Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 資訊隱私悖論因素探討
What Causes the Information Privacy Paradox?作者 賴立芸
Lai, Li-Yun貢獻者 梁定澎<br>林怡伶
Liang, Ting-Peng<br>Lin, Yi-Lin
賴立芸
Lai, Li-Yun關鍵詞 資訊隱私
隱私計算理論
隱私悖論
關聯理論
Information privacy
Privacy paradox
Privacy calculus
Relevance theory日期 2019 上傳時間 5-Sep-2019 15:44:07 (UTC+8) 摘要 資訊科技的進步引起大家對資訊隱私的關注。尤其是在行動網路的時代,許多APP應用程式要求使用者在下載之前提供敏感的個人資訊。儘管許多研究報告指出越來越多的使用者聲稱對於隱私的重要性感到敏感，但他們的實際行為卻往往與他們所說的互相矛盾，此現象被稱為「隱私悖論」，亦即在網路上提供私人資訊的態度和實際行為之間的不一致。 在問卷調查中，人們經常表示他們不願意提供私人資訊，但是卻在下載手機應用程式時，自願提供這些資訊。 廣被用於解釋這樣不一致性的理論是隱私計算理論，其認為使用者在決策過程中，會權衡提供資訊的成本和利益。而本研究以關聯理論來擴充探討影響決策不一致的潛在因素，總共包括三個主要因素：感知興趣程度、資訊相關性和隱私資訊敏感程度。 本研究以羅吉斯迴歸分析，隱私悖論現象的發生主要與受測者的感知關聯性及感知興趣程度有正向影響，與個人隱私資訊顧慮程度則是呈現負向相關。且加入與關聯理論相關的感知關聯性構念後，其二元羅吉斯回歸之解釋力會比原先僅用隱私計算理論的感知興趣程度及隱私資訊顧慮程度的解釋力更高。
Advances in information technology has raised concern about the information privacy. Particularly in the mobile age, many APPs request users to provide sensitive personal information before the download. Although many studies have reported that more and more users are sensitive to the importance of privacy, their actual behaviors are often contradictory to what they said. A particular phenomenon is called “privacy paradox” which is the inconsistency between the attitude and the actual behavior toward providing private information online. People often indicate their reluctance to provide private information in the survey context but voluntarily provide them when they download mobile APPs. A popular theory for explaining the inconsistency is privacy calculus, which argues the user weighs the cost and benefits of providing the information in the decision process. This research extends existing research with the relevance theory to explore potential factors that affect the decision inconsistency, includes three major factors: perceived interest, information relevance and privacy sensitivity.參考文獻 一、中文部份1. 吳仁和資訊管理-企業創新與價值創新（七版）ISBN 987-986-457-042-32. 陳耕硯（2015）。以隱私計算理論探討影響LBS App下載意圖的因素。國立中山大學資訊管理學系研究所碩士論文，高雄市。3. 王紹蓉、梁定澎、賴誼禎（2016），『揭露與隱藏之拉鋸：人氣需求與隱私顧慮對臉書隱私管理行為之影響』，資訊管理學報，第二十三卷，第四期，445-472頁二、英文部份1. Ackerman, M. S., Cranor, L. F., & Reagle, J. (1999). Privacy in e-commerce: examining user scenarios and privacy preferences. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1st ACM conference on Electronic commerce, Technology & Society, 20–36.2. Acquisti, A., & Grossklags, J. (2005). Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security & Privacy, 2(2005), 24-30.3. Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. Paper presented at the 6th “Privacy Enhancing Technologies”, workshop Cambridge, England.4. Angst, C. M., & Agarwal, R. (2009). Adoption of electronic health records in the presence of privacy concerns: The elaboration likelihood model and individual persuasion. MIS quarterly, 33(2), 339-370.5. Awad, N. F., & Krishnan, M. S. (2006). The Personalization Privacy Paradox: An Empirical Evaluation of Information Transparency and the Willingness to Be Profiled Online for Personalization. MIS quarterly, 30(1), 13-28.6. Barnes, S.B., 2006. A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1394/1312.7. Barth, S., & De Jong, M. D. (2017). The privacy paradox–Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior–A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1038-1058.8. Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011). Privacy in the digital age: a review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS quarterly, 35(4), 1017-1042.9. Belanger, F., Hiller, J. S., & Smith, W. J. (2002). Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: the role of privacy, security, and site attributes. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3), 245-270.10. Berendt, B., Günther, O., & Spiekermann, S. (2005). Privacy in e-commerce: stated preferences vs. actual behavior. Communications of the ACM, 48(4), 101-106.11. Bettina, B., Oliver, G., and Sarah, S. (2005). “Privacy in E-Commerce: Stated Preferences vs. Actual Behavior.” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 48, No. 4: pp. 101-106.12. Boyd, D. (2008). Taken out of context. American teen sociality in networked publics. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. http://www.danah.org/papers/TakenOutOfContext.pdf (June 6th, 2011).13. Boyd, D., & Hargittai, E. (2010). Facebook privacy settings: Who cares? First Monday, 15(8). http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3086/2589 (June 6th, 2011).14. Berendt, B., Gunther, O., and Spiekermann, S. (2005). “Privacy in E-Commerce: Stated Preferences vs. Actual Behavior.” Communication of the ACM, Vol. 48, No. 4: pp. 101-106.15. Clarke, R. (1999). Internet privacy concerns confirm the case for intervention. Communications of the ACM, 42(2), 60-67.16. Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999). Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization science, 10(1), 104-115.17. Culnan, M. J., & Bies, R. J. (2003). Consumer privacy: Balancing economic and justice considerations. Journal of social Issues, 59(2), 323-342.18. DeCew, Judith, "Privacy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),19. Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A.-K., & Hughes, B. N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 83–108. 20. Dimoka, A., Pavlou, P. A., & Davis, F. D. (2011). Research commentary-NeuroIS: the potential of cognitive neuroscience for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 22(4), 687-702.21. Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61-80.22. Dinev, T., Xu, H., & Smith, H. J. (2009). Information privacy values, beliefs and attitudes: An empirical analysis of Web 2.0 privacy. Paper presented at the System Sciences, 2009. HICSS`09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on.23. Equifax. (1996). “Harris-Equifax Consumer Privacy Survey” Equifax, Inc., Atlanta, GA.24. Harris, L. and Westin, A.F. (1998). “E-commerce and Privacy: What Net Users Want.” Privacy and American Business, Hackensack, NJ.25. Hui, K.-L., Teo, H. H., & Lee, S.-Y. T. (2007). The value of privacy assurance: an exploratory field experiment. MIS quarterly, 19-33.26. Jiang, Z., Heng, C. S., & Choi, B. C. (2013). Research note—privacy concerns and privacy-protective behavior in synchronous online social interactions. Information Systems Research, 24(3), 579-595.27. Lai, C. Y., Liang, T. P., & Hui, K. L. (2018). Information Privacy Paradox: A Neural Science Study. PACIS 2018 Proceedings, No. 247.28. Laufer, R. S., Proshansky, H. M., & Wolfe, M. (1973). Some analytic dimensions of privacy. Paper presented at the Third International Architectural Psychology Conference.29. Laufer, R. S., & Wolfe, M. (1977). Privacy as a concept and a social issue: A multidimensional developmental theory. Journal of social Issues, 33(3), 22-42.30. Li, H., Sarathy, R., & Xu, H. (2011). The role of affect and cognition on online consumers` decision to disclose personal information to unfamiliar online vendors. Decision Support Systems, 51(3), 434-445.31. Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users` information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336-355.32. Milberg, S. J., Smith, H. J., & Burke, S. J. (2000). Information privacy: Corporate management and national regulation. Organization science, 11(1), 35-57.33. Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., & Horne, D. A. (2007). The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100-126.34. Papacharissi, Z., & Gibson, P. L. (2011). 15 minutes of privacy: Privacy, sociality, and publicity on social network sites. In S. Trepte, & L. Reinecke (Eds.): Privacy online: Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web (pp. 75–89). Heidelberg and New York: Springer.35. Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online environments: a principal-agent perspective. MIS quarterly, 31(1), 105-136.36. Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M. G. (1999). Flaming, Complaining, Abstaining: How Online Users Respond to Privacy Concerns. Journal of advertising, 28(3), 37-51.37. Shin, J., Cho, D., & Sim, J. (2017). Concerns make your decision better: Privacy perception, increased awareness, and the decision of mobile app installation.38. Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS quarterly, 35(4), 989-1016.39. Smith, H. J., Milberg, S. J., & Burke, S. J. (1996). Information privacy: measuring individuals` concerns about organizational practices. MIS quarterly, 167-196.40. Stone, D. L., Lukaszewski, K. M., Stone-Romero, E. F., & Johnson, T. L. (2013). Factors affecting the effectiveness and acceptance of electronic selection systems. Human Resource Management Review, 23(1), 50-70.41. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986), Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.(Second edition 1995.)42. Teltzrow, M. and Kobsa, A. (2004). Impacts of User Privacy Preferences on Personalized Systems: A Comparative Study. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands: pp. 315-332.43. Tufekci, Z. (2008). