THE SPILLOVER EFFECT ON INSTAGRAM AFTER
THE SCANDAL OF CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA.
By
JORDI PARÉS VILARDELL
Master Thesis University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Marketing Management January 2020
Seminar supervisor: Dr. O.K. Lundahl Second supervisor: Dr. J.I.M. De Groot
Damstersingel 8B 9713 EV Groningen
(+34) 646571505
ABSTRACT
Table of contents:
1. Introduction 4
2. Conceptual background 7
2.1 Brand Scandals Spillover Effect 7
2.2 Social Media, the case of Cambridge Analytica 12
3. Research Design 15 3.1 Data 15 3.2 Methods 17 4. Results 20 4.1 Quantitative Analysis 20 4.2 Qualitative Analysis 21 5. Discussion 27
6. Limitations and future research 32
7. Reference List 34
Appendix 1 – Dictionary 33
Appendix 2 – Facebook 34
Appendix 3 - Instagram 36
1. Introduction
The scandals related to the economy have existed for centuries in any kind of business around the world. The consequences of the scandals from the business' perspective are multiples; from loss of trust (Gray, Clark and Frieder, 2005), loss of the stock value between 20% and 40% (Giannetti and Wang, 2016), to the possibility to create spillover effect to other brands or products indirectly related with the scandal (Roehm and Tybout, 2006).
Many different scandals were discovered in the past, but not all had the same consequences for the corporations. According to Weiner (1985), the locus of the attributions can be internal or external. If the company has not the responsibility of the scandal, the customers blame external factors, but if they consider the company as the responsible, then the customers blame the company. Findus Nordic, for example, suffered a food scandal related to the origin of the meat but it was its supplier's fault. The customers blamed external factors and less than a year after the scandal, the company had increased the revenues and brand awareness (Falkheimer and Heide, 2015). While if the cause of the scandals is internal, the consequences become more harmful for the corporations. It happened with Johnson and Johnson's in the 80s when the company tampered some products; the revenues decreased for the different brands of its and brand portfolio (Choi, Eldomiaty and Kim, 2007). A similar effect occurred to Volkswagen in 2015 with the scandal of the emissions that caused a reduction of the sales and revenues (Blackweleder et al. 2016).
In the online era, the privacy is closely related with the traditional concept of trust towards the brands (Boyd and Ellison, 2007; Hoffman, Novak and Peralta, 1999), and it is also related with the confidence that the websites inspire (Bart et al., 2005). When the customers have a positive image of a brand or product, it is because they believe about the reliability, safety and honesty of the brand (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). This study analyses the Cambridge Analytica scandal that affected the social network site Facebook and the privacy of its users. It started when Cadwalladr and Graham-Harrison (2018) discovered the illegal practices that Cambridge Analytica was doing with the personal data of some accounts of Facebook. The data usurped by Cambridge Analytica was then used by political parties to influence the vote of the electors in certain elections like the Brexit referendum and the American presidential elections both in 2016. Cambridge Analytica scandal is the first wildly know scandal that breaks the privacy of the users of a social media platform, and it is not related to the possibility of eating tainted food or tampered medicines.
The purpose is to analyse if the scandal damaged the brand trust towards Facebook, due to it broke the privacy of the users. The study wants to know if the scandal caused a negative spillover effect on Instagram, a platform from the same corporation. The previous research has studied the spillover effect from one product to another from the same brand (Balachander and Ghose, 2003; Erdem and Sun, 2002) or one brand attribute to another brand attribute (Ahluwalia, Unnava and Burkrant, 2001) or from one brand to another brand from different companies (Roehm and Tybout, 2006). If the consumers have strong links among the different products of the brand's portfolio or if the companies interact in the same market, the spillover effect between them is strong (Roehm and Tybout, 2006). The study analyses how are the links between Facebook and Instagram due to both platforms belong to the same corporation and operate in the same market.
study conducts a mix approach based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis with more note on the qualitative analysis, which is based on the media frame analysis. The analysis used in the qualitative section is the media frame analysis using the constructionist approach (D'Angelo, 2002), which has been used in previous research (e.g. Humphreys, 2010 A; Humphreys, 2010 B). This methodology permits to find out the different frames published in the newspapers' articles. In the quantitative analysis, a t-test is conducted in order to analyse the presence of certain words related to trust. The data used in this study come from three different English newspapers that represent the different tendencies that exist now in the UK media (BBC, 2009). The articles cover a period that goes from 2017 until 2018.
Hence, the research contributes to the analysis of what kind of spillover effect produce a brand scandal from one brand to another brand from the same corporation. The peculiarities are the business of the brands; both are social network sites, which are online services and not physical products. Until now the physical products were the objects of these types of studies, and secondly, the methodology used to analyse the data. This study uses a mix approach based on a quantitative and qualitative analysis, being the last one the principal; meanwhile, the previous research used quantitative analysis to analyse the spillover effect (Ahluwalia, Unnava and Burnkrant, 2001; Balachander and Ghose, 2003; Erdem and Sun, 2002; Roehm and Tybout, 2006).
The findings of the research were diverse. From one side, Cambridge Analytica caused on Facebook a significant difference between the articles published before and after the scandal that were relating Facebook and the trust on them. On the other site, Instagram had a not significant difference between the articles of the two periods, which were relating to Instagram and the concept of trust. On the same direction were the findings of the media frame analysis.
some critics already suspected about what Facebook was doing with the data. In this frame, more articles talked about financial values to represent the potential consequences of the scandal. Finally, the third frame emerged from the articles of Instagram, and it covered the two periods. The opinions did not change a lot; it was focused on how the platform was taking care of the privacy of the users from other users and not from the platform itself.
To sum the findings, the scandal of Cambridge Analytica did not have a negative spillover effect on Instagram, but it had a small influence on Facebook. The links that the people have between Facebook and Instagram were fragile, and it caused that people did not connect the scandal of Cambridge Analytica to another brand of the corporation, as it is Instagram. When a scandal affects a brand of a corporation, and it also has other brands operating in the same market, if exist strong links between the brands, the scandal will produce a negative spillover effect. However, if they do not exist, the scandal will not produce a negative spillover effect as it happened with Cambridge Analytica.
2. Conceptual background
This chapter encompasses the existent literature related to the scandals and their consequences. It starts with the corporates scandals focusing on Cambridge Analytica, which affected the social media platforms directly. It continues with the different consequences of the scandals such the loss of trust or the spillover effect. It pursues with the concept of trust towards the brands and how it has evolved in the online era. It continues with the concept of social media, and it finishes with the scandal of Cambridge Analytica and the possible consequences that it can produce towards Instagram.
