Communications public disclosure

COMMUNICATION PRIVACY MANAGEMENT THEORY (CPM)
Communication Theory

Communication Privacy Management Theory, priory known as the Boundary Management Theory, is a knowledgeable communication scheme that was first introduced by Sandra Petronio. Through the transformation of the boundary theory to the current CPM theory Petronio found an underlying difference that made it more understandable when describing it to an audience. Petronio primarily focuses on interpreting the whole concept of disclosure in the CPM Theory. Furthermore, Communication Privacy Management Theory states the main focus as the processes in which people employ to determine when and how to choose to conceal or reveal private information about oneself or others (Berger, 1975). Petronio believed that people define private information as personal insight to their own self that has changed them or has significant meaning in some way to them. Since this information is guarded, people will not share it with others unless they feel comfortable with the person they are sharing it with. In order to reveal or hold information this theory then looks into the dialectic in which privacy and openness within various relationship models happens. Thus backing up how a relationship can be managed with either public or private boundaries. CPM relies on the boundary symbol to emphasize the clear line between public and private information. It further supports the idea that when people share private information with someone else, they are overstepping the line that splits public and private information to create a relationship. Since Communication Privacy Management Theory has been developed over a long period of time, many theorists had taken the opportunity to address and test this theory to see if their data can back up Petronio’s theory. A key strength in the CPM is that it can be seen in a great amount of research that theorists have done to back up the definition on modeling ones relationship through concealing and disclosing content. This is a logical- empirical theory that is tested through observations between different communication relationship models. This theory is often touched upon when discussing family dynamics, the gender gap, and disclosure of STD/ other diseases statuses, etc. Petronio (2010), the founder of the Communication Privacy Management Theory, proposed a study in which she observed the interactions between families and their privacy regulations between one another and external groups. This supports the boundary management system in CPM in regulating what personal information goes to an outside source. Aside from keeping family issues private from the public, there is also the Privacy Management Theory with in the family where in the interior family, members pick a certain person in which they disclose information to about an incident and exclude other family members from it (Petronio, 2010, p. 40). Looking into the CPM theory it argues that families are the clearest example in showing the orientation to privacy. Through Petronio’s observational studies when looking at what information regulates in the family, Petronio can conclude that there is just as much boundary turbulence as starting an intimate relationship. Petronio found that the older one gets in a family, like a child to a teenage, the dynamics of disclosure between family members change frequently (Petronio, 2010, p. 48). Ultimately what Petronio wanted to get out of this study is CPM is the blue prints to establish and fix privacy issues with in families and finding the pathway in which families navigate through private disclosure and what rules are there to uphold in the family that directs the way public and private information amongst the family are exposed. Jennifer Gibbs (2010) conducted a nation wide empirical qualitative study that explores relationships between privacy concerns, uncertainty reduction behaviors and self -disclosure amongst online dating participates. In doing so she contrasted the amount of knowledge a person had with Internet experience and privacy concerns with the amount of disclosure one gives in a new relationship. The Communication Privacy Management Theory is known as the means to which people in relational situations manage how and what they disclose to people, usually in a face to face setting. Gibbs thought that it would be necessary to see if self- disclosure has the same effect when meeting someone new on an online dating website. Since there is no face- to- face interaction or the initial judgment on your physical appearance in an online dating website, would self-disclosure be more relaxing? Before stating the results it is important to take note on how online dating works. When one creates a profile of them selves they have a picture, their name, age, possibly a current occupation and a little bio about themselves. Gibbs believes that online dating emphasizes the “show, don’t tell rule” and how your bio page can either verify who you are in a creative way or make you sound uninteresting. Gibbs found that in this study people who were more expressive and objectively verified their information when talking to another on online or extending further information, like a phone number or email, tended to form relationships faster and more on a personal level (Gibbs, 2010, p. 75). A difference Gibbs saw when observing the amount of self- disclosure one gave in the online dating chat room vs. face- to- face communication is you already have an extensive about of personal information already out there, minimizing the chance for boundary management and concealing information. One issue though is that it raises uncertainty to the actual self- presentation of a profile. Gibb’s results supported her hypothesis that there is a correlation between self- disclosure and online dating. She found that Communication Privacy Management Theory is important because it enables individuals to confirm the identity claims they make, setting the stage for self- disclosure and for a relationship development to occur (Gibbs, 2010, p. 89). It can be justified that not only is Communication Privacy Management theory a face- to- face interaction but is also a computer-to-computer communication as well. Hui (2007) performed an exploratory experiment/ observational study in Singapore that looks at privacy statements and privacy seals. In doing so they created a website were people were given the instructions to fill out a basic questionnaire about themselves. Hui was investigating how much information each person was willing to give out on the Internet about him or her. This study wanted to know how much positive information would people self- disclose when taking a survey on the Internet. It was noted that that surveys online have a negative influence on disclosure (Hui, 2007, p. 19). When disclosing information about oneself it is often so you can form relationships with another individual. Hui wasn’t looking at how people disclose information to create a relationship, but more so how much information are people comfortable saying on an internet survey. When making a transaction online you have to fill out a form of where you live, your debt card number, phone number and email address. People have no problem disclosing pretty personal information about the means of where they live or how to get in touch with them for just buying something online, so why is it that people are skeptical about what to conceal and disclose on the internet when asked to take a survey? Hui for this study sent an email to 600 students at Singapore University to complete this survey. Only 137 people went on the experimental survey website and only 109 completed it. This clearly shows how powerful the CPM theory plays in everyone’s life because it shows how people were uncertain about even looking at the survey. One is always a bit skeptical about relaying information about them selves out in the open. Hui went back over the study and modified and sent it out again. This time is had a privacy statement on the website survey further assuring that their information will be private. Having this privacy statement on it influenced the amount of people who took the survey to disclose more personal information about them. Through the eye of a CPM theorist one would agree that people who know that their personal information is going to be kept safe are more incline to step over the boundary line that separates public and private to expose more about them selves. Hui’s study concluded using privacy reassurance in online serveries and showing how devising can raise customer disclosure better offers (Hui, 2007, p. 29). Online behavior vs. interpersonal behavior change the dynamics in how self- disclosure is done. This article is important to understand that disclosure is also in play when you are not trying to form a relationship, but are giving out information to another form of a source. When looking into this