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 20–36.44. Van Slyke, C., Shim, J. T., Johnson, R., & Jiang, J. J. (2006). Concern for information privacy and online consumer purchasing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(6), 16.45. Weible, R.J. (1993). Privacy and Data: An Empirical Study of the Influence and Types and Data and Situational Context upon Privacy Perceptions in Department of Business Administration. Mississippi State University. p. 10.46. William L. Prosser, Privacy, 48 Calif. L. Rev. 383 (1960). （California Law Review）47. Xu, F., Michael, K., & Chen, X. (2013). Factors affecting privacy disclosure on social network sites: an integrated model. Electronic Commerce Research, 13(2), 151-168.48. Yao, M. Z., Rice, R. E., & Wallis, K. (2007). Predicting user concerns about online privacy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(5), 710–722. 49. Youn, S., & Hall, K. (2008). Gender and online privacy among teens: Risk perception, privacy concerns, and protection behaviors. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(6), 763–765.50. Zhao, L., Lu, Y., & Gupta, S. (2012). Disclosure intention of location-related information in location-based social network services. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(4), 53-90.51. Zhang, B., & Xu, H. (2016, February). Privacy nudges for mobile applications: Effects on the creepiness emotion and privacy attitudes. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 1676-1690). ACM. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
資訊管理學系
106356010資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106356010 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 梁定澎<br>林怡伶 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Liang, Ting-Peng<br>Lin, Yi-Lin en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 賴立芸 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lai, Li-Yun en_US dc.creator (作者) 賴立芸 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lai, Li-Yun en_US dc.date (日期) 2019 en_US dc.date.accessioned 5-Sep-2019 15:44:07 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 5-Sep-2019 15:44:07 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 5-Sep-2019 15:44:07 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0106356010 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/125526 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 資訊管理學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 106356010 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 資訊科技的進步引起大家對資訊隱私的關注。尤其是在行動網路的時代,許多APP應用程式要求使用者在下載之前提供敏感的個人資訊。儘管許多研究報告指出越來越多的使用者聲稱對於隱私的重要性感到敏感，但他們的實際行為卻往往與他們所說的互相矛盾，此現象被稱為「隱私悖論」，亦即在網路上提供私人資訊的態度和實際行為之間的不一致。 在問卷調查中，人們經常表示他們不願意提供私人資訊，但是卻在下載手機應用程式時，自願提供這些資訊。 廣被用於解釋這樣不一致性的理論是隱私計算理論，其認為使用者在決策過程中，會權衡提供資訊的成本和利益。而本研究以關聯理論來擴充探討影響決策不一致的潛在因素，總共包括三個主要因素：感知興趣程度、資訊相關性和隱私資訊敏感程度。 本研究以羅吉斯迴歸分析，隱私悖論現象的發生主要與受測者的感知關聯性及感知興趣程度有正向影響，與個人隱私資訊顧慮程度則是呈現負向相關。且加入與關聯理論相關的感知關聯性構念後，其二元羅吉斯回歸之解釋力會比原先僅用隱私計算理論的感知興趣程度及隱私資訊顧慮程度的解釋力更高。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Advances in information technology has raised concern about the information privacy. Particularly in the mobile age, many APPs request users to provide sensitive personal information before the download. Although many studies have reported that more and more users are sensitive to the importance of privacy, their actual behaviors are often contradictory to what they said. A particular phenomenon is called “privacy paradox” which is the inconsistency between the attitude and the actual behavior toward providing private information online. People often indicate their reluctance to provide private information in the survey context but voluntarily provide them when they download mobile APPs. A popular theory for explaining the inconsistency is privacy calculus, which argues the user weighs the cost and benefits of providing the information in the decision process. This research extends existing research with the relevance theory to explore potential factors that affect the decision inconsistency, includes three major factors: perceived interest, information relevance and privacy sensitivity. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 目次 i表次 iii圖次 iv第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景與動機 1第二節 研究目的 3第三節 研究流程 4第二章 文獻探討 5第一節 資訊隱私 5第二節 資訊隱私顧慮 7第三節 隱私悖論 10第四節 隱私計算理論 12第五節 關聯理論 14第三章 研究架構與方法 15第一節 研究架構 15第二節 研究假說 17第三節 變數操作性定義 18第四節 實驗設計 21第四章 研究分析與結果 33第一節 敘述性統計分析 33第二節 樣本檢驗及信效度分析 37第三節 羅吉斯回歸 41第四節 卡方檢定 44第五章 結論與建議 58第一節 研究結論 58第二節 研究貢獻 60第三節 研究限制 61第四節 未來研究方向 62參考文獻 63表附錄一：應用程式名稱及所搭配個人資訊內容表 69表附錄二：問卷 74 zh_TW dc.format.extent 16835654 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106356010 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資訊隱私 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 隱私計算理論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 隱私悖論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 關聯理論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Information privacy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Privacy paradox en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Privacy calculus en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Relevance theory en_US dc.title (題名) 資訊隱私悖論因素探討 zh_TW dc.title (題名) What Causes the Information Privacy Paradox? en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文部份1. 