Communication Privacy Management Theory

CPM is a practical theory designed to explain the “everyday” issues of a person. It argues
that disclosure is the process that people use to manage the relationship between concealing
and revealing private information. This explains how individuals believe they own their private
information and have the rights to control it. In CPM, the metaphor of privacy boundary is used
to illustrate where private information is located and how the boundary expands to give way to
multiple owners of a private information. An individual can disclose not only their own
information but also information that belongs to other people. A unique feature of this theory is
that rather than being law-based, it is a rule-based theory instead.

The basis of CPM Theory started over 20 years ago. The initial theory had limited
boundaries where it was focused only to privacy management within a marital dyad. It was
referred by Petronio as a microtheory, a theory with limited boundaries. Later, the theory has its
change in name. In 1991, Petronio called the theory “Communication Boundary Management”.
When she published the fuller statement of the theory in her book in 2002, she renamed it
“Communication Privacy Management Theory”. The name change emphasizes that the main
idea of the theory is on private disclosures. Now, she refers to CPM Theory as a macrotheory (a
theory with extensive boundaries) because its boundaries have a wide variation of interpersonal
relationships, unlike the initial theory.

Assumptions of CPM

CPM Theory is rooted in assumptions about how individuals believe that they own their
private information and assumptions about the nature of human beings regarding on how they
think and communicate. The theory makes five assumptions about human nature:

 Humans are choice makers.

 Humans are rule makers and rule followers.
 Humans’ choices and rules are based on a consideration of others as well as the self.
 Relational life is characterized by change.
 Contradiction is the fundamental fact of relational life.
 According to Petronio (2010), an individual makes choices and rules about what to share
to others based on a “mental calculus” which makes up of a criteria such as culture, gender,
and context, among other things. These assumptions represents an active perception of an
individual and an image of a person engaged in relational life wherein other people gets
involve as well when the assumptions are taken together.

Suppositions of CPM

Communication Privacy Management Theory is concerned with explaining an

individual’s negotiation processes regarding keeping or disclosing a private information. When
shared to other people, it becomes private disclosure. Thus, CPM focuses on private disclosures
rather than self-disclosures. This emphasis away from self-disclosure proves that CPM does not
restrict the process to only the self, rather it’s privacy management system extends to embrace
multiple levels of disclosure which involves self and group to identify ways privacy boundaries
are coordinated between and among people.

To fully accomplish this goal, Communication Privacy Management Theory proposes five
suppositions: private information, private boundaries, control and ownership, rule-based
management system, and management dialectics.

Private Information

The first supposition is private information. This supposition is about information that
matter deeply to an individual. It is the message which a person either keeps to themselves or
disclose it to other people.

Private boundaries

The second supposition is called private boundaries which means distinguishing an

information if it is private or public. In CPM, boundary metaphor is used to make the point that
there is a line between being public and being private. On one side of the boundary, an individual
keep private information for themselves while on the other side, an individual reveal some
private information to other people who they feel confide in. when a private information is shared
to another person, the boundary around it is called collective boundary. When the private
information remains to an individual and is not disclosed, the boundary is called personal
boundary.

Boundaries have variations as well. It may be relatively permeable (easy to cross) or

relatively impregnable (rigid and difficult to cross). Boundaries can also change as an individual
gets older. The boundaries increase as a child grow into adolescence and adulthood where they
grow a more developed sense of privacy. As an individual gets older, their boundaries begin to
shrink. An example of that are elderly being dependent on caregivers with their daily routines
which causes their boundary to lessen.

Control and ownership

The third supposition relates to control and ownership. This supposition relies to the
idea that an individual feel they own a private information to themselves. As owners of this
information, they believe that they are in a position where they should control who else would
be allowed to gain access to it.

Rule-based management system

The fourth supposition is called rule-based management system. This system is used
for understanding the decisions an individual make about private information. With this
supposition, an individual can manage their decisions through these three processes of rule-
based management system: privacy rule characteristics, boundary coordination, and
boundary turbulence. Since there are a lot of sub-processes that are involved in each of these
three, we will discuss them in a separate section.

