Jump to content

Communication privacy management theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yutingmissdelphi (talk | contribs) at 23:57, 16 November 2014 (→Boundary coordination). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Communication privacy management (CPM), originally known as communication boundary management, is a theory about how people make decisions about revealing and concealing private information. It is firstly developed by Sandra Petronio in 1991.

Petronio uses a boundary metaphor to explain the privacy management process. Privacy boundaries draw divisions between private information and public information. This theory argues that when people disclose private information, they depend on a rule-based management system to control the level of accessibility. An individual’s privacy boundary governs his or her self-disclosures. Once a disclosure is made, the negotiation of privacy rules between the two parties is required. A distressing sense of “boundary turbulence” can arise when clashing expectations for privacy management are identified. Having a mental image of protective boundaries is central to understanding the five core principles of Petronio’s CPM:

  1. People believe they own and have a right to control their private information.
  2. People control their private information through the use of personal privacy rules.
  3. When others are told or given access to a person’s private information,they become co-owners of that information.
  4. Co-owners of private information need to negotiate mutually agreeable privacy rules about telling others.
  5. When co-owners of private information don’t effectively negotiate and follow mutually held privacy rules, boundary turbulence is the likely result.

Background

Petronio’s communication privacy management (CPM) theory is built on Altman’s dialectical conception of privacy as a process of opening and closing a boundary to others[1]. Altman and Taylor’s Social Penetration Theory focused on self-disclosure as the primary way to develop close relationships. However, openness is only part of the story. We also have a desire for privacy. When Petronio first developed this theory in 1991, it was call Communication Boundary Management. In 2002 she renamed it as Communication Privacy Management, underscoring private disclosure is the main thrust of the theory.

Theory Elements

Private information

The content of concealing and revealing is private information. Petronio favored the term "private information" over the term "self disclosure" because there are many caveats inherent to private information disclosure that are not present with self disclosure.[2]Firstly, the motivations behind sharing are many, including but not limited to sharing a burden, righting a wrong, and influencing others.[3]Secondly, very often the private information that is shared is not about oneself but about others, thus negating the use of the term "self disclosure". Furthermore, "private information" carries a neutral implication to it, allowing such information to be considered both positive or negative, welcome or unwelcome, etc. Finally, the term focuses on the act of sharing, paying close attention to the content of the message and how this is received by others.[4]The decision to share is ultimately left up to the process of the privacy rule management system which combine rules for coordination of information, characteristics of disclosure, and attributes of the nature of boundaries.

Private Boundaries

To understand CPM theory it is important to follow the metaphor of the boundary. Private boundaries are the division between private information and public information.[5]When private information is shared, there will be a collective boundary. When private information remains with an individual and is not disclosed, the boundary is called a personal boundary. An individual’s private information is protected by the individual’s boundaries. The permeability of these boundaries are ever changing. Boundaries can be relatively permeable (easy to cross) or relatively impregnable (rigid and difficult to cross).

Control and Ownership

Communication Privacy Management theory understands information (as well as boundaries) as something that is owned, and each owner must decide whether or not they are willing to have a confidant, i.e. a co-owner, to that information. In some cases it is preferable for the owner to have another person share the private information, though this may not be the case for the confidant. Co-ownership of information is characterized by heavy responsibility and a knowledge of the rules for a particular disclosure. Ownership can be felt to different degrees, however, and the understanding of disclosure rules can be different from owner to owner. Also, the act of sharing is coupled along with the realization that boundaries have expanded and that they may never return to their original state. It is the responsibility of co-owners to decide and make clear if, when, and how information can or should be shared with others.[6]

Management Dialectics

Petronio's understanding and argument of privacy management rests on the idea that a dialectic exists wherever the decision is made to disclose or conceal private information. Thus, costs and benefits must be weighed and consideration must be given to how such information will be owned, used, and spread.[7] The definition of dialectic that Petronio borrows from can be found in Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery's theory of Relational Dialectics, wherein various approaches to the contradictory impulses of relational life are discussed. The theory focuses on the idea that there are not only two contradictory stances within a relationship, but that at any given moment decisions are weighed using multiple viewpoints.[8]

Rule-Based Management System

Petronio views boundary management as a rule based process, not an individual decision. This rule-based management system allows for management on the individual and collective levels. This system depends on three privacy rule management to regulate the process of revealing and concealing private information: privacy rule characteristics, boundary coordination, and boundary turbulence.