2.1 The brand Scandals Spillover effect
diversified. They can be in a national or international level and be caused for many reasons. The role of the companies in the scandals is diverse; the locus of causality can be internal or external (Weiner, 1985). Depending on the origin of the causes, the customers hold the company responsible for the scandal or not. (Monga and John, 2008; Weiner, 1985). When the corporation has an internal responsibly of the scandal, the consequences affected more negatively the brands such the scandals that affected Nestlé, Johnson & Johnson, Kraft, British Petroleum or Volkswagen than the corporations that have an external responsibility such Findus Nordic. The perspectives to analyse the scandals are diverse, according to Van Driel (2019) they can be economical (Skeel, 2005), legal (Skeel, 2005) or ethical (Freeman, 1999; Friedman, 2009).
accomplice of Cambridge Analytica, which broke the privacy of the users of Facebook, using their private data for political campaigns.
A general perception related to the big corporations, especially after the big scandals, is that they forgot the relationship between companies, consumers and society (Willmott, 2003). If they want to regain a trustworthy image after a scandal, they have to promote transparency and social responsibility (Kang and Hustvedt, 2014). They are fundamental if they want to increase the trust towards the corporations (Fombrun and Foss, 2004) and avoid the negative consequences of the scandals, which can be diverse. There are many types of negative consequences for corporations. According to Giannetti and Wang (2016), the most common is a loss of the stock value between 20% and 40%, increment the cost of the capital for all the brands, loss of trust or negative spillover effect. This research is focused mainly on the spillover effect that the scandals can have on the different brands of a corporation. The spillover effect refers the idea that a message can influence the beliefs about a particular topic even if the attribute is not in the message (Ahluwalia, Unnava and Burnkrant, 2001; Roehm and Tybout, 2006). The goal of this study is to analyse if existed spillover effect between Facebook and Instagram, two of the brands that conform Facebook Inc. According to Feldman and Lynch (1988), the spillover effect is based on two pillars, accessibility and diagnosticity. Accessibility refers to the activation theory in which similar concepts can activate elements with strong links such products’ attributes or in this case between brands. Meanwhile, diagnosticity is about how consumers’ relate and perceive things in the real world. This theory suggests that if two elements have strong links between them, the information about element one will be transferred to element two (Feldman and Lynch, 1988; Roehm and Tybout, 2006).
the spillover effect is negative, then the results towards the second part are negative. In other words, the spillover effect has a positive impact when the consumers believe about reliability, safety and honesty of the brand, which can be synthesised as the trust towards a brand and have a negative impact when exists mistrust towards the brands (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). The concept of trust in business refers to the confidence, integrity and reliability on the other part (Moorman, Deshpande and Zaltman, 1993; Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
With the irruption of the Internet, the concept of trust has evolved. Some factors influence the trust on the online platforms such the size in terms of the traffic of the websites (Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa, 2004) or the confidence that the brands inspire (Bart et al. 2005). Nevertheless, the interaction of trust and privacy concern in social media sites is not yet understood. It is not clear why the users are willing to share their private data on some platforms but not in others (Dwyer, Hiltz and Passerini, 2007). When the brands break the privacy of the users (Tucker, 2014), they produce a negative spillover effect and contrary purchase intention in case they sell products or services online (Van Doorn and Hoekstra, 2013).
To protect users, governments have created their legislation. In the USA, the US Federal Trade Commission is the responsible for that meanwhile in Europe is the EU who updated in 2018 a law called General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Zarsky, 2016) from 1998. Even though the governments try to get the advantage of the online world, they show a lack of ability to anticipate technology’s future impact on citizens (Isaak and Hanna, 2018). The protection of the users is an essential factor for the trust but especially if they are underage, even though there are not clear proofs that the online environment is harmful to them (Lwin, Stanaland and Miyazaki, 2008). It is essential to highlight that websites have to do as much as possible for children’s’ protection. The cost of maintaining privacy for the kids is high even though it is worthy; due to it creates a positive perception on their parents (Udo, 2001).
2009). The negative spillover effect can be caused by many different reasons such the bad reputation of the firm; the quality of the products or services, a business scandal or even a lousy alliance (Votola and Unnava, 2006). There are different strategies to avoid the negative spillover effect on the brands. It is crucial to maintain a discreet profile during the scandal (Borah and Tellis, 2016) like Findus Nordic did (Falkheimer and Heide, 2015). If the brands try to create apology ads, they can be counterproductive and increase the concern about them (Borah and Tellis, 2016; Van Heerde, Helsen and Dekimpe, 2007). During crises, the brands have to plan an excellent strategy to placate the concerns and not only with mass media, but also with the social media platforms. If a scandal affects the competitors, it is crucial to differentiate the brand from them and create the impression that the brand is unique (Borah and Tellis, 2016).
with the scandal so following the same categorization Instagram has external locus attributions. The roles that the different brands played were crucial to understanding the potential damage to their image and reputation (Huber et al. 2010). The brand trust based on reliability and the brand intentions (Delgado et al. 2003) can erode after a scandal, and it is difficult to recover after that (Dawar and Pillutla, 2000; Erdem and Swait, 2004). It is necessary to establish a well-designed marketing campaign after a scandal in order to increase brand awareness and brand trust (Borah and Tellis, 2016; Dawar and Pillutla, 2000). In the scandal of Cambridge Analytica is essential to remark that in general people do not know about the fact that Instagram and WhatsApp are owned by Facebook Inc. (Pew Research, 2019; Vogels and Anderson, 2019). This detail can explain how the spillover effect affected the brands if it exists. It is also essential to know how the social media market has evolved and which are the current consequences of it.
2.2. Social media, the scandal of Cambridge Analytica
To understand Cambridge Analytica, it is necessary to know the phenomenon of social media and its evolution. It started as a tool to put in contact people with similar interests such as academic or professional. Nevertheless, in the last decade, it also has been used with political purposes and protests movements (Jost et al. 2008). The concept of social media has different definitions; the one with more consensuses is from Kaplan and Haenlein (2010). According to them, social media is: “Group of Internet-based applications […] that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content”. However, social media is not only for people; companies use social media to create integrated marketing communication (Mangold and Faulds, 2009).
power in the industry; the company bought different platforms such Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 creating the corporation of Facebook Inc. In the last survey conducted by YouGov (2019 B), Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram were between the top 5 most used social media platforms in Great Britain. Facebook was the most used social media platform by people over 25 and Instagram, the second one after Youtube for people from 18 to 23 years old.
