pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.16962 · v4 · submitted 2025-09-21 · 💻 cs.HC

Temporal Drift in Privacy Recall: Users Misremember From Verbatim Loss to Gist-Based Overexposure

Haoze Guo , Ziqi Wei This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 15:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords privacy recalltemporal driftgist-based memoryoverexposuresocial mediacontextual integrityusable privacymemory decay
0
0 comments X

The pith

Users' memory of privacy settings drifts over time from exact recall to gist-based judgments that favor larger audiences and raise overexposure risks.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper theorizes that privacy recall on social media changes with time, as precise memory of past settings fades and gives way to broader gist-based rules of thumb. This shift matters because resurfacing content can lead to sharing with audiences users no longer intend, turning old decisions into new disclosures. Drawing from memory research, contextual integrity, and usable privacy, the work explains why the drift happens, why it tends to expand sharing, and how repeated exposures worsen the effect. The authors propose interface changes that turn recall into recognition through provenance cues and a risk-based evaluation method.

Core claim

Temporal drift in privacy recall occurs as verbatim memory of prior settings breaks down and settles into gist-based heuristics, which more often than not select an audience larger than the original one, compounding the chance of unintended disclosure when content resurfaces across platforms.

What carries the argument

Temporal drift in privacy recall: the process in which exact memory of past privacy settings decays and is replaced by gist-based heuristics that bias toward broader sharing.

If this is right

  • Repeated exposure to old content increases cumulative overexposure risk as gist heuristics compound across resurfacing events.
  • Interface designs should incorporate provenance-forward schemes that let users recognize rather than recall prior audience choices.
  • A risk-based evaluation framework can test how well new interfaces convert recall tasks into recognition tasks.
  • Temporal awareness must become a standard safety consideration in privacy interface design.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Platforms could add time-stamped visual histories of sharing decisions to counteract gist-based expansion.
  • The drift may interact with context collapse, suggesting studies that vary both time lapse and number of active audiences.
  • Longitudinal recall tests at fixed intervals could quantify the rate at which verbatim memory gives way to gist rules.

Load-bearing premise

The premise that gist-based heuristics more often than not select a larger audience than the original setting, which supplies the directional bias toward overexposure.

What would settle it

A controlled study that tracks the same users recalling their privacy settings for specific past posts at multiple time delays and measures whether gist-based choices consistently produce larger audiences than the originals; absence of that consistent enlargement would undermine the bias claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.16962 by Haoze Guo, Ziqi Wei.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Temporal drift schematic: recall specificity declines as perceived age increases, raising the chance of scope misremembering. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

With social media content traversing the different platforms, occasionally resurfacing after periods of time, users are increasingly prone to unintended disclosure resulting from a misremembered acceptance of privacy. Context collapse and interface cues are two factors considered by prior researchers, yet we know less about how time-lapse basically alters recall of past audiences destined for exposure. Likewise, the design space for mitigating this temporal exposure risk remains underexplored. Our work theorizes temporal drift in privacy recall as verbatim memory of prior settings blowing apart and eventually settling with gist-based heuristics, which more often than not select an audience larger than the original one. Grounded in memory research, contextual integrity, and usable privacy, we examine why such a drift occurs, why it tends to bias toward broader sharing, and how it compounds upon repeat exposure. Following that, we suggest provenance-forward interface schemes and a risk-based evaluation framework that mutates recall into recognition. The merit of our work lies in establishing a temporal awareness of privacy design as an essential safety rail against inadvertent overexposure.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript theorizes temporal drift in privacy recall, where users' verbatim memory of prior privacy settings degrades over time and settles into gist-based heuristics that more often than not select larger audiences than the original, producing a directional bias toward overexposure. Grounded in memory research, contextual integrity, and usable privacy, the work examines mechanisms of the drift and its compounding upon repeat exposure, then proposes provenance-forward interface schemes and a risk-based evaluation framework that converts recall into recognition.

