1 Factors affecting Online Self-disclosure of University Facebook Users By Seung Chung Yat 10006036 Information Systems and e-Business Management Wong Ho Pang 10005285 Information Systems and e-Business Management An Honours Degree Project Submitted to the School of Business in Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Business Administration (Honours) Hong Kong Baptist University Hong Kong April 2012
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Factors affecting Online Self-disclosure of
University Facebook Users
By
Seung Chung Yat
10006036
Information Systems and e-Business Management
Wong Ho Pang
10005285
Information Systems and e-Business Management
An Honours Degree Project Submitted to the
School of Business in Partial Fulfillment
of the Graduation Requirement for the Degree of
Bachelor of Business Administration (Honours)
Hong Kong Baptist University
Hong Kong
April 2012
2
Acknowledgement
We would like to take this opportunity to express our honest thanks to our supervisor,
Dr. Christy, M.K. Cheung. During our meetings each time, her invaluable opinion and
support provide us clear directions into our project and make us confidence to
overcome all the challenges. Moreover, we would like to express our thankfulness to
all the respondents who have helped us to finish our questionnaires. Without their
help, we may not have enough sample size to work on our research analysis.
3
Abstract
With the astonishingly increase of Web 2.0 technologies, there is a huge opportunity
for students to get involved in information exchange. Facebook is the most popular
online social network. It acts as a virtual community for students to disclose their
personal information such as profile, status and photos. These behaviors attract the
attention of industry players and policymakers worldwide. However, most users,
particularly young people, are not aware that other parties could collect their personal
information from their Facebook. In the study, we developed a model and identified
factors that motivate students to self disclosure online. We tested our research model
with 405 Facebook users and we found that users are motivated by convenience of
maintaining existing relationships, new relationship building, self-presentation,
enjoyment and perceived collectivism. Among all the antecedents of online
self-disclosure, social influence is found to have the highest significant impact on
online self-disclosure. Our results showed that perceived privacy risk does not have
important impact on students’ intention to disclose their personal information on
Facebook. When they disclose their information online, they do not consider the
privacy risk involved. Based on these findings, we provide important implications for
society and recommendations for Facebook in further improvement.
4
Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Problem Development ..................................................................................... 6
1.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................ 7
2. Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 8
2.1 What is self-disclosure? ................................................................................... 8
2.2 What is online self-disclosure? ........................................................................ 9
2.3 What is cost and benefit? ................................................................................. 9
2.4 What is social influence? ............................................................................... 12
2.5 What is inclination toward reciprocity? ........................................................ 13
3. Model and Hypotheses .................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Perceived benefits of information disclosure on Facebook ........................... 16
3.1.1 Convenience of Maintaining Existing Relationships .................................... 16
3.1.2 New Relationship Building ........................................................................... 17
3.1.3 Self-presentation ............................................................................................ 17
3.1.4 Enjoyment ..................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Perceived cost of information disclosure on Facebook ................................. 19
3.2.1 Trust in Facebook Provider ........................................................................... 19
3.2.2 Trust in other Facebook members ................................................................. 20
3.2.3 Perceived Control .......................................................................................... 21
3.3 Social Influence ............................................................................................. 22
3.4 Inclinations toward Reciprocity .................................................................... 23
3.4.1 Perceived Collectivism .................................................................................. 23
3.4.2 Perceived Individualism ................................................................................ 24
4. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 25
4.1 Measurement ................................................................................................. 25
4.2 Questionnaire Design .................................................................................... 25
5
4.3 Data Collection .............................................................................................. 26
4.4 Survey Responses .......................................................................................... 27
5. Data Analysis and Results ............................................................................................... 34
5.1 Measurement Model ...................................................................................... 34
5.1.1 Convergent Validity ...................................................................................... 34
5.1.2 Reliability ...................................................................................................... 35
5.1.3 Discriminant Validity .................................................................................... 35
5.2 Structural Model ............................................................................................ 39
6. Discussion and Implications ............................................................................................ 44
6.1 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 44
6.1.1 Perceived Benefit as motivation of self-disclosure on Facebook .................. 44
6.1.2 Perceived Cost of self-disclosure on Facebook ............................................. 46
6.1.3 Social Influence of self-disclosure on Facebook ........................................... 48
6.1.4 Reciprocal Behavior of self-disclosure on Facebook .................................... 48
6.2 Implications ................................................................................................... 49
6.2.1 Implications for Research .............................................................................. 49
6.2.2 Implications for Facebook ............................................................................. 50
6.2.3 Implications for Society ................................................................................ 52
7. Limitation and Conclusion .............................................................................................. 54
7.1 Limitation and Future Research .................................................................... 54
7.2 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 55
8. Reference ......................................................................................................................... 56
9. Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 62
9.1 Appendix A: Questionnaire ........................................................................... 62
6
1. Introduction
1.1 Problem Development
Online social network is one of the fastest growing and popular subject
matter areas on the internet. They can be defined as web-based platforms or
services that allow individuals to build a public profile within the system to carry
self-representation, to connect a list of other social network users to construct
social relations among people, and to view and traverse their list of connections
to interact with others over the internet (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).
Online social network has a rapid growth with its raising user base. It is
because online social network is the fastest and effective way to share
information, interests and activities. Users can interact with others or be
informed with the latest news about their friends anywhere and anytime through
the online social network. Among all online social networking websites,
Facebook, founded in February 2004, is the most popular one. Lately, Facebook
has over 800 million active users which is counted as 55 percent of the total
social network users (comScore.com, 2011). Facebook is now used by 1 in every
13 people in the world, in which more than 50% of active users log into every
day. Each user has about 130 friends on average, and the figure is predicted to be
expanded in the future (Facebook.com, 2011).
However, recently, the privacy problem about disclosure of personal
information on social network becomes the hottest issue and arouses much public
concern and discussion. Along with the increasing social network user base, we
cannot ignore this problem because social network contains plenty of personal
information which may bring about commercial interest and illegal usage of the
7
information. For example, online published information can be easily abused by
bullies, stalkers and crooks, or even friends. These huge opportunities and
potential for customer segmentation, online advertising, data mining and direct
communication without users’ validation have attracted different parties to take
advantages from it.
1.2 Objectives
The active user participation obviously is the building block of social
network development and also its growing commercial value. People continue to
share and disclose large amount of personal information on online social
networks even though there are threats and risks. Under such a situation, social
networking providers may ask: ‘What are the factors behind that encourage users
to share their personal information? Will they concern about their personal
privacy?’ Also, the society has already raised its concerns on how teenagers view
and handle the risk related to online self-disclosure in popular online social
platforms. Based on these questions, we develop our objectives of the research.
From the phenomenon perspective, our research aims to investigate the
social influence, self-inclination, costs and benefits of online self-disclosure
behavior and to examine the motivating and discouraging factors of information
disclosure on online social network.
From the research perspective, since there are not too many studies focus
on investigating university students’ online self-disclosure behavior on online
social networks, we aim to be the pioneer in doing research in this area that help
other researchers to understand more about this phenomenon.
8
At the same time, Facebook is being chosen to be the investigating target in
this research paper because it is the most representative online social media as
mentioned before.
The paper is structured as the following. We, first, analyze the literature
review on self-disclosure and its motivation factors. Second, we identify
behavioral factors with Facebook users by proposing a theoretical framework.
Third, to describe the research model of the online self-disclosure, our model
assesses the Facebook users between the perceived benefits, risks, inclination
and social influence of online self-disclosure. Fourth, after our investigation, we
give out the data analysis. Finally, we go to discussion part and recommend some
directions to the Facebook network provider and society.
2. Literature Review
2.1 What is self-disclosure?
Self-disclosure is a simple communication approach that can be defined as
‘the act of revealing personal information to others’ (Archer, 1980). It is the
psychological term that shares information with some others that can helps them
to understand and know you more. It acts an important role in the formation,
maintenance, and dissolution of close relationships and is a condition to develop
the closeness (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Therefore, self-disclosure can improve
and maintain interpersonal harmony in face to face communication, public
speaking and connecting within groups.
9
2.2 What is online self-disclosure?
In the past decade, the interpersonal interactions have been changed by the
internet. It allows people to share personal experience and information with
strangers in anonymous way (Stone, 1996; Turkle, 1995). This kind of
interaction between individuals was very rare in the past, but it has become more
common nowadays which brings about more self-disclosure on internet than
face-to-face encounters (Bareket-Bojmel & Shahar, 2011).
McKenna and Bargh (2000) found that online self-disclosure had powerful
repercussion for the real life. There are findings showed that answers to online
surveys, compared to paper surveys, lead to the disclosure of more information
about the self (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986).
Many online social network users reveal other private information such as
dating preferences, current relationship status, political views or various interests,
besides providing personally identifiable information (Gross & Acquisti, 2005).
Accordingly, there is a phenomenon that users commonly upload their photos,
videos or status and post news and comments on their Wall. Also, Krasnova,
Spiekermann, Koroleva, and Hildebrand (2010) mentioned that online
self-disclosure behavior is affected by the benefits and costs of information
disclosure.
2.3 What is cost and benefit?
To investigate the payoff of self-disclosure, we can use Social Exchange
Theory as our foundation of self-disclosure. This theory proposes that social
behavior change and stability is a result of negotiated exchange process which is
10
based on a subjective evaluation of benefits and cost (Homans, 1958). This is a
trade-off between the return and the risk of self-disclosure. (Culnan, 1995)
argued that privacy loss is an important reason why people do not go online and
provide false information online. In this sense, privacy concern is the price of
acquiring the benefit of self-disclosure (Hui, Tan, & Goh, 2006). On the other
hand, the return of self-disclosure is convenience such as time saving.
