What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the word “privacy?” I bet you think about protecting your space from the eyes of prying neighbours and co-workers. I wouldn’t be wrong to say that privacy is now being framed as a legal or technological problem. Virtually every website has a privacy page, and end-to-end encryption has become a major selling point for apps.
But I think that privacy is a deeply psychological phenomenon. It is an essential human need for control over social interaction and personal information.
Privacy isn’t about Hiding
Traditional definitions of privacy, such as the “right to be let alone,” have been expanded in the psychological context to reflect its active, regulatory nature. Social psychologist Irwin Altman’s influential Privacy Regulation Theory frames privacy not as a static state, but as a dialectical and dynamic boundary regulation process.
The goal, according to Altman, is to achieve an optimal level of privacy. This would mean a fluctuating balance between the desired level of social contact and the actual level. When our actual privacy is less than desired (too much exposure), we feel crowded or annoyed. And when it is greater (too much isolation), we feel lonely. This constant, shifting need for control highlights privacy’s core psychological functions:
Self-Development and Autonomy: Privacy offers a critical space for self-reflection, emotional release, and the integration of experiences into a cohesive self-identity. It provides a secure place to “recharge” from social demands and avoid being manipulated or dominated by the expectations of others.
Emotional Release: Having a private space allows for the safe expression of feelings and impulses that might be considered inappropriate in public, serving as a psychological “release valve.”
Protected Communication: Privacy is a prerequisite for intimacy. The selective sharing of personal information is necessary to build trust, form stable relationships, and receive social support.
The Digital Age and the “Privacy Paradox”
The rise of digital technologies has profoundly complicated our psychological relationship with privacy. A phenomenon known as the Privacy Paradox emerged as a key area of study. People often express high levels of concern about their online privacy, but simultaneously engage in significant self-disclosure on social media and other platforms.
Psychologists have explored several explanations for this apparent contradiction, moving beyond the idea that people simply don’t care:
1.- Privacy Calculus Theory: This is one of the most common models, suggesting people engage in a rational (or seemingly rational) cost-benefit analysis. They weigh the perceived risks (such as identity theft, data misuse) against the perceived benefits (e.g., social connection, personalized services, convenience) of disclosing information. Often, the immediate, tangible benefits are overweighted compared to abstract, long-term risks.
2.- Lack of Awareness and Control: Users frequently lack full information about what data is being collected, how it is being used, and the long-term consequences of disclosure. We are all culprits in this regard. Have you ever read the terms of service of any of the popular apps you use? The bottom line is that when the control is external and the process is opaque, it becomes difficult to maintain the psychological boundary necessary for a feeling of privacy.
3.- Contextual Privacy: The meaning and expectation of privacy are highly contextual. What we willingly share with a peer on a messaging app is very different from what we would share with an employer or a stranger. Yet online platforms often blur these distinct social contexts.
In conclusion, privacy is not withdrawal from society. It is the selective control that empowers us to participate in it on our own terms.
Written by Clement Saudu
 | PIVX: Your Rights. Your Privacy. Your Choice |