This study analyses the effect of Cambridge Analytica scandal on two different social media platforms. First of all, it is necessary to analyse Facebook due to its connections with the Cambridge Analytica company and also because it was the affected platform. The social networking site was created in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg and became the most famous and used social media platform around the globe. Users can share their thoughts and pictures and at the same time, can show their interests on different topics as brands, business, organizations or events. On the other hand, this study analyses Instagram, which is another social networking site created in 2010 by Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger and bought in 2014 by Facebook Inc. Instagram is a photo and video sharing platform that allows the users to share photos using different filters and organise them by tags and locations. This platform became very useful for the influencers to share their daily life and at the same time, promote different products and services and became the most famous one between the teenagers (YouGov, 2019 B).
year, the data was also used in the American Presidential elections to influence the voters to vote Donald Trump (Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison, 2018).
During 2018 and 2019, the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, had a different summons from the House of Commons and the US Congress to explain the relation between Facebook and Cambridge Analytica Ltd . Zuckerberg refused to face the examination in the UK parliament (Wakefield, 2019), but he did not do the same in the US Congress. He did not clarify the responsibility of Facebook on the scandal, so it was not possible to arrive in a definite conclusion about the responsibility of Facebook and the relation with Cambridge Analytica firm (Kang et al. 2018).
During the second semester of 2019, Facebook Inc. introduced small changes related to the branding of the corporation. It changed the logo from Facebook Inc. to FACEBOOK, and it started to introduce “from FACEBOOK” to the different applications of social media platforms that belong to the corporation (Lucio, 2019). These changes aimed to highlight the different platforms that belong to Facebook and at the same time, increase the trust towards the brand.
3.Research Design
The goal of this research is to analyse the consequences of Cambridge Analytica scandal towards Facebook and Instagram. The primary purpose is to figure out if the scandal related with Facebook, caused a spillover effect (Ahluwalia, Unnava and Burnkrant, 2001; Roehm and Tybout, 2006) towards Instagram due to both brands interact in the market of social networking sites (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). The previous literature used quantitative analysis (see: Ahluwalia, Unnava and Burnkrant, 2001; Balachander and Ghose, 2003; Roehm and Tybout, 2006) to evaluate the possible negative spillover effect between different brands. The question of this research is How did the scandal of Cambridge Analytica influence people's perception of Facebook and Instagram? One of the main characteristics of this study is that in the extant literature, the analysis is quantitative and in this case, is a mix between quantitative and qualitative, focusing on the media frame analysis. In order to carry out this study, the data is based on the articles published in three different British newspapers. Consequently, it gives another point of view for the analysis of the spillover effect compared to the previous studies, which were based on surveys.
3.1 Data
The data used comes from three different newspapers The Guardian, The
Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, besides, their Sunday versions, The Observer
from The Guardian and The Sunday Telegraph from The Daily Telegraph. The three different newspapers cover the different perspectives that are reflected nowadays in the British print media (BBC, 2009) and each of them is the most read newspaper in their target (PAMCo, 2019; YouGov,2019 A). The Guardian represents left wing and more progressive tendencies. This newspaper uncovered the scandal analysed in this study. On the other side, The Daily Telegraph represents the right and more conservative side. Finally, The Daily Mail, which represents the tabloids side with a conservative perspective (BBC, 2009). The tabloids have a progressive or conservative side, but at the same time they are based on the sensationalism and the scandals (Örnebring and Jönsson, 2004)
The articles analysed were published from 1 January 2017 till 31 December 2018. The date used to divide the periods is when the article related to Cambridge Analytica from Cadwalladr and Graham-Harrison (17 March 2018) was published in
The Guardian. Thanks to this date, it is easy to define the pre and post periods. These
selected periods enable to analyse the evolution of the opinion towards the big social media platforms published on the print media. It started when the scandal had not broken yet when it was discovered, and it covers some months after it too.
The study analysed two different social media platforms Facebook and Instagram. The reason why the research is focused on Facebook lays on the fact that Cambridge Analytica Ltd., the company that caused the scandal, was strictly related to Facebook Inc. Cambridge Analytica Ltd. used Facebook's platform to harvest personal data from its users, and Facebook allowed it. On the other hand, Instagram is analysed because Facebook Inc. owns it and it is the most similar social media platform to Facebook according to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010): "Group of Internet-based applications […] that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content".
purposes. First of all, it was necessary the select only the articles that contain the words " social media" in their title or lead paragraph (n=4,337). After this first sieve, another was needed. In this case, there were two subsets, one made by all the articles that contained the word "Facebook" in any part of the article (1,201), and the articles that contained the word “Instagram” created the other subset (860). Some articles included both words; in those cases, the articles were in both subsets. Once the two different filters were applied, the result was two different subsets that contained the clean data based on the newspapers' articles published during 2017 and 2018 in the UK.
3.2 Methods
The methodology used in this study is based on a mix method composed of qualitative and quantitative analysis. The triangulation theory (Denzin, 2012) inspired the mix method, which permits to increase the reliability of the findings. In this study, a quantitative analysis is conducted and after it a qualitative analysis. This procedure permits to avoid the possible limitations of using only the quantitative analysis; the qualitative analysis permits to go deeper with the results.
The media frame analysis has been used in different studies in the past (Humphreys 2010 A, Humphreys 2010 B, Lundahl, 2018). This research is doing frame analysis with a constructionist approach (D'Angelo, 2002) on the articles from the newspapers. The purpose is to find out the different frames related to Facebook and Instagram that are expressed on the British media. In order to cover the different perspectives of the society, the newspapers selected to cover from the progressive to the conservative wing through the most read tabloid (PAMCo, 2019; YouGov, 2019 A).
Following the methodology of the media frame analysis, the study has found three different frames; two of them are focused on Facebook; meanwhile, the third one is focused on Instagram. The first frame is from period 1, the pre-scandal period. The main concern on that period was already about the application of the personal data that Facebook was doing. It is related with the extant literature that linked privacy and trust to the online companies (Boyd and Ellison, 2007; Hoffman, Novak and Peralta, 1999; Wu et al. 2012) and the confidence that they inspire (Bart et al. 2005). The second frame is from the period after the scandal was discovered and it is also related to Facebook. It has a strong relationship with the previous one, but the main difference is that this one includes the reinforcement of the idea that the users had already about the private data. Meanwhile, the first frame the users only have suspicious about that their private data was not safe; the second frame the users have already the proof that their data is not safe with Facebook. On this frame appeared business parameters related with the company and some negative consequences that the corporation suffers as the result of the scandal (Hoffman, Novak and Peralta, 1999; Tucker, 2014; Van Doorn and Hoekstra, 2013).