Privacy rule characteristics

The characteristics of privacy rules are divided into two sections, attributes and development. Privacy rule attributes refer to how people obtain rules of privacy and understand the properties of those rules.[9] This is normally done through social interactions where the boundaries for rules are put to the test. Rules are set in different social situations which dictate the type of disclosure that should be made, for example, the difference between disclosure at a family member's birthday party versus an office event at work. Petronio asserts that each situation will come with its own set of rules for managing privacy that are learned over time. The development of privacy rule characteristics has to do with the criteria implemented to decide if and how information will be shared.[10] Communication privacy management theory general lists those criteria as the following:

Decision Criteria

Definition

Example

Cultural criteria Disclosure depends on the norms for privacy and openness in a given culture. The United States favors more openness in relational communication than does Japan
Gendered criteria Privacy boundaries are sculpted differently by men and women based on socialization, which leads to difference in how rules are understood and operated in American women are socialized to be more disclosive than men
Contextual criteria Shaped by issues of physical and social environments that factor in whether or not information will be shared If we’re in a traumatic situation (e.g., we’ve survived an earthquake together), we’ll develop new rules
Motivational criteria Owners of information can form certain bonds that lead to disclosure, or conversely the express interest in forming bonds may cause private information to be shared. Motivations for sharing can include reciprocity or self-clarification. If you have disclosed a great deal to me, out of reciprocity, I might be motivated to disclose to you
Risk-benefit criteria Owners of private information evaluate risks relative to the benefits of disclosure or maintaining information private. Our rules are influenced by our assessment of the ratio of risks to benefits of disclosing

With these five criteria, personal and group privacy rules are developed, but disclosure of private information necessitates the inclusion of others within the boundary of knowledge, which demands an understanding between parties for how to coordinate ownership of knowledge.

Boundary coordination

An individual’s private information is protected by the individual’s boundaries. The permeability of these boundaries are ever changing, and allow certain parts of the public, access to certain pieces of information belonging to the individual. Once private information is shared, co-owners must coordinate the boundaries of privacy and disclosure based on boundary permeability, boundary linkage, and boundary ownership.[9] Petronio describes this mutual boundary coordination by co-owners as drawing the same borders on a map around a shared piece of information.[10] By no means is this an easy process considering that each owner will approach the information from distinct viewpoints and referencing their personal criteria for privacy rule development.

  • Boundary permeability''' refers to the nature of the invisible divisions that keep private information from being known outside of an individual or particular group. When private information is kept with one owner, the boundaries are said to be thick because there is less possibility for information to make its way out into the public sphere. Once information is shared to one or more persons, the boundaries for that private information expand, become more permeable, and are considered thin.[11]
  • Boundary linkage''' has to do with how owners are connected when they build associations through a boundary. For example, doctors and patients are linked to each other in such a way that private information is passed within their boundaries constantly. These linkages can be strong or weak depending on how information was shared or whether a co-owner wanted to know or was prepared to learn a new piece of information. Case in point, the link between an organization and a spy meant to infiltrate the organization is weak because the two are not coordinated on how information will be maintained private or disclosed.[12]
  • Boundary ownership refers to the responsibilities and rights each person has over the control of the spread of information that they own. When working to mutually create the boundary of privacy it is key for all parties to have a clear understanding of whether information should be shared, who it should be shared with, and when it should be shared.[9] A simple example of this is the planning of a surprise birthday party; all those involved in planning must agree on how the information about the party will be spread so as not to ruin the surprise. As new guests are invited, they become an owner of the information and are bound to the rules of privacy maintenance, or else the surprise could be ruined.

