社交媒体隐私侵犯后的信任修复机制探究

doi:10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2021.17.004

图书情报工作 ›› 2021, Vol. 65 ›› Issue (17): 33-44.DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2021.17.004

社交媒体隐私侵犯后的信任修复机制探究

李伟娟¹, 林升栋²

1. 厦门大学新闻传播学院厦门 361005;
2. 中国人民大学新闻学院北京 100872

收稿日期:2021-03-01 修回日期:2021-06-13 出版日期:2021-09-05 发布日期:2021-09-01
通讯作者: 林升栋(ORCID:0000-0002-9138-3494),教授,博士,博士生导师,通讯作者,E-mail:1374282278@qq.com
作者简介:李伟娟(ORCID:0000-0001-5179-8268),博士研究生。

Research on Trust Repair Mechanism After Social Media Privacy Invasion

Li Weijuan¹, Lin Shengdong²

1. School of Journalism and Communication, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005;
2. School of Journalism, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872

Received:2021-03-01 Revised:2021-06-13 Online:2021-09-05 Published:2021-09-01

摘要/Abstract

摘要： [目的/意义] 信任是社交媒体和用户之间的桥梁，但频发的隐私侵犯事件常使社交媒体陷入信任危机。因此，在隐私侵犯后，如何重建用户信任至关重要。[方法/过程] 回顾信任修复相关研究，基于社交媒体隐私侵犯的具体情境构建信任修复的四元结构模型，通过调查问卷搜集有效问卷324份，并使用PLS-SEM和fsQCA进行探讨和验证。[结果/结论] 研究结果发现，社交媒体的行动修复策略和政府介入的净效应显著，社交媒体的言语修复策略和技术第三方的净效应不显著。但经fsQCA的组合分析发现，社交媒体言语修复和技术第三方可以与其他变量一起触发高强度信任修复，此外，分析结果中的8种高信任修复的前因变量组合可以为隐私侵犯后的信任修复策略提供参考。

关键词: 社交媒体, 隐私侵犯, 信任修复, 四元主体

Abstract: [Purpose/significance] Trust is a bridge between social media and users. However, frequent privacy violations often lead social media into a crisis of trust. Therefore, it is very important to rebuild user trust after privacy violations.[Method/process] This study reviewed the relevant research on trust restoration through literature review, and built a quaternary structure model of trust restoration based on the specific situation of privacy violation in Chinese social networks. 324 valid questionnaires were collected, and were discussed and verified by PLS-SEM and fSQCA.[Result/conclusion] The results show that the net effect of action repair strategy and government intervention on social media is significant, while the net effect of speech repair strategy and technology on the third party of social media is not significant. However, in the combined analysis of fsQCA, it is found that social media speech repair and technical third party can trigger high-intensity trust repair together with other variables. In addition, the combination of the antecedent variables of the 8 kinds of high-trust repair in the analysis results can provide a reference for trust repair strategies after privacy invasion.

Key words: social media, privacy violation, trust repair, four main body

中图分类号:

G206.2

李伟娟, 林升栋. 社交媒体隐私侵犯后的信任修复机制探究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(17): 33-44.

Li Weijuan, Lin Shengdong. Research on Trust Repair Mechanism After Social Media Privacy Invasion[J]. Library and Information Service, 2021, 65(17): 33-44.