The quantitative analysis part examines the articles from another perspective. In order to carry out this analysis, the study conducted a t-test. It assumes that the variable is normally distributed and the mean is known, and the population variance is estimated from the sample (Malhotra, 2009). In this case, the t-test evaluates the difference between the periods (Pre and post scandal) in the two subsets (Facebook and Instagram) separately. To conduct the quantitative analysis with the articles is necessary to use the program LIWC (Pennebaker et al. 2015). It analyses in percentage the presence of certain words in the data. The study uses a "dictionary", which is a list of words related to a specific topic. This research has its own "dictionary" with the words related to trust and privacy from the consumers' perspective (Appendix 1).
The external dictionary was generated following the process proposed by Pennebaker et al., (2015) and following the example of Humphrey (2010A). It was validated with three external judges, who received a list of words related with trust and privacy, two concepts related with the scandal and the online platforms (Boyd and Ellison, 2007; Wu et al. 2012). The judges had to assume or reject that the words were related to the concepts. If at least two judges assumed that the words were related, the words appear on the dictionary. It was also possible to add more words if the judges found them relevant.
4.Results
The following section explains the results obtained from the data collected previously from different British newspapers during the period from 2017 until 2018. This study used a mix method based on quantitative and qualitative analysis. The study started with the quantitative analysis in which a t-test was conducted using the data obtained from the LIWC. The results did not show a clear tendency; for this reason, a qualitative analysis was required to dig down deeper the results. The qualitative analysis part was based on media frame analysis, which permits to find out the different frames that appear on the published articles during the period and have a better overall image of the situation.
4.1 Quantitative analysis:
The qualitative analysis is based on the results obtained from LIWC with the external dictionary. Due to the duration of the periods was not the same, 15 months for period 1 and 9 months for period 2, make a comparison between the periods in absolute numbers was not possible. For this reason, the study used the results from LIWC, which gives the results in percentages and not in absolute numbers. With the percentages from the LIWC, it was possible to conduct a t-test and compare the two different periods.
means that after the scandal, more published articles contain words related to trust and privacy.
The articles of Instagram were analysed following the same methodology as it was explained before for the Facebook articles. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the periods, based on the words related to trust and privacy from the consumers' perspective. The results for the t-test period 1 were (M= 0,354; SD= 0,0512) and period 2 were (M= 0,481; SD= 0,176); conditions t (12)= -1,835, p= 0,091 (Appendix 3). The result of the t-test indicates that there was not a significant difference (p>0,05) between period one and period two. The scandal of Cambridge Analytica caused an increase in the presence of words related to trust and privacy in the articles about Instagram. However, the growth of those words was not significant between the periods.
4.2 Qualitative analysis
The purpose of the qualitative analysis was to dig down more in depth in the database to clarify the results obtained from the quantitative part. The qualitative analysis was based on the media frame analysis with a constructivist approach (D'Angelo, 2002). According to the media frame analysis conducted, the study recognised three different frames that clarify the situation of Facebook and Instagram on the articles. Two of the frames were related to Facebook, one before the scandal and the other one after. The third one was related to Instagram, which covered the entire timespan. The different frames quoted in this chapter appear in Appendix 4.
"Facebook is not protecting well the users' privacy, but there is not any evidence."
data for political purposes, but it could be possible (The Guardian, 17 May 2017;
Daily Telegraph, 18 May 2017). The governments should do something to protect the
users (Sunday Telegraph, 17 December 2017).
The articles demonstrated that the biggest concern was about how the big social media platforms treated the users' data and how the platforms used their private data (e.g. The Sunday Telegraph, 3 March 2017; Daily Mail, 2 January 2018). This idea was supported by the extant literature that relates in the online era the concept of trust and the privacy (Boyd and Ellison, 2007; Hoffman, Novak and Peralta, 1999; Wu et al., 2012). The following quotes reflect some of the articles and how was the perception towards Facebook even before the scandal. They are from letters of readers published in different newspapers:
"We must rediscover the concept of privacy: we own our data, not the digital giants, which collect it, and we should value it more dearly than we do" (The Sunday Telegraph, 10 December 2017).
"Hearing its sales executives explain how much data Facebook had on its users, all the ways it could target people and get them to click on ads was terrifying. I haven't posted a personal update on Facebook since. The moment you start thinking about Facebook as a surveillance system rather than a social network, it becomes a lot more difficult to hand it your information". (The Guardian, 1 January 2018).
The concern about the personal data was the predominant topic during the first period, and it was reinforced, especially after the scandal. However, this frame is focused exclusively on the period before the scandal. Even before the scandal was discovered, the concern of the personal data protection (Daily Mail, 13 December 2017; The Guardian, 1 March 2018) and the "the right to be forgotten" (The
Guardian, 7 August 2017) was already on the newspapers. According to Hoffman,
Novak and Peralta (1999) and Boyd and Ellison (2007), these concerns are important issues for the companies, especially if they want to present themselves as reliable platforms. Some experts from public organisations already made aware of the potential political use of the personal data from the social media platforms as it was explained in an article on The Guardian:
political messages to people based on their data, they could be breaking the law. […] The law applied to the collection of data even when we are talking about Facebook.[…] We are looking at previous campaigns, and we will look at how political parties are using personal data in this one." (The Guardian, 17 May 2017) The main fear reflected in the articles was about the privacy of the users of Facebook and how the big social media platform uses their private data. The concern about the privacy of the online users has been studied in the past and not only related with the social media platforms (Boyd and Ellison, 2007) also with the users of the online websites (Hoffman, Novak and Peralta, 1999). This concern is something that the companies know, and they try to make efforts to please their users, even Facebook was doing this before the scandal was discovered (Tucker, 2014). The articles written by users with in-depth knowledge of the sector started to criticise the platform and how it treated the data (The Guardian, 17 May 2017; The Guardian, 1 March 2018;
Sunday Telegraph, 17 December 2107). It is essential to highlight the article
dedicated to the former top boss of Facebook, who said, "Facebook is ripping apart the fabric of the society" (Daily Mail, 12 December 2017). The frame was focused on the concern about the using of the private data of the users of Facebook. At that time, there were only speculations because there was not any clear evidence about the illegal using of the data from Facebook. However, this idea was already recurrent on the newspapers articles.
