Online Privacy Concerns and the Teenage Perspective: A

Comprehensive Review and Next Steps Towards Teen-

Centered Design of Social Media Platforms

Tomas Russo1,2[0000-0001-8302-438X], Tubal Theodros1,3, Aadit Gupta1,4, Kayla Booth1[0000-

0002-4113-908X]
, and Oshrat Ayalon1,5[0000-0002-5905-9838]
1
The iSchool Inclusion Institute (i3), The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX 78705,
USA
[email protected]
2
Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick NJ 08901, USA
Tomas.russo@rutgers .edu
3
University of Washington, Seattle WA 98195, USA
[email protected]
4
Penn State, University Park PA 16802, USA
[email protected]
5
Max Planck Institute for Software Systems, Campus E1.5. D-66123 Saarbrucken, Germany
[email protected]

Abstract. Meeting teen users' privacy needs necessitates involving them in de-
sign processes. Prior work reached this objective on a smaller-scale using quali-
tative methods (i.e. co-design). However, we believe quantitative methods ap-
plied at a larger-scale will be crucial in more comprehensive understandings of
teenage privacy perceptions. This preliminary poster, therefore, focuses on the
quantifiable concept of privacy concerns and reviews existing literature to dis-
cern a clear definition and methods of measuring it, understand how said methods
vary across contexts, and discuss the extent to which teenagers have been in-
volved in said research. This study reveals the privacy concerns scale as an ef-
fective quantitative tool for understanding teenage users’ evaluations while also
revealing a major flaw with existing privacy concerns scales in that they have
been primarily designed for adults, even those used to assess teenage populations,
potentially failing to address the unique privacy concerns of teenagers.

Keywords: Privacy Concerns, Teenagers, Social Media.

1 Introduction

Research in information and computing systems shows a growing concern for a lack of
incorporating users’ perspectives when designing attributes that affect system’s privacy
[1, 2]. Despite this, it is still more common for developers to design systems’ privacy
based on consultation with other developers [3, 4], the recommendations of Chief Pri-
vacy Officers [3, 5], or the guidelines set down in pre-existing privacy policy statements
[6–8] than it is for them to involve users in the design process. The result is a trend
2

throughout privacy-related design processes where designers fail to consider users’ per-
spectives and leave their privacy needs unsatisfied [9, 10].
This disconnect between users and designers is particularly illustrated by the misa-
lignment between teenage users’ privacy needs, and the privacy features their adult
counterpart’s design. The gravity of this lies in the rising ubiquity of online teenage
populations: as of 2022, Pew Research Center reports that nearly all teens in the U.S.
have access to both a smartphone and the Internet on a daily basis [11]. COVID in-
creased this usage, with 72% of parents in the U.S. reporting a considerable increase in
their K-12 kids' (including teenagers) screen time during and after the pandemic [12].
Despite these rates of access and daily use, a common misconception exists that teen-
agers do not care about online privacy [13]. Extant literature, however, suggests that
teens – especially those with education surrounding privacy risk [13] – actively con-
sider their online privacy, develop privacy management strategies, and are critical of
privacy-related design features that don’t meet their needs [11, 12, 14]. Despite this,
many features are still designed with an adult-centered/parent-centered approach, often
leaving teens feeling disappointed by family technologies, such as parental control ap-
plications, that focus more on enabling parental control than they do on providing re-
sources for teens to ensure their own safety [15] against specific threats they face more
prominently than adults, including cyberbullying [16] and sexual solicitation [17]. Em-
phasizing adult control rather than teen resilience risks introducing several unintended
consequences: denying teenagers the opportunity to autonomously learn how to ensure
their safety in online spaces, conceptualize/practice boundary setting/maintenance, and
negotiate the balance between information sharing and protection of privacy common
in increasingly prevalent online relationships [13]. The loss of these opportunities may
severely impact teenagers, both online and offline, as they approach adulthood [18].
To mitigate these risks and respect teenagers’ agency regarding their privacy,
Wisniewski argues for a shift away from adult or parent-centered privacy design and
towards a teen-centered privacy design approach. Such an approach would be focused
on prioritizing the teenage perspective and specifically asking teenagers what they feel
they need to be kept safe online [13]. Technologies could then be designed to address
those needs and support teens in independently negotiating risks both online and of-
fline.
A considerable amount of work towards teen-centric privacy design has already been
conducted and provides valuable insights into technological designs that could benefit
teens in their efforts to autonomously protect their privacy [13, 18–21]. However, most
of these existing studies have utilized smaller-scale, qualitative approaches in their in-
vestigations which, while deeply valuable in terms of understanding teens’ values and
lived experiences, are limited in scale. This poster is the first phase in a multi-phase
research programme that ultimately asks, “How can we augment and support teen-cen-
tered, qualitative approaches to understanding teenage users’ privacy concerns at scale?
What are the opportunities to build on existing work and quantitatively elicit teen users’
feedback to help social media platform designers understand these users’ privacy con-
cerns and ultimately better meet their privacy needs?” This focus on the context of
social media platforms comes from a Pew Research Center 2022 data report showing
 3