参考文献

[1] BANSAL G, ZAHEDI F M.Trust violation and repair:the information privacy perspective[J]. Decision support systems, 2015, 71:62-77.
[2] AYABURI E, TREKU D. Effect of penitence on social media trust and privacy concerns:the case of facebook[J]. International journal of information management, 2020, 50:171-181.
[3] 盛小平, 郭道胜.科学数据开放共享中的数据安全治理研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(22):25-36.
[4] 程慧平, 闻心玥, 苏超.社交媒体用户隐私披露意愿影响因素模型及实证研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(16):92-104.
[5] SON J Y, KIM S S. Internet users' information privacy-protective responses:a taxonomy and a nomological model[J]. Mis quarterly, 2008, 32(3):503-529.
[6] KAMBOJ S, SARMAH B, GUPTA S, et al. Examining branding co-creation in brand communities on social media:applying the paradigm of stimulus-organism-response[J]. International journal of information management, 2018, 39:169-185.
[7] 牛静, 孟筱筱. 社交媒体信任对隐私风险感知和自我表露的影响:网络人际信任的中介效应[J]. 国际新闻界, 2019(7):91-109.
[8] 谢兴政, 蔡念中, 黄志铭等.社交媒体用户隐私悖论行为影响因素初探[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(18):55-63.
[9] 张学波, 李铂.信任与风险感知:社交网络隐私安全影响因素实证研究[J]. 现代传播(中国传媒大学学报), 2019, 41(2):153-15.
[10] 郭海玲, 马红雨, 许泽辉.社会化媒体用户信息披露意愿影响模型构建与实证——以微信用户为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(15):111-120.
[11] 王红丽, 连雪君.二元视角下信任者-被信任者动态互动探析[J]. 华南理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2016, 18(5):27-35.
[12] CHANG S E, LIU A Y, SHEN W C. User trust in social networking services:a comparison of facebook and linkedIn[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2017, 69:207-217.
[13] 姚琦.组织行为学中的信任违背和修复研究[J]. 南开学报(哲学社会科学版), 2011(5):133-140.
[14] KIM P H, FERRIN D L, COOPER C D, et al. Removing the shadow of suspicion:the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence-versus integrity-based trust violations.[J]. Journal of applied psychology, 2004, 89(1):1-56.
[15] BOTTOM W P, GIBSON K, DANIELS S E, et al. When talk is not cheap:substantive penance and expressions of Intent in rebuilding cooperation[J]. Organization science, 2002, 13(5):497-513.
[16] DIRKS K T, LEWICKI R J, ZAHEER A. Reparing relationships within and between organizations:building a conceptual foundation[J]. The academy of management review, 2009, 34(1):68-84.
[17] BACHMANN R, GILLESPIE N, PRIEM R. Repairing trust in organizations and institutions:toward a conceptual framework[J]. Organization studies, 2015, 36(9):1123-1142.
[18] GILLESPIE N, DIETZ G. Trust repair after an organization-level failure.[J]. Academy of management review, 2009, 34(1):127-145.
[19] 韩平, 宁吉.基于两种信任违背类型的信任修复策略研究[J]. 管理学报, 2013, 10(3):390-396.
[20] 熊焰, 钱婷婷.产品伤害危机后消费者信任修复策略研究[J]. 经济管理, 2012, 34(8):114-120.
[21] 严瑜, 吴霞.从信任违背到信任修复:道德情绪的作用机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(4):633-642.
[22] DIRKS K T, KIM P H, FERRIN D L, et al. Understanding the effects of substantive responses on trust following a transgression[J]. Organizational behavior & human decision processes, 2011, 114(2):87-103.
[23] TOMLINSON E C, MAYER R C. The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair[J]. Academy of management review, 2009, 34(1):85-104.
[24] 姚琦, 乐国安, 赖凯声, 等.信任修复:研究现状及挑战[J]. 心理科学进展, 2012, 20(6):902-909.
[25] LAER T V, RUYTER K D. In stories we trust:how narrative apologies provide cover for competitive vulnerability after integrity-violating blog posts[J]. International journal of research in marketing, 2010, 27(2):164-174.
[26] UTZ S, MATZAT U, SNIJDERS C. On-line reputation systems:the effects of feedback comments and reactions on building and rebuilding trust in on-line auctions[J]. International journal of electronic commerce, 2009, 13(3):95-118.
[27] ZHANG Z. The study on consumer trust repair based on the Interaction of person & environment[J]. Procedia engineering, 2012, 29:1467-1470.
[28] 关新华, 谢礼珊, 皮平凡.负面报道对旅游目的地的影响及信任修复研究[J]. 经济管理, 2017, 39(8):146-158.
[29] DESMET P T M, REMER D D, DIJK E V. Trust recovery following voluntary or forced financial compensations in the trust game:the role of trait forgiveness[J]. Personality and individual differences, 2011, 51(3):267-273.
[30] 黄丹.产品伤害危机后网络外卖平台品牌信任的修复[J]. 中国经贸导刊(中), 2019(6):81-83.
[31] SPICER A, OKHMATOVSKIY I. Multiple paths to institutional-based trust production and repair:lessons from the Russian bank deposit market[J]. Organization studies, 2015, 36(9):1143-1170.
[32] LWIN M, WIRTZ J, WILLIAMS J D. Consumer online privacy concerns and responses:a power-responsibility equilibrium perspective[J]. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 2007, 35(4):572-585.
[33] 张蓓, 吴宝姝, 文晓巍.网络谣言社会共治对消费者信任的影响——以食品伤害为例[J]. 经济管理, 2019, 41(5):136-155.
[34] XIE Y, PENG S. How to repair customer trust after negative publicity:the roles of competence, integrity, benevolence, and forgiveness[J]. Psychology and marketing, 2009, 26(7):572-589.
[35] HAIR J F, RISHER J J, SARSTEDT M, et al. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM[J]. European business review, 2019, 31(1):2-24.
[36] HAIR J F, RINGLE C M, SARSTEDT M. PLS-SEM:indeed a silver bullet[J]. Journal of marketing theory and practice, 2011, 19(2):139-152.
[37] JOHNSTON A C, WARKENTIN R. Fear appeals and information security behaviors:an empirical study[J]. Mis quarterly, 2010, 34(3):549-566.
[38] VAN GRIETHUIJSEN RA, VAN EIJCK MW, HASTE H, et al. Global patterns in students' views of science and Interest in science[J]. Research in science education, 2015, 45(4):581-603.
[39] GEFEN D, STRAUB D. A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph:tutorial and annotated example[J]. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2005, 16(1):91-109.
[40] DU Y, KIM P H. One size does not fit all:strategy configurations, complex environments, and new venture performance in emerging economies[J]. Journal of business research, 2021, 124:272-285.
[41] ORDANINI A, PARASURAMAN A, RUBERA G. When the recipe is more important than the ingredients a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of service innovation configurations[J]. Journal of service research, 2014, 17(2):134-149.
[42] WOODSIDE A G. Embrace performmodel:complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities[J]. Journal of business research, 2014, 67(12):2495-2503.
[43] YU Y, YANG Y, JING F. The role of the third party in trust repair process[J]. Journal of business research, 2017, 78:233-241.

