图书情报工作

图书情报工作 >

2023 , Vol. 67 >Issue 12: 15 - 28

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2023.12.002

理论研究

信念更新理论视角下个人健康隐私关注及悖论消解研究

  • 朱光 ,
  • 李凤景 ,
  • 曹高芳 ,
  • 蒋芷玥
展开
  • 1 南京信息工程大学风险治理与应急决策研究院 南京 210044;
    2 南京信息工程大学管理工程学院 南京 210044;
    3 东南大学经济管理学院 南京 211189;
    4 滨州医学院公共卫生与管理学院 烟台 264003
朱光,副教授,博士,E-mail:guangguang4992@sina.com;李凤景,硕士研究生;曹高芳,教授,博士;蒋芷玥,硕士研究生。

收稿日期: 2022-12-22

  修回日期: 2023-03-28

  网络出版日期: 2023-07-06

基金资助

本文系国家社会科学基金一般项目“健康中国战略背景下个人健康医疗信息保护与利用研究”（项目编号： 18BGL244）研究成果之一。

收起

Research on Personal Health Privacy Concern and Paradox Resolution Based on the Theory of Belief Updating

  • Zhu Guang ,
  • Li Fengjing ,
  • Cao Gaofang ,
  • Jiang Zhiyue
Expand
  • 1 Research Center of Risk Management and Emergency Decision Making, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044;
    2 School of Management Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044;
    3 School of Economics and Management, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189;
    4 School of Public Health and Management, Binzhou Medical University, Yantai 264003

Received date: 2022-12-22

  Revised date: 2023-03-28

  Online published: 2023-07-06

Fold

摘要

[目的/意义] 医疗健康类 APP 使用过程的个人健康隐私保护是亟待解决的重要课题，对个人健康隐私关注及隐私悖论的研究不仅可以提高公众隐私保护意识，也有利于智慧医疗服务平台的隐私管控和普及应用。 [方法/过程] 考虑到医疗健康 APP 使用过程中的信息不对称性和收益不确定性，基于信念更新理论和隐私计算理论，研究预备使用、初步使用和持续使用三个阶段个人健康隐私关注对隐私披露意愿及行为的作用机理。考虑不同阶段隐私悖论作用强度的动态变化，进一步基于理性选择理论，分析个体理性程度在隐私悖论路径中的调节作用与消解效应。采用情景实验法收集 317 份纵向样本数据，运用偏最小二乘结构方程模型进行实证分析。 [结果/结论] 研究结果表明，在预备使用阶段用户信任对初步隐私关注有显著负向影响，初步使用阶段的隐私披露意愿与行为对持续使用阶段的隐私关注具有负向影响。在初步使用和持续使用阶段，“隐私关注—披露意愿—披露行为”的路径系数均为正显著，这表明两阶段均存在隐私悖论现象。其中，持续使用阶段的中介效应间接路径占比与初步使用阶段相比明显升高，这表明随着时间推移隐私悖论的作用强度有所削弱。此外，个体理性程度对初步使用阶段的隐私悖论有显著负向影响，但对持续使用阶段的隐私悖论只有部分调节作用，这表明随着使用经验的增加，理性程度的消解效应会随时间变化而减弱。

关键词： 信念更新理论; 健康隐私; 隐私关注; 隐私悖论消解; 个体理性程度

本文引用格式

朱光 , 李凤景 , 曹高芳 , 蒋芷玥 . 信念更新理论视角下个人健康隐私关注及悖论消解研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2023 , 67(12) : 15 -28 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2023.12.002