"Cambridge Analytica was used to reinforce the idea that Facebook inappropriately used personal data."
During the second period analysed, from 17 March 2018 to 31 December 2018, another frame emerged from the articles. There was a considerable amount of articles related to Facebook, covering the scandal of Cambridge Analytica, especially the ones published in March and April and then more intensively the articles by The
Guardian. The journalists used different rhetorical strategies to explain the situation
March 2018). These keywords were closely related to the cause of the scandal. Another rhetorical strategy used in this frame was the economic values that the journalists used to inform about the effects that the scandal caused to the company (Daily Mail, 21 March 2018) but at the same time articles that showed the opposite effect (The Guardian, 1 May 2018).
The concern about the treatment that Facebook did about the personal data and how they break the users' privacy (Tucker, 2014) caused different problems to the corporation Facebook Inc. During the period analysed some boycotts appeared on the newspapers (Daily Mail, 20 March 2018; The Guardian, 7 April 2018) but the increment of the number of users and the record revenue for the first quarter of 2018 (The Guardian, 1 May 2018) demonstrated that they were not effective. During that period, more articles of Facebook were about financial and economic parameters of the company. The articles analysed show how there were contradictive values related with Facebook from the loss of stock's price (Daily Mail, 21 March 2018) to the record revenues (The Guardian, 1 May 2018). Once the scandal was discovered by Cadwalladr and Graham-Harrison (The Guardian, 17 March 2018), all the others newspapers published different articles about it (The Observer 17 March 2018; Daily
Telegraph, 22 March 2018; Daily Mail, 26 March 2018). In the following months, the
different newspapers also published positive news about the brand, such as the record revenues (The Guardian, 1 May 2018). It was mainly the first two months when the focus was on Facebook and the negative news about privacy and private data. However, after some weeks the scandal disappeared gradually from the newspapers. The perception of trust towards the brand was deteriorating (Tucker, 2014) even though the number of active users per month increased 9,6%, lower than the previous years when the inter-annual growth was higher than 16% (Kemp, 2019).
When the focus was on the relation that the users of Facebook had towards the firm, the general perception was more negative. It came from the previous scenario when the articles published reflected the idea that Facebook users were not sure that the platform was doing a good using of their private data.
The previous quote shows clearly how the perception towards Facebook changed negatively just a week after the scandal appeared on The Guardian. However, this perception did not change very quickly, after a few months of the scandal this other quote appeared in the newspapers:
"Young people feel Facebook is polluted with "fake news" […] many older people distrust Facebook for the same reasons" (The Observer, 16 September 2018)
It did not only affect the perception of the brand among the users, but it also affected the trust of the real customers. Facebook offers services to other brands and companies that pay for the data, but after the scandal, this trust was damaged, and it can cause problems between the platform and the customers (Bart et al. 2005). The following quote exemplifies the problems that this type of scandals can cause to the online platforms when the real customers do not trust them.
" Trust is a particularly important resource because it also lacks in Facebook and Google's relationship with their real customers: the advertisers who account for the vast bulk of their revenue. Facebook has repeatedly had to apologise for inflating metrics that it reports back to advertisers." (The Observer, 7 July 2018)
Finally, another point to highlight from the articles of that period was that during those months, a new European law updated the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Zarsky, 2016). The scandal of Cambridge Analytica was discovered during that period while the European Union discussed the law. It caused that Cambridge Analytica was used in many newspapers as an example:
"Current data laws allow a maximum fine of £500,000, but under the GDPR this would increase to as much as (EURO) 1.6bn (£1.1bn). EU sources said a Facebook-style data breach would be likely to draw the most draconian penalty available." (The Daily Telegraph, 29 March 2018).
"Instagram does not inspire security to its users, especially among the underage."
The third frame is the result of applying the media frame analysis on the data, formed by the articles that contained Instagram and published from 1 January 2017 until 31 December 2018. From the database, emerged one frame due to the scandal of Cambridge Analytica did not change the ideas reflected on the articles as it did with Facebook. These articles used different keywords as a rhetorical strategy to identify the messages expressed in the articles. With the database emerged one frame that involves keywords such as "privacy" and "children's privacy". These keywords were used to transmit the idea that the big online platforms do not do enough for users' privacy and it is more critical when it is about the privacy of the underage (The Daily Mail, 5 January 2017). Concurrent to the protection of the young users, the articles put the focus of interest on the utility that other users can do of the accounts of underage (The Guardian, 28 December 2018).
The Ofcom regulator found that 56% of the parents prefer to keep their family photos away from social media, being the children's privacy the main reason (The
Guardian, 3 August 2017). Previous research found out that, even the websites use
safeguards to protect the children; the parents still play an essential role to protect the kids from the online traps (Lwin, Stanaland and Miyazaki, 2008). On the Instagram platform, there is a limitation of the age to create an account, but it is not enough. During the analysed period some articles thought about the idea that how was possible that even the legal age to have an account is 13, half of the 11 years old kids already had it (The Daily Mail, 29 November 2017). This situation was an example of what Lwin, Stanaland and Miyazaki (2008) defended, the role that parents play. Another problem of the age limitation was that, even when the teenagers are allowed to have an account, they were not able to understand the terms and conditions of the platform.
"Social media giants were yesterday accused of bamboozling children into signing away their privacy. […] Instagram's terms and conditions say users have to be at least 13. Nevertheless, a group of teenagers asked to read them, not one fully understood what they were committing themselves to." (The Daily Mail, 5 January 2017)
the relation with the corporation. Those showed concern about the utilization of their private data on the part of Facebook and which kind of using the platform would do. On the other hand, the concept of privacy in the frame of Instagram was about the utilization that the other users could do with the information and posts that users did on their accounts. The future digital print is an issue that most of the people do not think about it. However, in the future, especially the digital print of the children can be a problem when they choose the university, get a mortgage or job applications (The
Daily Telegraph, 8 November 2018). In the same direction, The Guardian published
an editorial presenting the pros and cons of Instagram and explaining some traps that the platform had, such being open enough to invite harassment and the possibility to create anonymous accounts (The Guardian, 28 December 2018).
In the Instagram's articles, people were concern about the lack of regulation; The Edelman trust barometer found that 64% of the respondents were worried about the lack of regulation of social media and 69% agreed that they do not do enough for the bullying. (The Guardian, 22 January 2018). This perception can be a problem in the future for the different platforms, due to according to the extant literature (Wu et al. 2012) the trust on the websites or social media platforms is based on the treatment that these sites do about the personal data and how they treat the consumers' privacy (Boyd and Ellison, 2007). After the scandal of Cambridge Analytica, the tendency of the different articles was similar to the previous period; it demonstrated that there was not an apparent influence from the scandal.