社交媒体隐私侵犯后的信任修复机制探究

Research on Trust Repair Mechanism After Social Media Privacy Invasion

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	孙悦, 黄微. 社交媒体平台用户参与的行为谱与行为层级模型构建[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(9): 40-52.
[2]	彭丽徽, 蒋欣. 风险认知视域下社交媒体用户健康信息规避行为生成机理研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(22): 55-65.
[3]	周涛, 谢莹莹, 邓胜利. 社交媒体用户信息规避意图研究:C-A-C视角[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(21): 78-86.
[4]	范春竹, 邓小昭, 韩毅. 社交媒体用户消极使用行为：多源数据融合视角[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(15): 76-85.
[5]	雷嫒, 钱楚涵, 李刚. CSSCI来源期刊微信公众号跨平台学术传播全样本实证分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(14): 67-76.
[6]	张帅. 社交媒体虚假健康信息特征识别[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(9): 70-78.
[7]	张艳丰, 刘亚丽, 邹凯. 突发公共卫生事件社交媒体用户健康信息焦虑影响因素识别研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(8): 65-73.
[8]	段秋婷, 谢兴政. 以小共同体本位为特征的社交媒体用户隐私保护意向形成机制[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(6): 118-128.
[9]	安璐, 陈苗苗, 李纲. 社交媒体环境下突发事件严重性评估和预警机制研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(5): 98-109.
[10]	张艳丰, 刘亚丽, 彭丽徽. 硬规则下移动社交媒体用户隐私政策阅读感知测度实证研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(4): 49-60.
[11]	贾若男, 王晰巍, 孙玉姣. 社交媒体中突发公共卫生事件网络辟谣信息主体研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(19): 16-25.
[12]	陈一, 李斯. 社交媒体用户同意自己的数据被用于研究吗？——基于用户接受意向的伦理反思[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(15): 120-129.
[13]	徐颖, 于雨禾, 张桓森. 何因生倦怠,何素调节之？——一项关于社交媒体倦怠的元分析研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(13): 31-43.
[14]	吴小兰, 章成志. 融合内容与关系的学术社交媒体上跨学科用户推荐模型研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(9): 95-103.
[15]	许芳, 杨杰, 田萌, 徐国虎. 微信用户后悔情绪影响因素与应对策略选择——基于SEM与fsQCA的研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(16): 67-80.