(McAllister, 1980) viewed the self-disclosure process not only from the
receiver, but also from the sender which is regarded as a parallel interaction:
Just as a receiver might look at the level of a self-disclosure in order to ascertain
how much the sender likes and trusts him, the sender might look at this same
disclosure to answer the same question. Thus, each act of disclosure would be
affecting the sender's liking for the receiver in a parallel position to the
receiver's liking for the sender. (p. 410).
As a result, the return and the cost of self-disclosure should be considered
both in receiver and sender views. For benefit side, Buchanan, Paine, Joinson,
and Reips (2007) argue that the benefits of relationship between others, for
example, trust building, mutual empathy and reciprocation often weighed more
than the cost such as privacy concern. Also, in business world, online companies
induce users’ information in order to offer them extrinsic benefits including time
saving, self-enhancement and intrinsic benefits such as pleasure, by providing
financial figures or personal preference etc. (Hui et al., 2006). On the other hands,
many organizations and the government have campaigned continuously to warn
online user not to disclose their personal information on internet easily.
According to an experiment, which aims at investigating Facebook users’
11
information sharing status, conducted in August 2007, it shows 78% of 200
random friend requests sent on Facebook exposed their current address or
location, and 41% of respondents were ‘happy to reveal all’ (Sophos.com, 2007).
This behavior phenomenon potentially exposes them in privacy risk.
On the contrary, there is negative relationship between the users’
willingness to participate in an online transaction and privacy risk (Pavlou, 2003).
There is a link between privacy risk concern and self disclosure which users will
evaluate the risk first and then decide the degree of self-disclosure (Krasnova,
Kolesnikova, & Gunther, 2009). Acquisti and Gross (2006) find that there are
factors on the relationship between privacy concern and disclosure behavior. It
suggests “trust” is an essential element which users trust online social network
providers and network members and so relies on their ability to control access to
personal information. Users perceive risks and uncertainty when choosing online
network, based on several factors such as, uncertainty about vendor attributes
and behavior, inability to monitor the privacy and security of personal
information. In the absence of direct measurement in a social online network,
trust is viewed as a crucial factor to reduce risk and uncertainty (Luhmann, 1979).
Furthermore, many authors suggest a differentiation between trust in the online
social network providers and trust in online interpersonal interactions (user and
user) (Chopra & Wallace, 2003; Feng, Lazar, & Preece, 2004). In line with
Dwyer, Hiltz, and Passerini (2007), we argue that this different is critical because
users have to trust both online social network provider and members that will not
share information with third parties and use the information illegally (Chopra &
Wallace, 2003). Therefore we divide trust into trust in the online social network
provider and trust in online social network members.
12
2.4 What is social influence?
Social influence is the process that an individual’s beliefs, attitudes,
behaviors or directions are modified by the action of other person or groups
(Franzoi, 1996; Saks & Krupat, 1988). Within social influence, subjective norm
is a form that refers to the perceived social pressure on individuals to do or not to
do actions, regardless of their individual beliefs and attitudes toward the actions
(Lee, Cheung, Sia, & Lim, 2006). It is a result from changing an individual’s
attitudes, feelings, emotions or behaviors. The changing process is the interaction
between another individual or a group and that person. Usually, social influence
can be divided into three types: there are conformity, power and authority (Lisa
& Murray, 2005).
Conformity occurs when an individual does not essentially hold or accept
the opinion or believe to expresses that opinion or behavior that fit in to a
specific situation or to meet some given expectations. It is a tendency for people
to adopt the behavior, attitudes and values of other members of a reference group
(Zimbardo, 1995) and it is a changing belief or behavior in response to group or
individual pressure when there is no direct request to affect the behavior change
(Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991). The level of conformity is influenced by the size
and unanimity of a group. Unanimity is very important. Many of the conformity
effects will be largely reduced because of limited social support and act
independently (Allen & Levine, 1969).
Power is to control someone behavior or an outcome by force. There are
two types of power that influence a person’s attitude: positional or harsh power
and personal or soft power (French & Raven, 1959; Raven, Schwarzwald, &
13
Koslowsky, 1998). Positional or harsh power is based on an organization
hierarchy structure of an individual’s formal position (French & Raven, 1959).
This power is the influence of organizational level which is not relevant to
personal performance. On the other hand, personal or soft power derives from an
individual’s characteristics or personality which included expert, referent, and
information power. Expert is the power based on one’s creditability or perceived
expertise in an area. Referent power is based on other’s preference and
admiration. Information power is based on the knowledge that is about a topic.
Authority is the power that is believed to be legal and legitimate by those
who influence other. There was an experiment about the obedience study of
authority which was done by Milgram (1974). The result shows nearly all the
participants in the experiment are continuously to follow an inappropriate
behavior under someone’s authority.
In our research, we only focus on conformity power. As the scope of social
influence is very large, we need to choose the most appropriate one to explain
our model. Conformity power focus on reference groups such as peer and other
individual’s modification in attitudes without any force or power. For example,
in online shopping, consumer will feel risky than they purchases offline for the
first time. Hence, reference group will play an important role in their buying
decision (Billy, 2011). As a result, we think conformity power is suitable for our
objective which is to investigate the influence of self-disclosure on online social
network.
2.5 What is inclination toward reciprocity?
14
Aside from the cost-benefit and social influence approach to measuring
self-disclosure, we believe that individual cultural inclinations have the power to
affect the degree of reciprocating and interacting with others (Hofstede, 1991).
These cultural inclinations can influence the level to which they feel comfortable
with and tendency of self-disclosure. The individuals are inclined to reciprocate
disclosures with others more, willing to self-disclose more. Besides, there is the
assumption that users’ cultural dimensions affect this inclination to reciprocate
directly (Posey, Lowry, Roberts, & Ellis, 2010).
3. Model and Hypotheses
In this study, we mainly focus on university students in Hong Kong who disclose
information about themselves on Facebook. Overall speaking, the theoretical
literature reviews give us several substantial insights into the factors that
motivate individual online self-disclosure. We have identified a number of key
constructs in our research model, including perceived costs, perceived benefits,
social influence to use an online community and inclinations toward reciprocity.
We have further expanded the idea of perceived costs into users’ perceived
privacy risk that measures by users’ perceived control, trust in Facebook provider
and trust in other Facebook members. Also, the notions of perceived benefits are
further explained in terms of convenience of maintaining relationships,
relationship building, self-presentation and enjoyment. Finally, individualistic
culture tends to be less reveal their information to others and less willing to
interact with others than those with collectivistic tendencies. Hence, it can
measure the cultural tendencies toward self-disclosure. The extension of our
model is depicted in Figure 1. Further justification and hypotheses are discussed
in this section.
15
Figure 1 Extended Online Self-disclosure Model
16
3.1 Perceived benefits of information disclosure on Facebook
3.1.1 Convenience of Maintaining Existing Relationships
Online social networks offer different convenience features that help
users to maintain and build relationships with other users (Ahn, Han, Kwak,
Moon, & Jeong, 2007). It definitely provides the opportunity to
communicate with each other efficiently and conveniently without devoting
too much time and effort. Facebook helps organize the real-life social
network through the internet because users can be always reminded with
any updated status and follow-up of their friends on the Facebook Wall. As
the result, Facebook users can directly interact with many other users in
real-life nowadays (Gross & Acquisti, 2005). Compared with other
traditional communication tools, like sending e-mail, Facebook can aid
users to maintain a very wide network of friends in a much shorter time
period.
Time saving can create convenience so that motivates users to disclose
their information (Hui et al., 2006). Users are willing to take the risk to give
up some of their privacy to receive benefit of convenience (Hann, Hui, Lee,
& Png, 2007). Accordingly, the convenience of maintaining relationships
may motivate users to use and share their information on the online social
networks without considering the existing risk. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis H1a: Users’ beliefs regarding a network’s ability to aid them in
conveniently maintaining existing relationships are positively related to
their self-disclosure on Facebook.
17
3.1.2 New Relationship Building
Apart from the previous view that online social networks can manage
the existing relationships of friends who know each other in real-life, these
online platforms can also build and support new relationships. To establish
new friend relationships, it is the easiest way that a user only need to invite
another user to be a friend and the invited party accepts this invitation (Ahn
et al., 2007). There is the opportunity for users to connect to broader range
of people in order to accumulate social capital to get more useful
information and perspective (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).
Based on interpersonal theories, the notion of developing new friend
relationships is in connection with information disclosure (Ellison, Heino,
& Gibbs, 2006). Disclosing information by users is the signal that sent to
others to contact with them (Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield, 2007). Therefore,
we hypothesize:
Hypothesis H1b: Users’ beliefs regarding opportunities of new relationship
building are positively related to their self-disclosure on Facebook.
3.1.3 Self-presentation
Self-presentation can be defined as the process by which people tell to
the others that what kind of person or characteristics they are (Leary, 1996).
People try to manage their impressions that they want to make on the others
(Zarghooni, 2007). It acts as the tool that functions to smoothing the social
interactions (Leary, 1996). Boyd and Ellison (2007) viewed that
self-presentation is an important element when participating in online social
18
network. Users can present their identity for others to know and see through
their Walls and profiles. There is the opportunity for users to express only
their desirable information which they wish to reveal (Krasnova et al., 2010).
Therefore, based on self-presentation, Facebook users try to present
themselves by posting experiences on the Wall, sharing photos and videos
or disclosing information on the profile. The study can suppose that
self-presentation benefits affect the participation and disclosure
positively(Krasnova et al., 2010). Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis H1c: Users’ beliefs regarding self-presentation benefits are
positively related to their self-disclosure on Facebook.
