Business as usual through contact tracing app: what influences intention to download?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Table 1. Measures

Construct	Source
Social empowerment (SE)	Hanson and Yuan (2018)
Perceived privacy risks (PPR)	Kehr et al. (2015)
Government intrusion concern (GIC)	Dinev et al. (2008)
Trust in government (TG)	Krasnova and Veltri (2010)
Perceived information transparency (TRP)	Awad and Krishnan (2006)
Perceived information control (PIC)	Xu (2007)
Download intention (DI)	Gu et al. (2017)

Table 2. Truth table

GIC_cal	TRP_cal	PIC_cal	PPR_cal	TG_cal	SE_cal	number	DI_cal	raw consistency^a	PRI consistency^b	SYM consistency^c
0	0	1	0	1	1	20	1	0.976690	0.946565	0.946565
1	1	1	1	1	1	6	1	0.939803	0.793232	0.798235
1	1	0	1	1	1	5	1	0.930368	0.751624	0.757536
0	0	0	0	0	1	4	1	0.943520	0.798620	0.803051
1	1	1	0	1	1	4	1	0.973218	0.884546	0.884547
1	1	1	1	0	1	3	1	0.936297	0.701638	0.720538
1	1	1	0	1	0	3	1	0.958735	0.701986	0.723551
0	1	1	0	1	0	3	1	0.943811	0.705069	0.705069
0	1	1	0	0	1	3	1	0.956888	0.844893	0.844893
1	0	1	1	1	1	3	1	0.970247	0.846524	0.846523
1	0	1	0	0	0	2	1	0.955534	0.701297	0.701298
0	1	1	0	0	0	2	1	0.949362	0.726881	0.728448
1	1	1	0	0	0	2	1	0.959632	0.753055	0.753055
1	1	0	0	0	1	2	1	0.942347	0.761024	0.761025
1	0	0	1	1	1	2	1	0.956702	0.793859	0.793861
1	1	1	0	0	1	2	1	0.957704	0.796363	0.796363
0	1	0	0	0	1	2	1	0.944835	0.800242	0.800243
1	0	1	1	0	1	2	1	0.976083	0.859041	0.859043
0	1	0	0	1	1	2	1	0.964159	0.871830	0.871831
1	0	1	0	0	1	2	1	0.976530	0.877108	0.877109
0	1	1	0	1	1	2	1	0.961710	0.877526	0.877526
0	0	1	0	0	1	2	1	0.964871	0.887640	0.887640
0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0.927877	0.686066	0.686066
0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	0.934017	0.699187	0.699187
1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0.948198	0.732556	0.732559
0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	0.944810	0.747491	0.747492
1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	0.961925	0.827323	0.827325
0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0.962582	0.828302	0.828302
0	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	0.965849	0.829694	0.829695
0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	0.959592	0.829896	0.829897
0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	0.975799	0.911110	0.911112

*_cal indicates that the construct has been calibrated.

^aRaw consistency: ‘Consistency of a single truth table row’ (Schneider & Wagemann, 2012, p. 332).

^bPRI consistency: The sufficiency degree to which a variable leads to an outcome or a negation of outcome (Schneider & Wagemann, 2012).

^cSYM (symmetric) consistency: The degree of importance of studying the presence and absence of an outcome (Schneider & Wagemann, 2012).

Table 3. Solutions for the outcome conditions

	Frequency cut-off: 1
	Consistency cut-off: 0.927877
	Model: DI_cal = f(GIC_cal, TRP_cal, PIC_cal, PPR_cal, TG_cal, SE_cal)
	Solution	Raw coverage	Unique coverage	Consistency
1	PIC_cal*~PPR_cal*~TG_cal	0.385286	0.00702655	0.929378
2	PIC_cal*~TG_cal*SE_cal	0.394974	0.01820520	0.920824
3	~PPR_cal*~TG_cal*SE_cal	0.431917	0.01969550	0.922884
4	TRP_cal*PIC_cal*~PPR_cal	0.418928	0.01447900	0.923926
5	TRP_cal*TG_cal*SE_cal	0.407963	0.01575650	0.912598
6	~GIC_cal*~PPR_cal*SE_cal	0.523474	0.08783200	0.946123
7	~GIC_cal*~TRP_cal*~TG_cal*SE_cal	0.313424	0.00436509	0.922595
8	GIC_cal*PPR_cal*TG_cal*SE_cal	0.330352	0.00723952	0.919407
	solution coverage: 0.757372
	solution consistency: 0.887475

