https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8606-0802
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
Information collection is key to digital governance, yet few studies have investigated how specific factors associated with information collection affect public attitudes and supportive behavior tendencies. Using information collection through facial recognition technology as the research scenario, this study explores the mechanism that drives public support of information collection on the basis of questionnaire data collected from 1,116 individuals in China via a 2 (government platform vs. enterprise platform) * 2 (explicitly informed vs. tacitly agreed) survey experimental design. It was found that information collection in urban digital transformation strengthened supportive behavior tendencies, and public attitudes played a mediating role in the relationship between the two. Specifically, information collection on a government platform is more likely to increase supportive behavior tendencies than information collection on an enterprise platform. Information collection via tacit agreement is more likely to increase supportive behavior tendencies than information collection via explicitly informed consent. This study has implications for understanding public behavioral choices under contrasting information collection strategies and for promoting the realization of coproduction between the government, the enterprise, and the public in a way that enhances the value of collected data.
Disclosure statement
The authors declare that there are no competing interests or conflicts of interest.
Data availability statement
The dataset and analytical codes used in this research are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Notes
1 Wang, Xu, Fujita and Liu, “Towards Felicitous Decision Making: An Overview on Challenges and Trends of Big Data.”; Lochner, “Saving Facial: Regulating Law Enforcement’s Use of Mobile Facial Recognition Technology and Iris Scans.”; Barth and De Jong, “The Privacy Paradox-Investigating Discrepancies Between Expressed Privacy Concerns and Actual Online Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review.”; Heijden and Ogertschnig, “Effects of Context Relevance and Perceived Risk on User Acceptance of Mobile Information Services.”
2 Roussi, “Resisting the Rise of Facial Recognition.”; Van Noorden, “The Ethical Questions That Haunt Facial-Recognition Research.”; Kostka, Steinacker and Meckel, “Between Security and Convenience: Facial Recognition Technology in the Eyes of Citizens in China, Germany, The United Kingdom, and The United States.”
3 Welinder, “A Face Tells More than a Thousand Posts: Developing Facial Recognition Privacy in Social Networks.”
4 Gordon, “Automated Facial Recognition in Law Enforcement: The Queen (On Application of Edward Bridges) The Chief Constable of South Wales Police.”
5 Calzada, “Citizens’ Data Privacy in China: The State of the Art of the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL).”
6 Gao, “The Practical Dilemma and System Optimization of ‘Informed Consent’ Mechanism in the Era of Big Data.”; Wang, “Limitations and Outlet of Informed Consent as the Basis for the Legitimacy of Personal Information Processing.”
7 Ning, “Insisting on and Revision of the Informed Consent Rule in Personal Information Protection.”
8 Mavriki and Karyda, “Big Data Analytics in E-Government and E-Democracy Applications: Privacy Threats, Implications and Mitigation.”
9 Dos Santos, “Policy Recommendation on Privacy and Personal Data Protection as Regards Re-Use of Public Sector Information(psi).”; Zenda, Vorster and Da Viega. “Protection of Personal Information: An Experiment Involving Data Value Chains and the Use of Personal Information for Marketing Purposes in South Africa.”
10 Jeon, Jeong, Jee, Huang, Kim, Park, Kim, Wufuer, Jin, Kim and Choi, “A Facial Recognition Mobile App for Patient Safety and Biometric Identification: Design, Development, and Validation.”
11 Adjabi, Ouahabi, Benzaoui and Taleb-Ahmed, “Past, Present, and Future of Face Recognition: A Review.”
12 Wang and Yi, “The Impact of Use Context on Mobile Payment Acceptance: An Empirical Study in China.”; Steinacker, Meckel, Kostka and Borth, “Facial Recognition: A Cross-National Survey on Public Acceptance, Privacy, and Discrimination.”
13 Lai and Rau, “Has Facial Recognition Technology Been Misused? A Public Perception Model of Facial Recognition Scenarios.”
14 Ostrom. “Metropolitan Reform: Propostions Derived from Two Traditions.”
15 Meijer, “Networked Coproduction of Public Services in Virtual Communities: From a Government-Centric to a Community Approach to Public Service Support.”
16 Wang and Li, “Citizens’ Motivations for Co-Production and the Influences on Behaviors: Mixed Research in the Perspective of Value.”
17 Steen and Tuurnas, The Roles of the Professional in Co-Production and Co-Creation Processes.; Fledderus, Brandsen and Honingh, “Restoring Trust through the Co-Production of Public Services: A Theoretical Elaboration.”
18 Alford, “Co-Production, Interdependence and Publicness: Extending Public Service-Dominant Logic.”
19 Jakobsen, “Can Government Initiatives Increase Citizen Coproduction? Results of a Randomized Field Experiment.”
20 Franke, “Equal, Proportional, and Mixed Sharing of Cooperative Production Under the Threat of Sabotage.”
21 Taber and Lodge, “The Illusion of Choice in Democratic Politics: The Unconscious Impact of Motivated Political Reasoning.”
22 Alford and O’flynn, “Making Sense of Public Value: Concepts, Critiques and Emergent Meanings.”
23 Tuan, “Activating Tourists’ Citizenship Behavior for the Environment: The Roles of CSR and Frontline Employees’ Citizenship Behavior for the Environment.”
24 Levasseur, “Co-Producing Accountability? Drawing Conclusions from Non-Profit Child Care Services in Manitoba.”
25 Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.”