3.1.4 Enjoyment
If something brings fun and enjoyment, individuals may engage in a
particular behavior (Teo, Lim, & Lai, 1999). Muniz and O'Guinn (2001)
mentioned that people enjoy conversations in the internet world. This means
that individuals may adopt to use internet because of enjoyment. Online
social network providers can develop hedonic and pleasure platforms to
motive users to disclose personal information and details (Hui et al., 2006).
For example, the Facebook applications included mini-games, music or
books that can utilize enjoyment to encourage users to participation and
disclosure information. There are some statistic to supported that Facebook
users install applications more than 20 million times every day on Facebook
and more than 500 million users use an application on Facebook every
month (Facebook.com, 2011). The relationship between the social network
enjoyment benefits and self-disclosure is positive (Krasnova et al., 2009).
19
Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis H1d: Users’ enjoyment of platform use is positively related to
their self-disclosure behavior on Facebook.
3.2 Perceived cost of information disclosure on Facebook
Privacy risk are defined as ‘the expectation that a high potential for loss is
associated with the release of personal information’ to others in their electronic
communities (Malhotra, Kim, & Agarwal, 2004). Some researchers (Ajzen,
1991) viewed perceived privacy risk as a negative antecedent belief that affects
a person’s attitude such as his privacy concern. There is a study in e-commerce
stated that the privacy risk perception and privacy concern is in negative
relationship (Dinev et al., 2006; Dinev & Hart, 2004). However, Malhotra et al.
(2004) argue that privacy concerns reflect a personal pre-disposition to worry
about privacy. We focus on perceived privacy risk that is the loss of
self-disclosure but not the worries. Online social networking involves particular
privacy risks which in line with the public accessibility of users’ information
such as personal information sharing, collection and sharing of information by
third parties attract theft activities or phishing Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis H2: Users’ perceived privacy risk is negatively related to their
self-disclosure behavior on Facebook.
Cost-mitigating factors
3.2.1 Trust in Facebook Provider
According to Social Exchange Theory, trust is a way to reduce any
20
uncertainty or concern about the cost and encourage users to participate in
online social network (Metzger, 2004). The uncertainty or concern is
mainly come from the providers’ ability to monitor and record. Users’ fears
are further added by media reports that facebook violated its own privacy
agreement that distribute users personal information without any permission.
(Stout, 2000; Tweney, 1998). An online privacy found that people are very
concerned about is there any threats to their privacy when using social
networks (Metzger & Docter, 2003). Gefen, Rao, and Tractinsky (2003)
stated that, trust will serve as a risk-reducing essential element when risk is
involved in a situation. Also, risk will directly affect peoples’ behavior.
Facebook is preferred to be honest and consistent in dealings with users’
personal information and reduce the users’ feeling of risk in providing their
personal information. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis H3a: Users’ trust in the Facebook provider is negatively related
their perceived privacy risk of disclosing on Facebook.
3.2.2 Trust in other Facebook members
Apart from Facebook provider, members are also an essential element
that affects willingness to self disclosure. Uncertainty is not only raised
from provider. If the users’ information is set to be shared with public, their
information such as profiles and photos are disclosed to other unknown
Facebook members. Facebook provide an ideal, data-rich environment for
marketing and advertising, particularly when user profiles are combined
with functions that track user behavior (Arrington, 2008). Besides, to
become “friend”, what we need is one click of “send friend request”.
21
Although there are many privacy setting for the users to manage, some
basic information and the track of the users is exposed to other Facebook
Members. Moreover, users cannot control others’ behavior. They do not
know whether their personal information such as photo album or status is
abused. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis H3b: Users’ trust in other Facebook members is negatively
related their perceived privacy risk of disclosing on Facebook.
3.2.3 Perceived Control
In order to reduce risk, trust is a crucial factor. However, Trust is not
able to influence or control others’ behavior (Grabner-Kräuter & Kaluscha,
2003). Facebook can authorize users to control their own privacy setting
and enable them to limit the exposure of their profile. Xu, Dinev, Smith,
and Hart (2008) empirically illustrate the value of providing self-control
policy in order to reduce the understanding of privacy risk. Therefore, we
hypothesize:
Hypothesis H4a: Users’ perceived control is negatively related to their
perceived privacy risk on Facebook.
Privacy policy is established by provider. The more authority of users,
the more trust users can developed (Culnan, 1995). As users can control
over his/her information for disclosure, users will develop more trust to
online social network and willing to build up a long relationship with that
provider (Ridings, Gefen, & Arinze, 2002). Berscheid (1977) mentioned
22
that individuals have different preference and degree in which they desire
and value personal control over their personal information. Therefore, we
hypothesize:
Hypothesis H4b: Users’ perceived control is positively related to their trust
in the Facebook provider.
When you clicked “Accept”, the one who invited you will become your
friend and authorized to read your profile. Your updated status can be
immediately transferred to everyone on one’s friend’s list. Although you
accept the friend request, you still want to control different messages can be
seen by different groups of people. Das and Teng (1998) stated that “control
can be viewed as an important mechanism for creating confidence in
cooperative behavior among participating parties.” As a result, control can
be used in gaining trust in other Facebook users. For example, friends lists,
group and remove tag or comment can be seen as a tools to let users control
and limit their information. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis H4c: Users’ perceived control is positively related to their trust
in other Facebook members.
3.3 Social Influence
Apart from interpersonal influence, social influence is a critical factor that
affects the users’ behaviors. What is the main reason that induces you to open a
Facebook account? It allows you to keep in touch with your friends or use
application to play game for fun? The researchers concluded that “this threshold
23
of social influence is an inherent property of the way information about
installations was disseminated in Facebook.” (Byrne, 2010) which mean social
influence affect people to join Facebook and Facebook users behaviors. When
an application is popular and a sufficient number of people have install or join
the application, the popularity of a particular application was due more to social
influence than to the inherent properties of the application (Byrne, 2010). As
many users participate in one application, people implied this is a safe and the
best tool to use. Hence, users are easier to provide their information to provider,
members or application. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis H5: The social influence to use Facebook is positively related
to self-disclosure on Facebook.
3.4 Inclinations toward Reciprocity
Hofstede (1991) defines culture as the ‘collective programming of the mind
which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from
another’ (p. 5). We consider users’ cultural dimensions could interpret the
individual’s inclinations toward reciprocity since there is a strong bearing on
social influence. We suggest the theoretical cultural concepts of individualism
and collectivism can help to predict reciprocity (Posey et al., 2010). Also, in the
IS literature, individualism and collectivism concepts are the most investigated
and usual cultural dimensions (Shin, Ishman, & Sanders, 2007). We explain
these two concepts in the following.
3.4.1 Perceived Collectivism
Collectivism ‘describes cultures in which people are integrated into
24
strong, cohesive groups that protect individuals in exchange for
unquestioning loyalty’ (Hofstede, 1991). This cultural dimension is that
those people who are more collectivist tend to be more cohesive and
integrated with others when they interact. Collectivists feel that there is the
duty to the group and people tend to sharing similar beliefs and interests
inside the group. The identity of collectivism is based on the social network
to which one belongs. Therefore, strong collectivistic are more prone to
social influence and reciprocity (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). People who are
collectivism have higher tendency to reveal themselves to others on the
online social network. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis H6: Users’ perceived collectivism is positively related to
self-disclosure on Facebook.
3.4.2 Perceived Individualism
Individualism ‘describes cultures in which the ties between individuals
are loose’ (Hofstede, 1991). They are expected to look after themselves and
their closely family members. This cultural dimension is that those people
who are individualistic inclination have much looser ties to people. The
identity of individualism is based on the individual and emphasizes
independence and uniqueness in the interactions. Therefore, strong
individualistic are less likely to be prone to social influence and reciprocity
(Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). People who are individualism have lower
tendency to reveal themselves to others on the online social network.
Therefore, we hypothesize:
25
Hypothesis H7: Users’ perceived individualism is negatively related to
self-disclosure on Facebook.
4. Methodology
Facebook (www.facebook.com) is a leading and the most popular social
network in the world that provides the users with the virtual space to share their
information and update their news or statuses. In our current study, the unit of
analysis is Hong Kong university students who use the online social networks,
specifically, the Facebook. In this section, the details of the measurement,
questionnaire design, method of data collection and survey response will be
discussed.
4.1 Measurement
In the current study, the research model contains twelve constructs. The
scales for measuring all constructs were developed based on an extensive
literature review to ensure the content validity as reported in Table 1. We use the
multi-item measures that means each of the construct was measured by a few
number of items to ensure the validity and reliability of the construct. A
Seven-point Likert Scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”
was used in this study. Respondents can choose the scale to indicate their
preference based on the point of view.
4.2 Questionnaire Design
In this project, the usages of behavior over Facebook were used to examine
the factor of online self-disclosure in Hong Kong. Facebook was used because it
is believed that many Hong Kong university students engaged in online
26
self-disclosure by using it the most. The questionnaire (shown in Appendix A) is
divided into four parts. Part A includes screening and basic questions to ask some
usage experience on Facebook. Part B includes questions about the factors
affecting the online self-disclosure (Convenience of Maintaining Existing
Relationships (Q.1-3), New Relationship Building (Q.4-6), Self-presentation
(Q.7-9), Enjoyment (Q.10-12), Perceived Privacy Risk (Q.13-15), Trust in
Facebook Provider (Q.16-21), Trust in other Facebook Members (Q.22-27),
Perceived Control (Q.28-30), Self-disclosure (Q.31-34), Social Influence
(Q.35-36), Perceived Collectivism (Q.37-44), Perceived Individualism (Q.45-52).