Management dialects

The last supposition of CPM Theory is management dialectics where it focuses between
present tensions for revealing private information and concealing it. This supposition focuses on
the tensions of boundaries that people encounter due to opposites and contradictions. An
example of this is when a student is drawn with

Privacy Rule Management Processes

 The fourth supposition of the CPM Theory, rule-based management system, has three
privacy rule management processes: privacy rule characteristics, boundary coordination, and
boundary turbulence.

Privacy Rule Characteristics

This process describes the nature of privacy rules. It has two main features: attribute and
development Rule attributes refers to how an individual obtain privacy rules and understand the
properties of those rules. An example of this is a person’s disclosure in family gatherings versus
on an office’s event at work. With the CPM Theory, it depicts that an individual will set up rules
that are fitted on both events for managing privacy that are learned over time.

. Rule development describes how rules come to be decided. In CPM Theory, it states that
five decision criteria are used to guide negotiation about sharing private information: cultural,
gendered, motivational, contextual, and risk-benefit ratio. According to Petronio (2017), this was
key in the CPM Theory because privacy rules are a foundational principle.

Cultural criteria deals with the norms for privacy and openness in a given culture. An
individual’s own expectation for privacy are guided by the values they learn in their culture.

Gendered criteria refers to the differences present between men and women upon
drawing privacy boundaries.

Motivational criteria involves how people make decisions about disclosing private
information based on their motivations. Either it is motives of control, manipulation, attraction,
and power for disclosing or concealing a private information.

In contextual criteria, it pertains to the experiences an individual faced which affects their
decision-making. In this criteria, it discusses two elements: social environment and physical
setting. The social environment includes special circumstances an individual faced which have
affected their decision to have disclosure or not to disclose.

Lastly, rules are developed based on the risk-benefit ratio criteria. This where an
individual evaluate risks that will benefit him/her if he/she decides to disclose or keep it private.

Boundary Coordination
 The second process under the rule-based management system which describes how an
individual manage private information by the individual’s boundaries. This refers that boundaries
should be coordinated through rules to have a smooth transaction of communication and have a
viable outcome in relationships. When a private information is shared, co-owners should
coordinate with the original owner’s boundaries of privacy and disclosure based on boundary
permeability, boundary linkage, and boundary ownership.

Boundary permeability refers to having an invisible division around private information

to keep it from being shared to other people. It is knowing how much information should be
shared based on an individual’s boundaries. When a person decides to keep it to themselves a
private information, boundaries are called thick boundaries; when disclosed, it have thin
boundaries.

Boundary linkage is the connections that are built by an individual’s disclosure through a
boundary. An example of this is the relationship between a doctor and a patient. The doctor form
linkages with their patient in such way to give out private information simultaneously within their
boundaries.

Lastly, boundary ownership refers to the rights and responsibilities an individual has over
to control the spread of their private information to other people. For boundary ownership to
work, rules should be clearly given. An example of this is conducting a surprise party. All those
involved in planning should agree on how the information regarding the party would be spread
so that the surprise would not be ruined.

Boundary Turbulence

This exists when the rules of boundary coordination of an individual are unclear or when
their boundaries are not coordinated. It refers to the conflicts about boundary expectations and
regulation where an individual expects an appropriate response when they share a private
information but gets violated or rejected instead.

References
Kennedy-Lightsey, Carrie & Martin, Matthew & Thompson, Michelle & Leezer Himes, Kimberly
& Zackery Clingerman, Brooke. (2012). Communication Privacy Management Theory:
Exploring Coordination and Ownership Between Friends. Communication Quarterly. 60.
10.1080/01463373.2012.725004.

Hosek, A. M., & Thompson, (2009). Communication privacy management and college
instruction: Exploring the rules and boundaries that frame instructor private disclosure.
Communication Education, 58 (3), p. 327-349

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. (2016). CPM developed glossary of terms.

Retrieved on August 26, 2019, from https://cpmcenter.iupui.edu/index.php/teach/glossary

Petronio, S. & Durham, W. (2008). Communication privacy management theory: significance for
interpersonal communication. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories
in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 309-322). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781483329529.n23

Petronio, S., & Venetis, M. (2017). Communication privacy management theory and health and
risk messaging. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Retrieved 19 Aug. 2019,
from
https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/ac
refore-9780190228613-e-513.

Turner, L., & West, R, (2010). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application. New
York, New York: Frank Mortimer.