突发重大疫情下基层政府信任对公民信息不披露意愿的影响机制研究

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2021.06.011

情报学报

2021, Vol. 40

Issue (6): 666-678 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2021.06.011

情报用户与行为研究

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

突发重大疫情下基层政府信任对公民信息不披露意愿的影响机制研究

池毛毛¹, 王俊晶², 王伟军³

1.中国地质大学（武汉）经济管理学院，武汉 430078
2.华中师范大学信息管理学院，武汉 430079
3.华中师范大学青少年网络心理与行为教育部重点实验室，武汉 430079

The Influencing Mechanism of Grassroots-Level Government Trust on Non-Self-Disclosure Behavior: Taking Prevention of COVID-19 for Example

Chi Maomao¹, Wang Junjing², Wang Weijun³

1.School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430078
2.School of Information Management, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079
3.Key Laboratory of Adolescent Cyberpsychology and Behavior of Ministry of Education, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (0)

全文: PDF (1144 KB) HTML (158 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要突发新冠肺炎疫情在武汉发生后，多地基层政府针对湖北疫区返乡人员开展疫情信息收集工作，然而，有许多公民不愿意披露（隐瞒）相关个人信息。基于刺激-机体-响应框架（stimuli-organism-response，S-O-R）模型，结合信息披露意愿的相关文献，本文构建了基层政府信任、机体感知（包括感知利益、感知风险和隐私担忧）和公民信息不披露意愿的理论模型。在多地启动公共卫生事件一级响应后的1周左右，收集湖北返乡到全国各地的学生和务工人员有效问卷525份。基于结构方程模型开展实证分析，研究结果发现：①基层政府信任分别负向和正向影响隐私担忧和感知利益；②隐私担忧正向影响感知风险；③感知风险和隐私担忧正向影响公民的信息不披露意愿，而感知利益负向影响公民的信息不披露意愿。本文进一步扩展和丰富了现有关于用户信息披露行为的文献，同时，也为相关基层政府在突发重大疫情下，有效地促进公民披露意愿和提升政府服务满意度提供了具体政策建议。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	池毛毛
	王俊晶
	王伟军

关键词 ：突发重大疫情, 基层政府信任, 信息不披露意愿, 隐私担忧

收稿日期: 2020-05-06

基金资助:国家自然科学基金项目“电商平台演化对平台绩效的影响机理研究：基于复杂适应系统的视角”（71801104），“面向青少年网络适应的个性化信息服务优化方法研究”（71974072）。

作者简介: 池毛毛，男，1985年生，特任教授，博士生导师，主要研究领域为电子商务与用户行为、商务数据分析；王俊晶，女，1997年生，硕士研究生，主要研究领域为平台用户行为；王伟军，男，1965年生，教授，博士生导师，主要研究领域为信息资源管理、用户行为等，E-mail：wangwj@mail.ccnu.edu.c；

引用本文:

池毛毛, 王俊晶, 王伟军. 突发重大疫情下基层政府信任对公民信息不披露意愿的影响机制研究[J]. 情报学报, 2021, 40(6): 666-678.
Chi Maomao, Wang Junjing, Wang Weijun. The Influencing Mechanism of Grassroots-Level Government Trust on Non-Self-Disclosure Behavior: Taking Prevention of COVID-19 for Example. 情报学报, 2021, 40(6): 666-678.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2021.06.011 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2021/V40/I6/666

