This document summarizes a study examining factors associated with users making their Facebook profiles only visible to friends. The study analyzed survey responses from 444 Facebook users. Models tested included demographic factors, rule development around disclosure to ties, boundary coordination of expected audiences, and boundary turbulence from privacy management experiences. The boundary coordination model found expectancy violations from weak ties increased odds of a friends-only profile. The boundary turbulence model found more privacy management led to friends-only profiles. The models provide insights into the dynamic process of boundary regulation on social networks.

1. Friends Only:Examining a Privacy-Enhancing Behavior in FacebookFred Stutzman and Jacob Kramer-Duffield, UNC

2. Changes in SNS adoption landscapeSource: Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2009, 2010

3. Changes in SNS landscapeSource: Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2009, 2010

4. Changes in FacebookTerms ofservicechangeOpen toregionalnetworksOpen toselectworkplacesOpen to most collegesEnd ofregionalnetworksPublicprofilesBeaconNews FeedintroducedFacebookat Harvard2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

5. Changes in Facebook

7. Implications of ChangeShift from common identity to common bonde.g. Ren, Kraut & Kiesler, 2007; Sassenberg, 2002Uses, flows of social capital and social supporte.g. Lampe et al. 2008Management of disclosureboundaries and contexts

8. Managing ContextsPresence of multiple social groupsBehavioral strategiesMental strategies“Least common denominator”Source:Lampinen et al., 2009

9. Context TensionConnections across status and power boundariesPropriety, work, familyHarms from crossed boundariesInadvertent disclosures across contextsSource:Skeels and Grudin, 2009

10. Putting Context in ContextFriendster“Burners, gay men, and bloggers”MyspaceTeens and mirror profilesTwitterPractical obscuritySource: boyd, 2006, 2007, Stutzman and Hartzog, 2009

11. Going Friends-OnlyMoving profile from network-viewable to viewable only by FriendsImplications:Searching, browsing and findingNetworked information contribution, appsPerson perception, relational formation

12. Going Friends-OnlyPublicly available information: Name, city, gender, photo, list of friends, fan pages, networks, friends list (temporarily)

13. Going Friends-OnlyUse Privacy Settings: 83.2%Friends-only: 58.3%2005: 5% (+/-1), 2006: 12% (+/- 1), 2007: 23% (+/- 4), 2008: 58% (+/- 5)

14. Going Friends-OnlyRQ: What factors are associated with having a friends-only profile?Boundary regulation theories of privacyAltman, Derlega and ChaikinApplied in HCI, Social ComputingPalen and Dourish, Tufekci, DwyerApplied in Organizations (Allen et al.), Education (Mazer et al.), Communication (Petronio, Child et al.)OthersSelf

15. Petronio’s CPMProcess of Communication Privacy ManagementRule DevelopmentWho gets to know whatBoundary coordinationApplying rules-in-contextBoundary turbulenceReacting to events, managingand regulating rulesSource:Petronio, 2003

16. Study DesignWeb-based surveyPilot test, n=76Full survey, June 2008, n=494Response Analysis94% of respondents usedFacebookAnalytical sample, n=444Males, minorities, youngerstudents under-representedAnalysis is unweighted, FPCnot applied

17. Analytic PlanRQ: What factors are associated with having a friends-only profile?DV: Having a friends only profileModelsNull and demographic baselinesRule developmentBoundary coordinationBoundary turbulenceEvaluationWithin comparison likelihood ratio testBetween comparison with AIC, BIC, ROC

18. Baseline ModelDemographic factorsSchool year, gender, ethnicityFacebook use factorsNumber of friends, length of membership, time spent on site

19. Rule DevelopmentWho do you tell what?H1: Strong ties = inward-focusedH2: Random ties = outside-focusede.g.Strahilevitz, 2005EvaluationNo items, blocks significantProblems: Lack of variation due to normative orientation in friending practices; InstrumentationScale: Lampe et al., 2006, 2008; Ellison et al. 2007

20. Boundary CoordinationCoordinating permeability rulesFriends can know my gossipPeople around campus shouldn’tSalient audiencesIntended audienceExpected audience

21. Boundary CoordinationExploring the effects of “expectancy violations”Violations effects codedAnalyzed simultaneouslyEvaluationWeak tie expectancy violations result in 3.31 increase in odds of beingfriends-onlyThe meaningful externalboundary?

22. Boundary TurbulenceMaintenance and (re)negotiation of disclosure boundariesPredictorsConversant privacy scaleAdvised someone to change FB profile/picture…Wall management scaleRemoved wall post (self/other)CovariatesGender, profile management effortAlphas: Conversant: .69, Wall: .73, Effort: .79

23. Boundary TurbulenceExploring effects of interpersonal privacy managementAnalyzed simultaneouslyEvaluationIndividuals who engage inhigher amounts of conversant management morelikely to have friends-only profileGender, effort not significant

24. Model ComparisonCompare predictive strength of the modelsNon-nested comparisons employ AIC, BIC, ROC, etc.All models represent incremental improvements

25. GoalsExplore the process of going friends-onlyApply theories of boundary regulation, and Communications Privacy Management, in SNS contextIdentify and prioritize models for further exploration

26. ImplicationsDynamic identification of functional network boundaryOpportunity to create non-reciprocal communication interfacesIncrease opportunities for collaboration around privacy settings

27. Thank you!Fred StutzmanFred.stutzman@unc.eduhttp://twitter.com/fstutzmanJacob Kramer-Duffieldjkramerd@gmail.comhttp://twitter.com/jaykaydee