吳仁和資訊管理-企業創新與價值創新（七版）ISBN 987-986-457-042-32. 陳耕硯（2015）。以隱私計算理論探討影響LBS App下載意圖的因素。國立中山大學資訊管理學系研究所碩士論文，高雄市。3. 王紹蓉、梁定澎、賴誼禎（2016），『揭露與隱藏之拉鋸：人氣需求與隱私顧慮對臉書隱私管理行為之影響』，資訊管理學報，第二十三卷，第四期，445-472頁二、英文部份1. Ackerman, M. S., Cranor, L. F., & Reagle, J. (1999). Privacy in e-commerce: examining user scenarios and privacy preferences. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1st ACM conference on Electronic commerce, Technology & Society, 20–36.2. Acquisti, A., & Grossklags, J. (2005). Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Security & Privacy, 2(2005), 24-30.3. Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. Paper presented at the 6th “Privacy Enhancing Technologies”, workshop Cambridge, England.4. Angst, C. M., & Agarwal, R. (2009). Adoption of electronic health records in the presence of privacy concerns: The elaboration likelihood model and individual persuasion. MIS quarterly, 33(2), 339-370.5. Awad, N. F., & Krishnan, M. S. (2006). The Personalization Privacy Paradox: An Empirical Evaluation of Information Transparency and the Willingness to Be Profiled Online for Personalization. MIS quarterly, 30(1), 13-28.6. Barnes, S.B., 2006. A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1394/1312.7. Barth, S., & De Jong, M. D. (2017). The privacy paradox–Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior–A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1038-1058.8. Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011). Privacy in the digital age: a review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS quarterly, 35(4), 1017-1042.9. Belanger, F., Hiller, J. S., & Smith, W. J. (2002). Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: the role of privacy, security, and site attributes. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3), 245-270.10. Berendt, B., Günther, O., & Spiekermann, S. (2005). Privacy in e-commerce: stated preferences vs. actual behavior. Communications of the ACM, 48(4), 101-106.11. Bettina, B., Oliver, G., and Sarah, S. (2005). “Privacy in E-Commerce: Stated Preferences vs. Actual Behavior.” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 48, No. 4: pp. 101-106.12. Boyd, D. (2008). Taken out of context. American teen sociality in networked publics. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. http://www.danah.org/papers/TakenOutOfContext.pdf (June 6th, 2011).13. Boyd, D., & Hargittai, E. (2010). Facebook privacy settings: Who cares? First Monday, 15(8). http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3086/2589 (June 6th, 2011).14. Berendt, B., Gunther, O., and Spiekermann, S. (2005). “Privacy in E-Commerce: Stated Preferences vs. Actual Behavior.” Communication of the ACM, Vol. 48, No. 4: pp. 101-106.15. Clarke, R. (1999). Internet privacy concerns confirm the case for intervention. Communications of the ACM, 42(2), 60-67.16. Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999). Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization science, 10(1), 104-115.17. Culnan, M. J., & Bies, R. J. (2003). Consumer privacy: Balancing economic and justice considerations. Journal of social Issues, 59(2), 323-342.18. DeCew, Judith, "Privacy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),19. Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A.-K., & Hughes, B. N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 83–108. 20. Dimoka, A., Pavlou, P. A., & Davis, F. D. (2011). Research commentary-NeuroIS: the potential of cognitive neuroscience for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 22(4), 687-702.21. Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61-80.22. Dinev, T., Xu, H., & Smith, H. J. (2009). Information privacy values, beliefs and attitudes: An empirical analysis of Web 2.0 privacy. Paper presented at the System Sciences, 2009. HICSS`09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on.23. Equifax. (1996). “Harris-Equifax Consumer Privacy Survey” Equifax, Inc., Atlanta, GA.24. Harris, L. and Westin, A.F. (1998). “E-commerce and Privacy: What Net Users Want.” Privacy and American Business, Hackensack, NJ.25. Hui, K.