Communication privacy management (CPM), originally known as communication boundary management, is a systematic research theory developed by Sandra Petronio in 1991. CPM theory aims to develop an evidence-based understanding of the way people make decisions about revealing and concealing private information. It suggests that individuals maintain and coordinate privacy boundaries (the limits of what they are willing to share) with various communication partners depending on the perceived benefits and costs of information disclosure. Petronio believes disclosing private information will strengthen one's connections with others, and that we can better understand the rules for disclosure in relationships through negotiating privacy boundaries.
Petronio uses a boundary metaphor to explain the privacy management process. Privacy boundaries draw divisions between private information and public information. This theory argues that when people disclose private information, they depend on a rule-based management system to control the level of accessibility. An individual's privacy boundary governs his or her self-disclosures. Once a disclosure is made, the negotiation of privacy rules between the two parties is required. A distressing sense of "boundary turbulence" can arise when clashing expectations for privacy management are identified, or when preexisting expectations are breached, intentionally or unintentionally. Having the mental image of protective boundaries is central to understanding the five core principles of Petronio's CPM:
People believe they own and have a right to control their private information. People control their private information through the use of personal privacy rules. When others are told or given access to a person's private information, they become co-owners of that information. Co-owners of private information need to negotiate mutually agreeable privacy rules about telling others. When co-owners of private information do not effectively negotiate and follow mutually held privacy rules, boundary turbulence is the likely result.Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. G. (2023). A First Look at Communication Theory. McGraw Hill.
Background Petronio's communication privacy management (CPM) theory is built on Altman's dialectical conception of privacy as a process of opening and closing a boundary to others. Altman and Taylor's social penetration theory focused on self-disclosure as the primary way to develop close relationships. However, Altman believed that openness was just one part belonging to a larger whole, one which expanded to include privacy with Leslie A. Baxter's work on relational dialectics theory. When Petronio first developed this theory in 1991, it was called communication boundary management. In 2002, she renamed it to communication privacy management, underscoring "disclosure of private information" as the crux of the theory.
Theory elements
Private information
The content of concealing and revealing is private information. Petronio favored the term "private information" over the term "self-disclosure" because there are many caveats inherent to private information disclosure that are not present with self-disclosure.Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.N TAEHJSFCJNDOISKXMJCKIOLJKDFER0IKFG VKTY56 Firstly, the motivations behind sharing are many, including but not limited to: sharing a burden, righting a wrong, and influencing others. Since private information can be about oneself or others, the decision as to what is private and whom to share it with plays a part when taking the idea of boundaries into consideration. The decision to share is ultimately left up to the process of the privacy rule management system which combines rules for coordination of information, characteristics of disclosure, and attributes of the nature of boundaries.
Shareholder
A confidant who is fully committed to handle private information by abiding in the original owner's privacy rules.
Stakeholder
Someone who shares should have access to the private information based on what they have the lose if the information is disclosed.
Deliberate confidant
Someone who seeks out private information.
Private boundaries To understand CPM theory it is important to follow the metaphor of the boundary. Private boundaries are the division between private information and public information. When private information is shared, there will be a collective boundary. When private information remains with an individual and is not disclosed, the boundary is called a personal boundary. An individual's private information is protected by their boundaries. The permeability of these boundaries are ever-changing. Boundaries can be relatively permeable (easy to cross) or relatively impregnable (rigid and difficult to cross).
Boundary coordination An individual's private information is protected by the individual's boundaries. The permeability of these boundaries are ever-changing, and allow certain parts of the public access to certain pieces of information belonging to the individual. Sharing private information is a risky decision and puts the owner of the information in a vulnerable position. Therefore, rules surrounding the boundaries must be negotiated to protect the shared information. Once private information is shared, co-owners must coordinate the boundaries of privacy and disclosure based on boundary permeability, boundary linkage, and boundary ownership. Petronio describes this mutual boundary coordination by co-owners as drawing the same borders on a map around a shared piece of information. This a difficult process, considering that each owner will approach the information from distinct viewpoints and referencing their personal criteria for privacy rule development. Boundary permeability is the nature of the invisible divisions that keep private information from being known outside of an individual or particular group. When private information is kept with one owner, the boundaries are said to be thick because there is less possibility for information to make its way out into the public sphere. Once information is shared to one or more persons, the boundaries for that private information expand, become more permeable, and are considered thin. Boundary linkage is how owners are connected when they build associations through a boundary. For example, doctors and patients are linked to each other in such a way that private information is passed within their boundaries constantly. These linkages can be strong or weak depending on how information was shared or whether a co-owner wanted to know or was prepared to learn a new piece of information. Case in point, the link between an organization and a spy meant to infiltrate the organization is weak because the two are not coordinated on how information will be maintained private or disclosed. Boundary ownership is the responsibilities and rights each person has over the control of the spread of information that they own. When working to mutually create the boundary of privacy it is key for all parties to have a clear understanding of whether information should be shared, who it should be shared with, and when it should be shared. A simple example of this is the planning of a surprise birthday party; all those involved in planning must agree on how the information about the party will be spread so as not to ruin the surprise. As new guests are invited, they become an owner of the information and are bound to the rules of privacy maintenance, or else the surprise could be ruined. Fuzzy boundaries are parts of confidential information that have not been discussed in a confidentiality agreement. One or both parties are not sure if that information can be shared with outside parties. Once information is known by others who are not the original owner they may have their own interpretation of how the information can be shared.
Boundary turbulence Often, boundaries are not coordinated as well as they should be to maintain the level of privacy or exposure desired by owners – this leads to problems known as boundary turbulence. The coordination of shared boundaries is key to avoiding over-sharing. When the boundaries are unclear, owners may come into conflict with one another. Turbulence among co-owners is caused when rules are not mutually understood by co-owners and when the management of private information comes into conflict with the expectations each owner had, which can happen for a number of reasons.
Boundary turbulence can be caused by mistakes, such as an uninvited party overhearing private information (causing weak boundary linkage) or a disclosure an owner might make under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. Disclosure to a new party was not the intent, but, when it happens, other co-owners can feel that their expectations of maintaining boundaries have been violated.
In addition, boundary turbulence occurs when a co-owner intentionally breaks the coordinated boundary of privacy to disclose private information. An example of such intentional disclosure would be a daughter revealing to a doctor that her father is indeed an active smoker when the father has told the doctor that he no longer smokes after his heart surgery. The daughter in this case must weigh the risks of breaking the family privacy boundary against the benefits of the doctor being better informed of her father's condition.
Lastly, boundary turbulence can also occur when there have not been pre-existing rules for a situation. For example, with the emergence of social media and, in particular, Facebook, boundary rules had not been established. As parents began to join Facebook and "friend" their children, the children felt turbulence. There was a perception of privacy invasion between the parent-child relationship.
In cases of boundary turbulence, co-owners of information can feel that their expectations have been violated and lose trust in other co-owners. In these cases, the goal of each party is to reduce turbulence by reestablishing and coordinating boundaries. Turbulence does not always have a negative outcome, there has been studies which show that turbulence within relationships can lead to stronger and improved relationships. Boundary violations and boundary turbulence can be used as a learning opportunity for individuals to renegotiate existing boundaries or better form new boundaries in similar situations. Boundary turbulence is experienced differently by each individual, and reactions to violations can depend on how many new boundary linkages are created and how many new people the private information reaches. These factors can determine whether boundary turbulence can cause distress to a relationship or be a learning experience.
Control and ownership