most teenagers in the U.S. are using a wide array of social media platforms ‘almost
constantly’ [11].
While these are ambitious questions, we aim to begin asking them through a quanti-
fiable privacy concerns lens that will allow us to reveal teens’ worries in online spaces
from which needs can be discerned. To this end, the following preliminary poster, will
act as a three-part literature review, first, surveying existing models of privacy concerns
as a construct and exploring the multiple ways they have been quantitatively measured
across the existing literature; second, investigating how the measurement of privacy
concerns changes between general measurement and measurement within platform-
specific contexts, specifically social media platforms; and third, reviewing the existing
literature on the privacy concerns of teenage populations, identifying the methods pre-
vious studies have used to understand teenage privacy concerns up to this point. This
Phase One literature review and the gaps identified in it shape the proposed next steps
of the research programme discussed in the Future Work section.

2 Literature Review

2.1 An overview of privacy concerns constructs

As a construct, privacy concerns lacks a singular definition, as there have been multiple
conceptualizations proposed across the literature [22–34]. Earlier conceptualizations
argued a four-dimensional model composed of users’ concerns about (1) companies’
information collection behaviors (collection), (2) the measures companies take to pro-
tect collected information from unauthorized access, (3) the accuracy of the infor-
mation stored by said companies (errors), and (4) the undisclosed ways in which com-
panies may use or share the information (secondary use) [22, 23]. Other studies have
conceptualized privacy concerns as a two-dimensional construct comprised of concerns
for how easily locatable submitted information is (privacy concerns for information
finding) and how said information could be abused by malicious entities (privacy con-
cerns for information abuse) [24, 25]. Another conceptualization still presented a con-
struct consisting of three dimensions: the aforementioned concern for collection, and
two additional concerns for how much control an individual has over their submitted
information and for transparency regarding the intended uses of information (aware-
ness) [26].
Notable commonalities exist across the various conceptualizations. The first is near-
unanimous agreement of privacy concerns as a multidimensional construct, the dimen-
sions of which should be individually measured on privacy concerns scales [22–27].
The second is the repeated inclusion of awareness as a dimension of privacy concerns,
which is explicitly integrated in multiple models [26, 27] while being implicitly pre-
sent in the dimensions of others such as concern for information privacy abuse [24,
25] and concern for secondary use [23] which both include concern for transparency
in intended information use. Tangential studies further emphasize the importance of
awareness concerns, one noting how valued awareness is by those sharing information
in healthcare systems [8] and the other covering how companies' awareness-promoting
4

practices increase perceived privacy control and reduce perceived privacy risk, ulti-
mately reducing privacy concerns [28]. Thirdly, concern for collection in all but one of
the conceptualizations [23, 26, 27], displaying general agreement that collection is a
definitive dimension of privacy concerns. Finally, concern for control is directly built
into two of the four models [23, 26] and further highlighted by three other studies
involving privacy concerns and privacy perceptions, which similarly demonstrate per-
ceived privacy control lowering privacy concerns [24, 28, 29]. Ultimately, the litera-
ture reveals the privacy concerns construct as multidimensional and composed of at
least three dimensions: awareness, collection, and control.

2.2 Privacy concerns in context

While there are a variety of scales in the extant literature that measure privacy attitudes
and concerns generally, this review is specifically aimed at understanding the studies
that focus on measuring users’ evaluation of privacy concerns within a specific context
[1, 2, 33–44]. Such studies additionally investigated other privacy constructs such as
risk [1, 35], trust [35, 38], and system’s privacy, as it is perceived by the users [1, 2, 36,
38]. Those specifically investigating privacy in the context of social media [40–44]
brought up previously identified elements, examining users’ evaluations of the plat-
forms’ access [40], and control [42], further revealing those elements as prevalent
across privacy concerns discussions. These studies also demonstrate trust [42], risk
[42], and user protection strategies as important elements to consider in privacy meas-
urement [41]. There is some discrepancy in that a couple of these studies propose pri-
vacy concerns as a unidimensional construct [43, 44] as these studies explored technol-
ogies in a different context, in which privacy was part of the explored variables, but
they still contribute an understanding of the social media context and the elements im-
portant to consider within them (access, control, trust, and risk).

