Information Disclosure and Control on Facebook: Are They Two Sides of the Same Coin or Two Different Processes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facebook, the popular social network site, is changing the nature of privacy and the consequences of information disclosure. Despite recent media reports regarding the negative consequences of disclosing information on social network sites such as Facebook, students are generally thought to be unconcerned about the potential costs of this disclosure. The current study explored undergraduate students' information disclosure and information control on Facebook and the personality factors that influence levels of disclosure and control. Participants in this online survey were 343 undergraduate students who were current users of Facebook. Results indicated that participants perceived that they disclosed more information about themselves on Facebook than in general, but participants also reported that information control and privacy were important to them. Participants were very likely to have posted information such as their birthday and e-mail address, and almost all had joined an online network. They were also very likely to post pictures such as a profile picture, pictures with friends, and even pictures at parties and drinking with friends. Contrary to expectations, information disclosure and information control were not significantly negatively correlated, and multiple regression analyses revealed that while disclosure was significantly predicted by the need for popularity, levels of trust and self-esteem predicted information control. Therefore, disclosure and control on Facebook are not as closely related as expected but rather are different processes that are affected by different aspects of personality. Implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".