图书情报工作

图书情报工作 >

2023 , Vol. 67 >Issue 13: 36 - 48

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2023.13.005

理论研究

APP隐私侵犯场景下的用户信任修复机制研究——基于公平理论的多重中介模型

  • 张嵩 ,
  • 孙鑫玥 ,
  • 陈昊
展开
  • 1 青岛大学质量与标准化学院 青岛 266071;
    2 青岛大学商学院 青岛 266071
张嵩，教授，博士，博士生导师；孙鑫玥，硕士研究生。

收稿日期: 2023-03-10

  修回日期: 2023-04-23

  网络出版日期: 2023-07-11

基金资助

本文系中国博士后科学基金项目“员工信息安全行为意向的形成机理研究：认知偏差视角”（项目编号：2021M691688）研究成果之一。

收起

Research on User Trust Repair Mechanism in APP Privacy Violation Scenarios: A Multi-Mediator Model Based on Justice Theory

  • Zhang Song ,
  • Sun Xinyue ,
  • Chen Hao
Expand
  • 1 School of Quality and Standardization, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071;
    2 School of Business, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071

Received date: 2023-03-10

  Revised date: 2023-04-23

  Online published: 2023-07-11

Fold

摘要

[目的/意义] APP侵犯用户隐私事件频发使得 APP 服务商陷入用户信任危机，服务商如何修复受损信任从而重新赢得用户至关重要。研究基于公平理论构建“信任修复策略—感知公平—修复后信任”多重中介模型，探讨 APP 隐私侵犯场景下的用户信任修复机制。[方法/过程] 采用准实验方法进行研究设计，分别针对三类信任修复策略收集问卷数据，并使用 bootstrap 方法进行中介检验。[结果/结论] 结果发现，信息修复通过互动公平、程序公平和分配公平间接影响修复后信任；情感修复通过互动公平和程序公平间接影响修复后信任；功能修复仅通过互动公平间接影响修复后信任；信息修复策略模型和情感修复策略模型中不同公平产生的中介效应差异不显著；违规收集和违规使用两种隐私侵犯类型对修复策略和公平之间关系的调节作用不显著。研究结果扩展了信任修复研究与公平理论的应用范畴，为移动互联网企业在隐私侵犯背景下修复用户信任提供实践对策。

关键词： APP隐私侵犯; 信任修复; 公平理论; 多重中介

本文引用格式

张嵩 , 孙鑫玥 , 陈昊 . APP隐私侵犯场景下的用户信任修复机制研究——基于公平理论的多重中介模型[J]. 图书情报工作, 2023 , 67(13) : 36 -48 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2023.13.005

Abstract

[Purpose/Significance] The frequent violation of user privacy by APPs has plunged APP service providers into a crisis of user trust. Service providers need to repair damaged trust and win back users. Based on the justice theory, this paper builds a “trust repair strategy-perceived justice-repaired trust” multi-mediator model to explore strategies to repair the trust of APP users in privacy violation scenarios. [Method/Process] A quasi-experimental design was used to collect questionnaire data for three types of trust repair strategies, and bootstrap method was used for mediation analysis. [Result/Conclusion] The results show that informational repair indirectly affects repaired trust through interactional justice, procedural justice, and distributive justice, while affective repair indirectly affects repaired trust through interactional justice and procedural justice, and functional repair only through interactional justice. Results also indicate that the distinctions of mediating effects of different justice in the informational repair strategy model and the affective repair strategy model are not obvious. In the end, the two types of privacy violations, including illegal collections and illegal uses, have no significant moderating effects on the relationship between repair strategies and justice. The results expand the application scope of trust repair research and justice theory, and offer mobile Internet enterprises practical strategies for rebuilding user trust in the context of privacy violations.

Key words： APP privacy violation; trust repair; justice theory; multiple mediation

