Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
A new communication theory, Privacy Surrender for Security Theory (PSST), proposed by a team of undergraduate students in 2018. The theory aims to explain why American citizens are willing to surrender their privacy rights for the sake of national security. a literature review connecting PSST to society and communication research, and discusses how the theories of Collective Memory, Cultivation Theory, and Communication Privacy Management Theory contribute to the framework of PSST.
Typology: Exams
1 / 35
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Running head: PRIVACY SURRENDER FOR SECURITY THEORY 1 A New Theory of Communication: Privacy Surrender for Security Theory Abigail Brewer A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Spring 2020
Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University.
Annette Madlock-Gatison, D.P. Thesis Chair
Cecil Kramer, D.Min. Committee Member
James H. Nutter, D.A. Honors Director
Date Abstract
A New Theory of Communication: Privacy Surrender for Security Theory Introduction Tasked with proposing a new theory of communication, five undergraduate students stared at a dry erase board in their university classroom one fall afternoon in 2018. Words in green ink littered the white space, fruit of a productive brainstorming session. As the five students examined the board, they began to isolate phrases that caught their attention. They circled words such as “Netflix,” “Collective Memory,” terrorism,” “Cultivation Theory,” and “privacy rights.” At the end of the semester, the five students submitted their completed theory proposal, entitled Privacy Surrender for Security Theory, otherwise known as PSST, because “psst…” they had a secret for communications scholars and the general American public. With the professor’s encouragement, four of the students spent their winter break refining the proposal to submit it to three conferences in the Eastern United States. In the spring 2019 semester, the students presented their proposed Privacy Surrender for Security Theory at the Eastern Communication Association annual conference in Providence, Rhode Island, the National Conference of Undergraduate Research held in Kennesaw, Georgia, and Liberty University’s Research Week in Lynchburg, Virginia. Scholars, professors, and peers alike all asked the same question to the four researchers: “Will anyone conduct the survey to confirm or deny this proposed theory?” Three of the four students graduated, so Abigail Brewer, the remaining student, decided to conduct the survey to analyze the validity of the proposed theory. Overview This thesis analyzes quantitative data to further previous research conducted on Privacy Surrender for Security Theory. Up until this point, only a content analysis has been conducted to
create the foundation of PSST. The original team of undergraduate researchers developed and proposed the theory, and they created a digital survey to gather quantitative data to determine the theory’s viability. Abigail Brewer, the remaining researcher, will extend the theory’s current research by analyzing the results of a revised version of the survey the team created. First, the researcher will share a literature review to demonstrate why Privacy Surrender for Security Theory is both relevant to society and to communication research. Next, the researcher will describe the axioms and the framework of the theory. She will then state her hypothesis and explain the methodology, limitations, and survey questions. After analyzing the responses to the survey, the researcher will explain her findings, propose ideas for future research, and draw conclusions. Creating PSST Privacy Surrender for Security Theory, otherwise known as PSST, was originally created and proposed by Abigail Brewer, Hanna Bathrick, Kasey Lange, and Robert Goodwin. PSST is comprised of the following three theories of communication: Collective Memory, Cultivation Theory, and Communication Privacy Management Theory. PSST seeks to explain why the American public is seemingly no longer bothered by the covert surveillance of the National Security Administration, for what was once a public outcry is now relegated to memes, jokes, and quick quips in conversation. Literature Review To establish the relevance and necessity of the proposed theory, literature is analyzed that connects Privacy Surrender for Security Theory to society and to communication theory
Cornell Law argues that most debates and legal cases regarding personal privacy rights center around differing interpretations of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment reads as follows: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Cornell Law) Cornell Law further expounds upon the Fourth Amendment by explaining that the amendment protects Americans from unlawful searches, random arrests, and incorrect surveillance practices. In addition, the Fourth Amendment is often cited when discussing privacy laws (Cornell Law). Because privacy rights are part of the Constitution, they are a critical component of modern culture, especially in the digital age. Finally, the International Association for Privacy Professionals (IAPP) notes that the issue of privacy rights in America has transitioned into the rhetoric of the general public, for the topic of personal privacy has appeared in sitcoms, documentaries, government legislation, and magazines (Bracy, 2015). The IAPP, along with The Washington Post , both reference episodes of the hit television sitcom Parks & Rec , in which key characters grapple with Gryzzl, a new company that collects personal information from its customers (Bracy, 2015; Peterson, 2015). Gryzzl wants to build a new headquarters in the city of Pawnee, but the town’s residents do not like that the company can access their personal texts, emails, bank statements, and records to tailor suggestions and gifts to the interests of every individual (CBS, 2015). In the end, the
characters recognize that they cannot stop the company, but they argue that the invasion of personal privacy is unfair. Relevance to Theory As noted earlier, Privacy Surrender for Security Theory is rooted in three different communication theories. Together, when placed within the context of American national security, the theories of Collective Memory, Cultivation Theory, and Communication Privacy Management Theory all tell the story of why the American public has largely quieted about the issue of personal privacy rights and government surveillance. Collective Memory. The first piece of the PSST framework is the theory of Collective Memory. The researcher describes the history of Collective Memory as follows: Collective memory is a widely studied phenomenon that highlights “a form of memory that transcends individuals and is shared by a group” (Wertsch & Roedinger, 2008, p. 318 ). Though the term “Collective Memory” traces its history to Halbwach’s studies from 1925, “we can trace the notion of group memory to the earliest texts in Western civilization, in Archaic Greek culture” (Russell, 2006, p.792). A cross-disciplinary theory, this topic is of great interest to communicators, psychologists, and historians alike as it explains how history can be written or re-written by a group’s leading voices. (Brewer et al., 2018, p. 7) Because Privacy Surrender Security Theory states that the media propagates a narrative of fear through television shows about violence and acts of terror, the theory of Collective Memory is useful to understand how the media can create narratives through using group memory.