-L., Teo, H. H., & Lee, S.-Y. T. (2007). The value of privacy assurance: an exploratory field experiment. MIS quarterly, 19-33.26. Jiang, Z., Heng, C. S., & Choi, B. C. (2013). Research note—privacy concerns and privacy-protective behavior in synchronous online social interactions. Information Systems Research, 24(3), 579-595.27. Lai, C. Y., Liang, T. P., & Hui, K. L. (2018). Information Privacy Paradox: A Neural Science Study. PACIS 2018 Proceedings, No. 247.28. Laufer, R. S., Proshansky, H. M., & Wolfe, M. (1973). Some analytic dimensions of privacy. Paper presented at the Third International Architectural Psychology Conference.29. Laufer, R. S., & Wolfe, M. (1977). Privacy as a concept and a social issue: A multidimensional developmental theory. Journal of social Issues, 33(3), 22-42.30. Li, H., Sarathy, R., & Xu, H. (2011). The role of affect and cognition on online consumers` decision to disclose personal information to unfamiliar online vendors. Decision Support Systems, 51(3), 434-445.31. Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users` information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336-355.32. Milberg, S. J., Smith, H. J., & Burke, S. J. (2000). Information privacy: Corporate management and national regulation. Organization science, 11(1), 35-57.33. Norberg, P. A., Horne, D. R., & Horne, D. A. (2007). The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100-126.34. Papacharissi, Z., & Gibson, P. L. (2011). 15 minutes of privacy: Privacy, sociality, and publicity on social network sites. In S. Trepte, & L. Reinecke (Eds.): Privacy online: Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web (pp. 75–89). Heidelberg and New York: Springer.35. Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online environments: a principal-agent perspective. MIS quarterly, 31(1), 105-136.36. Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M. G. (1999). Flaming, Complaining, Abstaining: How Online Users Respond to Privacy Concerns. Journal of advertising, 28(3), 37-51.37. Shin, J., Cho, D., & Sim, J. (2017). Concerns make your decision better: Privacy perception, increased awareness, and the decision of mobile app installation.38. Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS quarterly, 35(4), 989-1016.39. Smith, H. J., Milberg, S. J., & Burke, S. J. (1996). Information privacy: measuring individuals` concerns about organizational practices. MIS quarterly, 167-196.40. Stone, D. L., Lukaszewski, K. M., Stone-Romero, E. F., & Johnson, T. L. (2013). Factors affecting the effectiveness and acceptance of electronic selection systems. Human Resource Management Review, 23(1), 50-70.41. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986), Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.(Second edition 1995.)42. Teltzrow, M. and Kobsa, A. (2004). Impacts of User Privacy Preferences on Personalized Systems: A Comparative Study. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands: pp. 315-332.43. Tufekci, Z. (2008). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 20–36.44. Van Slyke, C., Shim, J. T., Johnson, R., & Jiang, J. J. (2006). Concern for information privacy and online consumer purchasing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(6), 16.45. Weible, R.J. (1993). Privacy and Data: An Empirical Study of the Influence and Types and Data and Situational Context upon Privacy Perceptions in Department of Business Administration. Mississippi State University. p. 10.46. William L. Prosser, Privacy, 48 Calif. L. Rev. 383 (1960). （California Law Review）47. Xu, F., Michael, K., & Chen, X. (2013). Factors affecting privacy disclosure on social network sites: an integrated model. Electronic Commerce Research, 13(2), 151-168.48. Yao, M. Z., Rice, R. E., & Wallis, K. (2007). Predicting user concerns about online privacy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(5), 710–722. 49. Youn, S., & Hall, K. (2008). Gender and online privacy among teens: Risk perception, privacy concerns, and protection behaviors. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(6), 763–765.50. Zhao, L., Lu, Y., & Gupta, S. (2012). Disclosure intention of location-related information in location-based social network services. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(4), 53-90.51. Zhang, B., & Xu, H. (2016, February). Privacy nudges for mobile applications: Effects on the creepiness emotion and privacy attitudes. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 1676-1690). ACM. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU201900946 en_US