参考文献

[1] 国家计算机网络应急技术处理协调中心. 2020年中国互联网网络安全报告[R]. 北京: 人民邮电出版社, 2020.
[2] 国家计算机网络应急技术处理协调中心. 2021上半年我国互联网网络安全监测数据分析报告[EB/OL]. [2023-05-09]. https://www.cert.org.cn/publish/main/46/2021/20210731090556980286517/20210731090556980286517_.html.
[3] 国家计算机网络应急技术处理协调中心. CNCERT互联网安全威胁报告[EB/OL]. [2023-05-15]. https://www.cert.org.cn/publish/main/45/2022/20220222162441001864709/20220222162441001864709_.html.
[4] MARTIN K. The penalty for privacy violations: how privacy violations impact trust online[J]. Journal of business research, 2018, 82: 103-116.
[5] 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.
[6] 黄柏淅, 朱小栋. 移动社交类APP用户持续使用意愿的影响因素研究[J]. 现代情报, 2016, 36(12): 57-64.
[7] BANSAL G, ZAHEDI F M. Trust violation and repair: the information privacy perspective[J]. Decision support systems, 2015, 71: 62-77.
[8] XIE Y, PENG S. How to repair customer trust after negative publicity: the roles of competence, integrity, benevolence, and forgiveness[J]. Psychology & marketing, 2009, 26(7): 572-589.
[9] CUI Y, ZHANG X, PENG X, et al. How to use apology and compensation to repair competence-versus integrity-based trust violations in e-commerce[J]. Electronic commerce research and applications, 2018, 32: 37-48.
[10] CHEN Y, WU J, CHANG H. Examining the mediating effect of positive moods on trust repair in e-commerce[J]. Internet research, 2013, 23(3): 355-371.
[11] TOMLINSON E C, NELSON C A, LANGLINAIS L A. A cognitive process model of trust repair[J]. International journal of conflict management, 2021, 32(2): 340-360.
[12] BALEBAKO R, CRANOR L. Improving app privacy: nudging app developers to protect user privacy[J]. IEEE security & privacy, 2014, 12(4): 55-58.
[13] COLQUITT J A, LEPINE J A, PICCOLO R F, et al. Explaining the justice–performance relationship: trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer?[J]. Journal of applied psychology, 2012, 97(1): 1-15.
[14] KEITH M J, THOMPSON S C, HALE J, et al. Information disclosure on mobile devices: re-examining privacy calculus with actual user behavior[J]. International journal of human-computer studies, 2013, 71(12): 1163-1173.
[15] 贺明华, 梁晓蓓, 肖琳. 共享经济监管机制对感知隐私风险、 消费者信任及持续共享意愿的影响[J]. 北京理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2018, 20(6): 55-64.
[16] 陈昊, 张嵩, 吕途. 智能系统用户隐私意识与隐私保护意愿研究 [J]. 情报理论与实践, 2022, 45(2): 168-175.
[17] PALVIA P. The role of trust in e-commerce relational exchange: a unified model[J]. Information & management, 2009, 46(4): 213-220.
[18] LIU C, MARCHEWKA J T, LU J, et al. Beyond concern— a privacy-trust-behavioral intention model of electronic commerce[J]. Information & management, 2005, 42(2): 289-304.
[19] LYU T, GENG Q, YU D. Research on the relationship between network insight, supply chain integration and enterprise performance[J]. Systems, 2023, 11(1): 10.
[20] LOWRY P B, POSEY C, BENNETT R J, et al. Leveraging fairness and reactance theories to deter reactive computer abuse following enhanced organisational information security policies: an empirical study of the influence of counterfactual reasoning and organisational trust[J]. Information systems journal, 2015, 25(3): 193-273.
[21] 聂云霞, 陈烟然. 平衡理论视域下数字记录的信任危机与信任重建[J]. 档案学研究, 2021, 35(4): 48-54.
[22] PATWARY A A-N, NAHA R K, GARG S, et al. Towards secure fog computing: a survey on trust management, privacy, authentication, threats and access control[J]. Electronics, 2021, 10(10): 1171.
[23] SMITH A K, BOLTON R N, WAGNER J. A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery[J]. Journal of marketing research, 1999, 36(3): 356-372.
[24] 袁博, 董悦, 李伟强. 道歉在信任修复中的作用：来自元分析的证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(7): 1103-1113.
[25] 张书维, 宋逸雯, 钟爽. 行为公共管理学视角下政府信任修复的双过程机制[J]. 上海大学学报( 社会科学版), 2020, 37(6): 1-15.
[26] 徐彪. 公共危机事件后政府信任受损及修复机理—— 基于归因理论的分析和情景实验[J]. 公共管理学报, 2014, 11(2): 27- 38.
[27] 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): 104-118.
[28] 孙伟, 黄培 伦. 公平 理论 研究 评述 [J]. 科技 管理 研究, 2004(4): 102-104.
[29] COLQUITT J A. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure.[J]. Journal of applied psychology, 2001, 86(3): 386-400.
[30] 王子贤, 吕庆华. 服务补救、感知公平与顾客满意—— 基于网购用户视角的研究[J]. 山西财经大学学报, 2018, 40(10): 77-89.
[31] 刘东. 包容共享视域下的信任修复[J]. 人民论坛, 2017(24): 80-81.
