[논문]TSSEM을 이용한 정보 프라이버시 메타분석

김종기

doi:10.14400/jdc.2019.17.11.149

TSSEM을 이용한 정보 프라이버시 메타분석
Meta-Analysis of Information Privacy Using TSSEM 원문보기

디지털융복합연구 = Journal of digital convergence, v.17 no.11, 2019년, pp.149 - 156

초록
AI-Helper

정보기술의 활용이 보편화되면서 대중과 연구자 모두 정보 프라이버시 문제에 대한 관심이 높아지고 있다. 이러한 문제에 대한 연구가 기하급수적으로 증가하면서 연구결과에 대한 전반적인 이해가 어려워졌다. 이에 따라 과거연구에 대한 체계적인 검토가 요구된다. 본 연구는 정보 프라이버시 연구에 핵심적인 네 가지 연구개념을 두 가지 연구모형으로 설정하고 기존 연구에서 수집된 데이터를 이용하여 실증 분석하였다. TSSEM이라는 정량적 메타분석 기법이 적용되었는데, 이 기법은 MASEM의 한 가지로서 구조방정식모형과 메타분석 기법을 통합하여 분석하는 기능을 제공한다. 분석결과는 위험 중심적 모형이 염려 중심적 모형과 비교하여 보다 높은 모형 적합도를 나타내었다. 본 연구의 결과는 전통적인 염려 중심적 모형의 설명력에 의문을 제시하며, 사용자의 프라이버시 정보 제공의도를 설명하기 위하여 위험 중심적 모형을 고려할 필요가 있다는 점을 시사한다.

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

With widespread use of information technologies, information privacy issues have been gaining more attention by not only the public but also researchers. The number of studies on the issues has been increasing exponentially, which makes incomprehensible the whole picture of research outcome. Thus, it is necessary to conduct a systematic examination of past research. This study developed two competing models with four essential constructs in information privacy research and empirically tested the models with data obtained from previous studies. This study employed a quantitative meta-analysis method called TSSEM. It is one of MASEM methods in which structural equation modeling and meta-analysis are integrated. The analysis results indicated that risk-centric model exhibited much better model fits than those of concern-centric model. This study implies that traditional concern-centric model should be questioned it's explanatory power of the model and researchers may consider alternative risk-centric model to explain user's intention to provide privacy information.

주제어

표/그림 (3)

그림 Fig. 1. Research Models
표 Table 1. Path Coefficients of Concern-centric Model
표 Table 2. Path Coefficients of Risk-centric Model

AI 본문요약
AI-Helper

* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.

문제 정의

This study aims to identify essential elements of information privacy research and to show how those elements are related. This study also develops, meta-analytically compares and tests two distinctive perspectives on information privacy.
This study investigated how users decide to provide privacy related information. Four essential constructs were identified based on previous studies.

제안 방법

This study aims to identify essential elements of information privacy research and to show how those elements are related. This study also develops, meta-analytically compares and tests two distinctive perspectives on information privacy. While most of past literature review research have synthesized prior studies with qualitative methods, this study attempts to quantitatively test the research model.
This study also develops, meta-analytically compares and tests two distinctive perspectives on information privacy. While most of past literature review research have synthesized prior studies with qualitative methods, this study attempts to quantitatively test the research model.

이론/모형

Correlation coefficients among constructs in the research model are required to conduct an analysis with TSSEM. Among 38, 14 studies reported correlation coefficient matrix among research variables.
This study employed TSSEM proposed by Cheung and Chan[8]. The metaSEM package was used to analyze the research models. It is a MASEM tool based on OpenMx package in R programming platform[27].
This study employed TSSEM proposed by Cheung and Chan[8]. The metaSEM package was used to analyze the research models.

성능/효과

It is an analytical method to combine meta-analysis and SEM in a coherent manner. The analysis results showed that, while all of the paths in both models were significant, the model fit indexes of risk-centric model were much better than those of concern-centric model.

참고문헌 (31)

N. Gerber, P. Gerber & M. Volkamer. (2018). Explaining the Privacy Paradox: A Systematic Review of Literature Investigating Privacy Attitude and Behavior. Computers & Security, 77, 226-261. DOI: 10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.002

상세보기
H. Yun, G. Lee & D. J. Kim. (2019). A chronological review of empirical research on personal information privacy concerns: An analysis of contexts and research constructs. Information & Management, 56(4), 570-601. DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2018.10.001

상세보기
S. Whang. Meta-Analysis Using R, Hakjisa, 2015.
C. Okoli. (2015). A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37, 879-910. DOI: 10.17705/1cais.03743
S. Jak. (2015). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling. New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-27174-3
M. W. L. Cheung. (2015). Meta-analysis: A structural equation modeling approach. John Wiley & Sons.
R. S. Landis. (2013). Successfully Combining Meta-analysis and Structural Equation Modeling: Recommendations and Strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(3), 251-261. DOI: 10.1007/s10869-013-9285-x

상세보기
M. W. L. Cheung & W. Chan. (2005). Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Modeling: A Two-Stage Approach. Psychological Methods, 10(1), 40-64. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989x.10.1.40