Significance. If the directional bias claim can be substantiated with explicit mappings or evidence, the theory would usefully extend privacy literature by foregrounding a temporal dimension of misremembering that compounds context collapse risks. The constructive proposals for provenance-aware interfaces and recognition-based evaluation represent a practical contribution to usable privacy design.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and theory exposition: the assertion that gist-based heuristics 'more often than not select an audience larger than the original one' supplies the directional overexposure effect yet lacks an explicit derivation or mapping from the cited memory research (e.g., fuzzy-trace theory's verbatim/gist distinction) or from specific studies on audience-size recall. This step is load-bearing; without it the temporal-drift prediction is consistent with neutral or contracting effects rather than systematic overexposure.
  2. [Theory / Evaluation framework] Theory and evaluation framework sections: the manuscript advances a purely theoretical account without empirical data, formal model, or falsifiable predictions to test the claimed bias. The central claim therefore rests on an ad-hoc axiom rather than a derivation or cited empirical pattern, limiting the strength of the overexposure prediction.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrasing 'time-lapse basically alters recall' is informal; replace with a more precise description of the proposed mechanism.
  2. [References / Theory] Ensure every reference to memory research is paired with a direct citation that addresses audience-size or sharing-set recall rather than general gist effects.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions we will incorporate to strengthen the theoretical account.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and theory exposition: the assertion that gist-based heuristics 'more often than not select an audience larger than the original one' supplies the directional overexposure effect yet lacks an explicit derivation or mapping from the cited memory research (e.g., fuzzy-trace theory's verbatim/gist distinction) or from specific studies on audience-size recall. This step is load-bearing; without it the temporal-drift prediction is consistent with neutral or contracting effects rather than systematic overexposure.

    Authors: We agree that the directional bias claim requires a more explicit derivation to avoid appearing ad hoc. In the revised manuscript we will expand the theory exposition to map specific mechanisms from fuzzy-trace theory—particularly how gist representations emphasize categorical and relational information at the expense of precise boundaries—to the domain of audience recall. We will further cite empirical patterns from social memory research showing that gist-level encoding of social categories tends to produce overinclusive groupings (e.g., collapsing distinct friend subgroups into a single “friends” category). These additions will supply the requested mapping and clarify why the bias is predicted to be directional rather than neutral. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Theory / Evaluation framework] Theory and evaluation framework sections: the manuscript advances a purely theoretical account without empirical data, formal model, or falsifiable predictions to test the claimed bias. The central claim therefore rests on an ad-hoc axiom rather than a derivation or cited empirical pattern, limiting the strength of the overexposure prediction.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current manuscript presents a theoretical framework without new empirical data or a formal model. As a theory paper our primary contribution is the articulation of the temporal-drift concept and its design implications. To address the concern, we will add a subsection that derives a set of falsifiable predictions (e.g., monotonic increase in overexposure bias with retention interval, amplification under repeated context collapse) and will sketch a simple probabilistic transition model between verbatim and gist states that incorporates a bias parameter favoring larger audiences. These revisions will make the central claim more testable for subsequent empirical work without altering the theoretical nature of the submission. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; theory draws on external literatures without self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper advances a theoretical account of temporal drift in privacy recall, framing it as a transition from verbatim memory to gist-based heuristics that bias toward larger audiences. This account is explicitly grounded in external bodies of work on memory research, contextual integrity, and usable privacy rather than any internal equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations that would reduce the central claim to the paper's own inputs by construction. No load-bearing steps are identified that equate a prediction or uniqueness result to a prior definition or fit within the manuscript itself. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions from memory research and the novel directional claim about gist heuristics; the main addition is the invented theoretical construct of temporal drift itself.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Principles from memory research on verbatim versus gist recall apply directly to users' memory of privacy settings.
    Invoked when grounding the theory in memory research without specifying exact principles or citations.
  • ad hoc to paper Gist-based heuristics in privacy contexts tend to select larger audiences than original verbatim settings.
    This supplies the load-bearing bias toward overexposure and is stated without empirical support in the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • temporal drift in privacy recall no independent evidence
    purpose: To model the process by which verbatim memory of privacy settings transitions to gist-based heuristics over time.
    New theoretical construct introduced to explain the observed misremembering and overexposure risk.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5713 in / 1568 out tokens · 57358 ms · 2026-05-18T15:06:46.217124+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The Privacy Placebo: Diagnosing Consent Burden through Performative Scrolling

    cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The Performative Scrolling Index (PSI) quantifies pre-choice burden in consent interfaces by measuring distance, time, focus loops, and hidden reveals in user scrolling behavior.