5. Discussion
are two social network sites (Boyd and Ellison, 2007) that offer their services online and not physical products. The study was focused mainly on the qualitative analysis which made it different from the previous research about the spillover effect that used the quantitative analysis (e.g. (Ahluwalia, Unnava and Burnkrant, 2001; Roehm and Tybout, 2006). This study had two different stages; firstly a quantitative analysis was conducted, to know if the concept of trust was more present after the scandal than it was before and if this presence was significantly different between the two periods. This analysis was conducted on Facebook and Instagram separately. The results were not precise; at this point, the study conducted the qualitative analysis. The qualitative analysis was based on the media frame analysis, already used in the previous literature (Humphreys, 2010 A; Lundahl, 2018) and it was the most critical part due to it permitted to discover the different frames that the media created related with Facebook and Instagram.
The most affected brand by the scandal was Facebook. It was from the beginning (Cadwalladr and Graham-Harrison, 2018) the brand accused of concealing the activity that Cambridge Analytica was doing through Facebook's platform. The corporation that owns Facebook has different social media platforms, and this study wanted to know if the scandal caused a spillover effect on the brands of the corporation. The study was focused on Facebook, the main affected, and Instagram, the other social media platform with the most similar characteristics to Facebook (Boyd and Ellison, 2007) among the corporation's brand portfolio. It is essential to highlight that less than five articles were explaining that Facebook and Instagram belong to Facebook Inc. This is one of the possible reasons that explain why users, in general, do not know about this relation as Pew Research explained it (2019) or Vogels and Anderson (2019). The academic research found that the spillover effect is more likely to occur when the two brands have strong links between them and people is aware of that, which is something that does not occur between Facebook and Instagram.
on the articles, which was a clear consequence of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. On the other hand, the articles that included some references to Instagram did not have a significant difference between the pre and the post-scandal periods. It showed that those articles did not change their topics, in the sense that the scandal did not have a significant effect on the published. The concept of trust and the words related with it maintained the same structure during the two periods, which was similar with the results from the media frame analysis that only found out one frame for both periods.
The results of the media frame analysis showed that based on the timespan analysed, three different frames could be drawn. Two of them were related to Facebook and the other to Instagram. These three different frames went in the same direction as the qualitative analysis did. Based on those three frames, it was possible to conclude that Cambridge Analytica scandal influenced Facebook, and it caused two different frames one before the scandal and another after the scandal. The scandal did not influence Instagram, and the frame from the articles showed that the concern about the privacy was in both periods the same.
protecting well or at least there was this suspicious provoked that the users started to distrust the platform and appeared the first negative opinions about it.
The second frame was related to Facebook too; in this case, it covered the period after the scandal was discovered. The scandal was used as a proof for the critics to reaffirm what they already said about Facebook. The privacy policy is an essential factor for the users of the online platforms (Wu et al., 2012), which in this case, it was broken by itself. The consequences of a scandal can be diverse, from a loss of trust to the brand (Gray, Clark and Frieder, 2005) to a loss of the stocks' value from 20% up to 40% (Giannetti and Wang, 2016). In terms of brand trust, the new members of the platform decreased from 16% to 9,6% (Kemp, 2019), even after the scandal, there was a considerable growth of the new members. In this sense, the brand trust suffered a small effect from the scandal. It produced a reduction of 28% of the stocks' value during the first two months, and after one year, the stocks recovered their price. During the post-scandal period appeared some boycott proposals on other platforms but according to the data of the new users (Kemp, 2019) they did not have success.
In both frames, the articles showed concern about the privacy of the users. However, as the second frame describes, the financial results showed that even after the scandal, the results were positive but with lower growth. These results contradict the previous literature, Facebook showed a reduction of the stock's value but just for a few months. The percentage of the new users measured brand trust, but it only showed a reduction in the growth of it. The main reason behind these contradictory economic results is that Facebook is one of the biggest companies in the world (Statista, 2019) and offers a unique social media platform, as all the social media platforms. In this situation, even the people were concerned about their privacy; they still use the platform to be connected with the others and be present on it.
privacy in general, but especially about children's privacy and what was the brand doing to protect them. According to Udo (2011), investment into the privacy of the underage is expensive it is worthy and parents appreciate when the websites or online platforms care about the protection of their kids, and they value more positively. Even if the brands invest in the kids' privacy, the parents have to protect their kids from inappropriate content to make the platform a safer place (Lwin, Stanaland and Miyazaki, 2008).
Facebook and Instagram acted in the same market of the social network sites (Boyd and Ellison, 2007), the links between them were not strong enough, and it saved Instagram to suffer the negative spillover effect of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Facebook suffered the consequences of Cambridge Analytica scandal; due to it was perceived as the responsible for that and the brand knew the irregularity. The situation for Facebook was not comfortable, especially during the first two months after the scandal, even though the brand recovered the normality a few months later. On the other hand, Instagram had some problems related to the using of the data from other users but not directly with the brand. Even the two brands interact in the same market; the scandal of one of them did not affect the other brand even if they are from the same corporation.
Facebook does, people did not associate the two products as similar. They neither associate the two brands together when the scandal was discovered, what made that Instagram did not suffer the negative spillover effect caused by the scandal. Trust towards Instagram depended on the privacy that the platform could offer to the users from other users and not between them and the platform.
6. Limitations and future research
7. Reference list
Ahluwalia, R., Unnava, H. R., & Burnkrant, R. E. (2001). The moderating role of commitment on the spillover effect of marketing communications. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (4), 458-470.
Balachander, S., & Ghose, S. (2003). Reciprocal spillover effects: A strategic benefit of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 67 (1), 4-13.
Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F., & Urban, G. L. (2005). Are the drivers and role of online trust the same for all web sites and consumers? A large-scale exploratory empirical study. Journal of marketing, 69 (4), 133-152.
BBC, (2009, 30 September). The Politics of UK Newspapers. BBC. Retrieved 26 September 2019, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/8282189.stm
Blackwelder, B., Coleman, K., Colunga-Santoyo, S., Harrison, J. S., & Wozniak, D. (2016). “The Volkswagen Scandal”. Case Study. University of Richmond: Robins School of Business. (January)
Borah, A., & Tellis, G. J. (2016). Halo (spillover) effects in social media: do product recalls of one brand hurt or help rival brands?. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(2), 143-160.
