 44.93 -4.380 <0.0001 Female

106 53.50

Identity Information Disclosure Scale Male 61 106.17 -4.513 <0.0001 Female

106 71.24

N = 167, ν = 1


On the Risk Averseness scale, although women had a slightly higher mean score the

difference was not significant. A Mann-Whitney test was conducted, z = -.522, p=.602, and no

significant difference in Risk Averseness between men and women was found for this sample.

A Mann-Whitney test was conducted to evaluate the hypothesis that there is a significant

difference between Privacy Behaviour and gender. The results of the test were significant, z=-

3.33, p= .001. Males had an average rank of 67.6 while females had an average rank of 93.44.

When it came to the Privacy Concerns scale females also scored higher (M=93.08) than males

(M=68.21) and after using Mann-Whitney test, the difference was found to be significant, z= -

3.25, p= .001. Subsequently, an Independent Samples t-Test was conducted in order to check for

any significance between Privacy Attitudes and gender. The test gave significant results, t(165)=

-4.38, p< .0001 (females M=53.50; males M=44.93). These three tests indicate that females are

more concerned than males with regards to the information that is provided on the internet.

Finally, a Mann-Whitney test was conducted to check for any significant difference

between gender and Identity Information Disclosure. The outcome of the test showed a

significant difference, z= -4.513, p<.0001, in mean scores. Males scored higher with an average

rank of 106.17 when compared to the average rank obtained by females (M=71.24). This

difference between genders on the Identity Information Disclosure scale indicates that males are

less concerned about identity information disclosure on Social Networks.

4.6 Conclusion

This chapter gave an overview of the results obtained in this study. In the next chapter these

results will be discussed in relation to previous literature.


CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction

This chapter will present the main findings of the study and discuss them with reference

to the literature presented in chapter two and the results presented in chapter four.

5.2 Typical Daily Behaviour on Facebook and Gender

Through this study no association was found between gender and typical daily use of

Facebook. Most of the Facebook users who took part in the study, have had their profile

displayed for three years (35.3%). Most of them accessed the profile more than five times a day

(33.5%) and viewed 1-3 profiles of others (44.9%) a day. On a typical day most of the

participants spent less than one hour viewing profiles (43.1%). Another study found that

undergraduate students spent an average of 10-30 minutes every day on Facebook (Ellison et al.,

2006) while in Fogel and Nehmad‟s (2009) study the participants spent an average of one hour

everyday viewing profiles. In the latter the participants had an average of 239 profile friends

(Fogel & Nehmad, 2009) which is greater than the average of friends published in the Facebook

Statistics page, which amounted to 130 (Facebook Statistics, 2011). In Ellison et al (2006) most

of the participants had between 150 and 200 friends while in this current study the average

number of „Friends‟ was higher, amounting to 560.

The absolute majority (91%) of the participants of this study, wrote on other people‟s

profile pages. Fogel and Nehmad (2009) found that women tend to write on other profiles more

than men do, but the same cannot be said for the present study since no correlation was found

between gender and writing on other people‟s profiles. Furthermore only 29.9% of the


participants of this study disclose that they spend time personalising their Facebook profile as

opposed to the 52.8% in Fogel and Nehmad‟s (2009) study.

5.3 Individual Facebook Security Settings and Gender

Almost all of the participants in this study (97%) used their real name on their Facebook

profile. Fogel and Nehmad (2009) also report 81.8% while Dwyer et al (2009) report that all the

participants of their study gave out their real name.

While in Stutzman (2006), the participants disclosed that they mostly add family

members, friends and classmates as Facebook „Friends‟, they don‟t mind adding strangers

anyway. In this study it was found that 85.6% of participants were comfortable with only

„Friends‟ viewing their profiles. Here a difference between genders was found and females were

much more concerned about who could view their profile than males. Fogel and Nehmad‟s

(2009) study had a similar outcome with women allowing less strangers to become their

Facebook friends. In spite of this the perception of a Facebook friend is different for different

individuals. Some may add only close friends as „Friends‟ on their profile while others may feel

comfortable adding acquaintances and strangers. Furthermore the fact that one can group the

„Friends‟ and apply different privacy settings for different groups might encourage people to

increase the number of „Friends‟ but customise the privacy settings for each group. In spite of

this, it cannot be concluded that the high average in number of friends and disclosure patterns of

Maltese users are associated with the latter since although the majority customised their privacy

settings, most of them did not group their „Friends‟ on Facebook. In this study, women have

been found to be more concerned than men about the information that is disclosed and the people

who can access it on the Social Networking sites.


