Frampton, B.D., & Kind, J.T. (2013). Friend or disfriend: Facebook friend requests from employees as an application of communications privacy management theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2257-2264. doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.006 A person`s private information is protected by their boundaries. The permeability of these boundaries is constantly changing, allowing parts of the public to access certain information belonging to the individual. Sharing private information is a risky decision and puts the owner of the information in a vulnerable position. Therefore, rules around borders must be negotiated to protect shared information. [6] Once personal information is shared, co-owners must coordinate the boundaries of privacy and disclosure based on border permeability, border linkage and border ownership. [7] Petronio describes this mutual border coordination by the co-owners as drawing the same boundaries on a map around a common piece of information.
[8] This process is not easy, as each owner looks at information from different angles and uses their personal criteria to develop privacy rules. The theory of managing the confidentiality of communications uses a tradition of sociocultural communication in an interpersonal context and uses both a positivist and interpretive approach to knowledge. [55] Finally, the coordinated use of meaning explains how people set rules for the creation and interpretation of meaning. Like CPM, coordinated management means that management involves phases in which coordination is achieved, not or partially achieved. Similarly, you can have boundary property, boundary turbulence, or boundary binding. Moreover, to make sense, there must be an exchange of information between individuals in order to decipher it. This exchange of private information is the direct responsibility of CPM. Trust in health care providers is an important factor in determining whether a patient wants to disclose personal health information. In a health context, race can be a key factor in whether or not a patient trusts health professionals, and race can influence the evolution of privacy rules between an individual and a physician. [37] Links between the limits of privacy: alliances between a disclosure and recipients Petronio`s theory of managing the confidentiality of communications (CPM) is based on Altman`s dialectical conception of privacy protection as a process of opening and closing a boundary for others. [1] Altman and Taylor`s theory of social penetration focused on self-revelation as the primary means of establishing close relationships.
However, openness is only part of the story. We also have a desire for privacy. When Petronio first developed this theory in 1991, it was called Communication Boundary Management. In 2002, she renamed it Communication Privacy Management, emphasizing private disclosure as the main thrust of theory. Border turbulence can be caused by mistakes, such as when an unsolicited party eavesdrops on private information (resulting in a weak demarcation link) or a disclosure that an owner might make under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. The disclosure to a new party was not intentional, but when it happens, other co-owners may feel that their expectations of respecting the boundaries have been violated. Conceptualization of control over personal information: Privacy rules are based on Altman talks about the values of this theory because it guides our thinking by involving different “levels” or combinations of participants in communication processes (Altman 2002). While previous research and theories on privacy disclosure have focused on dyads or individuals, an extremely complicated dynamic has been carefully formulated by Petronio. Petronio also describes communication within families and between family members and outsiders, inside and outside work and social groups, and between many combinations of individuals, dyads, and other people within and across social boundaries. In addition, their analysis of “turbulence” or violations of desired communication patterns is articulated and systematic.
[11] [56] [57] Pregnancy loss due to miscarriage may be a unique case of CPG in the home environment, as couples often manage this information together when deciding whether or not to share the miscarriage with people outside the dyad. Research has found that couples view miscarriage as a common but distinct experience, and that both members exercise property rights over the information. Couples` confidentiality rules focused on issues of social support and the need for others to be informed of the loss.