상세보기
H. J. Smith, T. Dinev & H. Xu. (2011). Information Privacy Research: An Interdisciplinary Review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989-1016. DOI: 10.2307/41409970

상세보기
Y. Li. (2011). Empirical studies on online information privacy concerns: Literature review and an integrative framework. CAIS, 28, 28. DOI: 10.17705/1cais.02828
Y. Li. (2012). Theories in Online Information Privacy Research: A Critical Review and an Integrated Framework. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 471-481. DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.010

상세보기
T. Dinev, A. R. McConnell & H. J. Smith. (2015). Research commentary-informing privacy research through information systems, psychology, and behavioral economics: thinking outside the "APCO" box. Information Systems Research, 26(4), 639-655. DOI: 10.1287/isre.2015.0600

상세보기
S. Kokolakis. (2015). Privacy Attitudes and Privacy Behaviour: A Review of Current Research on the Privacy Paradox Phenomenon. Computers & Security, 64, 122-134. DOI: 10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002
S. Barth & M. D. De Jong. (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. DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013

상세보기
H. Jia, P. J. Wisniewski, H. Xu, M. B. Rosson & J. M. Carroll. (2015, February). Risk-taking as a learning process for shaping teen's online information privacy behaviors. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 583-599). ACM. DOI: 10.1145/2675133.2675293
T. Zhou. (2015). Understanding user adoption of location-based services from a dual perspective of enablers and inhibitors. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(2), 413-422. DOI: 10.1007/s10796-013-9413-1

상세보기
N. K. Malhotra, S. S. Kim & J. Agarwal. (2004). Internet Users' Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC):The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336-355. DOI: 10.1287/isre.1040.0032

상세보기
T. Dinev & P. Hart. (2004). Internet Privacy Concerns and Their Antecedents-Measurement Validity and a Regression Model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(6), 413-422. DOI: 10.1080/01449290410001715723

상세보기
M. J. Culnan & P. K. Armstrong. (1999). Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust:An Empirical Investigation. Organization Science, 10(1), 104-115. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.10.1.104

상세보기
M. Koohikamali, N. Gerhart & M. Mousavizadeh. (2015). Location disclosure on LB-SNAs: the role of incentives on sharing behavior. Decision Support Systems, 71, 78-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2015.01.008.

상세보기
M. K. Malhotra & V. Grover. (1998). An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs to theory. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 407-425. DOI: 10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00021-7

상세보기
M. J. Keith, S. C. Thompson, J. Hale, P. B. Lowry & C. Greer. (2013). Information disclosure on mobile devices: Re-examining privacy calculus with actual user behavior. International journal of human-computer studies, 71(12), 1163-1173. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.08.016

상세보기
Y. Li. (2014). A multi-level model of individual information privacy beliefs. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 13(1), 32-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.elerap.2013.08.002

상세보기
C. L. Miltgen & H. J. Smith. (2015). Exploring information privacy regulation, risks, trust, and behavior. Information & Management, 52(6), 741-759. DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2015.06.006

상세보기
K. S. Schwaig, A. H. Segars, V. Grover & K. D. Fiedler. (2013). A model of consumers’ perceptions of the invasion of information privacy. Information & Management, 50(1), 1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2012.11.002

상세보기
H. Xu, H. H. Teo, B. C. Tan & R. Agarwal. (2012). Research note-effects of individual self-protection, industry self-regulation, and government regulation on privacy concerns: a study of location-based services. Information Systems Research, 23(4), 1342-1363. DOI: 10.1287/isre.1120.0416

상세보기
M. W. L. Cheung. (2015). metaSEM: An R package for meta-analysis using structural equation modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1521. DOI : 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01521
E. E. Rigdon (2016). Choosing PLS path modeling as analytical method in European management research: A realist perspective. European Management Journal, 34(6), 598-605. DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2016.05.006

상세보기
K. H. Kim (2016). A Convergence Study about Meta-Analysis on the Effects of ACT Intervention Program. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 7(5), 145-153. DOI: 10.15207/JKCS.2016.7.5.145
S. H. Hwang, H. C. Jeong & J. W. Hwang. (2019). Effect of Laughter Therapy on Healthy Life: A Meta-analysis. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 10(9), 291-299. DOI: 10.15207/JKCS.2019.10.9.291
B. Cho & J. Lee. (2018). A Meta Analysis on Effects of Flipped Learning in Korea. Journal of Digital Convergence, 16(3), 59-73. DOI: 10.14400/JDC.2018.16.3.059

저자의 다른 논문 :

LOADING...

표제어: PCR

동의어: Packet Collision Rate

용어 설명 출처 목록 (6)

용어 설명: PCR은 세균 특이성이 있는 primer를 이용하여 적은 수의 세균이 있을지라도 쉽게 검출할 수 있는 유용한 방법이며, 이를 이용하여 구강 내 치면세균막이나 타액에서 직접 세균을 검출할 수 있게 되었다[8].

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format

연합인증