Disclosing details such as name, age, political views, and information about income,

religion and sexual preference is not deemed too personal information by young adults and is

willingly disclosed on social networking sites (Livingstone, 2008). Most of the participants in

this and Fogel and Nehmad‟s study disclose a picture of themselves on their profile.

Furthermore in another study, 22% of the people who expressed concern still divulged their

home address and 40% revealed their school time table (Acquisti & Gross, 2006). This can also

be noticed through the results of the present study.

Dwyer, Passerini & Hilts (2009) found that 94% of the participants in their study

published their e-mail address on their social networking profile and 10% did so in Fogel and

Nehmad (2009), while much fewer disclosed theirs in this study (40.1%). Only 6% of the

participants gave out their mobile phone number, this result being similar to that by Fogel and

Nehmad (2009). In the Maltese sample very few (1.8%) divulged their home address. This may

show that the Maltese still value and protect the home environment and are not as willing to

share it with people they don‟t know well. These results lead us to the conclusion that Maltese

people are concerned with their privacy and don‟t give information which could make it possible

for people to contact them outside the social networking environment. Since the two studies

compared here are both from 2009, it could also be the case that people are becoming more

concerned about strangers knowing this kind of information.

When it comes to the Instant Messenger address, males were more willing to disclose this

information both in this study and in Fogel and Nehmad‟s (2009) study. In this study a difference

between the genders in giving out information about interests and personality was also found

with males tending to divulge more information about themselves than females.


5.4 Risk Taking, Privacy Concerns, and Gender

An association between gender and privacy behaviour, privacy concerns and privacy

attitudes was found with females being more concerned than males with regards to the

information they give out on the net. This is consistent with the findings in Fogel and Nehmad

(2009) which found that women had higher levels of privacy concern. In spite of this, there was

no gender difference in privacy behaviour and privacy concern in their study. On the other hand

in this study, a significant difference between genders in privacy behaviour and privacy concern

was observed, with females being more concerned about the information they disclose online.

In this study an association between gender and identity information disclosure was also found

with males being more willing to disclose identity information than females. This is also

consistent with Fogel and Nehmad (2009).

In the literature it was mainly found that risk taking attitudes vary with gender with males

having a higher tendency towards risk taking than females (Byrnes et al., 1999; Fogel &

Nehmad, 2009; Robert, 2010). The outcome of this study is hence not consistent with existing

literature since in the sample studied here, males and females showed little difference in means

when it came to risk averseness. In fact, risk did not vary with gender in this study. This might

have been affected by the low number of participants (167), or by the sampling technique used.

More research amongst the Maltese young adult population could shed light on this dissociation

between previous literature about risk-taking artitudes and the outcome of this study.

5.5 Summary

Summing up, this study has concluded that there is no association between gender and

typical daily use of Facebook amongst young Maltese adults, aged 18 to 25. On the other hand,


significant gender differences have been found in individual Facebook security settings, privacy

concerns and identity information disclosure. The female participants of this study tend to be

more concerned than males with regards to information that is provided on the internet.

5.6 Conclusion

This chapter discussed the research questions of this study, in relation to previous

literature found in chapter two. The next chapter will conclude this study.


CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION

6.1 Introduction

As a conclusion to this dissertation, this chapter outlines the implications of the study, its

limitations and recommendations for future research with regards to how social media such as

Social Networking sites may influence today‟s society.

6.2 Implications of the Study

This study was a part-replication of a study by Fogel and Nehmad (2001) entitled:

Internet Social Network Communities: Risk Taking, Trust and Privacy Concerns in a Maltese

context. The ways in which gender may be associated with general Facebook usage, individual

privacy settings on Facebook and last but not least privacy and risk taking attitudes among the

sample made up of Maltese nationals aged 18-25, were analysed.