2.3 The exclusion of youth populations in scale development

Despite the extensive research exploring privacy concerns –including those studies in-
vestigating privacy concerns as they relate to privacy behaviors in youth populations
[30, 31, 45]– the instruments for measuring levels of privacy concerns are overwhelm-
ingly designed with adult populations. Such can be seen across our entire collection of
sources [23, 24, 26–28, 32, 36, 46, 47], all of which have used privacy concerns
conceptualizations developed with adult populations. Even studies which have assessed
teenage privacy concerns and privacy perspectives in a quantitative manner [30, 31,
45] have all imported or adapted scales originally developed with adult populations
[33, 48, 49]. Studies we found that have included teenage participants in developing
their measurements [49, 50] were either focused outside of privacy concerns – focused
instead on privacy management – and still used privacy concerns scales developed with
adults [49] or focused outside our specific context of social media platforms but on
privacy practices more generally [50].
 5

Summatively, this collection of literature shows that across a wide plethora of stud-
ies on privacy concerns, either as a general concept [8, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30–32, 45–
47] or within the context of specific systems [29, 34, 36–44, 51], there is a tendency
to apply scales designed with adult populations in the assessment of teenage popula-
tions. We highlight this misalignment in design because, despite the similarities be-
tween adults and teenagers, there are, as we reviewed in the Introduction, ultimately
key differences between the two populations with regards to privacy concerns and cor-
responding privacy needs. The unique complexity of teens’ emotional and social lives
[52], and their heightened motivations to maintain social connectedness [50], means
teens have a considerably different online experience than those of adults with different
motivations to use social media [53], privacy behaviors [54], and conceptions [55].
Relatedly, prior works point to the need to be cautious when applying a privacy scale
that was developed in one country to explore other countries considering the effect dif-
ferent cultural experiences can have on privacy perceptions [56, 57]. Similarly, we
argue that the differences between the online experiences of teens and adults require
the development of unique privacy scales.

3 Future Work

This preliminary paper examines how privacy concerns are currently defined, meas-
ured, and applied within general and platform-specific contexts. While there is exten-
sive literature in this area, existing conceptualizations and scales, both generally and
applied to a social media context, focus on the concerns of adult populations. Even
scales used in the examination of teenage populations are either direct imports or adap-
tations of scales originally designed for adult populations, potentially neglecting factors
unique to teenage privacy concerns [30, 31, 45]. In many ways, this quantitative cen-
tering of adults’ perspectives in measuring privacy concerns, both generally and within
social media platforms, mirrors the aforementioned critiques surrounding the exclusion
of the teenage perspective in online platforms’ privacy designs. The effect of this short-
coming is the potential failure to assess social media platforms for how they address
unique teenage privacy concerns [33, 34, 48], which, in turn, prevents the implementa-
tion of designs that address these concerns, and ultimately may lead to the continuation
of population-specific risks teens are facing that adults might be failing to consider [33,
34, 48].
Our future research will seek to address this exclusion of teens’ perspectives in ex-
isting quantitative measures of privacy concerns within a social media context. It will,
to that end, be split into two parts: first, we will systematically review qualitative studies
that explore teenage users’ online privacy concerns in ways that the current quantitative
approaches examined in this paper do not, focusing on social media as the context. We
will systematically collect and review these studies to identify both privacy concerns
that overlap with the adult-centered quantitative scales, and privacy concerns that are
unique to teen populations. Second, we will utilize our findings to develop a teen-cen-
tered scale specifically designed to measure the unique set of teenage privacy concerns
and ultimately evaluate the extent to which the privacy features of the social media
6

platforms they interact with address these concerns. This scale will build on the
strengths of existing qualitative works that center the teenage perspective in ways the
current adult-centered measurements do not, and potentially enable the collection of
potentially thousands of teen users’ perspectives in ways that are generalizable to large,
diverse populations. This will ultimately enable designers to make thoroughly informed
teen-centered decisions in their designs, bridging the current gap between teens’ pri-
vacy needs and adult-centered privacy features on social media platforms.