[32] COLQUITT J A, SCOTT B A, RODELL J B, et al. Justice at the millennium, a decade later: a meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives[J]. Journal of applied psychology, 2013, 98(2): 199-236.
[33] 刘百灵, 夏惠敏, 李延晖. 移动购物用户信息披露意愿影响因素的实证研究—— 基于公平理论和理性行为理论视角[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2017, 40(5): 87-93.
[34] ZHANG N, GUO X, ZHANG L, et al. How to repair public trust effectively: research on enterprise online public opinion crisis response[J]. Electronic commerce research and applications, 2021, 49: 101077.
[35] 廖飞, 施丽芳, 茅宁, 等. 互动公平、委员会决策程序公平与员工决策承诺: 基于公平启发理论与不确定管理理论的实证研究[J]. 南开管理评论, 2012, 15(2): 4-18,?30.
[36] 杨强, 孟陆, 董泽瑞. 预防性服务补救对顾客忠诚的影响研究 —— 基于顾客感知公平的中介作用[J]. 大连理工大学学报( 社会科学版), 2018, 39(6): 31-37.
[37] KONOVSKY M A, PUGH S D. Citizenship behavior and social exchange[J]. Academy of management journal, 1994, 37(3): 656-669.
[38] 赵占波, 张钧安, 徐惠群. 基于公平理论探讨服务补救质量影响的实证研究—— 来自中国电信服务行业的证据[J]. 南开管理评论, 2009, 12(3): 27-34.
[39] DINEV T, HART P. An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions[J]. Information systems research, 2006, 17(1): 61-80.
[40] LEVENTHAL G S. The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations[J]. Advances in experimental social psychology, 1976, 9: 91-131.
[41] DE CREMER D, VAN KLEEF G A. When being overpaid makes me feel good about myself: it depends on how the other feels[J]. 2009, 30(5): 793-802.
[42] 阎俊, 胡少龙, 常亚平. 基于公平视角的网络环境下服务补救对顾客忠诚的作用机理研究[J]. 管理学报, 2013, 10(10): 1512-1519.
[43] DESMET P T M, DE CREMER D, VAN DIJK E. 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.
[44] CHEN H, LI W, LYU T, et al. Understanding people’s participation in online charities: a dual-process approach of trust and empathic concern[J]. Industrial management & data systems, 2021, 121(7): 1642-1663.
[45] 中华人民共和国工业和信息化部. 工业和信息化部关于开展APP侵害用户权益专项整治工作的通知[EB/OL]. [2023-05- 06]. https://www.miit.gov.cn/jgsj/xgj/fwjd/art/2019/art_178a5a11b15b410a8c2d98e3c04bf895.html.
[46] PAVLOU P A, GEFEN D. Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust[J]. Information systems research, 2004, 15(1): 37-59.
[47] 中国互联网络信息中心. 第51次《中国互联网络发展状况统 计报 告》 [EB/OL]. [2023-03-30]. https://www.cnnic.net.cn/n4/2023/0303/c88-10757.html.
[48] RINGLE C M, SARSTEDT M, STRAUB D W. Editor’s comments: a critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in” Mis Quarterly”[J]. Mis quarterly, 2012, 36(1): iii-xiv.
[49] HAIR J F, SARSTEDT M, HOPKINS L, et al. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research[J]. European business review, 2014, 26(2): 106-121.
[50] LYU T, GUO Y, LIN H. Understanding green supply chain information integration on supply chain process ambidexterity: the mediator of dynamic ability and the moderator of leaders’ networking ability[J]. Frontiers in psychology, 2022, 13: 1088077.
[51] 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.
[52] HAYES A F. PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling[EB/OL]. [2023-05-30]. http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
[53] GOLES T, RAO S V, LEE S, et al. Trust violation in electronic commerce: customer concerns and reactions[J]. The journal of computer information systems, 2009, 49(4): 1-9.
[54] SMITH H J, MILBERG S J, BURKE S J. Information privacy: measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices[J]. Mis quarterly, 1996, 20(2): 167-196.
[55] HENSELER J, RINGLE C M, SARSTEDT M. Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares[J]. International marketing review, 2016, 33(3): 405-431.
[56] SARSTEDT M, HENSELER J, RINGLE C M. Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: alternative methods and empirical results[M]// SARSTEDT M, SCHWAIGER M, TAYLOR C R. Measurement and research methods in international marketing. Bingley: Emerald, 2011: 195-218.
[57] XU H, TEO H, TAN B C Y, et al. The role of push-pull technology in privacy calculus: the case of location-based services[J]. Journal of management information systems, 2009, 26(3): 135-174.
[58] WEINER B. An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion[J]. Psychological review, 1985, 92(4): 548-573.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