The data collected through the online surveys (outlined in chapter 4- Results), implied that

there is indeed a relation between certain aspects of Social Networking, Privacy and Risk taking

and gender. The main findings include:

- There is an association between gender and individual privacy settings on Facebook in

five items. More females than males state that only friends can view their Facebook

profile while males tend to disclose their IM address and information about their interests

and personality more than the female counterparts. Finally, females also customize their

privacy settings on Facebook more than males.

- Females were more preoccupied about their online privacy.

- Males were less concerned about disclosing identity information online.


6.3 Limitations of the Study

In order to collect and analyse the data about this subject a quantitative approach was

adopted. Quantitative research is sometimes criticised since it is simplistic and does not take into

account the individual differences, experiences and mood (Coolican, 1999). In this study, a

snowball sampling technique was used. This technique may be inexact, prone to sampling bias

and not representative of the population since not all subjects of a desired population have the

same probability of filling in a questionnaire (Castillo, 2009).

The scales used in the survey, had been previously used by other authors and were

deemed reliable online but for a different country hence a different culture. Although reliability

of the scales was tested before any assumptions were made in this study, it has to be kept in mind

that the scales they were not originally constructed for the Maltese online population.

Furthermore Likert scales were used to collect the data for the scales. Likert scales may

be affected by response bias, since the participants could have been induced to answer according

to what is right and most socially acceptable while others might have an inclination towards

more positive or more negative marking (White & Mackay, 1973).

Additionally having a larger sample could have also shown a clearer and more accurate

picture of the gender differences when it comes to Facebook use and security settings, Risk

taking attitudes and privacy concerns.

6.4 Recommendations for Future Research

Social Networking sites are becoming more popular and important in daily life as time

passes. People are spending more and more time adding friends, customising profiles and

virtually connecting with other people through these social networks. It may be interesting to go


into more depth about how Social Networking sites are affecting the people who use them both

psychologically and also within their social environment.

When it comes to the Maltese context, little research has been carried out about the

subject. In fact problems were encountered due to lack of statistical data about the Maltese online

population. Finally, since the results of this study cannot be generalised for the whole Maltese

online population, it would be interesting to see such a study being carried out on a national

level.

6.5 Conclusion

This study concludes that gender differences do exist in the attitudes towards privacy

online and on social networking sites. In fact, an association was found between gender and

different privacy setting on Facebook. Gender was also found to affect Privacy concerns. The

female participants of this sample were more preoccupied about their online privacy while on the

other hand the males showed less concern when it came to disclosing identity information online.

Although gender differences were found to accompany online privacy behaviour,

concerns and attitudes, and information disclosure, no association was found between gender and

risk taking attitudes for this sample, as opposed to the findings in previous literature. Hence this

could be an interesting topic to investigate in more depth in the future.


REFERENCES

Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing,

and privacy on the Facebook. Presentation at the 2006 privacy enhancing

technologies (PET) workshop, June 28, 2006, Cambridge, England.

Ammann, K., Jacot, Y., Kjellsson, G., and Simonsen, V., Verlag, B., Basel, (1999). A Richter

Scale for Risk? The scientific management of uncertainty versus the management of

scientific uncertainty. Published in abbreviated form in Methods of Risk Assessment of

Transgenic Plants.

Antὀn , Earp, Young. (2009) “How Internet Users‟ Privacy Concerns Have Evolved Since 2002”

Brandtzæg, P.B & Heim, J. (2009). Why people use social networking sites. Proceedings of the

HCI International 2009.

Bunchanan,T., Paine,C., Joinson, A.N. & Reips, U. (2006). Development of Measures of Online

Privacy Concern and Protection for Use on the Internet.

Byrnes, J.P., Miller, D.C., and Schafer, W.D., (1999). Gender Differences in Risk Taking: A

Meta-Analysis. University of Maryland.

Castillo, J, Joan, (2009). Non-Probability Sampling. Retrieved from http://www.experiment-

resources.com/non-probability-sampling.html on 28/08/2011

Charnigo, L., & Barnett-Ellis, P. (2007). Checking out Facebook.com: The impact of a digital

trend on academic libraries. Information Technology and Libraries, 26, 23–34.