Boyd, C. (2012). The Nestlé infant formula controversy and a strange web of subsequent business scandals. Journal of business ethics, 106 (3), 283-293.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of computer-mediated Communication, 13 (1), 210-230. Brodwin, E. (2018, 19 March). Here’s the personality test Cambridge Analytica had milions of Facebook users take. Business Insider. Retrieved 19 November 2019, from https://www.businessinsider.nl/facebook-personality-test-cambridge-analytica-data-trump-election-2018-3?international=true&r=US
Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018, 17 March). Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The
guardian. Retrieved 21 September 2019, from
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election?CMP=share_btn_tw
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of marketing, 65 (2), 81-93.
Choi, C. J., Eldomiaty, T. I., & Kim, S. W. (2007). Consumer trust, social marketing and ethics of welfare exchange. Journal of Business Ethics, 74 (1), 17-23.
Dawar, N., & Pillutla, M. M. (2000). Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: The moderating role of consumer expectations. Journal of marketing research, 37 (2), 215-226.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J. L., & Yague-Guillen, M. J. (2003). Development and validation of a brand trust scale. International Journal of Market
Research, 45 (1), 35-54.
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of mixed methods research, 6(2), 80-88.
Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. AMCIS 2007
proceedings, 339.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of communication, 43 (4), 51-58.
Erdem, T., & Sun, B. (2002). An empirical investigation of the spillover effects of advertising and sales promotions in umbrella branding. Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (4), 408-420.
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of consumer research, 31 (1), 191-198.
Falkheimer, J., & Heide, M. (2015). Trust and brand recovery campaigns in crisis: Findus Nordic and the horsemeat scandal. International Journal of Strategic
Communication, 9 (2), 134-147.
Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of applied
Psychology, 73 (3), 421.
Ferree, M. M., & Merrill, D. A. (2000). Hot movements, cold cognition: Thinking about social movements in gendered frames. Contemporary Sociology, 29(3), 454-462.
Fombrun, C., & Foss, C. (2004). Business ethics: Corporate responses to scandal. Corporate Reputation Review, 7 (3), 284-288.
Freeman, R. E. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of management
review, 24 (2), 233-236.
Giannetti, M., & Wang, T. Y. (2016). Corporate scandals and household stock market participation. The Journal of Finance, 71 (6), 2591-2636.
Gray, K. R., Clark, G. W., & Frieder, L. A. (2005). Corporate scandals: The many
faces of greed. Paragon House.
Gray, K. R., Frieder, L. A., & Clark Jr, G. W. (2007). Financial bubbles and business scandals in history. International Journal of Public Administration, 30 (8-9), 859-888. Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Peralta, M. (1999). Building consumer trust
online. Communications of the ACM, 42(4), 80-85.
Huber, F., Vollhardt, K., Matthes, I., & Vogel, J. (2010). Brand misconduct: Consequences on consumer–brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 63 (11), 1113-1120.
Humphreys, A. (2010 A ). Semiotic structure and the legitimation of consumption practices: The case of casino gambling. Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 490-510.
Humphreys, A. (2010 B). Megamarketing: The creation of markets as a social process. Journal of Marketing, 74 (2), 1-19.
Isaak, J., & Hanna, M. J. (2018). User Data Privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and Privacy Protection. Computer, 51 (8), 56-59.
Jost, J. T., Barberá, P., Bonneau, R., Langer, M., Metzger, M., Nagler, J., ... & Tucker, J. A. (2018). How social media facilitates political protest: Information, motivation, and social networks. Political psychology, 39, 85-118.
Kang, C., Hsu, T., Roose, K., Singer, N., & Rosenberg, M. (2018). Mark Zuckerberg Testimony: Day 2 Brings Tougher Questioning. The New York Times (April 2018). Kang, J., & Hustvedt, G. (2014). Building trust between consumers and corporations: The role of consumer perceptions of transparency and social responsibility. Journal of
Business Ethics, 125(2), 253-265.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
Kemp, S. (2019, 31 January). Digital 2019: Global Digital Overview. Datereportal. Retrieved 12 October 2019, from https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2019-global-digital-overview
Kim, J. B., & Choi, C. J. (2003). Reputation and product tampering in service industries. The Service Industries Journal, 23(4), 3-11.
Krishna, A., & Rajan, U. (2009). Cause marketing: spillover effects of cause-related products in a product portfolio. Management Science, 55(9), 1469-1485.
Lei, J., Dawar, N., & Lemmink, J. (2008). Negative spillover in brand portfolios: Exploring the antecedents of asymmetric effects. Journal of marketing, 72(3), 111-123.
Loken, B., & John, D. R. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: when do brand extensions have a negative impact?. Journal of marketing, 57(3), 71-84.
Lucio, A. (2019, 4 November). Introducing our new company brand. Facebook. Retrieved 8 Desember from https://about.fb.com/news/2019/11/introducing-our-new-company-brand/
Lundahl, O. (2018). Dynamics of positive deviance in destigmatisation: Celebrities and the media in the rise of veganism. Consumption Markets & Culture, (2018). Lwin, M. O., Stanaland, A. J., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2008). Protecting children's privacy online: How parental mediation strategies affect website safeguard effectiveness. Journal of Retailing, 84(2), 205-217.
Malhotra, N. (2009). Marketing research: An applied orientation. Person Global Edition 6th Edition. p.374, 504.
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business horizons, 52(4), 357-365.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of marketing, 57(1), 81-101.
Monga, A. B., & John, D. R. (2008). When does negative brand publicity hurt? The moderating influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 18(4), 320-332.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
Muralidharan, S., Dillistone, K., & Shin, J. H. (2011). The Gulf Coast oil spill: Extending the theory of image restoration discourse to the realm of social media and beyond petroleum. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 226-232.
Örnebring, H., & Jönsson, A. M. (2004). Tabloid journalism and the public sphere: A historical perspective on tabloid journalism. Journalism studies, 5(3), 283-295. Pamco. (2019, 11 December). PAMCo 4 2019 (Oct’18-Sep’19). PAMCo. Retrieved 5 January 2020, from https://pamco.co.uk/news/newsletter-q4-2019/index.html
Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development
and psychometric properties of LIWC2015.
Pew Research Center (2019, 9 October). Most Americans don’t know Facebook owns Instagram and WhatsApp. Business Insider. Retrieved 8 Desember 2019, from
https://www.businessinsider.com/most-americans-dont-know-facebook-owns-instagram-and-whatsapp-2019-10?international=true&r=US&IR=T
Roehm, M. L., & Tybout, A. M. (2006). When will a brand scandal spill over, and how should competitors respond?. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 366-373. Skeel, D. (2005). Icarus in the boardroom: The fundamental flaws in corporate
America and where they came from. Oxford University Press.