26 Cherry, García, Kallbekken and Torvanger, “The Development and Deployment of Low-Carbon Energy Technologies: The Role of Economic Interests and Cultural Worldviews on Public Support.”; Kamal, Shafiq and Kakria, “Investigating Acceptance of Telemedicine Services through an Extended Technology Acceptance Model(TAM).”; Fishbein and Ajzen, Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research.
27 Featherman and Pavlou, “Predicting E-Services Adoption: A Perceived Risk Facets Perspective.”
28 Al-Hujran, Al-Debei, Chatfield and Migdadi, “The Imperative of Influencing Citizen Attitude toward E-Government Adoption and Use.”; Schaupp, Carter and McBride, “E-File Adoption: A Study of U. S. Taxpayers’ Intentions.”
29 Herian, Shank and Abdel-Monem, “Trust in Government and Support for Governmental Regulation: The Case of Electronic Health Records.”
30 Hiller and Russell, “The Challenge and Imperative of Private Sector Cybersecurity: An International Comparison.”; Chen, “Your Face Is a Commodity, Fiercely Contract Accordingly: Regulating the Capitalization of Facial Recognition Technology through Contract Law.”
31 Nyćkowiak, “Political Activity: Is Trust in Democratic Institutions Really a Relevant Determinant?”
32 Boeckmann and Tyler, “Trust, Respect, and the Psychology of Political Engagement.”
33 Chen, “Your Face Is a Commodity, Fiercely Contract Accordingly: Regulating the Capitalization of Facial Recognition Technology through Contract Law.”
34 Braun, Fung, Iqbal and Shah, “Security and Privacy Challenges in Smart Cities.”
35 Yu and Zhang, “Research on Boosting Theory and Application.”
36 Mallat, Rossi, Tuunainen and Öörni, “The Impact of Use Context on Mobile Services Acceptance: The Case of Mobile Ticketing.”
37 Hoffmann, Lutz and Ranzini, “Privacy Cynicism: A New Approach to the Privacy Paradox.”
38 Schaupp, Carter and McBride, “E-File Adoption: A Study of U. S. Taxpayers’ Intentions.”
39 Posner and Rothbart, “Research on Attention Networks as a Model for the Integration of Psychological Science.”
40 Mishler and Rose, “What Are the Origins of Political Trust? Testing Institutional and Cultural Theories in Post-Communist Societies.”
41 Baucus, “Pressure, Opportunity and Predisposition: A Multivariate Model of Corporate Illegality.”
42 Ajzen, “The Theory of Planned Behavior.”
43 Weiss and Cropanzano, “Affective Events Theory: A Theoretical Discussion of the Structure, Causes and Consequences of Affective Experiences at Work.”
44 Miner and Glomb, “State Mood, Task Performance, and Behavior at Work: A Within-Persons Approach.”; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis, “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View.”
45 Goold, CCTV and Policing: Public Area Surveillance and Police Practices in Britain.
46 Wegge, Dick, Fisher, West, and Dawson, “A Test of Basic Assumptions of Affective Events Theory (AET) In Call Centre Work.”
47 Yousafzai, Foxall and Pallister, “Explaining Internet Banking Behavior: Theory of Reasoned Action, Theory of Planned Behavior, or Technology Acceptance Model?”; Yeh, “The Effects of Successful ICT-Based Smart City Services: From Citizens’ Perspectives.”
48 Steinacker, Meckel, Kostka and Borth, “Facial Recognition: A Cross-National Survey on Public Acceptance, Privacy, and Discrimination.”
49 Weiss, “The Evolution of Reform Narratives: A Narrative Policy Framework Analysis of German NPM Reforms.”
50 Baron and Kenny, “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.”
51 Krull and MacKinnon, “Multilevel Modeling of Individual and Group Level Mediated Effects.”
52 Shi and Zhang, “On the Tilting Protection of Personal Information in Facial Recognition.”
53 Lisi, “The Interaction Between Trust and Power: Effects on Tax Compliance and Macroeconomic Implications.”; Xu, Kostka and Cao, “Information Control and Public Support for Social Credit Systems in China.”
54 Su, Xu and Cao, “What Explains Popular Support for Government Monitoring in China?”
55 Wang and Li, “The Legal Doctrinal Construction of ‘Consent Rule’ in Personal Information Processing.”
56 Yang, Mei and Zheng, “Understanding the Antecedents of Privacy Fatigue in Facial Recognition-Based m-Gov Services: An Empirical Study from China.”
57 Ein-Dor and Hirschberger, “Rethinking Attachment Theory: From a Theory of Relationships to a Theory of Individual and Group Survival.”
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Yingwei Wang
Yingwei Wang is an assistant professor in the School of Public Administration at East China Normal University. His research involves behavioral public policy, digital government, and public policy analysis in contemporary China. His articles have been published in the Journal of Asian Public Policy, the Journal of Public Management, the Journal of Public Administration, and the Chinese Public Administration, among others. E-mail: [email protected]
Hong Pan
Hong Pan is an assistant professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration at Chongqing University. Her research interests include public policy process and grassroots official behavior. She is mainly engaged in behavioral public policy in recent years. Her articles have been published in the Journal of Asian Public Policy, the Chinese Public Administration, and the Science of Science and Management of S.&T., among others. E-mail: [email protected]