4 Conclusion

Despite their unique privacy experience, teenage users are often neglected in the pri-
vacy designs of online platforms, partly due to a lack of consideration from designers.
While there is a growing call for a more teen-centered approach in online privacy de-
sign, most studies in this area have been qualitative investigations. This preliminary
poster investigates the role quantitative methods could play in the investigation of teen-
agers’ privacy concerns, specifically in the context of social media platforms. It con-
cludes: (1) the privacy concerns scale is a viable tool for understanding teenage privacy
concerns at scale, but (2) existing scales are either entirely imported or otherwise
closely adapted from scales designed with adult users, potentially failing to adequately
address teenagers’ unique privacy concerns. Such proves that there is work to be com-
pleted before we properly begin pursuing our overarching goal of developing a scale
tailored toward measuring the unique privacy concerns of teenagers. However, we hope
these efforts will further progress towards teen-centered design on social media plat-
forms and empower teenage users to negotiate the privacy risks present in their virtual
space autonomously.

5 Acknowledgements

This project was conducted as part of the iSchool Inclusion Institute (i3), generously
funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. We would like to thank Pamela
Wisniewski for her insights and the i3 leadership team for their extraordinary guidance.

References
1. Ayalon, O., Toch, E.: Evaluating users’ perceptions about a system’s privacy: Differentiat-
ing social and institutional aspects. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Symposium on Usable
Privacy and Security. pp. 41–59. USENIX Association, Santa Clara, CA, USA (2019).
2. Wong, R.Y., Mulligan, D.K.: Bringing design to the privacy table: Broadening “design” in
“privacy by design” through the lens of HCI. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–17. ACM, Glasgow Scotland Uk (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300492.
3. Balebako, R., Marsh, A., Lin, J., Hong, J., Cranor, L.F.: The privacy and security behaviors
of smartphone app developers. In: Proceedings 2014 Workshop on Usable Security. Internet
Society, San Diego, CA (2014). https://doi.org/10.14722/usec.2014.23006.
 7

4. Hadar, I., Hasson, T., Ayalon, O., Toch, E., Birnhack, M., Sherman, S., Balissa, A.: Privacy
by designers: Software developers’ privacy mindset. Empir. Softw. Eng. 23, 259–289
(2018). https://doig.org/10.1007/s10664-017-9517-1.
5. Bamberger, K.A., Mulligan, D.K.: Privacy on the books and on the ground. Stanford Law
Rev. 63, 247–315 (2011).
6. Bechmann, A.: Non-Informed consent cultures: Privacy policies and app contracts on Face-
book. J. Media Bus. Stud. 11, 21–38 (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2014.11073574.
7. Ekambaranathan, A., Zhao, J., Van Kleek, M.: “Money makes the world go around”: Iden-
tifying barriers to better privacy in children’s apps from developers’ perspectives. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–15.
ACM, Yokohama Japan (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445599.
8. Earp, J.B., Anton, A.I., Aiman-Smith, L., Stufflebeam, W.H.: Examining internet privacy
policies within the context of user privacy values. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 52, 227–237
(2005). https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2005.844927.
9. Felt, A.P., Egelman, S., Wagner, D.: I’ve got 99 problems, but vibration ain’t one: A survey
of smartphone users’ concerns. In: SPSM ’12: Proceedings of the second ACM workshop
on Security and privacy in smartphones and mobile devices. pp. 33–44. ACM, Raleigh North
Carolina USA (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/2381934.2381943.
10. Poikela, M., Toch, E.: Understanding the valuation of location privacy: A crowdsourcing-
based approach. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences. pp. 1985–1994. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International,
Waikoloa Village, Hawaii, USA (2017). https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.241.
11. Vogels, E.A., Gelles-Watnick, R., Massarat, N.: Teens, social media and technology 2022.
Pew Research Center (2022).
12. McClain, C., Vogels, E.A., Perrin, A., Sechopoulos, S., Rainie, L.: The internet and the pan-
demic. Pew Research Center (2021).
13. Wisniewski, P.: The privacy paradox of adolescent online safety: A matter of risk prevention
or risk resilience? IEEE Secur. Priv. 16, 86–90 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2018.1870874.
14. Youn, S.: Determinants of online privacy concern and its influence on privacy protection
behaviors among young adolescents. J. Consum. Aff. 43, 389–418 (2009).
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2009.01146.x.
15. Ghosh, A.K., Badillo-Urquiola, K., Guha, S., LaViola Jr, J.J., Wisniewski, P.J.: Safety vs.
surveillance: What children have to say about mobile apps for parental control. In: Proceed-
ings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–14. ACM,
Montreal QC Canada (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173698.
16. Paat, Y.-F., Markham, C.: Digital crime, trauma, and abuse: Internet safety and cyber risks
for adolescents and emerging adults in the 21st century. Soc. Work Ment. Health. 19, 18–40
(2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/15332985.2020.1845281.
17. Baumgartner, S.E., Valkenburg, P.M., Peter, J.: Unwanted online sexual solicitation and
risky sexual online behavior across the lifespan. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 31, 439–447 (2010).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.07.005.
18. Ashktorab, Z., Vitak, J.: Designing cyberbullying mitigation and prevention solutions
through participatory design with teenagers. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 3895–3905. ACM, San Jose California USA
(2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858548.
8