Part C includes the open-end questions to collect the opinions of responder about
the risk and information sharing. Finally, part D is used to collect demographic
data such as gender, age, university and contact methods.
4.3 Data Collection
Five respondents were conducted to improve the questionnaire wordings in
our pre-test. They also suggested some advices for us to develop a better scale
for questions and identified some confusing areas in Chinese translation.
Web-based Questionnaire is used in our survey. We used www.qualtrics.com to
develop our online questionnaire. The target respondents of this study are
University students. Therefore, the questionnaire was distributed via university
mail and post in popular online social network – Facebook. We added an event
and invited all our university friends and relatives to the event and do the online
survey. Besides, we also encourage our friends to invite more Facebook users to
our event. To promote our online questionnaire, all participants were told that
they would have the chance to win supermarket coupon and cash. These
procedures are very successful and yield 405 completed online questionnaires.
27
4.4 Survey Responses
A total 420 responses were received and 405 questionnaires were useable
for analysis. 15 respondents do not have any Facebook account. Of the 405
respondents, 38% were male and 62% were female. 17% were aged 19, 24%
were aged 20, 22% were aged 21, 19% were aged 22, 10% were aged 23 and
only 7% were aged over 23. The average age of respondents is 21. In addition,
80 % were studying or studied in Hong Kong Baptist University and 20% were
from other local universities. The detailed demographic information about
gender, age and Facebook usage is shown in Table 2.
28
Table 1 Construct Definitions
Constructs Item Item Text
Convenience of
Maintaining Existing
Relationships
(Chiu, Hsu, & Wang, 2006)
CON1 Facebook is convenient to inform all my friends
about my ongoing activities
CON2 Facebook allows me to save time when I want
to share something new with my friends
CON3 I find Facebook efficient in sharing information
with my friends
New Relationship Building
(Krasnova et al., 2010)
RB1 Through Facebook I get connected to new
people who share my interests
RB2 Facebook helps me to expand my network
RB3 I get to know new people through Facebook
Self-presentation
(Walther, Slovacek, &
Tidwell, 2001)
SP1 I try to make a good impression on others on
SP2 I try to present myself in a favorable way on
SP3 Facebook helps me to present my best sides to
others
Enjoyment
(Nambisan & Baron, 2007)
EN1 When I am bored I often login to Facebook
EN2 I find Facebook entertaining
EN3 I spend enjoyable and relaxing time on
29
Perceived Privacy Risk
(Malhotra et al., 2004)
RISK1a
I fear that something unpleasant can happen to
me due to my presence on Facebook
RISK2 Overall, I find it risky to publish my personal
information on Facebook
RISK3 Please rate your overall perception of privacy
risk involved when using Facebook (Reversed)
Trust in Facebook Provider
(Jarvenpaa & Tractinsky,
1999; McKnight,
Choudhury, & Kacmar,
2002a)
TF1 Facebook is open and receptive to the needs of
its members
TF2 Facebook makes good-faith efforts to address
most member concerns
TF3 Facebook is also interested in the well-being of
its members, not just its own
TF4 Facebook is honest in its dealings with me
TF5 Facebook keeps its commitments to its
members
TF6 Facebook is trustworthy
Trust in other Facebook
Members
(Chiu et al., 2006;
McKnight et al., 2002a)
TM1 Other Facebook members will do their best to
help me
TM2 Other Facebook members do care about the
well-being of others
TM3 Other Facebook members are open and
receptive to the needs of each other
TM4 Other Facebook members are honest in dealing
30
with each other
TM5 Other Facebook members keep their promises
TM6 Other Facebook members are trustworthy
Perceived Control
(Krasnova et al., 2010)
PCL1 I feel in control over the information I provide
on Facebook
PCL2 Privacy settings allow me to have full control
over the information I provide on Facebook
PCL3 I feel in control of who can view my
information on Facebook
Self-disclosure
(Krasnova et al., 2010)
SD1 I have a comprehensive profile on Facebook
SD2 I find time to keep my profile up-to-date
SD3 I keep my friends updated about what is going
on in my life through Facebook
SD4 When I have something to say, I like to share it
on Facebook
Social Influence
(Taylor & Todd, 1995)
SI1 People who influence my behavior would think
that I should self-disclose on Facebook.
SI2 People who are important to me would think
that I should self-disclose on Facebook.
Perceived Collectivism
(Triandis & Gelfand, 1998)
PC1 a
If a coworker gets a prize, I would feel proud.
PC2 a The well-being of my coworkers is important to
31
me.
PC3 a To me, pleasure is spending time with others.
PC4 I feel good when I cooperate with others.
PC5
Parents and children must stay together as much
as possible.
PC6
It is my duty to take care of my family, even
when I have to sacrifice what I want.
PC7 a Family members should stick together, no
matter what sacrifices are required.
PC8 It is important to me that I respect the decisions
made by my groups.
Perceived Individualism
(Triandis & Gelfand, 1998)
PI1
I'd rather depend on myself than others.
PI2
I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely
on others.
PI3 I often do "my own thing."
PI4 My personal identity, independent of others, is
very important to me.
PI5 a It is important that I do my job better than
others.
PI6 a Winning is everything.
PI7 a Competition is the law of nature.
PI8 When another person does better than I do, I get
tense and aroused.
a removed during model fitting process (Measurement Model)
32
Table 2 Demographic Information
Demographic Information Numbers Percentage
Gender:
Male 153 38%
Female 252 62%
Age:
<19 0 0%
19 70 17%
20 96 24%
21 91 22%
22 78 19%
23 42 10%
>23 28 7%
Facebook Friends Number:
< 100 24 6%
100-200 29 7%
201-300 73 18%
301-400 83 20%
401-500 67 17%
> 500 129 32%
Total Using Hours Per Week:
Less than an hour 78 19%
1-2 hours 105 26%
2-3 hours 90 22%
3-4 hours 49 12%
33
4 hours or more 83 20%
Using Frequency:
Several times a day 326 80%
Once a day 51 13%
Once a week 22 5%
Once a month 6 1%
Once a year 0 0%
Year Experience of Using Facebook:
< 1 year 10 2%
1-2 years 40 10%
2-3 years 103 25%
3-4 years 116 29%
4-5 years 93 23%
> 5 years 43 11%
34
5. Data Analysis and Results
This part describes what technique was used in this project to perform
statistics analysis to test the research model and hypothesis. The role of analysis
is to either identify or confirm the model (theoretical hypothesis) based on the
received data. We used SmartPLS 2.0 to carry out this task. It is a software
application for graphical path modeling with latent variables. PLS (Partial Least
Squares is a structural modeling technique of structural equation modeling that
belongs to the variance-based approach. In this terminology, we have two parts
to assess our data. First, the measurement model was examined and then we
evaluated the structural model.
5.1 Measurement Model
Table 3 shows the results of the measurement model of composite
reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs. Also, the
loadings of all construct measures and the descriptive statistics of the measures
(mean and standard deviation) were reported in the Table 3. In this section, the
quality of the measurement model is examined based on convergent validity,
reliability, and discriminant validity.
5.1.1 Convergent Validity
Convergent validity indicates to which degree the measurement items
of an instrument that are related in reality. All measures in our model are
statistically significant (with p<0.01) and their item loadings are suggested to
be greater than 0.70.
35
5.1.2 Reliability
To ensure the measurement is reliable and get the true score, we
choose composite reliability and average variance extracted to assess the
reliability of the scales.
CR measures the reliability and internal consistency of the measured
variables representing a latent construct with the acceptance value at 0.70 or
higher to indicate adequate convergence or internal consistency.
AVE measures the overall amount of convergence among a set of
items representing a latent construct. AVE is a more conservative measure
than CR and the suggested acceptable level is 0.50 or higher to indicate
adequate convergent validity.
Based on both analyses, the question RISK1, PC1, PC2, PC3, PC7, PI5,
PI6 and PI7 were removed. Otherwise, all measures fulfilled the suggested
acceptable levels of CR and AVE. In Table 3, it show that all the values of
CR are 0.80 or above and AVE is 0.5 or above.
5.1.3 Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity is the extent to which a construct is truly distinct
from other construct which means the low correlations between the measure
of interest and the measure of other constructs. The way to test the
discriminant validity of the measures is the squared root of the AVE for each
construct is higher than the correlations between the construct itself and all
other constructs. Table 4 reports that the squared root of AVE for each
36
construct is higher than the correlations between the constructs and all other
constructs.
On the whole, there is the strong evidence of convergent validity,
reliability and discriminant validity of the measurement in this study.
Therefore, it is permitted to continue to the structural model evaluation in the
next step.