theory, one can automatically think to a time where they reserved information from a person whom they just met. When meeting someone new for the first time, you censor yourself and are conscious on what information you are giving out to the person. As a child, we were taught the core meaning of having manners and respecting oneself and others. These simple lessons were the underling components of CPM. A perfect example of the CPM theory is looking at how new college students interact with their peers. Think back to when you met your roommate for the first time, or joining a fraternity or sorority and even a club on campus. All of these social scenes use the structure of the CPM theory to reveal or keep private information. This goes back to what Petronio believes we do, regarding making relationships through censoring what is private and what can be public information. Having said that, imagine you are going to rush a fraternity or sorority. You don’t really know too many people in each specific chapter so when you walk into the room you immediately put up a front. This is only natural because you are still seeing whither or not you will feel comfortable enough to express your true opinions on their questions they ask you. When talking to another person, one tends to feel like they have ownership of their private information from others, which shows the process of this management theory as dialogue between two peoples progression to a relationship. If you mutually have the same opinions about a topic then you tend to reveal a little bit more of your other opinions because of the common ground you have already established. When meeting new people, such as meeting different sororities and fraternities you look for the common interests to model a relationship and to then further pave the way for other connections to develop as a system of practice for privacy management between your peers. To further emphasize how Communication Privacy Management Theory relates to all aspects of our life, another great example to look at is the usage of this theory in mass media commercials. Marketing correlates perfectly with CPM when looking at what information is being shown clearly to the audience, and what information is not being present. When flipping through the channels you are bombarded with advertisement after advertisement. Lets take a look at a hair dye commercial. Typically in a hair commercial you have an actor, often an attractive model with voluptuous hair, walking around swaying their hair back and forth and looking like they are having the time of their life. In this commercial the spokes man is telling you how many shades lighter it will make your hair and how it is the “natural look”. What the commercial doesn’t tell you is that it might affect the hair color differently in some people then what it looks like on the commercial. This commercial revealed the positive effects of this hair dye, having a natural lighter hair, however it self-contained the information that hair dye effects different styles of hair differently. This commercial, along with others, portrays how the CPM theory is focusing on the act of sharing and paying close attention to the content of the message, and how others might perceive it. Both examples illustrate Petronio’s theory stating that it is in the long run left up to the CPM system to combine the rules of information (privacy and exposing), the amount of disclosure expressed to one and the boundaries you take when making relationships. To make a clear distinction between CPM and its differences and similarities to other theories, let us compare our joining a fraternity or sorority example to another abstract theory. Uncertainty Reduction Theory, developed by Charles Berger, is a perfect theory to project its meaning onto this example. Uncertainty Reduction Theory looks at the initial interactions between two people. The primary goal is to reduce the level of uncertainty in the situation. According to the theory, people find uncertainty in interpersonal relationships unpleasant and are motivated to reduce it through interpersonal communication (Berger, 1975). The key concept to get out of this theory is that no person wants uncertainty when meeting someone new so it is almost motivational for people to communicate and to create a dialogue to diminish it. URT has three stages showing how you deal with the amount of information you give a person when speaking to them for the first time. There is the entry stage, personal stage in relation and exit stage in relation (Berger, 1975). When going to fraternity and sorority rush event you are brought into a room filled with people that you are not too familiar with. To reduce the uncomforableness and chance of any awkward encounters what any person does is engage in small talk. This is known as the entry stage. Typically this stage is followed by social norms and general rules. This is when you share general information about yourself like, your age, social status or occupation. This stage is meant to talk through surface information so you can slowly ease your way in interacting with the other person to create comfortableness. There is still concealed information that isn’t disclosed in this stage. The personal stage is much more interactive. It is when you start revealing your beliefs and values to the person. The communication between the two is less restrictive and freer to talk about other topics that can be personal. Back to our example, the second stage in the URT can be shown when you are in a certain fraternity or sorority chapter room and you feel more comfortable talking with the people that you are trying to impress. Despite the initial awkwardness of meeting someone new that guard is now slowly fading and you are now having a friendly conversation. The last stage, exit stage, the people communicating decides on future plans with one another. This is a way for the relationship to grow and establish a deeper meaning over time. If the person in the fraternity or sorority and you were giving off good connections during the time you were talking, there would be a positive outlook on advancing into the next stage in becoming a member of the organization. Uncertainty Reduction Theory shows active and passive strategies certain communication conversations can uphold. The example above is further emphasizing the importance of lowering uncertainty through active communication and getting to know the person’s interests and personality to form a relationship. Both Communication Privacy Management Theory and Uncertainty Reduction Theory support the general concept that in order to create a model relationship with a person you have to reduce the level of uncertainty through knowing what public information about yourself you want to employ to the person and what personal information you want to keep confidential until further notice. Both look at the means of communication within a relationship and how and when it is necessary to relay information about your self to others. The Uncertainty Reduction Theory progresses to highlight Communication Privacy Management Theory to show that CPM is the main scheme when describing the relationship model and boundary systems in newly relational interactions. It is additionally supporting Petronio when she constructed the grounds in how a typical relationship forms based on cultural norms, attitudes, and private and public information. It is important to understand the main concept of CPM theory as; an individual’s private information is solei protected by the individual’s boundaries. Thus the dynamics of sharing public or private information with a person is balanced all on the notion of boundary management. Communication Privacy Management Theory has been an ongoing study by theorists trying to find the flaws in the theory. A major critique against this theory states that CPM is not a dialectic theory but is more of a way of thinking were privacy and public disclosure are thought of together. Petronio agrees to a certain extent with this critique however, is still adamant that there is no actual consistent balance between privacy and public information when forming relationships. In the research articles stated above, Privacy Management Theory can be tested and backed up. Family dynamics and gender roles in communication have been observed to understand the CPM. To further support this theory, by proposing an observational study on the effects of speed dating and self- disclosure can supplementary back up the theory’s thesis on people sharing information to make relationships. By exploiting the understanding between the speed dating dynamics can conclude CPM’s theory. In conclusion, Petronio makes this theory plausible through her studies that privacy management identifies boundary systems that are created among individuals who show a sense of control over disclosed and concealed information when trying to establish a relationship with another person.