narrative of recent history to which Americans are exposed to through media consumption. By realizing that news media leaders use the principles of Collective Memory to shape the current fear of terror, one can better understand the weight and significance of Cultivation Theory (CT). Television allows the selected Collective Memory narrative to be broadcasted into almost every home in America, for 95.9% of households have a television set with the average American consuming over 10 hours of television content daily (Nielsen, 2018; Koblin, 2016). If CT is true, then there is little chance of stopping the effects of media’s chosen narrative invading societal norms. (Brewer et al., 2018, pp. 7 - 9 ) In the same way that Collective Memory shows how American citizens remember the military history of the United States through a curated group memory, Collective Memory can also be used to demonstrate how American citizens are being persuaded to view the safety of their future. For this reason, Collective Memory is the first communication theory used in the framework of Privacy Surrender for Security Theory. Cultivation Theory. Created by George Gerbner in the late 1960s and 1970s, Cultivation Theory seeks to explain how the media impacts the general public through curating narratives surrounding topics such as violence and terrorism (Potter, 2014). According to Potter, Gerbner’s theory explains how the media institutions, the mass messages, and the overarching effect of said messages sent by the media institutions impacted society (Potter, 2014). Potter later quotes Gerbner, who wrote in 1970 that “mass production and rapid distribution of messages create new symbolic environments that reflect the structure and
functions of the institutions that transmit them” (as cited in Potter, 2014, p. 1016). This correlates directly to the theory of Collective Memory discussed earlier in the literature review. In addition, Potter also quotes Gerbner’s 1969 writings, saying that “mass-produced messages form ‘a common culture through which communities cultivate shared and public notions about facts, values, and contingencies of human existence’” (as cited in Potter, 2014, p. 1016). According to Bryant and Morin’s research on trends within the mass communication research discipline, Cultivation Theory is one of the three most-referenced communication theories from 1956-2000, for it was referenced in 56 different articles (Bryant & Morin, 2004). The results of the articles analyzed show that people who view television on a regular basis are more likely to have a negative view of the world around them (Bryant & Morin, 2004). Their findings continue to strengthen the argument of Privacy Surrender for Security Theory, which suggests that media consumption affects American citizens’ perceptions of national security and their personal privacy rights. In addition, Morgan and Shanahan (2010) report that over 500 studies involving Cultivation Theory have been published. When Cultivation Theory and Collective Memory are applied to the specific context of American security, they together paint a picture of media leaders having the capacity, authority, and opportunity to author the narrative of violence and terrorism depicted in television media. By carefully crafting the narrative they wish to tell about violence and terrorism in America, media leaders can influence the American public regarding citizens’ thoughts on personal privacy rights and national security. This power, when combined with Communication Privacy Management Theory, lays the foundation for the framework of Privacy Surrender for Security Theory.
mixed reaction (17%), appeared ambivalent (10%), or said it is bad (6%)” (Allen et al., 2007, p. 183 ). Later in the results, Allen et al. notes that “of the statements on whether surveillance is problematic, the most frequent either express a general dislike for surveillance (26%) or indicate it is an invasion of privacy (17%)” (2 007 , p. 185). This study demonstrates that surveillance practices were in question well before Snowden’s revelations to national media outlets. In 2011, ten graduate students were interviewed and asked about their opinions on closed circuit televisions being placed in public spaces at their midwestern university. The ten students were initially positive in their remarks about the use of closed circuit televisions to increase safety; however, by the time they reached the conclusion of their interviews, several of the participants noted that the closed circuit television gave them a heightened sense of safety rather than actually increasing their real safety. Overall, the students had differing views on privacy rights and the use of surveillance, but they agreed that the increased possibility of catching criminals and decreasing violence was worth the surrendered privacy in public. (Walton et al., 2011). Thus, the students cognitively were willing to negotiate their privacy boundaries in accordance with Communication Privacy Management Theory to gain the reward of perceived security at their university. Communication Privacy Management Theory posits that people will surrender personal privacy to receive a perceived reward for sharing that information. That reward could range from increased safety to protection against crime, to organizational unity, or to another perceived benefit. When placed within the context of Privacy Surrender for Security Theory, Communication Privacy Management Theory suggests that increased national security and
perceived safety from terrorism and violence is a worthwhile reward for surrendering rights to personal privacy. Axioms and Framework Three core axioms comprise the Privacy Surrender for Security Theory, as articulated by Brewer, Bathrick, Lange, and Goodwin (2018). The first axiom is simple: the media persuades the public to fear the possible threat of terrorism by weaving a new narrative about national security. The second axiom supposes that American citizens make decisions about personal privacy that are based in fear. Finally, the final axiom states that security is so important that giving up personal privacy rights is worth the price. Privacy Surrender for Security Theory, otherwise known as PSST, is assembled like a formula. In the context of American national security and personal privacy rights, Collective Memory is applied to Cultivation Theory like a filter. When Collective Memory is used as a filter to view Cultivation Theory within the context of American national security and personal privacy rights, it suggests that the leaders of American media can tell the history of terrorism and national security in such a way that makes it appealing to viewers to willingly surrender their personal privacy rights for the sake of greater protection. Together, when these two theories are combined with Communication Privacy Management Theory, they all suggest that the cost of surrendering personal privacy is worth the greater security afforded by the American government. Thus, because American citizens decided it was worth it to surrender their personal privacy rights, they largely ceased their complaints about the once-appalling information Edward Snowden revealed.