Abstract

[Purpose/Significance] The protection of personal health privacy during the use of medical and health APPs is an important issue to be solved urgently. In addition to raising public awareness of privacy protection, research on personal health privacy concerns and privacy paradox can help the privacy control and popularization of smart medical service platforms. [Method/Process] Considering the information asymmetry and dynamic profits during the usage of medical health APP, this study investigated the effect of personal health privacy concern on privacy disclosure intention and behavior in the pre-use, initial use, and continued use stage based on the theory of belief updating and privacy calculus. To discuss the dynamic changes of the impact strength of privacy paradox at different stages, the personal rationality degree was introduced into the privacy paradox path to analyze its moderating and resolution effect based on Rational Choice Theory (RCT). The scenario experiment method was adopted to collect 317 longitudinal sample data, and the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used for the empirical analysis. [Result/Conclusion] The empirical results show that users’ trust in the pre-use stage has a significant negative impact on initial privacy concern, and the privacy disclosure intention and behavior in the initial use stage have a negative impact on privacy concern in the continued use stage. In the initial use and continued use stage, the path coefficient of “privacy concerns - disclosure intention - disclosure behavior” is significantly positive, which indicates that the privacy paradox exists in both stages. Compared with the initial use stage, the proportion of indirect paths of mediation effect in the continued use stage is significantly higher, indicating that the impact strength of privacy paradox has been weakened over time. In addition, the personal rationality degree has a significant negative effect on the privacy paradox in the initial use stage, but only partially moderates the privacy paradox in the continued use stage, indicating that with the increase of APP using experience, the resolution effect of personal rationality degree will be weakened over time.

Key words： theory of belief updating; health privacy; privacy concern; privacy paradox resolution; personal rationality degree