Chaudoir, S.R.; Fisher, J.D., (2010). The disclosure processes model: Understanding disclosure

decision making and post disclosure outcomes among people living with a concealable

stigmatized identity. Psychological Bulletin, Vol 136(2), 236-256

Christofides, E., Muse, A., Desmarais, S., (2010). Privacy and Disclosure on Facebook: Youth

and Adults‟ Information Disclosure and Perceptions of Privacy Risk.

http://www.experiment-resources.com/non-probability-sampling.html

http://www.experiment-resources.com/non-probability-sampling.html


Clark, L.A., Watson, D., (1995). Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale

Development.

Coolican, H. (1999). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology, Second Edition. London:

Hodder & Stoughton.

Corwin, P., (2011). 15 Facebook for Business Links, 9-2-11. Retrieved on 8/8/11 from

http://fbforbusinessmarketing.com/

DeCrew, J. (1997). In pursuit of privacy: Law, ethics, and the rise of technology.

Derlega, V. (1993). Developing Close Relationships.

Dindia, K., Allen, M., (1992). Sex Differences in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological

Bulletin, Vol 112(1) 106-124.

Dinev.T., Hart. P., (2004). Internet privacy concerns & their antecedents– measurement validity

and a regression model.

Dwyer, P.D., Gilkeson, J.H., List, J.A., (2002). Gender Differences in revealed risk taking:

evidence from mutual fund investors. Economics Letter, Volume 76 Issue 2.

Dwyer, Passerini, Hiltz (2007). Trust and Privacy Concern within social networking Sites: A

comparison of Facebook and MySpace.

Einhorn, .J., Hogarth, R.M., (1981). Behavioural Decision Theory: Processes of Judgement and

Choice. Journal of Accounting Research Vol 19

Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2006). Spatially bounded online social

networks and social capital: The role of Facebook. In Proceedings of the annual

conference of the international communication association, Dresden, Germany.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C., (2007). The benefits of Facebook „Friends:‟ Social

Capital and College Students‟ use of Online Social Network Sites.

Facebook Statistics. (2011) Retrieved on 5/8/11 from

http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

http://fbforbusinessmarketing.com/

http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics


Farber, B.A., (2006). Self-Disclosure in Psychotherapy. Guilford Press, New York

Fogel, J., Nehmad, E., (2009) Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and

privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behaviour 25, 153-160

Forgas, J. P., (2011) Affective influences on self-disclosure: Mood effects on the intimacy and

reciprocity of disclosing personal information. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, Vol 100(3), 449-461.

Fremlin (2008) Understanding Media Psychology. Retrieved on 5/8/11 from

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2287

Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network

sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication .

Hew, K. F., (2011). Students‟ and teachers‟ use of Facebook.

Joinson, A.N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-

awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology Volume

31, Issue 2, 177–192.

Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.

Le Brenton, D., (2004). Risk-Taking Behaviors among Young People.

Lerner, J.S., Keltner, D., (2001) Fear, anger and risk. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, Vol 81(1), 146-159

Livingstone, S., (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers‟ use of

Social netwoking sites for intimacy, privacy and self expression. New Media Society

Lovejoy, J.P., Horn, A-K., Hughes, B.N. (2009) Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes,

Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication 15, 83-108, Intenational Communication Association.

NSO, (2010). Demographic Review, 2009. Retrieved from

http://www.nso.gov.mt/statdoc/document_file.aspx?id=2840

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2287

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.v31:2/issuetoc

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.v31:2/issuetoc



NSO, (2010). Education Statistics, 2006. Retrieved from


Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pan. Y., Zinkhan. G.M., (2006). Exploring the impact of online privacy disclosures on consumer

trust.

Roberts, P., (2010) Risk. Psychology Today as retrieved on 20/8/11 from

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/risk

Roblyer, M.D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., Witty, J.V., (2010). Findings on Facebook

in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of

social networking sites.

Smith, H.J.,Milberg, J.S., and Burke, J.S. (1996). Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals‟

Concerns About Organizational Practices.

Spiliotapoulou, G., (2009). Reliability reconsidered: Cronbach‟s alpha and paediatric assessment

in occupational therapy.

Stutzman. F., (2006) An Evaluation of Identity-Sharing Behavior in Social Network

Communities.

Warren, S., & Brandeis, L.D., (1890). The right to privacy.

Westin , A., (1967). Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum

White, R., Mackay, L., (1973). Research II: Teaching strategies, Attitude and Enquiry measures,

and surveys. A note on a possible alternative to Likert scales. Retrieved from

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4n8612106265812/, 75.

