Communication Privacy Management Theory Explained

Our worlds are filled with others. While on the stage of our minds, we take a prominent center role; however, in the grander scheme of life, we only play a small part. We largely connect with others through communication—sometimes with words, sometimes with behaviors. What we say and do is only a small part of the enormous world of feelings and thoughts living inside our own heads and hearts. Somehow, we must sort through the inner chaos, organize the clutter, and share some of our private world with those around us. The communication privacy management theory explores this complex process of sharing. We can’t share everything, and we can’t keep everything private.

Mahzarin R, Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald wrote, “honesty may be an overrated virtue. If you decided to report all of your flaws to friends and to apply a similar standard of total honesty when talking to others about their shortcomings, you might soon find that you no longer have friends.” They continue, explaining that “our daily social lives demand, and generally receive, repeated lubrication with a certain amount of untruthfulness, which keeps the gears of social interaction meshing smoothly” (Banaji & Greenwald, 2016, pp. 28-29).

The point is that we must manage our private world in such a way that we can interact, connect, and build trust with others. To complicate matters even further, each relationship, depending on the context and history, requires a different balance of revelation and protection. Sandra Petronio proposed the communication privacy management theory to help sort through the complex task of human communication.

Introduction: Understanding the Management of Private Information

In our increasingly “overconnected world,” where sharing information is as easy as a click or a tap, understanding how we manage our personal information has become more crucial than ever (Katherine, 2013). Have you ever wondered why you share certain details with some people but keep them hidden from others? Or why an innocent post on social media might suddenly cause unexpected trouble? Communication Privacy Management (CPM) theory provides a powerful framework to help us understand these everyday dilemmas of revealing and concealing private information (Smith & Brunner, 2017). CPM significantly enlightens discussion about social media disclosures. It is a “powerful theory when it comes to examining user disclosure behaviour” and “explains people’s disclosure behaviour when it comes to their personal information” (Chen, et al., 2020).

Disclosure of Personal Information

Disclosing personal information in relationships presents a complex interplay of benefits and dangers, deeply explored by Communication Privacy Management (CPM) theory.

Reasons to Disclose Personal Information

On the beneficial side, sharing private information is fundamental to building and maintaining connections, fostering trust, and cultivating intimacy. CPM highlights that people are pulled by opposing forces of needing both privacy and openness, and the decision to reveal is central to developing closeness. When individuals disclose, they often aim for coordination in managing shared private information, working towards a smooth and competent handling process (Petronio, 2010).

In organizational settings, sharing personal information can build camaraderie, friendship, and a sense of family among colleagues, leading to increased comfort and rapport (Smith & Brunner, 2017). This process can also alleviate personal burdens and validate one’s perspectives. In computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments, such as social networking sites (SNSs), disclosure serves as a tool for relational maintenance, allowing individuals to connect with their entire social network more frequently and at reduced cost. For those with communication apprehension, CMC offers a safe environment for self-disclosure, potentially leading to more frequent and intimate exchanges (Tong & Walther, 2011). Ultimately, the willingness to share private information, especially with trusted recipients, can deepen bonds and enhance the quality of communication, particularly when openness is seen as a positive pathway to relational success.

Dangers Associated with Disclosure

Conversely, the act of disclosing personal information carries inherent dangers, including vulnerability, the potential for hurt, manipulation, and even disloyalty. When private information is revealed, the discloser becomes vulnerable, triggering a desire to control access to that information. There are significant risks associated with disclosing to the wrong people, at an inappropriate time, or revealing too much, which can lead to negative consequences for both the individual and the relationship. Information, once shared, can be passed on verbatim, potentially reaching unintended audiences and causing embarrassment, harm, or misrepresentation (Petronio, 2002).

We must protect against the dangers of sharing with individuals like “Leaky Lucy” who do not filter outgoing information, potentially compromising secrets (Katherine, 2013, p. 7). In online contexts, private information is susceptible to being sought for nefarious purposes, taken out of context, or reproduced without the original owner’s knowledge or consent. This loss of control can manifest as “boundary turbulence” when privacy rules are violated or misunderstood, leading to unmet expectations and conflict. Such turbulence can result in a lack of trust, reduced closeness, increased guardedness, and even the termination of relationships. Furthermore, the “boom and bust” phenomenon in online self-disclosure highlights how rapid, intense sharing without underlying trust can lead to relationships that quickly fail. These dangers underscore the critical importance of carefully navigating privacy boundaries and establishing clear expectations for information management.