参考文献

[1] 张秀,李月琳,章小童."健康中国2030"规划框架下我国健康信息政策内容分析[J].情报理论与实践, 2020, 43(9):24-31.
[2] 窦悦.数据开放共享与个人隐私保护对策研究——层次数据与算法问责[J].现代情报, 2021, 41(7):146-153.
[3] 网易. 2020年全球数据泄露大事件盘点:数据"裸奔"代价沉重[EB/OL].[2023-03-26]. https://www.163.com/dy/article/FVK01IO40531NODR.html.
[4] IBM SECURITY, PONEMON INSTITUTE. 2022年数据泄露成本报告[EB/OL].[2023-03-26]. https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/A48NDEYW.
[5] CHERIF E, BEZAZ N, MZOUGHI M. Do personal health concerns and trust in healthcare providers mitigate privacy concerns?effects on patients'intention to share personal health data on electronic health records[J]. Social science&medicine, 2021, 283:114146. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114146.
[6] 袁向玲,牛静.社会化算法推荐下青年人的隐私管理研究——个性化信息接受意愿与隐私关注的链式中介效应[J].新闻界, 2020(12):58-70.
[7] 王璐瑶,李琪,乔志林,等.保护动机对社交网络用户隐私关注和隐私安全保护行为的影响研究[J].情报杂志, 2019, 38(10):104-110.
[8] 曲国丽,孙冰悦,曲靖野,等.组态视角下毕业生在线求职隐私关注的路径研究[J].情报科学, 2021, 39(12):46-52, 59.
[9] XU Z. An empirical study of patients'privacy concerns for health informatics as a service[J]. Technological forecasting and social change, 2019, 143:297-306.
[10] 杨嫚,温秀妍.隐私保护意愿的中介效应:隐私关注、隐私保护自我效能感与精准广告回避[J].新闻界, 2020(7):41-52.
[11] BANSAL G, NAH F F. Internet privacy concerns revisited:oversight from surveillance and right to be forgotten as new dimensions[J]. Information&management, 2022, 59(3):103618. DOI:10.1016/j.im.2022.103618.
[12] DHAGARRA D, GOSWAMI M, KUMAR G. Impact of trust and privacy concerns on technology acceptance in healthcare:an Indian perspective[J]. International journal of medical informatics, 2020, 141:104164. DOI:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104164.
[13] 金恒江,聂静虹.在线健康社区用户满意度研究:社会临场感理论视角[J].国际新闻界, 2021, 43(10):120-138.
[14] 王家玮,梅莉,胡丰.消费者个性化推荐感知价值对采纳意愿的影响——产品涉入与隐私关注的调节作用[J].企业经济, 2021, 40(5):43-53.
[15] KOOHIKAMALI M, FRENCH A M, KIM D J. An investigation of a dynamic model of privacy trade-off in use of mobile social network applications:a longitudinal perspective[J]. Decision support systems, 2019, 119:46-59.
[16] FOX G, CLOHESSY T, WERFF L, et al. Exploring the competing influences of privacy concerns and positive beliefs on citizen acceptance of contact tracing mobile applications[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2021, 121:106806. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106806.
[17] LI P, CHO H, GOH Z H. Unpacking the process of privacy management and self-disclosure from the perspectives of regulatory focus and privacy calculus[J]. Telematics and informatics, 2019, 41:114-125.
[18] 董坤祥,谢宗晓,甄杰.移动社交商务下用户的隐私悖论[J].技术经济, 2019, 38(6):125-136.
[19] 罗映宇,韦志颖,孙锐.隐私悖论研究述评及未来展望[J].信息资源管理学报, 2020, 10(5):66-75.
[20] BANDARA R, FERNANDO M, AKTER S. Explicating the privacy paradox:a qualitative inquiry of online shopping consumers[J]. Journal of retailing and consumer services, 2020, 52:101947. DOI:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101947.
[21] LEI S S I, CHAN I C C, TANG J, et al. Will tourists take mobile travel advice?examining the personalization-privacy paradox[J]. Journal of hospitality and tourism management, 2022, 50:288-297.
[22] ZHU M, WU C, HUANG S, et al. Privacy paradox in mHealth applications:an integrated elaboration likelihood model incorporating privacy calculus and privacy fatigue[J]. Telematics and informatics, 2021, 61:101601. DOI:10.1016/j.tele.2021.101601.
[23] ROWE F. Contact tracing apps and values dilemmas:a privacy paradox in a neo-liberal world[J]. International journal of information management, 2020, 55:102178. DOI:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102178.
[24] 黄燕萍,刘冰.网络社交隐私悖论:用户隐私态度与行为的背离[J].中国出版, 2022(10):50-53.
[25] 朱侯,方清燕.社会化媒体用户隐私计算量化模型构建及隐私悖论均衡解验证[J].数据分析与知识发现, 2021, 5(7):111-125.
[26] 王波伟.社交媒体用户面临的隐私悖论及消解[J].青年记者, 2021(16):94-95.
[27] 王馨悦,刘畅.时间限制与时间压力下的信息行为研究综述[J].图书情报工作, 2022, 66(9):141-151.
[28] HOGARTH R M, EINHORN H J. Order effects in belief updating:the belief adjustment model[J]. Cognitive psychology, 1992, 24(1):1-55.
