Communication Management Privacy

An interpretive theory in the tradition of socio-cultural and cybernetic

Theorist: Sandra Petronio

She cares about privacy in interpersonal communication, rather than self-disclosure.

1. Principle 1: People believe that we have privacy and we are obliged to care for that information.

We set boundaries about our own privacy.

For example, in health, we need to close this information, which will impact our life, and we set the boundary, because of the liability.

2. Principle 2: People control their private information through the use of personal privacy rules.

So we understand others’ privacy through their rules.

The rules could be influenced by:

• culture
• gender: e.g., women were supposed to share more information than men. Also, both genders tend to share more information with women.
• motivation
• context: context is more influential. Because when you talk to someone, that determines whether or not to talk about privacy.
• risk/benefit ratio

3. Principle 3: When others are told or discover a person’s private information, they become co-owners of that information

4. Principle 4: Co-owners of private information need to negotiate mutually agreeable privacy rules

Boundary ownership - the right and responsibilities that co-owners of private information have to control the spread of that information.

Boundary linkage - the process in which a confidant is linked to the privacy boundary of the person who revealed the information

Boundary permeability - how fluid the boundaries around the private information area

5. Principle 5: When co-owners of private information don’t effectively negotiate and follow jointly held privacy rules, boundary turbulence is the likely result

Boundary turbulence: The disruption in the way the co-owners share private information.

The forms:

• Fuzzy boundaries.
• Intentional breaches.
• Mistakes

6. Critiques

• Lacks aesthetic appeal
• How boundaries are created - no explanation

Media Multiplexity Theory

A more objective theory in the cybernetic and socio-psychological tradition

This is a theory that describes strong ties, weak ties, and bridge ties.

• Strong ties use more media channels than weak ties, to continue.
• Bridging ties allows information to pass to weak ties.

1. Tie strength is positively associated with media multiplexity

2. Communication content differs by strength, not by the medium

e.g., maybe you share the same content with a kind of tie, even in multiple mediums

Affordances: the medium can enable/constrain certain actions.

3. The strength and media cause one another over time

When they come closer, they add more mediums.

And when they add more mediums, they come closer.

4. Changes in the media landscape particularly influence weak ties

For strong ties, even if you lose one medium, you still have multiple mediums.

5. Groups have hierarchies of media use expectations

F2F Meeting -> Email -> Social Media -> Text

It depends on the group norm, and social norm.

6. Critiques

• Chicken and Egg: which comes first? - the relationship and multiple media use
• Struggle to predict future events