• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
R. Rudó
 
  • 257 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
257
Views on SlideShare
257
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    R. Rudó R. Rudó Presentation Transcript

    • Master ThesisThe influence of cultural values on the adoption of privacy threatening features in social networks A first approach measuring culture and information technology user acceptance, acceptance in the environment of social network sitesRosa Rudó MaunéAdvisor: Ph.D Francesc Miralles TornerNovember 11th 2011 11th,
    • Agenda• Introduction• Motivation• Key aspects of the Literature Review• Research Question• Hypotheses and Model• Research Design• Results• Discussion• Conclusions and Further Steps 2
    • Introduction• Social network sites (SNS), such as Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, etc., offer broad functionalities: sharing photos, telephone numbers, etc.• Some of these functionalities have personal information uploaded from the users.• A voluntary or an involuntary disclosure of personal information is due to th d t the usage of privacy th t i f t f i threatening features: – Those features need personal information to be used.• The usage of these privacy threatening features can harm users. – For instance: • A teacher from Georgia was fired (Abc2 2009, Kypost 2009). – This is not an isolated case there are some more cases (BBC 2010 case, 2010, FacebookNoticias 2009). 3
    • Motivation• There is social anxiety about the harm that privacy threatening features can cause, it can be seen in: – Government warnings. warnings – Newspapers.• However, it is not enough as can be seen in the news.• Therefore, what has been done and what will b d Th f h th b d d h t ill be done i thi in this knowledge area is relevant for society in order to minimize damage. 4
    • Key aspects of the Literature Review (1/3)• Privacy threatening features can be studied from the perspective of IT user acceptance theories since these theories study the factors theories, that allow a technology to be adopted.• According to Leidner and Kayworth (2006), culture influences the user acceptance of IT.• The main research areas of this research project are: – User acceptance theories of Information Technologies (IT). – Culture. influences IT User Culture Acceptance Leidner & Kayworth 2006 5
    • Key aspects of the Literature Review (2/3) influences IT User Culture Acceptance Leidner & Kayworth 2006 • Schwartz’s model (Schwartz 1992): – 10 values: Self-direction, Stimulation, Conformity, etc. , , y, • Hofstede’s framework (Hofstede 1980): – Dorfman and Howell (1988)  individual level. – Constructs: Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism, Masculinity, and Long- versus Short- term Orientation. – Bagchi et al. (2003) studied the Hofstede’s constructs that have more influence on IT user acceptance. – Hwang (2004)  Open Cultural Orientation. 6
    • Key aspects of the Literature Review (3/3) influences IT User Culture Acceptance Leidner & Kayworth 2006 • Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen 1985). – Constructs: Attitude toward the Behavior, Subjetive Norm and Perceived Behavioral Control. • Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis 1986) 1986). – Constructs: Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use. • Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al. 2003). – Constructs: Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence and Faciltating Conditions. 7
    • Research Question influences IT User Culture Acceptance Leidner & Kayworth 2006 • e commerce e-commerce (Gefen & Straub 2000) • Internet banking (Tan & Teo 2000) • 3G mobile communications (Wu et al. 2007) Do individual’s l D i di id l’ cultural values i fl l l influence the h adoption of privacy threatening features in social networks? i l k ? 8
    • Hypotheses and Model Perceived  Individualism Usefulness H1+ H4+ H7+ Open  Power  H2‐ H5+ Perceived  H8+ Behavioral  H10+ Cultural  Use Distance Ease of Use Intention Orientation H3‐ H6‐ H9+ Uncertainty  Social  Avoidance InfluenceCULTURE: Open Cultural Orientation IT USER ACCEPTANCE: Simplified UTAUT (Hwang 2004) (Venkatesh et al. 2003) 9
    • Research Design (1/2)• Social Network Site  Facebook (750 m. of active users in July m 2011 (Facebook 2011).• Qualitative versus quantitative approach: – Quantitative approach, since it is going to offer more accurate results of the proposed objectives (Easterby-Smith et al. 2008). (Easterby Smith• According to the quantitative approach and the objective of the research, th possible options are: h the ibl ti – Multiple regression. – Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). q g( ) • Covariance-based SEM. • Partial Least Squares (PLS). 10