Table 4. Analysis of necessary conditions for the presence of outcome

Outcome variable:	DI_cal
Condition	Consistency	Coverage
GIC	0.595443	0.558128
~GIC	0.667092	0.785311
TRP	0.721707	0.576642
~TRP	0.530501	0.798046
TG	0.582348	0.815201
~TG	0.655168	0.545084
PIC	0.641328	0.834233
~PIC	0.616522	0.537249
SE	0.834132	0.841116
~SE	0.452677	0.489580
PPR	0.602257	0.537943
~PPR	0.683806	0.858230
SE_cal+~PR_cal	0.915789	0.800559
TG_cal+~GIC_cal	0.792292	0.754385
PIC_cal+TRP_cal	0.869051	0.603371

Conditions in bold indicate that they are either a necessary or quasi-necessary condition.

Table 5. Analysis of necessary conditions for the absence of outcome

Outcome variable:	~DI_cal
Condition	Consistency	Coverage
GIC	0.800976	0.687955
~GIC	0.485535	0.523750
TRP	0.853492	0.624873
~TRP	0.421750	0.581358
TG	0.403276	0.403276
~TG	0.855932	0.652525
PIC	0.420472	0.501177
~PIC	0.860927	0.687448
SE	0.484954	0.448094
~SE	0.828047	0.820611
PPR	0.876729	0.717574
~PPR	0.435460	0.500802
~SE_cal+PPR_cal	0.953759	0.687176
~TG_cal+GIC_cal	0.938422	0.613009
~PIC_cal+~TRP_cal	0.906123	0.621336

Conditions in bold indicate that they are either a necessary or quasi-necessary condition

Table

Variable	Mean	Std. Dev.	Minimum	Maximum
GIC_cal	0.5567222	0.3215239	0.05	0.95
TRP_cal	0.6531111	0.2861047	0.05	0.95
PIC_cal	0.4011667	0.3054601	0.05	0.95
PPR_cal	0.5842222	0.2971437	0.05	0.95
TG_cal	0.3727778	0.3106535	0.05	0.95
SE_cal	0.5175000	0.3113695	0.05	0.95
DI_cal	0.5218333	0.3421557	0.05	0.95

Hanson, S., & Yuan, H. (2018). Friends with benefits: Social coupons as a strategy to enhance customers’ social empowerment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(4), 768–787. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0534-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kehr, F., Kowatsch, T., Wentzel, D., & Fleisch, E. (2015). Blissfully ignorant: The effects of general privacy concerns, general institutional trust, and affect in the privacy calculus. Information Systems Journal, 25(6), 607–635. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12062

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dinev, T., Hart, P., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Internet privacy concerns and beliefs about government surveillance – An empirical investigation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(3), 214–233. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2007.09.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Krasnova, H., & Veltri, N. F. (2010). Privacy calculus on social networking sites: Explorative evidence from Germany and USA [Paper presentation]. HICSS '10: Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Hawaii 1–10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2010.307

 Google Scholar

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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/25148715

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xu, H. (2007). The effects of self-construal and perceived control on privacy concerns. In ICIS 2007, 125, Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems. AIS Electronic Library. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2007/125

 Google Scholar

Gu, J., Xu, Y., Xu, H., Zhang, C., & Ling, H. (2017). Privacy concerns for mobile app download: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Decision Support Systems, 94(C), 19–28. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.10.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004244

 Google Scholar