[29] VASALOU A, JOINSON A N, COURVOISIER D. Cultural differences, experience with social networks and the nature of "true commitment" in Facebook[J]. International journal of human computer studies, 2010, 68(10):719-728.
[30] 谢毅,高充彦,童泽林.消费者隐私关注研究述评与展望[J].外国经济与管理, 2020, 42(6):111-125.
[31] 张大伟,谢兴政.隐私顾虑与隐私倦怠的二元互动:数字原住民隐私保护意向实证研究[J].情报理论与实践, 2021, 44(7):101-110.
[32] ZENG F, YE Q, LI J, et al. Does self-disclosure matter?a dynamic two-stage perspective for the personalization-privacy paradox[J]. Journal of business research, 2021, 124:667-675.
[33] 李琪,王璐瑶,乔志林.隐私计算与社会资本对移动社交用户自我披露意愿的影响研究——基于微信与微博的比较分析[J].情报杂志, 2018, 37(5):169-175.
[34] 韩普,黄燕杰.在线健康社区中用户隐私悖论行为影响因素研究[J].南京邮电大学学报(社会科学版), 2022, 24(2):42-55.
[35] AMEEN N, HOSANY S, PAUL J. The personalisation-privacy paradox:consumer interaction with smart technologies and shopping mall loyalty[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2022, 126:106976. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106976.
[36] 沈旺,高雪倩,代旺,等.基于解释水平理论与调节定向理论的社交网络隐私悖论研究[J].情报科学, 2020, 38(8):120-127, 140.
[37] 李贺,余璐,许一明,等.解释水平理论视角下的社交网络隐私悖论研究[J].情报学报, 2018, 37(1):1-13.
[38] 赵思栋,岳泉,雷晶,等.理性选择理论及其在信息系统研究中的应用与展望[J].现代情报, 2020, 40(6):163-170.
[39] 卢恒,张向先,张莉曼,等.理性与偏差视角下在线问答社区用户知识付费意愿影响因素构型研究[J].图书情报工作, 2020, 64(19):89-98.
[40] 魏建.理性选择理论与法经济学的发展[J].中国社会科学, 2002(1):101-113.
[41] 陈彬.关于理性选择理论的思考[J].东南学术, 2006(1):119-124.
[42] 王东山.非理性消费行为形成机理研究:基于购买决策模型的仿真[J/OL].系统工程[2023-03-26]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/43.1115.N.20220922.1005.002.html.
[43] 解智宇,吴娜,傅安国等.中国组织吹哨困境探究:研究述评与展望[J].管理现代化, 2022, 42(4):154-160.
[44] 黄丽萍.国际投资仲裁中的投资者责任:促成过错与理性投资者标准[J].环球法律评论, 2022, 44(3):179-192.
[45] 王永贵,刘冬梅,晏丽.行为定向广告透明度对广告效果的影响[J].经济管理, 2022, 44(7):159-174.
[46] 戚拥军,周梦雨,张晓宇.限售股解禁、政府监管与公司股份送转行为——基于投资者非理性的调节效应[J].会计研究, 2020(8):91-103.
[47] 赵雪芹,吴鹏.基于控制代理理论的移动APP用户隐私信息披露行为研究[J].现代情报, 2022, 42(4):143-152, 167.
[48] 陈明红,潘子璇,曾庆彬.政务微信用户持续使用行为及用户契合的调节作用研究[J].现代情报, 2020, 40(11):85-98.
[49] FAN H, HAN B, GAO W.(Im) Balanced customer-oriented behaviors and AI chatbots'efficiency-flexibility performance:the moderating role of customers'rational choices[J]. Journal of retailing and consumer services, 2022, 66:102937. DOI:10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102937.
[50] 张海汝,全冬梅,栾贞增.网购情境下用户隐私威胁应对悖论研究——基于应对行为理论视角[J].情报杂志, 2019, 38(12):141-148.
[51] LI H, LUO X, ZHANG J, et al. Resolving the privacy paradox:toward a cognitive appraisal and emotion approach to online privacy behaviors[J]. Information&management, 2017, 54(8):1012-1022.
[52] NEWELL B R, SHANKS D R. Unconscious influences on decision making:a critical review[J]. Behavioral and brain sciences, 2014, 37(1):1-19.
[53] 陈渝,黄亮峰.理性选择理论视角下的电子书阅读客户端用户流失行为研究[J].图书馆论坛, 2019, 39(9):118-126.
[54] DEAN J J W, SHARFMAN M P. Procedural rationality in the strategic decision-making process[J]. Journal of management studies, 1993, 30(3):587-610.
[55] LWIN M, WIRTZ J, WILLIAMS J D. Consumer online privacy concerns and responses:a power-responsibility equilibrium perspective[J]. Journal of the academy marketing science, 2007, 35(4):572-585.
[56] HALLAM C, ZANELLA G. Online self-disclosure:the privacy paradox explained as a temporally discounted balance between concerns and rewards[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2017, 68:217-227.
[57] HAIR J F, SARSTEDT M, RINGLE C M, et al. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research[J]. Academy of marketing science, 2012, 40(3):414-433.
[58] URBACH N, AHLEMANN F. Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares[J]. Journal of information technology theory and application, 2010, 11(2):5-40.
[59] ZHANG X, LIU S, CHEN X, et al. Health information privacy concerns, antecedents, and information disclosure intention in online health communities[J]. Information&management, 2018, 55(4):482-493.
[60] 姜凌,王志华,杨国亮.网络情境下消费者个人信息表露的影响机制研究——基于隐私疲劳的理论视角[J].企业经济, 2020, 39(9):80-87.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