Core Principles of CPM Theory

According to Petronio (2002), CPM Theory consists of five foundational principles:

Private Information Ownership

At its heart, Communication Privacy Management (CPM) Theory posits that individuals perceive themselves as the owners of their private information (Petronio, 2010). This ownership encompasses various types of information, ranging from personal thoughts and feelings to broader aspects such as personal goals and aspirations (Moor & Petronio, 2007). For instance, an individual may decide to share their ambitions or emotional struggles with close friends while keeping them hidden from acquaintances or colleagues. The concept of ownership also extends to shared information within relationships; for example, family secrets or collaborative details regarding a group project are collectively owned by those involved. This sense of proprietary control is fundamental to how individuals navigate their boundaries concerning privacy.

Because people believe they own their private information, they inherently feel empowered to determine who can access it and under what circumstances (Petronio, 2010). This decision-making process is influenced by several factors, including trust in the other party, the context of the relationship, and cultural norms surrounding privacy and disclosure. As individuals assess these elements, they create privacy rules that govern their interactions—deciding when it’s appropriate to reveal certain pieces of information and when it’s best kept confidential. Consequently, this dynamic negotiation fosters a continuous dialogue about privacy boundaries within relationships; changes in trust levels or relational contexts may necessitate adjustments in these established rules over time.

Privacy Control and Vulnerability

Because people feel they own their private information, they naturally desire to control its flow. This control is crucial because revealing private information often makes people feel vulnerable (Smith & Brunner, 2017). For instance, sharing your financial details online might feel risky, but you weigh that risk against the benefit, like purchasing a discounted plane ticket.

Privacy Boundaries

To visualize this ownership, CPM uses the metaphor of “boundaries”. Think of these as invisible borders around your private information. There are personal boundaries for information only you own, and collective boundaries for information you co-own with others (like family or close friends). These boundaries aren’t fixed; they can be thick and impermeable (keeping information secret) or thin and permeable (allowing more access).

Privacy Rules

Privacy boundaries are governed by privacy rules, which are shaped by culture, gender, motivation, and the quality of relationships. These rules can evolve with changing circumstances (Petronio, 2002).

These rules can be:

• Implicit: Unstated understandings, like the expectation that your supervisor will keep confidential what you tell them in confidence (Smith & Brunner, 2017).
• Explicit: Clearly stated boundaries, such as saying, “Don’t tell anyone but…” when sharing sensitive information (Petronio, 2010). These rules are influenced by various factors, including cultural expectations, gender, personal motivations, the specific context, and a risk-benefit assessment (Child & Petronio, 2011, p. 24).

Private Information: Co-Ownership and Guardianship

Petronio explains that, “once a person is permitted to know private information belonging to someone else, the individual becomes a co-owner, confidant, shareholder, or guardian” (Petronio, 2010). This process is a central contribution of Communication Privacy Management (CPM) theory, as it expands the understanding of privacy beyond just individual self-disclosure to encompass collectively held private information. Once private information is disclosed and access is granted, the focus shifts from individual ownership to a collective one, implying a joint responsibility and obligation by both the original owner and the new co-owners to manage the flow of this information in a mutually agreed-upon manner.

In family contexts, this co-ownership often resembles a guardianship, where there’s an expectation among members to protect the dissemination of this shared information to individuals both inside and outside the family. This collective management system, spanning personal, dyadic, group, organizational, and societal levels, means that individuals often find themselves simultaneously owning their own private information and co-owning information with others, requiring a delicate balance of revealing and concealing.

Privacy Rules Within Collectively Owned Information

To manage these collectively held privacy boundaries effectively, co-owners ideally engage in negotiations to establish privacy rules. These rules govern three key aspects of information flow: permeability (how much others should know), ownership (the extent of independent control co-owners have over the information), and linkage (who else is permitted to know). However, despite these negotiations, the original owner of the information often retains an expectation of continued control over what they define as theirs, even after sharing. This can lead to situations where co-owners are given access to private information but restricted from distributing it further, essentially having no rights of distribution and their control contained within the terms of agreement to protect it.

When co-owners fail to coordinate these rules, or when rules are intentionally violated or misunderstood, it results in boundary turbulence. This turbulence exposes unmet expectations and necessitates a recalibration or readjustment of privacy management practices, such as the instance of parents posting an embarrassing photo of their son online, leading the son to demand mutually agreed-upon posting criteria to prevent future privacy invasions.