References:

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Theory, 1, 99-112

Gibbs, J. (2010). Frist comes love, then comes google: an investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self- disclosure in online dating . Communication Research, 38(1), 70- 100.
Retrieved from https://www.msu.edu/~nellison/GibbsEllisonLai_2011_FirstComesLove.pdf

Hui, K. (2007). The value of privacy assurance: an exploratory field experiment. Mis Quarterly , 31(1), 19-33.
Retrieved from http://ihome.ust.hk/~klhui/research/2007-MISQ.pdf Petronio, S. (2010). Communication privacy management theory: what do we know about family privacy regulation?. Journal of Family Theory , 2(3), 175- 196.
Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00052.x/abstract;jsessionid=5EE1064B67987CCFE8685AED3681E34C.f03t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

References: Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Theory, 1, 99-112 Gibbs, J. (2010). Frist comes love, then comes google: an investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self- disclosure in online dating . Communication Research, 38(1), 70- 100. Retrieved from https://www.msu.edu/~nellison/GibbsEllisonLai_2011_FirstComesLove.pdf Hui, K. (2007). The value of privacy assurance: an exploratory field experiment. Mis Quarterly , 31(1), 19-33. Retrieved from http://ihome.ust.hk/~klhui/research/2007-MISQ.pdf Petronio, S. (2010). Communication privacy management theory: what do we know about family privacy regulation?. Journal of Family Theory , 2(3), 175- 196. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00052.x/abstract;jsessionid=5EE1064B67987CCFE8685AED3681E34C.f03t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false