Whyte, G., (1998). Recasting Janis‟s Group think Model: The Key Role of Collective Efficacy in

Decision Fiascoes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Volume 73,

Issues 2-3, 185-209.


http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/risk

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4n8612106265812/


Xu, Smith, Dinev, Hart. (2008). Examining the Formation of Individual‟s Privacy Concerns:

Towards an Integrative View.

Ybarra, M.L., Mitchell,K.J., (2008) How risky are Social Networking Sites? A comparison of

places online where youth sexual solicitation and harrassment occurs.

Yordanova, D.I., Alexandrova-Boshnakova, M.I., (2011). "Gender effects on risk-taking of

entrepreneurs: evidence from Bulgaria", International Journal of Entrepreneurial

Behaviour & Research, Vol. 17 Iss: 3, 272 – 295.


APPENDIX A

A. LETTER OF CONSENT Dear Facebook Friend, I am Noelle Camilleri, a university student currently reading for a Bachelor's degree in Psychology. I am conducting a research study about the use of Facebook amongst young Maltese people. If you are a Maltese Facebook used, of age 18-25, I would appreciate it if you could donate some of your time (approximately 10 minutes) and complete this brief questionnaire. All your answers will be kept anonymous and none of the information will be used for any other purpose. This questionnaire can be accessed via the following link:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/G2HMTTT

I would also appreciate it if you could forward this questionnaire to some of your Facebook friends.

If you would like to contact me about any aspect of this survey, please send me an e-mail on [email protected] Thanks in advance. Regards, Noelle

B. SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITE CHARACTERISTICS

1. Other than Facebook, which social networking sites do you use, if any?

I don’t use other social networking sites

MySpace

Hi5

Twitter

Tagged

Other (please specify)

2. How many years have you had your Facebook profile displayed?

Less than 1 year

1 year

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/G2HMTTT

mailto:[email protected]


2 years

3 years

4 years

5 years

6 years

More than 6 years

3. On a typical day how many times per day do you visit your profile?

Once a day

Twice a day

3 times a day

4 times a day

5 times a day

More than 5 times a day

4. On a typical day how many profiles of others do you view?

1-3

4-6

7-10

More than 10

5. On a typical day how many hours do you spend viewing profiles?

Less than 1 hour

1 hour

2 hours

3 hours

4 hours

5 hours

More than 5 hours

6. Who can view your Facebook profile?

Everyone

Friends of Friends

Friends Only

Other (please specify)

7. Which of these do you include on your Facebook profile?

A picture of yourself

Your e-mail address


Your Instant Messenger Address (e.g. MSN Messenger)

Your phone number

Your home address

Information about your interests

Information about your personality

8. Do you write on other people’s profile page?

Yes

No

9. Do you spend time personalising your profile page?

Yes

No

10. Do you use your real name on your profile page?

Yes

No

11. Approximately how many ‘friends’ do you have on your Facebook profile?

12. Do you group your friends on your Facebook profile?

Yes

No

13. Do you customise your privacy settings?

Yes

No

14. Do you know that applications. games and websites allowed on Facebook have access to your

personal information?

Yes

No

C. SCALES

15. For this part of the survey I am interested in your risk taking behaviour. To what extent do you

agree with the following statements?


Strongly disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

To gain high profits in business, one has to take high risks

o o o o o

If there is a great chance of a reward, I will take highrisks

o o o o o

The act of reasonable risk taking is one of the mostimportant managerial skills

o o o o o

If there was a great chance to multiply my earnings,I would invest my money even in the shares of acompletely new and uncertain firm

o o o o o

To achieve something in life, one has to take risks

o o o o o

16. For this part of the survey, I am interested in your privacy related behaviour. Please answer

every question using the full scale provided.

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

Do you shred / burn your personal documents when you are disposing of them?

o o o o o

Do you hide your bank card PIN numberwhen using cash machines / making purchases?

o o o o o

Do you only register for websites that have a privacy policy?

o o o o o

Do you read a website’s privacy policy before you register your information?

o o o o o

Do you look for a privacy certification on a website before you register your information?

o o o o o


Do you read license agreements fully before you agree to them? o o o o o

17. For this part of the survey, I am interested in your privacy concerns. To what extent do you

agree with the following statements?