Boundary Turbulence

Disruptions in agreed-upon privacy boundaries, called boundary turbulence, often lead to conflict or require renegotiation of privacy rules (Petronio, 2002). Rules help mediate the turbulence but never eliminate it. Communication of life complexity leads to violations and disagreements. These conflicts create conflict.

Privacy Management is Dialectical

CPM views privacy and disclosure as two opposing forces that constantly coexist. You are always balancing the pressure to reveal information (for connection, relief, or self-expression) with the need to keep it private (for autonomy and protection). The goal isn’t absolute secrecy or complete openness, but a smooth and competent coordination of information flow. The protection of self and need for belonging is the primary dilemma of human existence. These opposing needs are pitted against each others in human communication. This dialectical force of autonomy and connection is identified as a primary element in relational dialectics theory.

Applications of CPM Theory

CPM Theory has been applied in various contexts to better understand the processes of privacy management.

Interpersonal Relationships

In close relationships, Communication Privacy Management (CPM) theory provides a sophisticated understanding of how individuals navigate the inherent tension between intimacy and privacy. This is because CPM is fundamentally a dialectical theory, which posits that people are simultaneously pulled by opposing forces—the pressure to disclose information for connection and the desire to keep it private for autonomy and protection.

Intimacy

While intimacy is often associated with self-disclosure, CPM clarifies that disclosing private information is not synonymous with intimacy itself, nor is it always sufficient to create intimacy; there’s more to intimacy than just sharing information (Petronio, 2010). In fact, disclosing too much, or disclosing inappropriately, can even negatively impact relational quality, as seen when perceived parental privacy invasion creates openness at the expense of relational quality for young adults. Instead, CPM argues that people strive for a goal of coordination in managing their private information, aiming for smooth and competent handling rather than absolute openness or complete secrecy.

Trust

Central to sustaining trust in these close relationships is the CPM principle that once a person is permitted to know private information belonging to someone else, they become a co-owner, confidant, shareholder, or guardian of that information (Petronio, 2010). This means that the shared information moves from individual ownership to collective ownership, implying a joint responsibility and obligation by both the original owner and the new co-owners to regulate its flow in a mutually agreed-upon manner.

To achieve this, individuals and groups rely on a rule-based management system for private information, establishing rules about “when, how, with whom, and in what way others might be granted or denied access. John H. Harvey and Ann L. Weber explain that, “people get to know one another through self-disclosures that increase in depth over time and that tend to be reciprocated by one’s partner” (Harvey & Weber, 2001).

Social Media and Online Interactions

Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and blogs are prime examples of where CPM applies. When you post online, you’re trusting the “boundaries, common sense, and discrimination of every person that information might reach”. Your embarrassing story could easily be shared widely. CPM helps explain why individuals, particularly younger generations, might have a “fuzzy” notion of what’s public or private online, sometimes trading privacy for visibility and connectivity (Katherine, 2013, p. 211). This willingness to disclose can stem from a human need for visibility and social recognition. CPM also addresses “boundary crossings,” which occur when the lines between different relationships (professional, personal, familial) blur online, leading to potential breaches of privacy.

For individuals who experience high levels of communication anxiety, online platforms can provide a “safe environment” for interaction and self-disclosure (Sanders & Amason, 2011, p. 79). The ability to carefully formulate messages on text-based channels like email or instant messaging, and the reduction of nonverbal cues, can make disclosure less threatening for these individuals.

Family Dynamics

CPM is particularly useful in understanding family privacy. Families navigate sensitive topics like sexuality, health issues, or adoption, establishing implicit or explicit rules about what information is shared internally and with outsiders. When these rules are violated, it can lead to “boundary turbulence,” causing disruptions in family harmony, such as a mortified son untagging a childhood photo posted by his parents on Facebook.

Organizational Communication

Employees constantly make decisions about what to reveal or conceal at work, influenced by the organizational culture and relational considerations like trust. A company’s culture can either encourage or discourage disclosure. Management, by understanding these dynamics, can foster a culture that supports beneficial disclosure for relationship development and problem-solving, rather than one that punishes sharing personal information.

