International Conference on Web-Age Information Management

WAIM 2015: Web-Age Information Management pp 100-112 | Cite as

Information Revelation for Better or Worse Recommendation: Understanding Chinese Users’ Privacy Attitudes and Practices

  • Tiffany Y. TangEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9391)


The performance of a Recommendation System (RS) is mainly determined by how well it ‘understands’ its users: how much information it is able to trace and obtain. The former is largely depended on the algorithmic designs of the recommendation which have been explored for over a decade, while the former is more and more determined by the data owners—the users. In this paper, we presented our study on understanding Chinese users’ information revelation attitudes and practices which has not been fully explored in both the recommendation and online privacy research fields. Specifically, unlike the majority of previous studies that revealed users’ self-disclosure practices and attitudes in SNSs, our study is the first and only an initial investigation into the two aspects of the personal information disclosure and sharing: the differences of personal information shared by and with different types of audiences. Our study revealed that among the five types of recipient’s, students placed the least trust on Advertisers, among four other groups as Close Friends and Family, University Community, Friends on the Social Networking Sites, and Complete (online) Strangers. Overall, students feel more comfortable actively sharing personal information with the types of audiences than being shared by these audiences of their personal details.


Disclosure Recommendation system Privacy attitude Privacy practice 


  1. Akerlof, G.A.: The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 84(3), 488–500 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acquisti, A.: Privacy in electronic commerce and the economics of immediate gratification. In: Proceedings of ACM EC 2004, pp. 21–29. ACM Press (2004)Google Scholar
  3. Acquisti, A., Gross, R.: Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the facebook. In: Danezis, G., Golle, P. (eds.) PET 2006. LNCS, vol. 4258, pp. 36–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Acquisti, A., Grossklags, J.: Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Secur. Priv. 3(1), 26–33 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Acquisti, A., Grossklags, J.: What can behavioral economics teach us about privacy? In: Alessandro Acquisti, S.G.C.L., De Capitani di Vimercati, S. (ed.) Digital Privacy: Theory, Technologies and Practices, pp. 363–377 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. Acquisti, A., John, L., Loewenstein, G.: What is privacy worth? Technical Report, CMU (2009)Google Scholar
  7. Asai, A., Barnlund, D.C.: Boundaries of the unconscious, private, and public self in japanese and americans: a cross-cultural comparison. Int. J. Intercultural Relat. 22(4), 431–452 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnes, S.B.: A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday 11 (2006). Accessed 18 May 2015
  9. Chen, G.-M.: Differences in self-disclosure patterns among Americans Versus Chinese: a comparative study. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 26(1), 84–91 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cronbach, L.: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16, 297–334 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fogel, J., Nehmad, E.: Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25(1), 153–160 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Govani, T., Pashley, H.: Student awareness of the privacy implications when using Facebook. Carnegie Mellon (2005). Accessed 18 May 2015
  13. Gross, R., Acquisti A.: Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In: ACM Workshop on privacy in the Electronic Society, Alexandria, VA, pp. 71–80 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., Christakis, N.: The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. 14(1), 79–100 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Livingstone, S.: Children’s privacy online: Experimenting with boundaries within and beyond the family. In: Kraut, R., Brynin, M., Kiesler, S. (eds.) Computers, Phones, and the Internet: Domesticating Information Technology, pp. 128–144. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)Google Scholar
  16. Lin, J., Benisch, M., Sadeh, N., Niu, J., Hong, J., Lu, B., Guo, S.: A comparative study of location-sharing privacy preferences in the United States and China. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 17(4), 697–711 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marwick, A.E., Boyd, D.: I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media Soc. 13(1), 114–133 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McMahon, J.M., Cohen, R.: Lost in cyberspace: Ethical decision making in the online environment. Ethics Inf. Technol. 11(1), 1–17 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moll, R., Pieschl, S, Bromme, R.: Competent or clueless? Users’ knowledge and misconceptions about their online privacy management. In: Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 41, pp. 212–219 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. Norberg, P.A., Horne, D.R., Horne, D.A.: The privacy paradox: personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. J. Consum. Aff. 41(1), 100–126 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Solove, D.J.: Privacy self-management and the consent dilemma. 126. Harvard Law Review 1880 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. Stein, L., Sinha, N.: New global media and communication policy: the role of the state in twenty-first century. In: Lievrouw, L., Livingstone, S. (eds.) Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs, pp. 410–431. Sage, London (2002)Google Scholar
  23. Stutzman, F., Capra, R., Thompson, J.: Factors mediating disclosure in social network sites. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(1), 590–598 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Taddicken, M.: The ‘privacy paradox’ in the social web: the impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance on different forms of self-disclosure. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 19(2), 248–273 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tencent: Investor Relations - Financial Releases (2015). Accessed 18 May 2015
  26. Thelwall, M.: Social networks, gender, and friending: an analysis of myspace member profiles. JASIST 59, 1321–1330 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tufekci, Z.: Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 28(1), 20–36 (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ur, B., Wang, Y.: A Cross-cultural framework for protecting user privacy in online social media. In: Proceedings of the WWW 2013, pp. 755–762 (2013)Google Scholar
  29. Utz, S., Kramer, N.: The privacy paradox on social network sites revisited: The role of individual characteristics and group norms. Cyberpsychology: J. Psychosoc. Res. Cyberspace 3(2), 2 (2009)Google Scholar
  30. Wang, Y., Norice, G., Cranor, L.F.: Who is concerned about what? a study of american, chinese and indian users’ privacy concerns on social network sites. In: McCune, J.M., Balacheff, B., Perrig, A., Sadeghi, A.-R., Sasse, A., Beres, Y. (eds.) Trust 2011. LNCS, vol. 6740, pp. 146–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wathieu, L., Friedman, A.: An Empirical Approach to Understanding Privacy Valuation. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2005) (2005)Google Scholar
  32. Yoo, S.J., Huang, W.-H.D.: Comparison of Web 2.0 technology acceptance level based on cultural differences. ET 14(4), 241–252 (2011)Google Scholar
  33. Zhao, C., Jiang, G.: Cultural differences on visual self-presentation through social networking site profile images. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2011 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Media Lab, Department of Computer ScienceWenzhou-Kean UniversityWenzhouChina

Personalised recommendations