  2. ConsentDiff at Scale: Longitudinal Audits of Web Privacy Policy Changes and UI Frictions

    cs.HC 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    ConsentDiff enables longitudinal tracking of privacy policy churn and consent UI patterns, finding ongoing changes, shifts away from high-friction banners, and higher policy-UI alignment when rejection options are visible.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Alessandro Acquisti, Laura Brandimarte, and George Loewenstein. 2015. Privacy and human behavior in the age of information.Science347, 6221 (2015), 509–514. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1465

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaa1465 2015

  2. [2]

    Lemi Baruh, Bela Biçakcıoğlu-Çelik, and İrım Erdoğan. 2017. The Mediated Privacy Paradox: A Systematic Review of Literature on Privacy Paradoxes. New Media & Society19, 6 (2017), 781–799. doi:10.1177/1461444816686323

    work page doi:10.1177/1461444816686323 2017

  3. [3]

    Bazarova and Yoon Hyung Choi

    Natalya N. Bazarova and Yoon Hyung Choi. 2014. Self-Disclosure in Social Media: Extending the Functional Approach to Disclosure Motivations and Characteristics on Social Network Sites.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19, 4 (2014), 480–505. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12048

    work page doi:10.1111/jcc4.12048 2014

  4. [4]

    Bernstein, Eytan Bakshy, Moira Burke, and Brian Karrer

    Michael S. Bernstein, Eytan Bakshy, Moira Burke, and Brian Karrer. 2013. Quantifying the Invisible Audience in Social Networks. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. doi:10.1145/2470654.2470658

    work page doi:10.1145/2470654.2470658 2013

  5. [5]

    Ross Bonifacio, Jirassaya Uttarapong, Rae Jereza, and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2025. Self-Promotion Practices and Context Collapse Management of Adult Content Creators on OnlyFans.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, GROUP, Article to appear (2025). doi:10.1145/3701206

    work page doi:10.1145/3701206 2025

  6. [6]

    Brainerd and Valerie F

    Charles J. Brainerd and Valerie F. Reyna. 2002. Fuzzy-Trace Theory and False Memory.Current Directions in Psychological Science11, 5 (2002), 164–169. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00192

    work page doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00192 2002

  7. [7]

    Laura Brandimarte, Alessandro Acquisti, and George Loewenstein. 2013. Misplaced Confidences: Privacy and the Control Paradox.Social Psychological and Personality Science4, 3 (2013), 340–347. doi:10.1177/1948550612455931

    work page doi:10.1177/1948550612455931 2013

  8. [8]

    Petter Bae Brandtzaeg and Marika Lüders. 2018. Time Collapse in Social Media: Extending the Context Collapse.Social Media + Society4, 1 (2018), 1–10. doi:10.1177/2056305118763349

    work page doi:10.1177/2056305118763349 2018

  9. [9]

    Glenn W. Brier. 1950. Verification of Forecasts Expressed in Terms of Probability.Monthly Weather Review78, 1 (1950), 1–3. doi:10.1175/1520- 0493(1950)078<0001:VOFEIT>2.0.CO;2

    work page doi:10.1175/1520- 1950

  10. [11]

    Morris H. DeGroot. 2004.Optimal Statistical Decisions. Wiley

    work page 2004

  11. [12]

    1913.Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology

    Hermann Ebbinghaus. 1913.Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

    work page 1913

  12. [13]

    Serge Egelman, Janice Tsai, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Alessandro Acquisti. 2010. Timing Is Everything? The Effects of Timing and Placement of Online Privacy Indicators. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 159–168. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753561

    work page doi:10.1145/1753326.1753561 2010

  13. [14]

    Motahhare Eslami, Karrie Karahalios, Christian Sandvig, Kristen Vaccaro, Aimee Rickman, Kevin Hamilton, and Ali Kirlik. 2016. First I “Like” It, Then I Hide It: Folk Theories of Social Feeds. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2371–2382. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858494

    work page doi:10.1145/2858036.2858494 2016

  14. [15]

    Tom Fawcett. 2006. An Introduction to ROC Analysis.Pattern Recognition Letters27, 8 (2006), 861–874. doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010 2006

  15. [16]

    Say I’m in public... I don’t want my nudes to pop up

    Chris Geeng, Natalie Chen, Kieron Ivy Turk, Jevan Hutson, and Damon McCoy. 2024. “Say I’m in public... I don’t want my nudes to pop up. ” User Threat Models for Using Vault Applications. InProceedings of the 20th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2024). USENIX, Philadelphia, PA, 433–451. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/soups2024-geeng.pdf

    work page 2024

  16. [17]

    Sarah Gilbert, Katie Shilton, and Jessica Vitak. 2023. When research is the context: Cross-platform user expectations for social media data reuse.Big Data & Society10, 1 (2023), 1–15. doi:10.1177/20539517231164108

    work page doi:10.1177/20539517231164108 2023

  17. [18]