In addition, all responses were multiple choice, so participants were not asked to complete any short answer questions. This expedited the survey completion time, thus encouraging more potential participants to take the time to complete the survey. Eliminating short answer responses also helped increase the anonymity of the survey results because the researcher was unable to identify any participants based upon writing styles, word choice, or personal examples shared within the responses. Survey Participants Potential participants in the survey were gathered through convenience sampling of both Facebook and a cell phone group text message. To easily collect responses from a varied audience, the survey was released through a typical Facebook newsfeed post by attaching the link within the text of the message. Originally posted by Abigail Brewer, the survey was shared over seventeen times from her page by her friends and family. Her friends and family also had people share the post from their respective pages, thereby creating a convenience sample that snowballed. Participants responses were divided into six categories based upon Pew Research Center’s division of generations. Individuals between the ages of 18 to 22 are part of Generation Z, and individuals between the ages of 23 to 38 are part of the Millennial generation. Next, Generation X is comprised of people from 39-54 years old, and Boomers are between the ages of 55 - 73. Finally, the Silent generation is comprised of anyone over the age of 74 (Generations and Age, 2019). By organizing the participants by generation, the researcher will be able to pinpoint trends regarding media violence, perceived threats of terrorism, perceptions of national security,
and personal privacy rights that are similar and different between the five generations, thereby offering a deeper look into the views of the American public. Survey Questions The survey includes twelve questions. The first question asks for participants to select their respective age brackets, and the second question asks if participants are American citizens. The next four questions ask about participants’ media consumption habits and thoughts about privacy rights and national security. For each response, participants select a number on a Likert scale. These four questions are as follows:
mark whether or not they were American citizens. Three respondents selected the “no” choice, so those responses were not included in the data analysis. Age Demographic To protect underage participants, the survey required participants to be at least eighteen years of age. One respondent marked that he or she was under eighteen, so his or her responses were not included in the data analysis. Because the survey had an age requirement, it did prevent an entire demographic from participating in the study, which could affect overall findings from the data analysis. However, to protect underage participants, the researcher deemed the age requirement to be necessary. Gender The researcher chose not to ask participants to identify their genders in their survey response. Therefore, there is no way to analyze the differences and similarities in responses based upon gender categories. There is no way to determine if participation was predominantly male, female, or other, which could impact data trends if the majority of participants all had identified as one particular gender. Survey Data The researcher organized the results of the survey into three categories: percentages, questions 3- 6 , and questions 7- 12. The researcher will first share the makeup of the pool of participants, and then she will review the responses to each question. Finally, the researcher will examine overall trends across the data, culminating with the relevancy of the data to the viability of the proposed theory in question, Privacy Surrender for Security Theory.
Percentages 18 8 total participants completed the Privacy Surrender for Security survey. Out of the 18 8 participants, one person noted on his or her survey that he or she was under eighteen years of age, and three people marked that they were not American citizens. Because these four individuals did not meet the minimum standards for participating in the survey, their responses are not included in the data analysis. Thus, the total number of surveys analyzed is 184, and all percentages from this point forward reflect this total. 39 participants marked that they were between the ages of 18-22, placing themselves within the Generation Z category (21. 2 %). Millennials made up 18. 5 % of the data, with 34 individuals marking that they were between the ages of 23-38. 5 0 participants selected the age range of 39 - 54, signifying that they belong to Generation X (27. 2 %). The largest category, Boomers, had 55 participants (29. 9 %). Finally, the Silent Generation, or those above the age of 74, had six participants (3. 3 %). Questions 3- 6 The first four survey questions introduce participants to the topics discussed within the survey, leading up to the statements in Questions 7-12. The first two questions of the survey request participants to rank the amount of time they spend watching television shows involving crime, terrorism, government conspiracies, and news media. Questions 5-6 ask participants to consider their thoughts and feelings about national security, terrorism, and the surveillance activities conducted by the National Security Administration. Question 3. Question 3 on the survey reads as follows: “How often do you watch TV shows featuring crime, terrorism, or government conspiracy theories?” Overall, 13 participants