Health Communication

Communication Privacy Management (CPM) theory offers significant insights into how private information is managed within health communication contexts (Petronio, 2010). It has been productively applied to understand complex scenarios such as medical mistakes and the disclosure of HIV infection in interpersonal relationships (Moor & Petronio, 2007, p. 272). In families, CPM illuminates how health issues can redefine what constitutes private information and how members navigate these disclosures, managing both individual and collective privacy boundaries. This includes the challenges of coordinating privacy rules for sensitive information, such as when family members learn genetic test results and must decide who to inform and when. CPM also provides a framework for understanding patient-provider communication, examining how healthcare providers perceive and manage resident care privacy.

Furthermore, the theory is viable for investigating privacy-regulating decisions and information flow in computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments, including online health-related support groups (Sanders & Amason, 2011). This application highlights the importance of CPM in understanding when privacy is managed effectively. It also explains when and how mistakes in privacy management occur. These mistakes can lead to boundary turbulence. The theory’s focus on dialectical tensions between privacy and openness is particularly relevant in health contexts. Individuals balance the need for autonomy over their health information. They also have a desire to share for support or care.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its utility, CPM Theory faces challenges. Rules for privacy management may differ widely across cultures and contexts, making generalization difficult (Petronio, 2002). The theory’s focus on individual agency may understate the impact of broader social forces such as power dynamics and institutional regulations (Petronio, 2010). Modern privacy moves beyond the interpersonal and relational focus of CPM to explore how large-scale social, cultural, economic, and technological transformations impact the very nature and definition of privacy (Blatterer, et al., 2010). Some critics suggest that CPM Theory may oversimplify the intricate nature of privacy boundary negotiation, which is influenced by emotional, relational, and situational factors (Child & Petronio, 2011).

Associated Concepts

• Linear Model of Communication: This refers to communication as a one-way process of transmitting a message from a sender to a receiver. It conceptualizes communication as a straightforward, sequential flow. A sender encodes a message and sends it through a channel. A receiver decodes the message. This model often does not explicitly account for feedback or noise.
• Social Penetration Theory: This theory, developed by Altman and Taylor, describes the process of relationship development as a gradual and reciprocal process of self-disclosure, where relationships deepen over time as individuals increasingly share more personal information.
• Social Exchange Theory: This theory posits that individuals maintain relationships through an equitable cost-benefit analysis. The theory sees self-disclosure as a strategic exchange of information that can lead to rewards in relationships.
• Communicate Bond, Belong Theory: This theory provides an evolutionary and motivational explanation for the role of human communication in forming and maintaining social relationships. It asserts that all social interactions expend a finite amount of “social energy.” Only certain types of communication effectively satiate the fundamental human need to belong. These are often termed “striving behaviors” or “high-quality interactions.”
• Self-Presentation Theory: While distinct from self-disclosure, self-presentation involves managing how one is perceived by others, which can influence decisions about self-disclosure.
• Impression Management: This is the process by which individuals attempt to control the impressions others form of them. It involves a variety of strategies to influence others’ perceptions in a way that is favorable to the individual.
• Social Identity: The part of an individual’s self-concept derived from their membership in social groups. Self-presentation can be used to highlight certain aspects of one’s social identity.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

In an age where our lives are increasingly intertwined with the digital realm, the essence of Communication Privacy Management (CPM) Theory becomes not just a theoretical framework but a vital tool for navigating our complex interactions. As we journey through life, we engage in a delicate dance of revealing and concealing our private information, balancing the need for connection against the desire for autonomy. The insights from Sandra Petronio’s theory remind us that sharing can foster intimacy and trust. However, it also exposes us to vulnerability and potential risks. Just as Mahzarin R. Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald highlighted the nuanced nature of honesty in social interactions, CPM invites us to consider how each relationship demands its unique set of privacy rules—one that constantly evolves with context and history.

Ultimately, understanding these dynamics is crucial for building meaningful connections without sacrificing personal boundaries or integrity. In today’s overconnected world, where every click has ramifications beyond our immediate circles, mastering the art of communication privacy management empowers individuals to navigate their relational landscapes thoughtfully and purposefully. As we strive to maintain authenticity amidst external pressures—whether at home or online—we must remain vigilant about how we share parts of ourselves while protecting what matters most within our private worlds. This ongoing negotiation between openness and secrecy forms the foundation upon which trust is built. It underscores that effective communication is not merely about exchanging words. It is about managing expectations around intimacy and confidentiality in an ever-evolving landscape.

Last Update: July 17, 2025