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

I am concerned that the information I submit on the Internet could be misused

o o o o o

When I shop online, I am concerned that the credit card information can be stolen while being transferred on the Internet

o o o o o

I am concerned about submitting information on the Internet, because of what others might do with it

o o o o o

I am concerned about submitting information on the Internet, because it could be used in a way I did not foresee.

o o o o o

18. For this part of the survey, I am interested in any privacy concerns you might have when

online. How concerned are you about the following? Please answer every question using the

full scale provided.

Not at all Slightly Moderately Often

Very often

In general, how concerned are you about your privacy while you are using the internet?

o o o o o

Are you concerned about online organisations not being who they claim they are?

o o o o o


Are you concerned that you are asked for too much personal information when you register or make online purchases?

o o o o o

Are you concerned about online identity theft?

o o o o o

Are you concerned about people online not being who they say they are?

o o o o o

Are you concerned that information about you could be found on an old computer?

o o o o o

Are you concerned who might access your medical records electronically?

o o o o o

Are you concerned about people you do not know obtaining personal information about you from your online activities?

o o o o o

Are you concerned that if you use your credit card to buy something on the internet your credit card number will be obtained / intercepted by someone else?

o o o o o

Are you concerned that if you use your credit card to buy something on the internet your card will be mischarged?

o o o o o

Are you concerned that an email you send may be read by someone else besides the person you sent it to?

o o o o o

Are you concerned that an email you send someone may be inappropriately forwarded to others?

o o o o o

Are you concerned that an email you send someone may be printed out in a place where others could see it?

o o o o o


Are you concerned that a computer virus could send out emails in your name?

o o o o o

Are you concerned about emails you receive not being from whom they say they are?

o o o o o

Are you concerned that an email containing a seemingly legitimate internet address may be fraudulent?

o o o o o

19. For this part of the survey, I am interested in your identity disclosure behaviour when online.

To what extent do you agree with these statements?

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

I am OK with friends accessing my Facebook profile

o o o o o

I am OK with family accessing my Facebook profile

o o o o o

I am OK with classmates accessing my Facebook profile

o o o o o

I am OK with strangers accessing my Facebook profile

o o o o o

It is important to me to protect my identity information

o o o o o

I am concerned with the consequences of sharing identity info.

o o o o o

I am likely to share my identity information online in the future

o o o o o


I believe my identity information is well-protected online

o o o o o

DEMOGRAPHICS

20. Nationality

Maltese

Other

21. Age

18-25

Other

22. Gender

Male

Female

23. Level of Education

Secondary

Vocational

Undergraduate

Postgraduate

Thank You

If you would like to contact me about any aspect of this survey, please send me an e-mail on

[email protected]


APPENDIX B

Figure 1: Setting the Facebook event.

Figure 2. The consent letter with the link to the survey and the number of people who joined the

event.


APPENDIX C

Calculation:

Therefore: (0.432+0.358+0.175+0.357+.359+.312+.338+.094+.329+.283)/10 = 0.3037

Table 1. Actual value of the mean inter-item correlation of all the pairs

SPSS output:

Correlations

Risk_Avers

eness_Scal

e a

Risk_Avers

eness_Scal

e b

Risk_Avers

eness_Scal

e c

Risk_Avers

eness_Scal

e d

Risk_Avers

eness_Scal

e e

Risk_Averseness_Sc

ale a

Pearson

Correlation

1 .432** .358

** .175

* .357

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .024 .000

N 167 167 167 167 167

Risk_Averseness_Sc

ale b

Pearson

Correlation

.432** 1 .359

** .312

** .338

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

N 167 167 167 167 167

Risk_Averseness_Sc

ale c

Pearson

Correlation

.358** .359

** 1 .094 .329

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .226 .000

N 167 167 167 167 167

Risk_Averseness_Sc

ale d

Pearson

Correlation

.175* .312

** .094 1 .283

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .024 .000 .226 .000

N 167 167 167 167 167

Risk_Averseness_Sc

ale e

Pearson

Correlation

.357** .338

** .329

** .283

** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

N 167 167 167 167 167

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Facebook: Risk Taking and Privacy Concerns among Maltese Young Adults. Noelle Camilleri, 2011

Documents