    • Research Design (2/2)• Implementation of the research method (PLS): – Data Collection  Questionnaire Questionnaire. • The questionnaire was based on the literature review and improved with workshops, focus groups, etc. in order to achieve content validity. – Sampling: • 66 students from La Salle (Ramon Llull University)  International students of Business management bachelor bachelor. – 62 with Facebook profile. – 4 with no Facebook profile. • 87 students from Cracow University of Economics  National students of Business management bachelor. – 61 with Facebook profile (1 with patterns in the response). – 26 with no Facebook profile. • Number of samples > 30  They are enough to use PLS. 11
    • Results - Introduction• Developed with smartPLS tool tool. – http://www.smartpls.de• Steps: – Bootstrapping: • 500 bootstrap re-sample as recommended Chin (1998) re sample (1998). • Estimates t-values of the model  Significance level. – Measurement model: • Convergent validity: Average Variance Extracted (AVE) (AVE). • Discriminant validity: loadings of CFA and Fornell-Lackers Criterion. • Reliability: Cronbach’s Alpha and Composite reliability – St Structural model: t l d l • Path coefficients (~ regression coefficients). • Explained variance (R2). 12
    • Results of La Salle, URL, sample Perceived Percei edIndividualism Usefulness H1+ H4+ H7+ -0.274* 0.506*** 0.281* Power P Open Perceived Behavioral B h i l Use U H2- Cultural H5+ Ease of H8+ H10+ Distance Intention R2=0.337 0.192(ns) Orientation 0.475*** Use 0.058(ns) 0.580*** H3- H6- H6 H9+ -0.125(ns) -0.260(ns) 0.307** Lack of reliability & convergent validity No significant Uncertainty item Social Avoidance Influence “ns”: no significance, * 10% significant level, ** 5% significant level, *** 1% significant level 13
    • Results of Cracow University of Economics sample Lack of PerceivedIndividualism reliability Usefulness H1+ H4+ H7+ 0.190(ns) 0.087(ns) 0.289* Power P Open Perceived Behavioral B h i l Use U H2- Cultural H5+ Ease of H8+ H10+ Distance Intention R2=0.372 0.257(ns) Orientation 0.072(ns) Use 0.183(ns) 0.554*** H3 H3- H6- H9+ 0.270** -0.172(ns) -0.131(ns) Lack of reliability & convergent validity Uncertainty Social Avoidance Lack of Influence reliability “ns”: no significance, * 10% significant level, ** 5% significant level, *** 1% significant level 14
    • Discussion• La Salle (URL) sample: – H4 H5 and H7 are supported H4, supported. – H1 is not supported.• Cracow University of Economics sample: – Lack of statistical validity and reliability. • English comprehension difficulties. • Non-validated questionnaire with this sample.• Regarding the measurement tool: – Culture constructs: • New socio-technological environment related to initial design (1980). • Focused on professional employees of a multinational company. – IT user acceptance constructs: • Social Influence is not as relevant as it used to be. • Perceived Ease of Use does not matter for today’s higher education students. 15
    • Limitations• Method limitations: – Cultural models lack a comprehensive understanding. – Limited possibility of an in-depth analysis of the relationship between constructs.• Design research limitations: es g esea c tat o s – Trust and Attitude were not considered. – Only one SNS: Facebook. – Affew privacy threatening features are considered. i th t i f t id d – Privacy threatening features can be used consciously and unconsciously. – Only students behavior is studied. – Results cannot be generalized. 16
    • Conclusions and Further Steps• Conclusions about the research: – A questionnaire that measures students culture is proposed. proposed – IT Acceptance models have been improved and tested by introducing individual cultural attributes in SNS environment.• Conclusions about th master thesis: C l i b t the t th i – A comprehensive understanding of SEM methods have been acquired. – A formal research methodology approach has been applied to a quantitative design.• A starting point for further research: – Improving the study of culture at individual level in social media environment. i t – Improving the models of IT user acceptance in social media environment. 17
    • Questions and Comments Rosa Rudó Mauné Innova I tit t - L S ll I Institute La Salle Ramon Llull University Barcelona (Spain) E mail: E-mail: rrudo@salleurl.edu