Boundary turbulence

Unfortunately, often boundaries are not coordinated as well as they should be to maintain the level of privacy or exposure desired by owners – this leads to problems known as boundary turbulence. Turbulence among co-owners is caused when rules are not mutually understood by co-owners and when the management of private information comes into conflict with the expectations each owner had,[13] which can happen for a number of reasons. As mentioned previously, the coordination of shared boundaries is key to avoiding over-sharing, when the boundaries are unclear owners may come into conflict with one another. Boundary turbulence can also be caused by mistakes, such as an uninvited party overhearing private information (causing weak boundary linkage) or a disclosure an owner might make under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. Disclosure to a new party was not the intent, but when it happens other co-owners can feel that their expectations of maintaining boundaries have been violated. Finally, boundary turbulence occurs when a co-owner intentionally breaks the coordinated boundary of privacy to disclose private information.[14] An example of such intentional disclosure would be a daughter revealing to a doctor that her father is indeed an active smoker when the father has told the doctor that he no longer smokes after his heart surgery. The daughter in this case must weigh the risks of breaking the family privacy boundary against the benefits of the doctor being better informed of her father's condition. In cases of boundary turbulence, co-owners of information can feel that their expectations have been violated and lose trust in other co-owners. In these cases, the goal of each party is to reduce turbulence by reestablishing and coordinating boundaries.[15][14]

Theory Applications

Communication Privacy Management can be applied across different contexts, primarily include: (1) family communication, with a particular focus on parental privacy invasions, (2) online social media, (3) health, and (4) relational issues.[16] 

Family communication

Specific applications of CPM highlight family privacy management. Research focused on secrets and topic avoidance, such as questions of concealment to stepfamily members feeling caught, and parents-adolescent conversations about sex.[17] Family privacy research over the decades are also inspired specifically by the chapter of parental privacy invasion. For example, work by Hawk and his colleagues explore perceived parental invasions from the view of adolescents in reaction to such issues as control attempts, solicitation of information, and conflict outcomes.[18]

Online Social Media

Recent researchers apply CPM to investigate privacy management for online blogging, Facebook usage and online dating. Further, there have been investigations into parental behavior that is enacted through online social media. Privacy practices in social network sites often appear paradoxical, as content-sharing behavior stands in conflict with the need to reduce disclosure-related harms. Some study explore privacy in social network sites as a contextual information practice, managed by a process of boundary regulation.[19]  

Health Communication

Informed by principles of CPM, health communication research using CPM to explore health privacy issues has become a growth area. Earlier study investigated physician disclosure of medical mistakes. Recently there have been a number of studies focused on ways that privacy issues influence patient care, confidentiality and control over ownership, choices about disclosure, for instance, with stigma health-related illness such as HIV/AIDS , about e-health information, and the digitization of healthcare.

Relational Issues

There are many studies that have used CPM as a theoretical lens to explore relational issues.Briefly, work on conflict and topic avoidance, considering the relational impact of privacy turbulence , students and faculty relatioships, and workplace relationships have all produced useful information that opens new doors regarding CPM-based research.

Critique

Values

Since Communication Privacy Management Theory has been developing over time, the theorist has had the opportunity to address critiques of the theory. One critique argues that CPM is not a dialectic theory at all when compared to the theory of Relational Dialectics(1996), but rather that it is based on dualistic thinking where privacy and disclosure exist together in equilibrium. Petronio responded to these critiques in her 2002 article arguing that "Instead, [CPM] argues for coordination with others that does not advocate an optimum balance between disclosure and privacy.[13]" [20][21][14][22][23][24]

Criticism

Some researchers have questioned whether CPM Theory truly is dialectical in nature. It has argued that CPM takes a dualistic approach, treating privacy and disclosure as independent of one another and able to coexist in tandem rather than in the dynamic interplay characteristic of dialectics. This accusation of dualistic thinking might result from the theory's use of the terms balance and equilibrium in the early versions of CPM Theory. Petronio argues that CPM is not focused on balance in the psychological sense. "Instead, [CPM] argues for coordination with others that does not advocate an optimum balance between disclosure and privacy. As an alternative, the theory claims there are shifting forces with a range of privacy and disclosure that people handle by making judgments about the degrees [emphasis in original] of privacy and publicness they wish to experience in any given interaction" (pp. 12–13). Thus, Petronio argues that it is legitimate to call CPM Theory dialectical in nature.