37
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics
Construct Item Loading t-value Mean
Standard
Deviation
Convenience of Maintaining Existing
Relationships CON1 0.87 49.22 5.53 1.19
CR=0.91; AVE=0.76 CON2 0.87 41.62 5.60 1.13
CON3 0.88 47.55 5.59 1.09
New Relationship Building RB1 0.88 61.69 4.21 1.38
CR=0.90; AVE=0.75 RB2 0.85 43.60 4.65 1.36
RB3 0.87 47.04 4.16 1.46
Self-presentation SP1 0.88 58.39 4.76 1.30
CR=0.90; AVE=0.76 SP2 0.89 50.08 4.33 1.36
SP3 0.85 38.43 4.52 1.27
Enjoyment EN1 0.71 14.71 5.61 1.30
CR=0.87; AVE=0.69 EN2 0.89 59.93 5.25 1.11
EN3 0.88 52.66 5.04 1.11
Perceived Privacy Risk RISK2 0.92 52.37 4.50 1.25
CR=0.94; AVE=0.88 RISK3 0.95 145.64 4.53 1.25
Trust in Facebook Provider TF1 0.78 26.25 4.22 1.14
CR=0.93; AVE=0.68 TF2 0.80 26.67 4.10 1.18
TF3 0.84 46.63 3.90 1.15
TF4 0.86 56.97 3.97 1.20
TF5 0.86 45.13 4.07 1.01
TF6 0.80 39.87 4.44 1.05
38
Trust in other Facebook Members TM1 0.75 21.87 4.20 0.96
CR=0.92; AVE=0.67 TM2 0.76 22.44 4.17 0.98
TM3 0.83 27.20 4.19 1.02
TM4 0.88 57.63 4.07 1.00
TM5 0.88 47.25 4.06 0.96
TM6 0.82 32.85 4.11 0.98
Perceived Control PCL1 0.86 60.32 4.87 1.28
CR=0.89; AVE=0.73 PCL2 0.90 72.03 4.25 1.37
PCL3 0.80 28.88 4.33 1.47
Self-disclosure SD1 0.78 28.10 3.64 1.54
CR=0.89; AVE=0.66 SD2 0.82 41.41 3.30 1.53
SD3 0.86 58.00 4.79 1.46
SD4 0.80 34.45 4.92 1.43
Social Influence SI1 0.95 142.94 4.06 1.27
CR=0.95; AVE=0.91 SI2 0.95 134.65 4.14 1.32
Perceived Individualism PI1 0.78 13.29 5.07 0.91
CR=0.87; AVE=0.58 PI2 0.76 11.49 4.92 0.92
PI3 0.77 13.84 5.49 0.98
PI4 0.77 15.19 5.28 0.96
PI8 0.73 13.63 5.40 0.95
Perceived Collectivism PC4 0.76 20.96 4.13 1.28
CR=0.86; AVE=0.60 PC5 0.84 27.81 4.39 1.31
PC6 0.78 18.90 3.52 1.48
PC8 0.72 17.14 4.30 1.32
39
Table 4
Correlations of Constructs (diagonal elements are square roots of the average variance extracted)
CON EN PC PCL PI RB RISK SD SI SP TF TM
CON 0.87
EN 0.46 0.83
PC 0.09 0.14 0.78
PCL 0.32 0.35 0.14 0.86
PI 0.35 0.33 0.00 0.27 0.76
RB 0.45 0.38 0.17 0.30 0.22 0.87
RISK -0.13 -0.19 -0.07 -0.43 -0.10 -0.18 0.94
SD 0.47 0.43 0.29 0.52 0.19 0.45 -0.20 0.81
SI 0.37 0.34 0.26 0.41 0.19 0.40 -0.19 0.61 0.95
SP 0.41 0.40 0.30 0.35 0.17 0.39 -0.22 0.46 0.40 0.87
TF 0.19 0.29 0.17 0.55 0.19 0.28 -0.48 0.35 0.32 0.30 0.83
TM 0.27 0.30 0.19 0.44 0.20 0.30 -0.34 0.38 0.42 0.23 0.61 0.82
5.2 Structural Model
After measurement model, we need to measure the interrelationship of
variables between hypothesized constructs. Structural modeling is used to test
and estimate the relations between the hypothesis factors by using a combination
of different data. The result is shown in Figure 2. It represents the overall
explanatory power, the path coefficient and t-value of the paths. Test of
significance of all paths were performed using the bootstrap resampling
procedure.
40
Figure 2 Results of Structural Model
41
R2 is the value to indicate the percentage of total variation of the dependent
variables. The model account for 19% of the variance in Trust in Facebook
Members, 30% of variance in Trust in Facebook Provider, 27% of variance in
Perceived Privacy Risk and 50% of variance in Online Self-disclosure.
We use t-statistic to decide the significant level for each path and indicate
the number of asterisks. When t-statistic of the path >1.66, indicate the path
coefficient with * (p<0.10). When t-statistic of the path >1.984, indicate the path
coefficient with ** (p<0.05). When t-statistic of the path >2.626, indicate the
path coefficient with *** (p<0.01). The more the number of asterisks that a path
has, the more significant the relationship between the exogenous factor and the
endogenous factor is.
Perceived Control is found to be highly significant to other three dependent
variables, Trust in Facebook Members with 0.44 path coefficient (H4c is
supported) , Trust in Facebook Provider with 0.55 path coefficient (H4b is
supported) and Perceived Privacy Risk with -0.23 path coefficient (H4a is
supported). Besides, Trust in Facebook Provider has a strong negative impact to
Perceived Privacy Risk with -0.33 path coefficient (H3a is supported). However,
the path between Trust in Facebook Members and Perceived Privacy Risk (H3b)
is not significant.
Convenience of Maintaining Existing Relationships, Enjoyment and Social
Influence are found to have a strong significant to Online Self-disclosure with
path coefficient at 0.18, 0.12 and 0.39 respectively. Especially, Social Influence
as our main focus is to be found a strongest impact to Online Self-disclosure
42
(H5). New Relationship Building, Self-presentation and Perceived Collectivism
also have significant effect on Online Self-disclosure with path coefficient at 0.1,
0.11 and 0.1 respectively. Apart from additional factors, Perceived Collectivism,
Perceived Individualism and Social Influence, most of the factors are consistent
with previous study and supported to our variables (H1a, H1b, H1c and H1d are
supported) except Self-presentation which does not provide support to Online
self-disclosure in previous research. For additional factors, only Perceived
Individualism is found to be not significant to Online Self-disclosure with path
coefficient at -0.03 (H7 is not accepted). For the path between Perceived Privacy
Risk and Online Self-disclosure, we find this is not significant (H2 is not
accepted).
43
Table 5 Summary of the Result
Hypothesis Path Path Coefficient Conclusion
H1a Convenience of Maintaining Existing Relationships
Online Self-disclosure
0.18(t=3.59) H1a is supported
H1b New Relationship Building Online Self-disclosure 0.1(t=2.35) H1b is supported
H1c Self-presentation Online Self-disclosure 0.11(t=2.22) H1c is supported
H1d Enjoyment Online Self-disclosure 0.12(t=2.85) H1d is supported
H2 Perceived Privacy Risk Online Self-disclosure n.s. H2 is not supported
H3a Trust in Facebook Provider Perceived Privacy Risk -0.33(t=5.63) H3a is supported
H3b Trust in Facebook Members Perceived Privacy Risk n.s. H3b is not supported
H4a Perceived Control Perceived Privacy Risk -0.23(t=4.04) H4a is supported
H4b Perceived Control Trust in Facebook Provider 0.55(t=14.93) H4b is supported
H4c Perceived Control Trust in Facebook Members 0.44(t=9.19) H4c is supported
H5 Social Influence Online Self-disclosure 0.39(t=8.42) H5 is supported
H6 Perceived Collectivism Online Self-disclosure 0.1(t=2.35) H6 is supported
H7 Perceived Individualism Online Self-disclosure n.s. H7 is not supported
Variance explained (R2)
Trust in Facebook Members 0.19
Trust in Facebook Provider 0.3
Perceived Privacy Risk 0.27
Online Self-disclosure 0.5
Table 5 summarizes the results of all the hypothesis evaluation, including
the path coefficient and conclusion. Based on the analysis, the discussion and
implications of the results are expounded in the coming sections.
44
6. Discussion and Implications
6.1 Discussion
6.1.1 Perceived Benefit as motivation of self-disclosure on Facebook
We have investigated four perceived benefits of self-disclosure on
Facebook in this study. We discover that Convenience of Maintaining
Existing Relationship is the most important benefit determinant of online
self-disclosure (H1a). The design of “Wall”, “Like”, “Group”, “Chat” and
“Event” functions are considered as convenient tools that contribute to the
success of Facebook. Actually, all Facebook users are able to post anything
on their Wall and it acts as the platform for users and their friends to share.
This is an efficient way that allows users to share and receive the most
updated posts and news from their friends through only “one click”. To
upload a post on the wall is an easy and simple process to update and
remind a large group of friends and peers about your status. Recently, the
Wall layout is being replaced by a new function “Timeline” profile layout.
Furthermore, the “Like” button can show the interest and attention of others
and the following story will appear in the user's friends' News Feed. For the
“Group” function, it can use for discussion and event. This is a way that
enable a group of specific people who added by admin to come together to
share information and update status. Moreover, Facebook “Chat” allows
users chat with friends on one to one basis or multiple friends immediately.
Chat is not only involves text but also video chat. This can totally enhance
and Maintaining Existing Relationships. Also, it can allow grouping a large
amount of people to participate in an activity by using the “Event” function.
It is a way to let friends know about upcoming events in their social
network. Events can be divided into public and private. This can improve
45
the privacy of groups. It is because private events cannot be found in search.
People who have not been invited cannot view anything about the event.
Those of them can help users to maintain relationships alive.
In addition, Enjoyment is confirmed to be another significant factor of
online self-disclosure (H1d). It is because Facebook likes as a one-stop shop
for imparting different media, blogging, news, communicating, ideas or
information. Dickinger, Arami, and Meyer (2008) viewed that many young
people favored peer-to-peer online interaction since it is fun communicating
with peers and they enjoyed this new type of communication. It implicates
users enjoy to converse in Facebook and utilize different Facebook
functions and applications in their leisure time. Most of our respondents
express that they like to share some fun and happiness, and feel relaxed
when using Facebook. Because of the joyful and unrestrained platform, it
encourages users to reveal more information about themselves (Hui et al.,
2006).
