Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2019.17.11.149

Meta-Analysis of Information Privacy Using TSSEM  

Kim, Jongki (Dept. of Business Administration, Pusan National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Digital Convergence / v.17, no.11, 2019 , pp. 149-156 More about this Journal
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Information Privacy; Meta-analysis; TSSEM; Concern-centric Model; Risk-centric Model;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 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   DOI
2 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
3 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   DOI
4 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   DOI
5 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   DOI
6 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   DOI
7 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   DOI
8 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.   DOI
9 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   DOI
10 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   DOI
11 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   DOI
12 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   DOI
13 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   DOI
14 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   DOI
15 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   DOI
16 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   DOI
17 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
18 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   DOI
19 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   DOI
20 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   DOI
21 S. Whang. Meta-Analysis Using R, Hakjisa, 2015.
22 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   DOI
23 S. Jak. (2015). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling. New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-27174-3
24 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   DOI
25 M. W. L. Cheung. (2015). Meta-analysis: A structural equation modeling approach. John Wiley & Sons.
26 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   DOI
27 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   DOI
28 H. J. Smith, T. Dinev & H. Xu. (2011). Information Privacy Research: An Interdisciplinary Review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989-1016. DOI: 10.2307/41409970   DOI
29 Y. Li. (2011). Empirical studies on online information privacy concerns: Literature review and an integrative framework. CAIS, 28, 28. DOI: 10.17705/1cais.02828
30 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   DOI
31 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   DOI