References

  1. ^ "Communication Privacy Management in Electronic Commerce". 2001. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  3. ^ Petronio, S. (1991). Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of managing disclosure of private information between married couples. Communication Theory, 1, 311–335.
  4. ^ Petronio, S. (2007). Translational Research Endeavors and the Practices of Communication Privacy Management. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 218-222.
  5. ^ Petronio, S., Ellmers, N., Giles, H., Gallois, C. (1998). (Mis)communicating across boundaries: Interpersonal and intergroup considerations. Communication Research, 25, 571–595.
  6. ^ Petronio, S., & Durham, W.T. (2008). Communication privacy management theory. In L.A. Baxter & D.O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 309-322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  7. ^ Petronio, S., & Reierson, J. (2009). Regulating the Privacy of Confidentiality: Grasping the Complexities through Communication Privacy Management Theory. Uncertainty, Information Management, and Disclosure Decisions: Theories and Applications. 365–383.
  8. ^ Baxter, L.A., & Montgomery, B. (1996). Relating Dialogues and dialectics: New York: Guilford Press.
  9. ^ a b c Petronio, S. (1991). Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of managing disclosure of private information between married couples. Communication Theory, 1, 311–335.
  10. ^ a b Petronio, S. (2007). Translational Research Endeavors and the Practices of Communication Privacy Management. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 218-222.
  11. ^ Petronio, S., & Durham, W.T. (2008). Communication privacy management theory. In L.A. Baxter & D.O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 309-322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  12. ^ Caughlin, J.P., & Afifi, T.D. (2004). When is topic avoidance unsatisfying? Examining moderators of the association between avoidance and dissatisfaction. Human Communication Research, 30, 479–513.
  13. ^ a b Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  14. ^ a b c Afifi, T. D. (2003). “Feeling caught” in stepfamilies: managing boundary turbulence through appropriate communication privacy rules. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 729–755.
  15. ^ Petronio, S., Ellmers, N., Giles, H., Gallois, C. (1998). (Mis)communicating across boundaries: Interpersonal and intergroup considerations. Communication Research, 25, 571–595.
  16. ^ "Brief Status Report on Communication Privacy Management Theory". Journal of Family Communication. 2013.
  17. ^ Afifi, T.D. (2003). "'Feeling caught' in stepfamilies: Managing boundary turbulence through appropriate communication privacy rules". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
  18. ^ Petronio, Sandra (2013). "Brief Status Report on Communication Privacy Management Theory". Journal of Family Communication.
  19. ^ Fred Stutzman, Jacob Kramer-Duffield (2010 April). "Friends Only: Examining a Privacy-Enhancing Behavior in Facebook". {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  20. ^ Petronio, S., & Martin, J.N. (1986). Ramifications of revealing private information: A gender gap. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 499–506.
  21. ^ Petronio, S. Martin, J.N., & Littlefield, R. (1984). Prerequisite conditions for self-disclosing: A gender issue. Communication Monographs, 51, 268–273.
  22. ^ Caughlin, J.P., & Petronio, S. (2004). Privacy in families. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 379–412). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
  23. ^ Cline, R.J. & McKenzie, N.J. (2000), Dilemmas of disclosure in the age of HIV/AIDS: Balancing privacy and protection in the health care context. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 71–82). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
  24. ^ Petronio, S., Reeder, H.M., Hecht, M.L., & Rose-Mendoza, T. M. (1996). Disclosure of sexual abuse by children and adolescents. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 24, 181–199.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communication_privacy_management_theory&oldid=634148009"