The third significant driver of self-disclosure on Facebook is
Self-presentation (H1c), which is different from the result of previous
research model (Krasnova et al., 2010). It explains the younger generations
have their own communication way with others in the internet epoch.
Merchant (2001) mentioned that youths have discovered their unique
language and communication on the internet world. They want to create
close relationships with friends through disclosing the “true” self online
(Mckenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002). Facebook users not only can post the
written content, but also present some photos, videos and music on the Wall.
46
Finally, all these changes will be displayed on the Wall. The Wall, just likes
a profile that shows the latest news, personal interests, characters, hobbies
and information of the users in a purpose to project a certain image of them
and allow others to understand them more.
The last benefit to motivate online self-disclosure is New Relationship
Building (H1b). Facebook not only allows users to update the information
and status of existing friends, but also know and realize some unknown
people and therefore give them chances to build new relationship with
“strangers”. Facebook provides the function that suggests news friends to
users based on their common interests or scope and mutual friends. So, if
the Facebook users want to build up and extend the social network,
self-disclosure is the proper way.
6.1.2 Perceived Cost of self-disclosure on Facebook
Generally speaking, the risk of self-disclosure that immediately spring
up to mind is privacy risk. In our model, perceived control means users can
control the degree of disclosure of their information such as birthday,
address, telephone number, photos, status etc. From our findings, as users get
more involvement in privacy setting, it enhances Trust in Facebook Provider
(H4c) and Members (H4b). For example, Facebook allows users to manage
the privacy of status updates, photos and information through using the
online audience selector. Moreover, users are allowed to control the way
people connect with them, the tag content, or post a message on wall.
Besides, it enables users to limit the audience who can view their posts. As a
result, Perceived Control has a positive relationship with trust and it is an
47
essential factor to determine Perceived Privacy Risk (H4a). The more control
users take, the less Perceived Privacy Risk is posed. And so, it gives users
the feeling of being protected. From one of our respondents said “It makes
me easier to manage what I am sharing on Facebook. In case I feel my
privacy is invaded, I can remove what I post on Facebook.”
To our surprise, we find that the relationship between Privacy Risk and
self-disclosure on Facebook (H2) is not significant. One explanation for this
phenomenon is university students do not concern about privacy risk. Users
generally feel comfortable sharing their personal information in a campus
environment. Participants said that they “had nothing to hide” and “they
don’t really care if other people see their information.” Moreover, in this
century, all activities are related to internet and technology (Govani &
Pashley, 2005). Students have already adapted to the new age of fast
technological advancement. Teenagers tend to rely on technologies in their
lives (Shade, 2008). When they are enjoying convenience brought by
technology, they seldom concern about the risks behind (Cady & McGregor,
2001). They only follow the trend and are influenced by social or peers as
we can see the t-value of Social Influence have a great difference with other
factors. In Facebook, when users express their personal feelings or share
personal information, they primarily consider the effect of sharing rather
than any potential risks raised by provider.
Besides, we find that the Trust in Facebook Members (H3b) and
Perceived Privacy Risks is not significant. This implies that users’ privacy
concern mainly focuses on provider’s reputation and degree of privacy
48
setting (H3a). They are worried about organizational risks such as
collection and secondary use of their information rather than anonymous
users gather their information. The reason behind is the users believe that
provider may have more power and intention to abuse their information.
6.1.3 Social Influence of self-disclosure on Facebook
The social influence is the factor that we contribute to the research
model. For this aspect, we focus on conformity power that means online
self-disclosure is influenced by a reference group. From our findings, the
reference group is university students. Comparing other factors with online
self-disclosure, the path coefficient of Social Influence is 0.39 which is
highly significant which makes it the most crucial factor to affect student
online self-disclosure (H5). This value of coefficient can be explained by
attitude of teenagers nowadays. They are simply exposed to all sorts of
influences via media and channels. All conversion titles are about media
such as online game, apps, webpage etc, and many businesses have already
got involved in these categories (Shade, 2008). Hence, the first impression
or connections of many activities are though media. Internet is everywhere
nowadays so that online social network, Facebook is such a huge platform
for them to gather friend’s updated status and new information. As a result,
media have a great impact on students to get involved in their community.
Therefore, students will try to expose themselves on the internet and be
recognized by their peers.
6.1.4 Reciprocal Behavior of self-disclosure on Facebook
The inclinations toward reciprocity are also the factors contributing to
49
the research model and the purpose of adding these factors is expected to
investigate the relationship between individual-level cultural differences and
online self-disclosure behavior. After analyzing the relationship, we find out
people who believe in Collectivism increase the online self-disclosure
behavior (H6). However, there is no significant relationship between the
tendency towards Individualism and online self-disclosure (H7). It can be
illustrated by the reciprocal behavior and communication of different
individual inclinations.
Collectivism is more cohesive and integrated with others. They think
the community is the unit and tend to communal sharing. Therefore, online
social networks are suitable for Collectivism to enhance the online
self-disclosure behavior. On the contrary, Individualism is not effective in
binding people together. It focuses on every individual person, but not the
whole community. Hence, collectivists are more prone to online
self-disclose than individualists.
6.2 Implications
6.2.1 Implications for Research
This study attempts to investigate online self-disclosure behavior of
Hong Kong university students on Facebook. Specifically, our extended
model and research contribute to the existing literature in certain important
ways. First, we find that two dimensions (Benefits and Risk) determine the
behavior of online self-disclosure. In order to have a further investigation,
we add two more dimensions which are Social Influence and Inclinations
towards Reciprocity. We believe that we have enriched Krasnova et al.
50
(2010)’s research model as we have included factors from various aspects.
We not only focus on the factors of Facebook’s characteristics itself, but
also include the external factor (Social Influence) and the user individual
factor (Inclinations toward Reciprocity). Both two additional approaches are
proved to be significant as well. Second, we test and verify Krasnova et al.
(2010)’s self-disclosure model on online social networking in Hong Kong
and find that their major factor (Perceived Privacy Risk) is not significant
when applied in Hong Kong university students. It provides another insight
to understand online self-disclosure behavior about Hong Kong university
students. Furthermore, our research result shows that there are the
differences between social media users in Hong Kong and Germany. The
reasons may be the existence of culture difference of two districts so future
studies should focus on how culture affects the online self-disclosure
behavior.
6.2.2 Implications for Facebook
Despite the rapid development of Facebok and the extraordinary
growth rates of the number of Facebook users, there is perceived crisis for
competitions with many other social media, such as Google Plus, Weibo
and Twitter. If Facebook still want to maintain its leading position, further
improvement and development are necessary. In the following, we will give
some implications for Facebook on the basis of the results of our study.
On the motivational side, our results show that both of benefit elements
are the significant factors need to be consider. That’s why Facebook should
pay more attention in uplifting their core capability and functionality. To
51
facilitate relationships maintenance, Facebook can provide more reminders,
which are about their friends, to users (e.g. birthday or anniversary
reminders). Also, the relationship hierarchies can help users to manage and
maintain their friend relationship. In addition, Facebook provider should
advance the relationship building function among participants. We suggest
Facebook can introduce a new function-- Forum to group different people
share common interests. It will definitely be easier for users to find some
friends with similar purposes and interests.
Additionally, Facebook should place more weight on the
self-presentation aspect. They could, for example, improve user’s
personalization that allows user to design the layout of their own profile and
Wall, which can represent them to a greater extent. Finally, the enjoyment is
another emphasis in improvement. Some collaborative online games or
functional applications can be adopted which makes the virtual world
communities applied into the real life.
For social influence, this is the most significant factor that affects
online self-disclosure. In fact, it is hard to measure social influence. For us,
we think that there are two steps to achieve this factor. One is “wide” -
exposure of Facebook and other is “deep” - performance of Facebook. First,
Facebook is linked with different aspects such as apps, WebPages, forums
and films etc. All kinds of cooperation are advertisement and let Facebook
“invade” into students’ daily life. Although Facebook have already done a
great job in increasing its exposure, some kinds of advertisement is
insufficient such as products, campaign etc. Second, it is about the overall
52
performance of the whole website. In order to allow users to pay close
attention and promote the site through word of mouth, Facebook should
concern about the overall score from users. For an overall performance,
Facebook has done a comprehensive Timeline layout, which is a
user-friendly design, additional function such as birthday alarm, friend
suggestion, live chat, share location, family safer centre and Facebook
developer etc. Actually Facebook did all the basic features comprehensively.
For further improvement, it can strengthen users’ perception about
behavioral control by granting users choices over how their data are
accessed. Moreover, developing mobile apps is a new trend for every
business to follow. Although Facebook launched mobile app a long time ago,
the functions are limited and not as detailed as desktop pages. Therefore,
Facebook still have room for improvement so as to enhance its
performance.
Combining the two areas aforementioned, Facebook will become the
greatest media that influence out community. In addition, there is growing
number of students who rely much on internet in today’s world. If
Facebook can deal with this properly, this make them become voluntary
marketers to promote and develop Facebook through adding new functions.
6.2.3 Implications for Society
Students have spent much of their free time online and many of social
online activities. From our findings, students generally disclose their
personal information for building new relationships. As a result, many risks
is aroused other than privacy risk including offline risks and crimes. For
53
example, some teenagers may have offline meeting with strangers they only
got to know them through online social networks (Barbovski, Marinescu, &
Velicu, 2011). Moreover, Parents are usually lack of knowledge and control
of their children’s online activities. Parents have little notice what their
children are doing online and with whom (Barbovski et al., 2011). Also, it is
difficult to force students to keep their information privately and avoid to
share their personal information on internet. Therefore, we should educate
students’ online behavior and parents’ knowledge though internet and
college. By doing so, this is not only for parents’ protection but also help
them to educate, monitor and protect their children’s online behavior.