19. Yarosh, S., Markopoulos, P.: Design of an instrument for the evaluation of communication
technologies with children. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interac-
tion Design and Children - IDC ’10. pp. 266–269. ACM, Barcelona, Spain (2010).
https://doi.org/10.1145/1810543.1810587.
20. McNally, B., Kumar, P., Hordatt, C., Mauriello, M.L., Naik, S., Norooz, L., Shorter, A.,
Golub, E., Druin, A.: Co-designing mobile online safety applications with children. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–9.
ACM, Montreal QC Canada (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174097.
21. Badillo-Urquiola, K., Smriti, D., McNally, B., Bonsignore, E., Golub, E., Wisniewski, P.:
Co-designing with children to address “stranger danger” on musical.ly. In: 14th Symposium
on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2018). pp. 1–6. USENIX Association, Baltimore,
MD, USA (2018).
22. Smith, H.J., Milberg, S.J., Burke, S.J.: Information privacy: Measuring individuals’ con-
cerns about organizational practices. MIS Q. 20, 167–196 (1996).
https://doi.org/10.2307/249477.
23. Stewart, K.A., Segars, A.H.: An empirical examination of the concern for information pri-
vacy instrument. Inf. Syst. Res. 13, 36–49 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.1.36.97.
24. Dinev, T., Hart, P.: Internet privacy concerns and their antecedents - Measurement validity
and a regression model. Behav. Inf. Technol. 23, 413–422 (2004).
https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290410001715723.
25. Dinev, T., Hart, P.: Privacy concerns and levels of information exchange: An empirical in-
vestigation of intended e-services use. E-Serv. J. 4, 25–60 (2006).
https://doi.org/10.2979/esj.2006.4.3.25.
26. Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S., Agarwal, J.: Internet users’ information privacy concerns
(IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inf. Syst. Res. 15, 336–355 (2004).
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0032.
27. Hong, W., Thong, J.Y.L.: Internet privacy concerns: An integrated conceptualization and
four empirical studies. MIS Q. 37, 275–298 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.1.12.
28. Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, J., Hart, P.: Information privacy concerns: Linking individual per-
ceptions with institutional privacy assurances. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 12, 798–824 (2011).
https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00281.
29. Dinev, T., Xu, H., Smith, J.H., Hart, P.: Information privacy and correlates: An empirical
attempt to bridge and distinguish privacy-related concepts. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22, 295–316
(2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.23.
30. Youn, S., Hall, K.: Gender and online privacy among teens: Risk perception, privacy con-
cerns, and protection behaviors. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 11, 763–765 (2008).
https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0240.
31. Feng, Y., Xie, W.: Teens’ concern for privacy when using social networking sites: An anal-
ysis of socialization agents and relationships with privacy-protecting behaviors. Comput.
Hum. Behav. 33, 153–162 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.009.
32. Steinbart, P., Keith, M.J., Babb, J.S.: Measuring privacy concerns and the right to be forgot-
ten. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. pp.
4967–4976., Waikoloa Village, Hawaii, USA (2017).
https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.603.
33. Phelps, J., Nowak, G., Ferrell, E.: Privacy concerns and consumer willingness to provide
personal information. J. Public Policy Mark. 19, 27–41 (2000).
https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.19.1.27.16941.
 9

