| Literature DB >> 29882801 |
George Oppong Appiagyei Ampong1, Aseda Mensah2, Adolph Sedem Yaw Adu3, John Agyekum Addae4, Osaretin Kayode Omoregie5, Kwame Simpe Ofori6.
Abstract
Social media and other web 2.0 tools have provided users with the platform to interact with and also disclose personal information to not only their friends and acquaintances but also relative strangers with unprecedented ease. This has enhanced the ability of people to share more about themselves, their families, and their friends through a variety of media including text, photo, and video, thus developing and sustaining social and business relationships. The purpose of the paper is to identify the factors that predict self-disclosure on social networking sites from the perspective of privacy and flow. Data was collected from 452 students in three leading universities in Ghana and analyzed with Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Modeling. Results from the study revealed that privacy risk was the most significant predictor. We also found privacy awareness, privacy concerns, and privacy invasion experience to be significant predictors of self-disclosure. Interaction and perceived control were found to have significant effect on self-disclosure. In all, the model accounted for 54.6 percent of the variance in self-disclosure. The implications and limitations of the current study are discussed, and directions for future research proposed.Entities:
Keywords: Ghana; flow; privacy concerns; self-disclosure; social networking sites; structural equation modeling
Year: 2018 PMID: 29882801 PMCID: PMC6027239 DOI: 10.3390/bs8060058
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Behav Sci (Basel) ISSN: 2076-328X
Profile of respondents.
| Profile | Measurements | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Male | 209 | 46.2 |
| Female | 243 | 53.8 | |
|
| <18 | 102 | 22.6 |
| 18–24 | 153 | 33.8 | |
| 25–30 | 119 | 26.3 | |
| 31–40 | 78 | 17.3 | |
|
| Undergraduate | 297 | 65.7 |
| Postgraduate | 155 | 34.3 | |
|
| Friends only | 131 | 29.0 |
| Friends and their friends | 103 | 22.8 | |
| Public | 160 | 35.4 | |
| Don’t know | 58 | 12.8 | |
|
| Several times a day | 167 | 37.0 |
| Once a day | 115 | 25.4 | |
| Once a week | 76 | 16.8 | |
| Bi-weekly | 51 | 11.3 | |
| Once a month | 43 | 9.5 | |
|
|
Results of reliability and convergent validity testing.
| Constructs | Items | Loadings | T-Statistics | α | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attention Focus | FAT1 | 0.823 | 32.920 | 0.854 | 0.901 | 0.696 |
| FAT2 | 0.852 | 44.494 | ||||
| FAT3 | 0.849 | 37.710 | ||||
| FAT4 | 0.811 | 31.753 | ||||
| Interaction | FINT1 | 0.798 | 24.015 | 0.835 | 0.886 | 0.660 |
| FINT2 | 0.802 | 23.698 | ||||
| FINT3 | 0.782 | 16.034 | ||||
| FINT4 | 0.864 | 35.422 | ||||
| Privacy Awareness | PA1 | 0.763 | 30.056 | 0.888 | 0.915 | 0.641 |
| PA2 | 0.827 | 44.898 | ||||
| PA3 | 0.848 | 50.696 | ||||
| PA4 | 0.806 | 36.577 | ||||
| PA5 | 0.781 | 24.422 | ||||
| PA6 | 0.775 | 29.747 | ||||
| Privacy Concerns | PC1 | 0.920 | 109.744 | 0.953 | 0.964 | 0.843 |
| PC2 | 0.937 | 147.906 | ||||
| PC3 | 0.932 | 150.543 | ||||
| PC4 | 0.898 | 61.087 | ||||
| PC5 | 0.903 | 85.809 | ||||
| Perceived Control | PCL1 | 0.875 | 26.003 | 0.875 | 0.922 | 0.797 |
| PCL2 | 0.923 | 49.418 | ||||
| PCL3 | 0.879 | 29.125 | ||||
| Privacy Invasion Experience | PIE1 | 0.962 | 223.840 | 0.918 | 0.960 | 0.924 |
| PIE2 | 0.960 | 183.550 | ||||
| Self-Disclosure | SD1 | 0.874 | 73.241 | 0.891 | 0.924 | 0.754 |
| SD2 | 0.875 | 66.567 | ||||
| SD3 | 0.889 | 78.196 | ||||
| SD4 | 0.833 | 45.000 | ||||
| Privacy Risk | PR1 | 0.953 | 150.569 | 0.955 | 0.971 | 0.918 |
| PR2 | 0.960 | 219.202 | ||||
| PR3 | 0.961 | 230.820 | ||||
| Tie Strength | TS1 | 0.885 | 57.270 | 0.847 | 0.907 | 0.765 |
| TS2 | 0.851 | 34.363 | ||||
| TS3 | 0.888 | 51.252 |
Test of discriminant validity using Fornell-Larcker Criterion.
| FAT | FINT | PCL | PA | PC | PIE | PR | SD | TS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FAT | 0.834 | ||||||||
| INT | 0.614 | 0.812 | |||||||
| PCL | 0.303 | 0.238 | 0.893 | ||||||
| PA | 0.210 | 0.195 | 0.160 | 0.801 | |||||
| PC | 0.016 | 0.051 | −0.002 | −0.206 | 0.918 | ||||
| PIE | −0.007 | −0.005 | 0.070 | −0.204 | 0.256 | 0.961 | |||
| PR | −0.002 | −0.033 | −0.062 | −0.134 | 0.239 | 0.201 | 0.958 | ||
| SD | 0.273 | 0.251 | 0.166 | 0.466 | −0.385 | −0.393 | −0.495 | 0.868 | |
| TS | 0.385 | 0.364 | 0.235 | 0.283 | −0.040 | 0.006 | −0.040 | 0.275 | 0.875 |
Note: Square roots of average variance extracted (AVEs) shown on diagonal while off-diagonals are inter-construct correlations.
Test of discriminant validity using the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) ratios.
| FAT | FINT | PCL | PA | PC | PIE | PR | SD | TS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FAT | |||||||||
| FINT | 0.721 | ||||||||
| PCL | 0.357 | 0.276 | |||||||
| PA | 0.238 | 0.223 | 0.178 | ||||||
| PC | 0.036 | 0.068 | 0.040 | 0.224 | |||||
| PIE | 0.061 | 0.043 | 0.080 | 0.225 | 0.273 | ||||
| PR | 0.040 | 0.077 | 0.068 | 0.147 | 0.248 | 0.215 | |||
| SD | 0.312 | 0.267 | 0.182 | 0.523 | 0.414 | 0.435 | 0.536 | ||
| TS | 0.451 | 0.425 | 0.271 | 0.322 | 0.050 | 0.020 | 0.048 | 0.313 |
Path coefficients and their significance.
| Hypotheses | Hypothesized Path | Path Coefficient | T-Statistics | Result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | FAT → SD | 0.123 | 2.736 | 0.006 | Supported |
| H2 | FINT → SD | 0.078 | 1.849 | 0.064 | Not Supported |
| H3 | PCL → SD | 0.040 | 1.292 | 0.197 | Not Supported |
| H4 | PA → SD | 0.259 | 6.543 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H5 | PC → SD | −0.190 | 6.100 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H6 | PIE → SD | −0.221 | 6.378 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H7 | PR → SD | −0.361 | 12.162 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H8 | TS → SD | 0.096 | 2.900 | 0.004 | Supported |
| Model Fit | |||||
| SRMR | 0.044 | ||||
| R-Squared | 0.546 | ||||
Figure 1Structural model. *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 ns—not significant.