IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0184525.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do privacy and security regulations need a status update? Perspectives from an intergenerational survey

Author

Listed:
  • Stacey Pereira
  • Jill Oliver Robinson
  • Hayley A Peoples
  • Amanda M Gutierrez
  • Mary A Majumder
  • Amy L McGuire
  • Mark A Rothstein

Abstract

Background: The importance of health privacy protections in the era of the “Facebook Generation” has been called into question. The ease with which younger people share personal information about themselves has led to the assumption that they are less concerned than older generations about the privacy of their information, including health information. We explored whether survey respondents’ views toward health privacy suggest that efforts to strengthen privacy protections as health information is moved online are unnecessary. Methods: Using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk), which is well-known for recruitment for survey research, we distributed a 45-item survey to individuals in the U.S. to assess their perspectives toward privacy and security of online and health information, social media behaviors, use of health and fitness devices, and demographic information. Results: 1310 participants (mean age: 36 years, 50% female, 78% non-Hispanic white, 54% college graduates or higher) were categorized by generations: Millennials, Generation X, and Baby Boomers. In multivariate regression models, we found that generational cohort was an independent predictor of level of concern about privacy and security of both online and health information. Younger generations were significantly less likely to be concerned than older generations (all P 0.05). Limitations: This study is limited by the non-representativeness of our sample. Conclusions: Though Millennials reported lower levels of concern about privacy and security, this was not related to internet or social media behaviors, and majorities within all generations reported concern about both the privacy and security of their health information. Thus, there is no intergenerational imperative to relax privacy and security standards, and it would be advisable to take privacy and security of health information more seriously.

Suggested Citation

  • Stacey Pereira & Jill Oliver Robinson & Hayley A Peoples & Amanda M Gutierrez & Mary A Majumder & Amy L McGuire & Mark A Rothstein, 2017. "Do privacy and security regulations need a status update? Perspectives from an intergenerational survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0184525
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184525
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0184525
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0184525&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0184525?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0184525. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.