Statista (2019, May). The 100 largest companies in the world by market value in 2019. Statista. Retrieved 5 January 2020, from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263264/top-companies-in-the-world-by-market-value/
Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality (Vol. 256). New York: Free Press.
Tucker, C. E. (2014). Social networks, personalized advertising, and privacy controls. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(5), 546-562. Chicago
Udo, G. J. (2001). Privacy and security concerns as major barriers for e-commerce: a survey study. Information Management & Computer Security, 9(4), 165-174.
Van Doorn, J., & Hoekstra, J. C. (2013). Customization of online advertising: The role of intrusiveness. Marketing Letters, 24(4), 339-351.co
Van Driel, H. (2019). Financial fraud, scandals, and regulation: A conceptual framework and literature review. Business History, 61 (8), 1259-1299.
Van Heerde, H., Helsen, K., & Dekimpe, M. G. (2007). The impact of a product-harm crisis on marketing effectiveness. Marketing Science, 26 (2), 230-245.
Vliegenthart, R., & Van Zoonen, L. (2011). Power to the frame: Bringing sociology back to frame analysis. European journal of communication, 26(2), 101-115. Vogels E.A. & Anderson M. (2019, 9 October). Americans and Digital knowledge.
Pew Research Center. Retrieved 10 Desember 2019, from
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/10/09/americans-and-digital-knowledge/ Votola, N. L., & Unnava, H. R. (2006). Spillover of negative information on brand alliances. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(2), 196-202.
Wakefield, J. (2019, 18 February). Facebook needs regulation as Zuckerberg ‘fails’ UK MPs. BBC. Retrieved 23 November 2019, from
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological review, 92(4), 548.
Willmott, M. (2003). Citizen brands: Corporate citizenship, trust and branding. Journal of Brand Management, 10(4), 362-369.
Wu, K. W., Huang, S. Y., Yen, D. C., & Popova, I. (2012). The effect of online privacy policy on consumer privacy concern and trust. Computers in human
behavior, 28(3), 889-897.
YouGov. (2019 A). The most famous newspapers in the UK. YouGov. Retrieved 15 October 2019, from https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/media/fame/newspaper/all
YouGov (2019 30 October, B). Honesty and social media – A case of sharing without caring?. YouGov. Retrieved 7 Decebmer 2019, from
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/resources/articles-reports/2019/10/30/honesty-and-social-media
Zarsky, T. Z. (2016). Incompatible: The GDPR in the age of big data. Seton Hall L.
APPENDIX 1 – DICTIONARY
Accept* Disillusion* Misuse*
Accuracy Distrust* Personal*
Allow Doubt Policy
Assuran* Dubiety Privacy
Authorise Expectation Private
Certainty Faith Protect
Certitude Honest Regulat*
Collect* Hope Reject
Consent Illegal Reliance
Confidence Incertitude Reliable
Conviction Incredulity Sceptic*
Cookie* Intrusive Suspect
Credence Lawful Suspicion
Criticism Legal* Target*
Data Legitimated Transparen*
Dependence Legislat* Trust*
Deviousness Licensed Unbelie*
Disbelie* Misinform* Uncertain*
Disclosure Misgiving Valid*
APPENDIX 2 – FACEBOOK
Independent Sample Test
Levene’s Test for
quality of Variance t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2talled) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Trust Equal variance assumed
9,947 0,008 -2,673 12 ,020 -,30857142 ,11545827 -,560133390 -,057009467 Equal variance not
assumed
-2,673 6,368 ,035 -,30857142 ,11545827 -,587174304 -,029968553
Group statistics
Period N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Trust 1 7 ,561428571000000 ,052734736000000 ,019931856700000
APPENDIX 3 – INSTAGRAM
Independent Sample Test
Levene’s Test for
quality of Variance t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2talled) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Trust Equal variance
assumed
8,825 ,012 -1835 12 ,091 -,12714285 ,06929185 -,27811683 ,02383111 Equal variance not
assumed -1,835 7,011 ,109 -,12714285 ,06929185 -,29094060 ,03665489 Group Statistics
Period N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Trust 1 7 ,354285714000000 ,051269595600000 ,019378085700000
2 7 ,481428571000000 ,176014069000000 ,066527064700000
APPENDIX 4 NEWSPAPERS LIST
Daily Mail (2017), “Instagram tricks children into signing away privacy.” 5 January. Daily Mail (2017), “Half of 11-year-olds use social media… so much for ban on
under 13s!” 29 November.
Daily Mail (2017), “Facebook riping society apart.” 12 December. Daily Mail (2017), “ Bring the web giants to heel.” 13 December.
Daily Mail (2018), “Social media giants are wild beasts devouring freedom and
democracy. We must tame them.” 2 January.
Daily Mail (2018), “£25Bn is wiped off Facebook after fury over data harvesting.” 20
March
Daily Mail (2018),“ Sell-off strikes UK cyber firm too.” 21 March.
Daily Mail (2018), “Facebook’s data gold rush.” 22 March.
Daily Mail (2018), “So what demented (And doomed) ploy to stop Brexit will they
come up with next!” 26 March.
Daily Telegraph (2017), “Parties could break law with adverts on Facebook; Election
2017 The Telegraph Election 2017 Information Commissioner investigates how voters can be targeted by analysts using social media profiles.” 18 March. p.4.
Daily Telegraph (2018), “We violated users’ trust, admits Facebook; Social media
giant accused of “failing to play the rues”.” 22 March. p.1-2.
Daily Telegraph (2018), “Facebook boosts privacy controls for users after data
scandal.” 29 March. p.5.
Daily Telegraph (2018), “Internet giants first to be accused of breaking GDPR.” 26
May. p.4.
Daily Telegraph (2018), “How Germany took on the titans of social meida- and won; Analysis.” 10 August. p.4.
Daily Telegraph (2018), “Children have 1,300 images online by the age of 13; Duty
of care TELEGRAPH CAMPAIGN.” 8 November. p.9
Guardian (2017), “Inquiry launched into target of UK voters through social media;
Information commissioner’s Investigation to go further than current exploration of practices used in EU referendum General election 2017- latest updates.” 17 May.
Guardian (2017), “The ‘sharenting’ divide: half UK parents do not post children’s