34. Xu, H., Teo, H.-H., Tan, B.C.Y., Agarwal, R.: The role of push-pull technology in privacy
calculus: The case of location-based services. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 26, 135–173 (2009).
https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260305.
35. Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tractinsky, N., Saarinen, L.: Consumer trust in an internet store: A cross-
cultural validation. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 5, (1999). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-
6101.1999.tb00337.x.
36. Metzger, M.J.: Privacy, trust, and disclosure: Exploring barriers to electronic commerce. J.
Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 9, (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00292.x.
37. Suh, H., Shahriaree, N., Hekler, E.B., Kientz, J.A.: Developing and validating the user bur-
den scale: A tool for assessing user burden in computing systems. In: Proceedings of the
2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 3988–3999. ACM, San
Jose Calfornia USA (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858448.
38. Knijnenburg, B.P., Kobsa, A.: Making decisions about privacy: Information disclosure in
context-aware recommender systems. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 3, 1–23 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.1145/2499670.
39. Kobsa, A., Cho, H., Knijnenburg, B.P.: The effect of personalization provider characteristics
on privacy attitudes and behaviors: An elaboration likelihood model approach. J. Assoc. Inf.
Sci. Technol. 67, 2587–2606 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23629.
40. Stutzman, F.: An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities.
(2006).
41. Young, A.L., Quan-Haase, A.: Privacy protection strategies on Facebook: The internet pri-
vacy paradox revisited. Inf. Commun. Soc. 16, 479–500 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.777757.
42. Krasnova, H., Spiekermann, S., Koroleva, K., Hildebrand, T.: Online social networks: Why
we disclose. J. Inf. Technol. 25, 109–125 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2010.6.
43. Mohamed, N., Ahmad, I.H.: Information privacy concerns, antecedents and privacy measure
use in social networking sites: Evidence from Malaysia. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 2366–
2375 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.008.
44. Vitak, J.: The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. J.
Broadcast. Electron. Media. 56, 451–470 (2012).
https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.732140.
45. De Wolf, R.: Contextualizing how teens manage personal and interpersonal privacy on so-
cial media. New Media Soc. 22, 1058–1075 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819876570.
46. Dinev, T., Hart, P.: An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Inf.
Syst. Res. 17, 61–80 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0080.
47. Harris, M.M., Hoye, G.V., Lievens, F.: Privacy and attitudes towards internet-based selec-
tion systems: A cross-cultural comparison. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 11, 230–236 (2003).
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00246.
48. Stutzman, F., Kramer-Duffield, J.: Friends only: Examining a privacy-enhancing behavior
in facebook. In: CHI ’10: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems. pp. 1553–1562. ACM, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (2010).
https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753559.
49. De Wolf, R., Willaert, K., Pierson, J.: Managing privacy boundaries together: Exploring
individual and group privacy management strategies in Facebook. Comput. Hum. Behav.
35, 444–454 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.010.
50. Santer, N.D., Manago, A., Starks, A., Reich, S.M.: Early adolescents’ perspectives on digital
privacy. Algorithmic Rights Prot. Child. (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1162/ba67f642.646d0673.
10

51. Xu, H.: The effects of self-construal and perceived control on privacy concerns. In: ICIS
2007 Proceedings. pp. 1–14. AIS, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (2007).
52. Livingstone, S.: Developing social media literacy: How children learn to interpret risky op-
portunities on social network sites. Communications. 39, 283–303 (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2014-0113.
53. Fitton, D., Bell, B., Read, J.C., Iversen, O., Little, L., Horton, M.: Understanding teen UX:
Building a bridge to the future. In: CHI EA ’14: CHI ’14 Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 79–82. ACM, Toronto Ontario Canada (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2559232.
54. Blank, G., Bolsover, G., Dubois, E.: A new privacy paradox: Young people and privacy on
social network sites. In: Annual Meeting of the American Socilogical Association. pp.1–33.,
San Fransisco, California, USA (2014). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2479938.
55. Steijn, W.M.P., Vedder, A.H.: Privacy under construction: A developmental perspective on
privacy perception. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values. 40, 615–637 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915571167.
56. Bellman, S., Johnson, E.J., Kobrin, S.J., Lohse, G.L.: International differences in infor-
mation privacy concerns: A global survey of consumers. Inf. Soc. 20, 313–324 (2004).
https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490507956.
57. Li, Y., Ghaiumy Anaraky, R., Knijnenburg, B.: How not to measure social network privacy:
A cross-country investigation. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, 1–32 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3449218.