Organizations can also hold some educational campaign to raise students’
attention to the consequences of online self-disclosure, especially some
inappropriate information on online social networks. At the same time, we
can provide more information and guides about the privacy and control
settings to all users of Facebook (Christofides, Muise, & Desmarais, 2010).
These days, a lot of human resources management consulting firms
emphasized how Facebook profile may affect students’ future employment
and career. In a new study from Northern Illinois University, Facebook was
found to be as a reliable job-screening tool (Kwoh, 2012). Students should
be aware of how and what they disclose online will affect their career.
54
7. Limitation and Conclusion
7.1 Limitation and Future Research
The objective of our research is to study the factors affecting online
self-disclosure behavior of university students in Hong Kong in using Facebook.
Although we have found some useful implications in our study, there are still
some limitations which should or could be addressed by the future research.
We have collected 420 samples, but they are not large enough to represent
all university students in Hong Kong. In order to have an improved measurement
on the research model, we suggest future researches should increase the sample
size. Additionally, more than half (62%) of the respondents were female which
may not completely represent the real situation. It’s because gender may be a
factor that affect the model result which is not counted in our model. Hence, we
suggest future researches can also consider the gender factor or control an even
proportion of male and female respondents.
Besides, because of the budget and time constraints, we have limited
resources and networks to do the research in all universities in Hong Kong.
Consequently, 80 % of the respondents are studying or studied in Hong Kong
Baptist University which cannot reflect the views of all local university students.
Therefore, we suggest further research can improve in this aspect.
Last but not least, in this rapidly growing internet world, technology is
changing in every second. Although we recognize those factors that affect one’s
online self-disclosure behavior, it does not mean our model can fully reflect the
real situations in the future. It is because the structure of model depends on the
55
change of the internet world and development of Facebook. All in all, we advise
further researches need to validate or restructure our research model in the future.
7.2 Conclusion
Our study mainly focuses on identifying factors that are involved in
self-disclosure on Facebook. We find that the four benefits of using Facebook,
namely Convenience of Maintaining Existing Relationships, New Relationship
Building, Self-presentation and Enjoyment, significantly linked to frequent
online self-disclosure of users. We find out Privacy Risk is not the main factor to
hinder online self-disclosure on Facebook. Our findings also demonstrate that
Social Influence and Perceived Collectivism associate with the behavior of
disclosing information.
For the practical perspective, our research results provide some important
insights for Facebook by recognizing areas where they should pay and invest
more resources in order to ensure more involvement and communication of users
on the network and provide some advice for society to educate, monitor and
protect online behavior of teenagers.
56
8. Reference
Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined Communities: Awareness, information
sharing, and privacy on the facebook. Paper presented at the 6th Workshop on
Privacy Enhancing
Technologies, Cambridge, UK.
Ahn, Y.-Y., Han, S., Kwak, H., Moon, S., & Jeong, H. (2007). Analysis of Topological
Characteristics of Huge Online Social Networking Services. Paper presented at
the International World Wide Web Conference Committee.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Allen, V. L., & Levine, J. M. (1969). Social Support and Conformity: The Effect of
Response Order and Differentiation from the Group. British Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 10(2), 181-184.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of
interpersonal relationships. Oxford: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Archer, J. L. (1980). The self in social psychology. London: Oxford University Press.
Arrington, M. (2008). Want some Facebook stock at a $3 billion valuation? We know
who to call. Retrieved from
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/28/want-some-facebook-stock-at-a-3-
billion-valutation-we-know-who-to-call/
Barbovski, M., Marinescu, V., & Velicu, A. (2011). Being in Contact with Strangers:
Teenagers. Exploration of Alternative Identities Online. Revista de Asistenţă
Socială, 10(2), 61-77.
Bareket-Bojmel, L., & Shahar, G. (2011). Emotional and Interpersonal Consequences
of Self-Disclosure in a Lived, Online Interaction. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 30(7), 732-759.
Berscheid, E. (1977). Privacy: A hidden variable in social psychology. Journal of Social
Issues, 33, 85-101.
Billy, H. U. (2011). Research on Reference Group Influence on Initial Online
Purchasing Decisions. IT Research Paper.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1).
Buchanan, T., Paine, C., Joinson, A. N., & Reips, U.-D. (2007). Development of
measures of online privacy concern and protection for use on the Internet.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2),
157-165.
Byrne, C. (2010). Study: Social influence switches on and off among Facebook users.
Retrieved from
57
http://venturebeat.com/2010/10/11/study-social-influence-switches-on-and-
off-among-facebook-users/
Cady, G. H., & McGregor, P. (2001). Protect Your Digital Privacy! Survival Skills for the
Information Age: Que Publishing.
Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding Knowledge Sharing in
Virtual Communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive
theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.
Chopra, K., & Wallace, W. A. (2003). Trust in Electronic Environments. Paper
presented at the 36th Annual Hawaii Conference on System Sciences, Big
Island, USA.
Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2010). Privacy and Disclosure on
Facebook: Youth and Adults' Information Disclosure and Perceptions of
Privacy Risks. from Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
comScore.com. (2011). It's a Social World: Social Networking Leads as Top Online
Activity Globally, Accounting for 1 in Every 5 Online Minutes Retrieved
December 21, 2011 from
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/12/Social_Ne
tworking_Leads_as_Top_Online_Activity_Globally
Culnan, M. J. (1995). Consumer Awareness of Name Removal Procedures:
Implications for direct marketing. Journal of Direct Marketing, 9(2), 10-19.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (1998). Between Trust and Control: Developing confidence in
partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23(3),
491-512.
Dickinger, A., Arami, M., & Meyer, D. (2008). The role of perceived enjoyment and
social norm in the adoption of technology with network externalities.
European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 4-11.
Dinev, T., Bellotto, M., Hart, P., Russo, V., Serra, I., & Colautti, C. (2006). Privacy
calculus model in e-commerce - a study of Italy and the United States.
European Journal of Information Systems, 15(4), 389-402.
Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2004). Internet Privacy Concerns and Their Antecedents -
Measurement Validity and a Regression Model. Behavior and Information
Technology, 23(6), 413-423.
Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and Privacy Concern within Social
Networking Sites: A comparison of facebook and myspace. Paper presented at
the Americas Conference on Information Systems, Keystone, USA.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/339
Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing Impressions Online:
Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of
58
Computer-Mediated Communication 11(2).
Facebook.com. (2011). Statistics, Press Center, from
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
Feng, J., Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (2004). Empathy and Online Interpersonal Trust: A
fragile relationship. Behavior & IT, 23(2), 97-106.
Franzoi, S. L. (1996). Social psychology. Dubuque, I.A.: Time Mirror Higher Education
Group.
French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Cartwright,
Dorwin (Ed).
Gefen, D., Rao, V. S., & Tractinsky, N. (2003). The Conceptualization of Trust, Risk, and
their Relationship in Electronic Commerce: The need for clarifications. Paper
presented at the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Big Island, USA.
Govani, T., & Pashley, H. (2005). Student Awareness of the Privacy Implications When
Using Facebook. Computer and Information Science, 17, 105-110.
Grabner-Kräuter, S., & Kaluscha, E. A. (2003). Empirical Research in On-line Trust: A
review and critical assessment. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 58(6), 783-812.
Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social
Networks. ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, 71-80.
Hann, I.-H., Hui, K. L., Lee, S.-Y. T., & Png, I. P. L. (2007). Overcoming Information
Privacy Concerns: An information processing theory approach. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 24(2), 13-42.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Europe,
Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social Behavior as Exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63,
597-606.
Hui, K.-L., Tan, B. C. Y., & Goh, C.-Y. (2006). Online Information Disclosure: Motivators
and Measurements. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 6(4), 415-441.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Tractinsky, N. (1999). Consumer Trust in an Internet Store: A
cross-cultural validation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(2).
Krasnova, H., Kolesnikova, E., & Gunther, O. (2009). It Won't Happen To Me!:
Self-Disclosure in Online Social Networks. Americas Conference on
Information Systems, 343. Retrieved from
http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2009/343
Krasnova, H., Spiekermann, S., Koroleva, K., & Hildebrand, T. (2010). Online social
networks: why we disclose. Journal of Information Technology, 25, 109-125.
Kwoh, L. (2012). Facebook Profiles Found to Predict Job Performance. The Wall Street
59
Journal, B8.
Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2007). A Familiar Face(book): Profile elements
as signals in an online social network. Paper presented at the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, USA.
Leary, M. R. (1996). Self Presentation: Impression Management and
InterpersonalBehaviour. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., Sia, C. L., & Lim, K. H. (2006). How Positive
Informational Social Influence Affects Consumers' Decision of Internet
Shopping? Paper presented at the 39th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, USA.
Lisa, S. R., & Murray, W. J. (2005). Gender status beliefs. Social Science Research, 34,
618-633.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users' information privacy
concerns (IUIPC): the construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information
Systems Research, 15(4), 336-355.
McAllister, H. A. (1980). Self-disclosure and liking: Effects for senders and receivers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 409.
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. (2000). Plan 9 from Cyberspace: The implications of the
Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 4, 57-75.
Mckenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on
the Internet: what's the big attraction? . Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9-31.