    Gray, Youngbok Ryu (Kou), Bryan Battles, Joseph Hoggatt, and Austin L

    Colin M. Gray, Youngbok Ryu (Kou), Bryan Battles, Joseph Hoggatt, and Austin L. Toombs. 2018. The Dark (Patterns) Side of UX Design. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Article 534, 6 pages. doi:10.1145/3173574.3174108

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3174108 2018

  18. [19]

    Linda A. Henkel. 2014. Point-and-Shoot Memories: The Influence of Taking Photos on Memory for a Museum Tour.Psychological Science25, 2 (2014), 396–402. doi:10.1177/0956797613504438

    work page doi:10.1177/0956797613504438 2014

  19. [20]

    Bernie Hogan. 2010. The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances and Exhibitions Online.Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society30, 6 (2010), 377–386. doi:10.1177/0270467610385893

    work page doi:10.1177/0270467610385893 2010

  20. [21]

    Johnson and Daniel Goldstein

    Eric J. Johnson and Daniel Goldstein. 2003. Do Defaults Save Lives?Science302, 5649 (2003), 1338–1339. doi:10.1126/science.1091721

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1091721 2003

  21. [22]

    Johnson, Shahin Hashtroudi, and Stephen L

    Marcia K. Johnson, Shahin Hashtroudi, and Stephen L. Lindsay. 1993. Source Monitoring.Psychological Bulletin114, 1 (1993), 3–28. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.114.1.3

    work page doi:10.1037/0033- 1993

  22. [23]

    2011.Thinking, Fast and Slow

    Daniel Kahneman. 2011.Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux

    work page 2011

  23. [24]

    Spyros Kokolakis. 2017. Privacy Attitude and Privacy Behavior: A Review of Empirical Studies on the Privacy Paradox Phenomenon.Computers & Security64 (2017), 122–134. doi:10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002 2017

  24. [25]

    Asher Koriat. 2012. The Self-Consistency Model of Subjective Confidence.Psychological Review119, 1 (2012), 80–113. doi:10.1037/a0025648

    work page doi:10.1037/a0025648 2012

  25. [26]

    Airi Lampinen, Vili Lehtinen, Asko Lehmuskallio, and Sakari Tamminen. 2011. We’re in it together: Interpersonal management of disclosure in social network services. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3217–3226. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979420

    work page doi:10.1145/1978942.1979420 2011

  26. [27]

    Pedro Giovanni Leon, Blase Ur, Rebecca Balebako, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Richard Shay, and Yang Wang. 2012. Why Johnny Can’t Opt Out: A Usability Evaluation of Tools to Limit Online Behavioral Advertising. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 589–598. doi:10.1145/2208276.2208307

    work page doi:10.1145/2208276.2208307 2012

  27. [28]

    Eden Litt and Eszter Hargittai. 2016. The Imagined Audience on Social Network Sites.Social Media + Society2, 1 (2016). doi:10.1177/2056305116633482

    work page doi:10.1177/2056305116633482 2016

  28. [29]

    Bellovin

    Michelle Madejski, Maritza Johnson, and Steven M. Bellovin. 2012. A Study of Privacy Settings Errors in an Online Social Network. In2012 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops. 340–345. doi:10.1109/PerComW.2012.6197507

    work page doi:10.1109/percomw.2012.6197507 2012

  29. [30]

    Marwick and danah boyd

    Alice E. Marwick and danah boyd. 2011. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience.New Media & Society13, 1 (2011), 114–133. doi:10.1177/1461444810365313

    work page doi:10.1177/1461444810365313 2011

  30. [31]

    Arunesh Mathur, Gunes Acar, Michael Friedman, Elena Lucherini, Jonathan Mayer, Marshini Chetty, and Arvind Narayanan. 2019. Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11,000 Shopping Websites.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (2019), 81:1–81:32. doi:10.1145/3359183

    work page doi:10.1145/3359183 2019

  31. [32]

    Moore and P

    Don A. Moore and P. J. Healy. 2008. The Trouble with Overconfidence.Psychological Review115, 2 (2008), 502–517. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502

    work page doi:10.1037/0033-295x.115.2.502 2008

  32. [33]

    Luc Moreau and Paolo Missier. 2013. PROV-DM: The PROV Data Model. W3C Recommendation. https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/

    work page 2013

  33. [34]

    Cooper, and Milos Hauskrecht

    Mahdi Pakdaman Naeini, Gregory F. Cooper, and Milos Hauskrecht. 2015. Obtaining Well Calibrated Probabilities Using Bayesian Binning into Quantiles. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2901–2907

    work page 2015

  34. [35]

    Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil and Rich Caruana. 2005. Predicting Good Probabilities with Supervised Learning. InProceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). ACM, 625–632. doi:10.1145/1102351.1102430

    work page doi:10.1145/1102351.1102430 2005

  35. [36]

    1994.Usability Engineering

    Jakob Nielsen. 1994.Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann

    work page 1994

  36. [37]

    Helen Nissenbaum. 2004. Privacy as Contextual Integrity.Washington Law Review79, 1 (2004), 119–158

    work page 2004

  37. [38]

    2002.Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure

    Sandra Petronio. 2002.Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. State University of New York Press

    work page 2002

  38. [39]

    Emilee Rader. 2014. Awareness of Behavioral Tracking and Information Privacy Concern in Facebook and Google. InProceedings of the 10th Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2014). USENIX, Menlo Park, CA, 51–67. https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2014/ proceedings/presentation/rader

    work page 2014

  39. [40]

    Roediger and Kathleen B

    Henry L. Roediger and Kathleen B. McDermott. 1995. Creating False Memories: Remembering Words Not Presented in Lists.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition21, 4 (1995), 803–814. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803

    work page doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803 1995

  40. [41]

    Schacter

    Daniel L. Schacter. 1996. Illusory memories: A cognitive neuroscience analysis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences93, 24 (1996), 13527–13533. doi:10.1073/pnas.93.24.13527 10 Guo et al

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.93.24.13527 1996

  41. [42]

    Schacter, Donna Rose Addis, and Randy L

    Daniel L. Schacter, Donna Rose Addis, and Randy L. Buckner. 2007. Remembering the Past to Imagine the Future: The Prospective Brain.Nature Reviews Neuroscience8 (2007), 657–661. doi:10.1038/nrn2213

    work page doi:10.1038/nrn2213 2007

  42. [43]

    Ido Sivan-Sevilla and Parthav Poudel. 2024. Web Privacy based on Contextual Integrity: Measuring the Collapse of Online Contexts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16246(2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.16246

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [44]

    Betsy Sparrow, Jenny Liu, and Daniel M. Wegner. 2011. Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips. Science333, 6043 (2011), 776–778. doi:10.1126/science.1207745

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1207745 2011

  44. [45]

    Fred Stutzman, Ralph Gross, and Alessandro Acquisti. 2013. Silent Listeners: The Evolution of Privacy and Disclosure on Facebook.Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality4, 2 (2013). https://journalprivacyconfidentiality.org/index.php/jpc/article/view/620

    work page 2013

  45. [46]

    Fred Stutzman and Robert Kramer-Duffield. 2010. Friends Only: Examining a Privacy-Enhancing Behavior in Facebook. InCHI ’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1553–1556. doi:10.1145/1753846.1753821

    work page doi:10.1145/1753846.1753821 2010

  46. [47]

    John Sweller. 1988. Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning.Cognitive Science12, 2 (1988), 257–285. doi:10.1207/ s15516709cog1202_4

    work page 1988

  47. [48]

    Privacy Paradox

    Monika Taddicken. 2014. The “Privacy Paradox” in the Social Web: The Impact of Privacy Concerns, Individual Characteristics, and the Perceived Social Relevance on Different Forms of Self-Disclosure.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19, 2 (2014), 248–273. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12052

    work page doi:10.1111/jcc4.12052 2014

  48. [49]

    Thaler and Cass R

    Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein. 2008.Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press

    work page 2008

  49. [50]

    Tsai, Serge Egelman, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Alessandro Acquisti

    Janice Y. Tsai, Serge Egelman, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Alessandro Acquisti. 2011. The Effect of Online Privacy Information on Purchasing Behavior: An Experimental Study.Information Systems Research22, 2 (2011), 254–268. doi:10.1287/isre.1090.0260

    work page doi:10.1287/isre.1090.0260 2011

  50. [51]

    Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.Science185, 4157 (1974), 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/ science.185.4157.1124

    work page arXiv 1974

  51. [52]

    Jessica Vitak. 2012. The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures.Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media56, 4 (2012), 451–470. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.732140

    work page doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.732140 2012

  52. [53]

    Yang Wang, Pedro Giovanni Leon, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Adam Forget, and Norman Sadeh. 2014. A Field Trial of Privacy Nudges for Facebook. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2367–2376. doi:10.1145/2556288.2557413 Received 20 February 2007; revised 12 March 2009; accepted 5 June 2009

    work page doi:10.1145/2556288.2557413 2014