Privacy regulation theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Introduction:
2 Five properties of Privacy Regulation Theory:
3 Contribution and implication of Altman’s privacy regulation theory:
4 Application the privacy regulation theory:
5 Reference:

[edit] Introduction:

Privacy regulation theory was developed by social psychologist Irwin Altman in 1975 (1975, 1977). This theory aims to explain why people sometimes prefer stating along but sometimes like get involved in social interactions. Traditionally, privacy is regarded as a state of social withdrawal (i.e., avoiding people) (Palen & Dourish, 2003). Altman (1975), however, regards it as a dialectic and dynamic boundary regulation process where privacy is not static but “a selective control of access to the self or to one’s group” (p.18). According to Altman, “dialectic” refers to the openness and closeness of self to others (i.e., seeking and avoiding social interaction); while “dynamics” indicates that the desired privacy level (i.e., the ideal level of contact at a particular time), which varies due to individual and cultural differences, continuously moves along the continuum of openness and closeness in response to different circumstances over time. In other words, the desired privacy level changes with time according to environment. Therefore, we might want to avoid people at a particular time but desire contact at another time.

Altman (1975) also believes the goal of privacy regulation is to achieve the optimum level of privacy (i.e., the ideal level of social interaction). In this optimizing process, we all strive to match the achieved privacy (i.e. the actual level of contact at a specific time) with the desired one. At the optimum level of privacy, we can experience the desired solitude when we want to be alone or enjoy the desired social contact when we want to be with people. However, if our actual level of privacy is greater than the desired one, we will feel lonely or isolated; on the other hand, if our actual level of privacy is smaller than the desired one, we will feel annoyed or crowded (Kaya & Weber, 2003). According to Altman (1975), if we effectively control the openness and closedness of self to others (i.e., make ourselves more or less available to others) in response to our desire and the environment, we can function better in society than those who cannot. In order to regulate our privacy (i.e., social interaction) successfully, we need to use a variety of behavioral mechanisms such as verbal, paraverbal and non-verbal behavior, environmental mechanisms of territoriality and personal space, etc (Altman, 1975). By combining these behavioral mechanisms (i.e., techniques), we can effectively express our desired privacy level to others in order to achieve the optimum level of privacy.

[edit] Five properties of Privacy Regulation Theory:

According to Altman, here are five properties in his theory.

[edit] 1. Temporal dynamic process of interpersonal boundary

First, Altman states that privacy is a temporal dynamic process of interpersonal boundary. That is a process that we regulate interactions with others, we changed how open or closed we are in response to changes in our internal states and external conditions.

[edit] 2. Desired and actual levels of privacy

Second, Altman differentiates desired and actual levels of privacy. Desired level of privacyis the amount required for serving a person’s needs and role requirement. Actual level refers the amount of privacy that a person achieves.

[edit] 3. Non-monotonic function of privacy

Third, privacy is described as a non-monotonic function. More privacy is not necessarily better. A person seeks an optimal level of privacy (i.e. desired level equals to actual level).There are possibilities of too much or too little privacy. When there is too much privacy (actual > desired level), a person may engage in crowding. On the other hand, when there is too little privacy (desired > actual level), a person may prefer social isolation. The goal of privacy regulation is to obtain the optimal level.

[edit] 4. Bi-directional nature of privacy

Fourth, privacy is bi-directional, involving inputs from others (e.g., noise) and outputs to others (e.g., oral communication).

[edit] 5. Two levels of privacy

Last, privacy can be analyzed at two different levels. One refers to an individual’s privacy, the other is a group’s privacy.

[edit] Contribution and implication of Altman’s privacy regulation theory:

Privacy regulation theory contributed a new perspective on human-environment interaction using spatial behavior technique to regulate social interaction. Altman proposed a new perspective in understand privacy in terms of multiple unit level (individual vs group; ingroup and outgroup; self vs others; across time and condition etc.) and its operating mechanism. (Marguilis, 2003) It is a dynamic analysis over how people regulate social interaction.

The theory challenged our traditional belief on “privacy” which was rather personal. He proposed that it was intrinsically a social process. It was a psychological process involved people’s interaction, their social world and environment. It stimulated researchers to think about self disclosure and the privacy regulation like Petronio’s (2002) study on communication privacy management. In addition, privacy was culturally defined and the behavior was influenced by its context. Altman’s theory stimulated more researches on privacy across different settings such as living area, schools, hospitals, prisons, public areas, residential home, banks etc. and across different ages.

[edit] Application the privacy regulation theory:

Although Altman (1995) proposed privacy regulation theory well before the cyber age, recent studies have applied the theory to suggest new ways for thinking about privacy in sociotechnical environments (1). With information technology, privacy extended from physical space to virtual space. Privacy management is a dynamic mechanism of balance between boundaries as the context changes. The virtual space created new context. For example, teenagers' use of instant messaging over the internet (IM) in their homes. Teenagers report preferring IM to contact with friends rather than the family phone because IM does not advertise to parents that they are engaged in conversation with others. (1) Perhaps at times, parents would not discourage or even prohibit such conversations. IM creates a virtual space for the teenagers to advertise their publicity and availability to their friends, at the same time in a physical space of the home, they can stay away from intrusion or monitoring of parents. On the other hand, the teenagers may prefer communication using family phone or face-to-face conversation with family members. To explain in Altman’s terms, by dialectic principle, the teenagers’ desire for privacy varies in different contexts; and by optimization principle, the teenagers try to match their desired and actual levels of contact with different people, in virtual or physical space in different contexts. They engage in different activities to socially isolate or engage themselves by different means in different space to seek for desired level of privacy.

[edit] Reference:

Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Altman, I. (1977). Privacy regulation: culturally universal or culturally specific? Journal of Social Issues, 33 (3), 66-84.

Kaya, N., & Weber, M. J. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in the perception of crowding and privacy regulation: American and Turkish students. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 301-309.

Margulis, S.T. (2003). On the status and contribution of Westin’s and Altman’s Theories of Privacy. Journal of Social Issues, 59 (2), 411-429.

Palen, L. and Dourish, P. "Unpacking 'Privacy' for a Networked World." Proceedings of CHI'03, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 2003

Palen, L., & Dourish, P. (2003). Unpacking “privacy” for a networked world. CHI 2003, 5 (1), 129-136.

Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.

Vinsel, A., Brown, B. B., Altman, I., & Foss, C. (1980). Privacy regulation, territorial displays, and effectiveness of individual functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (6), 1104-1115.

http://altman.socialpsychology.org/