IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jftint/v12y2020i12p211-d451722.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Perceptions on Social Media Use in Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Philip Nyblom

    (Department of Information Security and Communication Technology, Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, NTNU–Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2815 Gjøvik, Norway
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Gaute Wangen

    (IT Division, Digital Security Section, NTNU–Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2815 Gjøvik, Norway
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Vasileios Gkioulos

    (Department of Information Security and Communication Technology, Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, NTNU–Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2815 Gjøvik, Norway)

Abstract

Social media are getting more and more ingrained into everybody’s lives. With people’s more substantial presence on social media, threat actors exploit the platforms and the information that people share there to deploy and execute various types of attacks. This paper focuses on the Norwegian population, exploring how people perceive risks arising from the use of social media, focusing on the analysis of specific indicators such as age, sexes and differences among the users of distinct social media platforms. For data collection, a questionnaire was structured and deployed towards the users of multiple social media platforms (total n = 329). The analysis compares risk perceptions of using the social media platforms Facebook (n = 288), Twitter (n = 134), Reddit (n = 189) and Snapchat (n = 267). Furthermore, the paper analyses the differences between the sexes and between the digital natives and non-natives. Our sample also includes sufferers of ID theft (n = 50). We analyse how account compromise occurs and how suffering ID theft changes behaviour and perception. The results show significant discrepancies in the risk perception among the social media platform users across the examined indicators, but also explicit variations on how this affects the associated usage patterns. Based on the results, we propose a generic risk ranking of social media platforms, activities, sharing and a threat model for SoMe users. The results show the lack of a unified perception of risk on social media, indicating the need for targeted security awareness enhancement mechanisms focusing on this topic.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip Nyblom & Gaute Wangen & Vasileios Gkioulos, 2020. "Risk Perceptions on Social Media Use in Norway," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-40, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:12:y:2020:i:12:p:211-:d:451722
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/12/12/211/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/12/12/211/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura Studen & Victor Tiberius, 2020. "Social Media, Quo Vadis? Prospective Development and Implications," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-22, August.
    2. Vasileios Gkioulos & Gaute Wangen & Sokratis K. Katsikas, 2017. "User Modelling Validation over the Security Awareness of Digital Natives," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-16, July.
    3. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    4. Per E. Gustafsod, 1998. "Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological erspectives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 805-811, December.
    5. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abdulelah A. Alghamdi & Margaret Plunkett, 2021. "The Perceived Impact of Social Networking Sites and Apps on the Social Capital of Saudi Postgraduate Students: A Case Study," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-23, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vicki S. Freimuth & Amelia Jamison & Gregory Hancock & Donald Musa & Karen Hilyard & Sandra Crouse Quinn, 2017. "The Role of Risk Perception in Flu Vaccine Behavior among African‐American and White Adults in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2150-2163, November.
    2. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    3. Connor, Melanie & de Guia, Annalyn H. & Quilloy, Reianne & Van Nguyen, Hung & Gummert, Martin & Sander, Bjoern Ole, 2020. "When climate change is not psychologically distant – Factors influencing the acceptance of sustainable farming practices in the Mekong river Delta of Vietnam," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    4. Zhou, Li & Turvey, Calum & Hu, Wuyang & Ying, Ruiyao, 2015. "Fear and Trust: How Risk Perceptions of Avian Influenza Affect the Demand for Chicken," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202077, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Helena Hansson & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2014. "Decision Making for Animal Health and Welfare: Integrating Risk‐Benefit Analysis with Prospect Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1149-1159, June.
    6. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    7. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    8. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    9. Dominic H. P. Balog-Way & Darrick Evensen & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2020. "Pharmaceutical Benefit–Risk Perception and Age Differences in the USA and Germany," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 43(11), pages 1141-1156, November.
    10. Martina Raue & Lisa A. D'Ambrosio & Carley Ward & Chaiwoo Lee & Claire Jacquillat & Joseph F. Coughlin, 2019. "The Influence of Feelings While Driving Regular Cars on the Perception and Acceptance of Self‐Driving Cars," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 358-374, February.
    11. Hao-Teng Cheng & Ko-Wan Tsou, 2018. "Mitigation Policy Acceptance Model: An Analysis of Individual Decision Making Process toward Residential Seismic Strengthening," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-12, August.
    12. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    13. Sabine Roeser, 2012. "Risk Communication, Public Engagement, and Climate Change: A Role for Emotions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 1033-1040, June.
    14. Judith I. M. de Groot & Linda Steg & Wouter Poortinga, 2013. "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 307-317, February.
    15. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    16. Kim Kaivanto & Winston Kwon, 2015. "The precautionary principle as a heuristic patch," Working Papers 94449112, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    17. Nick F. Pidgeon & Wouter Poortinga & Gene Rowe & Tom Horlick‐Jones & John Walls & Tim O'Riordan, 2005. "Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 467-479, April.
    18. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    19. Simone Dohle & Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Examining the Relationship Between Affect and Implicit Associations: Implications for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1116-1128, July.
    20. Sara K Guenther & Elizabeth A Shanahan, 2020. "Communicating risk in human-wildlife interactions: How stories and images move minds," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-17, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:12:y:2020:i:12:p:211-:d:451722. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.