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002a). Developing and
Validating Trust Measures for E-commerce: An integrative typology. Information
Systems Research, 13(3), 334-359.
Merchant, G. (2001). Teenagers in cyberspace: an investigation of language use and
language change in Internet chatrooms. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(3),
293-306.
Metzger, M. J. (2004). Privacy, Trust, and Disclosure: Exploring barriers to electronic
commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(4).
Metzger, M. J., & Docter, S. (2003). Public opinion and policy initiatives for online
privacy protection. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(3).
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper
& Row.
Muniz, A., & O'Guinn, T. (2001). Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27,
412-432.
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Interactions in Virtual Customer Environments:
60
Implications for product support and customer relationship management,.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(2), 42-62.
Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust
and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int J Electron Commer, 7(3),
101-134.
Posey, C., Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., & Ellis, T. S. (2010). Proposing the online
community self-disclosure model: the case of working professionals in France
and the U.K. who use online communities. European Journal of Information
Systems, 19, 181-195.
Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and
measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. J. Appl. Soc.
Psychol, 28, 307-322.
Ridings, C., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some Antecedents and Effects of Trust in
Virtual Communities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4),
271-295.
Saks, M., & Krupat, E. (1988). Social psychology and its applications. Cambridge, MA:
Harper & Row.
Shade, K. P. (2008). Do teens rely on technology too much? Retrieved from
http://articles.dailyamerican.com/2008-01-14/news/26317482_1_cell-phone
-teens-text-message
Shin, S. K., Ishman, M., & Sanders, G. L. (2007). An empirical investigation of
socio-cultural factors of information sharing in China. Information &
Management, 44(2), 165-174.
Sophos.com. (2007). Sophos Facebook ID Probe Shows 41% of Users Happy to Reveal
all to Potential Identity Thieves, from
http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2007/08/Facebook.html
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in
organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
Stone, A. R. (1996). The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical
age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stout, D. (2000, July 28). Government and Internet ad group reach an agreement on
data gleaned from Web surfers, The New York Times, p. C6.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of
competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144-176.
Teo, S. H., Lim, K. G., & Lai, Y. C. (1999). LaiIntrinsic and extrinsic motivation in
Internet usage. Omega, Int. J. Mgmt. Sci., 27, 25-37.
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and
vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social
61
Psychology, 74(1), 118-128.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Tweney, D. (1998). The consumer battle over online privacy has just begun. Infoworld,
20(25), 66.
Walther, J. B., Slovacek, C. L., & Tidwell, L. C. (2001). Is a Picture Worth a Thousand
Words? Photographic Images in Long-term and Short-term
Computer-mediated Communication. Communication Research, 28(1),
105-134.
Xu, X., Dinev, T., Smith, H. J., & Hart, P. (2008). Examining the Formation of
Individual's Privacy Concerns: Toward an integrative view. Paper presented at
the International Conference on Information Systems, Paris, France.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2008/6
Zarghooni, S. (2007). A Study of Self-Presentation in Light of Facebook. Retrieved
from
http://folk.uio.no/sasanz/Mistorie/Annet/Selfpresentation_on_Facebook.pdf.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1995). The psychology of evil: A situationist perspective on recruiting
good people to engage in anti-social acts. Research in Social Psychology, 11,
125-133.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Leippe, M. R. (1991). The psychology of attitude change and social
influence. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Inc.
62
9. Appendices
9.1 Appendix A: Questionnaire
63
Survey on the Use of Facebook
We are final year students who are majoring in Information Systems and e-Business
Management (BBA) in HKBU. We are conducting a survey on user behavior on
Facebook. Please kindly spare you some time to complete this questionnaire. You will
have a chance to earn a $50 shopping coupon. The questionnaire will take about 10-15
minutes to complete. All data collected will be used for academic purpose only. Thank
you.
Disclaimer:
This questionnaire constitutes part of a student’s individual academic research work
for an Honours Project in partial fulfillment of the BBA graduation requirement.
While the Hong Kong Baptist University respects and abides by the Privacy Data
Ordinance, it is the student’s responsibility to comply with the Ordinance during every
aspect of the project. Please contact the sender of this questionnaire for specific
details. Please ignore this questionnaire if you have responded or are not interested in
responding to it. Thank you.
64
1st Part: Usage experience on Facebook
1. Do you have a Facebook account?
□ Yes (Jump to question 2) □ No (The end of the questionnaire)
2. How long have you been a Facebook user?
□ < 1 year □ 1-2 years □ 2-3 years □ 3-4 years □ 4-5 years □ > 5 years
3. How often do you log onto Facebook?
□ Several times a day □Once a day □ Once a week □ Once a month □ Once a year
4. On average, how long do you spend on Facebook per week?
□ Less than an hour □ 1-(just under)2 hours
□ 2-(just under)3 hours □3-(just under)4 hours
□ 4 hours or more
5. How many Facebook “friends” do you have?
□ < 100 □ 100-200 □ 201-300 □ 301-400 □ 401-500 □ > 500
6. What do you mostly use Facebook for?
□ Find new friends
□ Play games
□ Chat (including comments and wall)
□ Check out how your friends are doing (photos, walls etc)
□ Update your profile to pass time
65
2nd Part:
Please choose your degree of agreeableness for the following statement.
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree Neutral Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. Facebook is convenient to
inform all my friends about my
ongoing activities
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
2. Facebook allows me to save
time when I want to share
something new with my friends
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
3. I find Facebook efficient in
sharing information with my
friends
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
4. Through Facebook I get
connected to new people who
share my interests
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
5. Facebook helps me to expand
my network □ □ □ □ □ □ □
6. I get to know new people
through Facebook □ □ □ □ □ □ □
7. I try to make a good
impression on others on
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
8. I try to present myself in a
favorable way on Facebook □ □ □ □ □ □ □
66
9. Facebook helps me to present
my best sides to others □ □ □ □ □ □ □
10. When I am bored I often
login to Facebook □ □ □ □ □ □ □
11. I find Facebook entertaining □ □ □ □ □ □ □
12. I spend enjoyable and
relaxing time on Facebook □ □ □ □ □ □ □
13. I fear that something
unpleasant can happen to me
due to my presence on Facebook
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
14. Overall, I find it risky to
publish my personal information
on Facebook
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
15. Please rate your overall
perception of privacy risk
involved when using Facebook
(very risky – very safe)
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
16. Facebook is open and
receptive to the needs of its
members
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
17. Facebook makes good-faith
efforts to address most member
concerns
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
18. Facebook is also interested
in the well-being of its □ □ □ □ □ □ □
67
members, not just its own
19. Facebook is honest in its
dealings with me □ □ □ □ □ □ □
20. Facebook keeps its
commitments to its members □ □ □ □ □ □ □
21. Facebook is trustworthy □ □ □ □ □ □ □
22. Other Facebook members
will do their best to help me □ □ □ □ □ □ □
23. Other Facebook members do
care about the well-being of
others
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
24. Other Facebook members
are open and receptive to the
needs of each other
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
25. Other Facebook members
are honest in dealing with each
other
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
26. Other Facebook members
keep their promises □ □ □ □ □ □ □
27. Other Facebook members
are trustworthy □ □ □ □ □ □ □
28. I feel in control over the
information I provide on
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
29. Privacy settings allow me to □ □ □ □ □ □ □
68
have full control over the
information I provide on
30. I feel in control of who can
view my information on
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
31. I have a comprehensive
profile on Facebook □ □ □ □ □ □ □
32. I find time to keep my
profile up-to-date □ □ □ □ □ □ □
33. I keep my friends updated
about what is going on in my
life through Facebook
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
34. When I have something to
say, I like to share it on
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
35. People who influence my
behavior would think that I
should self-disclose on
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
36. People who are important to
me would think that I should
self-disclose on Facebook
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
37. I'd rather depend on myself
than others. □ □ □ □ □ □ □
69
38. I rely on myself most of the
time; I rarely rely on others. □ □ □ □ □ □ □
39. I often do "my own thing." □ □ □ □ □ □ □
40. My personal identity,
independent of others, is very
important to me.
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
41. It is important that I do my
job better than others. □ □ □ □ □ □ □
42. Winning is everything. □ □ □ □ □ □ □
43. Competition is the law of
nature. □ □ □ □ □ □ □
44. When another person does
better than I do, I get tense and
aroused.
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
45. If a coworker gets a prize, I
would feel proud. □ □ □ □ □ □ □
46. The well-being of my
coworkers is important to me. □ □ □ □ □ □ □
47. To me, pleasure is spending
time with others. □ □ □ □ □ □ □
48. I feel good when I cooperate
with others. □ □ □ □ □ □ □
49. Parents and children must
stay together as much as
possible.
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
70
50. It is my duty to take care of
my family, even when I have to
sacrifice what I want.
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
51. Family members should
stick together, no matter what
sacrifices are required.
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
52. It is important to me that I
respect the decisions made by
my groups.
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
71
3rd Part: Open-ended Questions
1. What makes you share your information on Facebook?
2. What kinds of information do you like to share on Facebook? (E.g. photos,
videos, news…)
3. Do you think Facebook has done well in protecting user data? If No, do you
have any recommendation to Facebook?
4th Part: Personal Information
Gender: □ M □ F
Age: □ <19 □ 19 □ 20 □ 21 □ 22 □ 23 □ >23
University:
□ HKU □CUHK □ HKBU □ HKPolyU
□ HKUST □ CityU □ HKLU □ HKIEd
□ OUHK □ HKSYU
Please provide your contact information for lucky draw (Optional).
Name:
Tel. no.:
Email:
Related Documents