1 Yu L, Li H, He W, et al. A meta-analysis to explore privacy cognition and information disclosure of Internet users[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 2020, 51: 102015.
2 Kokolakis S. Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: a review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon[J]. Computers & Security, 2017, 64: 122-134.
3 Malhotra N K, Kim S S, Agarwal J. Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): the construct, the scale, and a causal model[J]. Information Systems Research, 2004, 15(4): 336-355.
4 Mutimukwe C, Kolkowska E, Gr?nlund ?. Information privacy in e-service: effect of organizational privacy assurances on individual privacy concerns, perceptions, trust and self-disclosure behavior[J]. Government Information Quarterly, 2020, 37(1): 101413.
5 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.
6 Venkatesh V, Thong J Y L, Chan F K Y, et al. Managing citizens’ uncertainty in E-government services: the mediating and moderating roles of transparency and trust[J]. Information Systems Research, 2016, 27(1): 87-111.
7 Beldad A, van der Geest T, de Jong M, et al. A cue or two and I’ll trust You: determinants of trust in government organizations in terms of their processing and usage of citizens' personal information disclosed online[J]. Government Information Quarterly, 2012, 29(1): 41-49.
8 McKnight D H, Choudhury V, Kacmar C. Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology[J]. Information Systems Research, 2002, 13(3): 334-359.
9 Thomson R, Yuki M, Ito N. A socio-ecological approach to national differences in online privacy concern: the role of relational mobility and trust[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015, 51: 285-292.
10 Guo X T, Zhang X F, Sun Y Q. The privacy-personalization paradox in mHealth services acceptance of different age groups[J]. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2016, 16: 55-65.
11 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.
12 Teo T S H, Srivastava S C, Jiang L. Trust and electronic government success: an empirical study[J]. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2008, 25(3): 99-132.
13 欧阳洋, 袁勤俭. 国内外电子商务环境下隐私关注研究述评[J]. 情报科学, 2016, 34(7): 170-176.
14 Hong W Y, Thong J Y L. Internet privacy concerns: an integrated conceptualization and four empirical studies[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2013, 37(1): 275-298.
15 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.
16 张玥, 孙霄凌, 陆佳莹, 等. 基于隐私计算理论的移动社交用户信息披露意愿实证研究——以微信为例[J]. 图书与情报, 2018(3): 90-97.
17 Li Y, Kobsa A. Context and privacy concerns in friend request decisions[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2020, 71(6): 632-643 .
18 黄懿慧, 王啸, 方慧妍, 等. 政府信任对公共健康风险管理的影响——基于长生生物疫苗事件的创设情境研究[J]. 公共管理学报, 2019, 16(4): 83-95, 172-173.
19 Frewer L J, Howard C, Shepherd R. The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production[J]. Agriculture and Human Values, 1998, 15(1): 15-30.
20 Bronfman N C, Vázquez E L, Gutiérrez V V, et al. Trust, acceptance and knowledge of technological and environmental hazards in Chile[J]. Journal of Risk Research, 2008, 11(6): 755-773.
21 Eastlick M A, Lotz S L, Warrington P. Understanding online B-to-C relationships: an integrated model of privacy concerns, trust, and commitment[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2006, 59(8): 877-886.
22 Mehrabian A, Russell J A. An approach to environmental psychology[M]. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1974.
23 Howard J A, Sheth J N. The theory of buyer behavior[M]. New York: John Wiley, 1969.
24 Belk R W. Situational variables and consumer behavior[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1975, 2(3): 157-164.
25 Zahedi F M, Song J. Dynamics of trust revision: using health infomediaries[J]. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2008, 24(4): 225-248.
26 Poortinga W, Pidgeon N F. Trust in risk regulation: cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food?[J]. Risk Analysis, 2005, 25(1): 199-209.
27 Bélanger F, Carter L. Trust and risk in e-government adoption[J]. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2008, 17(2): 165-176.
28 Taddei S, Contena B. Privacy, trust and control: which relationships with online self-disclosure?[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2013, 29(3): 821-826.
29 王萍, 张仙锋, 池毛毛. 共享住宿主体间信任研究综述: 基于S-O-R框架的分析[J]. 电子政务, 2019(12): 108-116.
30 Smith H J, Dinev T, Xu H. Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2011, 35(4): 989-1016.
31 Belanger F, Hiller J S, Smith W J. Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: the role of privacy, security, and site attributes[J]. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2002, 11(3/4): 245-270.
32 刘百灵, 徐伟, 夏惠敏. 应用特征与个体特质双重视角下移动购物持续使用意愿研究[J]. 管理科学, 2018, 31(2): 59-70.
33 李海丹, 洪紫怡, 朱侯. 隐私计算与公平理论视角下用户隐私披露行为机制研究[J]. 图书情报知识, 2016(6): 114-124.
34 Awad N F, Krishnan M S. The personalization privacy paradox: an empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2006, 30(1): 13-28.
35 Xu H, Luo X, Carroll J M, et al. The personalization privacy paradox: an exploratory study of decision making process for location-aware marketing[J]. Decision Support Systems, 2011, 51(1): 42-52.
36 Cenfetelli R T. Inhibitors and enablers as dual factor concepts in technology usage[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2004, 5(11): Article 16.
37 Sutanto J, Palme E, Tan C H, et al. Addressing the personalization-privacy paradox: an empirical assessment from a field experiment on smartphone users[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2013, 37(4): 1141-1164.
38 李凯, 黄敬尧, 王晓文. LBS用户信息公开意愿影响因素分析——基于交换理论的实证研究[J]. 情报学报, 2016, 35(1): 84-97.
39 Stewart K A, Segars A H. An empirical examination of the concern for information privacy instrument[J]. Information Systems Research, 2002, 13(1): 36-49.
40 Podsakoff P M, MacKenzie S B, Lee J Y, et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies[J]. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88(5): 879-903.
41 Lindell M K, Whitney D J. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001, 86(1): 114-121.
42 Dijkstra T K, Groningen U O, Henseler J, et al. Consistent partial least squares path modeling[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2015, 39(2): 297-316.
43 萧文龙. 统计分析入门与应用: SPSS中文版+SmartPLS 3(PLS_SEM)[M]. 2版. 台北: 碁峰资讯股份有限公司, 2018.
44 Fornell C, Larcker D F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981, 18(1): 39-50.
45 Ringle C M, Sarstedtand M, Straub D W. A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2012, 36(1): iii-xiv.
46 Agarwal R, Karahanna E. Time flies when you're having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2000, 24(4): 665-694.
47 Henseler J, Ringle C M, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling[J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2015, 43(1): 115-135.
48 Peng D X, Lai F J. Using partial least squares in operations management research: a practical guideline and summary of past research[J]. Journal of Operations Management, 2012, 30(6): 467-480.
49 Jozani M, Ayaburi E, Ko M, et al. Privacy concerns and benefits of engagement with social media-enabled apps: a privacy calculus perspective[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2020, 107: 106260.