Exploring the influence of technology regulatory policy instruments on public acceptance of algorithm recommender systems

IF 7.8 1区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Yue Guo , Sirui Li , Lei Zhou , Yu Sun
{"title":"Exploring the influence of technology regulatory policy instruments on public acceptance of algorithm recommender systems","authors":"Yue Guo ,&nbsp;Sirui Li ,&nbsp;Lei Zhou ,&nbsp;Yu Sun","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.101940","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The application of algorithm recommender systems introduces several potential risks, including privacy infringement, discriminatory outcomes, and opacity. Governments worldwide have introduced regulatory policy instruments with varying degrees of coerciveness. However, few studies have examined the impact of regulatory policy instruments on public acceptance. This study investigates the nuanced ways in which regulatory policy instruments spanning a spectrum of coerciveness shape public perceptions of privacy risks and acceptance of algorithm recommender systems. Through a survey experiment involving a sample size of 2015 participants, we created three distinct categories of regulatory policy instruments to serve as experimental treatments and one control group with no intervention. Our empirical findings illustrate the substantial treatment effects stemming from regulatory policy instruments. Furthermore, these regulatory policy instruments, infused with varying degrees of coerciveness, assume a dynamic moderating role, initially mitigating and subsequently intensifying the adverse influence of perceived privacy risks on public acceptance. By synthesizing two streams of literature on technology acceptance and regulatory policy, our research underscores the fact that regulatory policy instruments have the potential to reshape the public's perceived risk associated with technology use, exerting a considerable influence on public technology acceptance. These findings have implications for governments seeking effective, fine-grained algorithmic governance based on individual behavior. Policymakers should consider public risk perceptions and technology acceptance when designing regulatory policies for enterprises.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"41 3","pages":"Article 101940"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Government Information Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X24000327","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The application of algorithm recommender systems introduces several potential risks, including privacy infringement, discriminatory outcomes, and opacity. Governments worldwide have introduced regulatory policy instruments with varying degrees of coerciveness. However, few studies have examined the impact of regulatory policy instruments on public acceptance. This study investigates the nuanced ways in which regulatory policy instruments spanning a spectrum of coerciveness shape public perceptions of privacy risks and acceptance of algorithm recommender systems. Through a survey experiment involving a sample size of 2015 participants, we created three distinct categories of regulatory policy instruments to serve as experimental treatments and one control group with no intervention. Our empirical findings illustrate the substantial treatment effects stemming from regulatory policy instruments. Furthermore, these regulatory policy instruments, infused with varying degrees of coerciveness, assume a dynamic moderating role, initially mitigating and subsequently intensifying the adverse influence of perceived privacy risks on public acceptance. By synthesizing two streams of literature on technology acceptance and regulatory policy, our research underscores the fact that regulatory policy instruments have the potential to reshape the public's perceived risk associated with technology use, exerting a considerable influence on public technology acceptance. These findings have implications for governments seeking effective, fine-grained algorithmic governance based on individual behavior. Policymakers should consider public risk perceptions and technology acceptance when designing regulatory policies for enterprises.

探索技术监管政策工具对公众接受算法推荐系统的影响
算法推荐系统的应用会带来一些潜在风险,包括侵犯隐私、歧视性结果和不透明。世界各国政府都推出了具有不同强制程度的监管政策工具。然而,很少有研究探讨监管政策工具对公众接受度的影响。本研究调查了各种强制程度的监管政策工具如何细微地影响公众对隐私风险的看法以及对算法推荐系统的接受程度。通过一项涉及 2015 名参与者样本量的调查实验,我们创建了三个不同类别的监管政策工具作为实验处理,以及一个没有干预的对照组。我们的实证研究结果表明,监管政策工具产生了巨大的治疗效果。此外,这些具有不同强制程度的监管政策工具还发挥了动态的调节作用,从一开始减轻到后来加强了感知到的隐私风险对公众接受度的不利影响。通过综合技术接受度和监管政策两方面的文献,我们的研究强调了一个事实,即监管政策工具有可能重塑公众对技术使用相关风险的感知,从而对公众的技术接受度产生相当大的影响。这些发现对政府根据个人行为寻求有效、精细的算法治理具有启示意义。政策制定者在为企业设计监管政策时,应考虑公众的风险认知和技术接受度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Government Information Quarterly
Government Information Quarterly INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
106
期刊介绍: Government Information Quarterly (GIQ) delves into the convergence of policy, information technology, government, and the public. It explores the impact of policies on government information flows, the role of technology in innovative government services, and the dynamic between citizens and governing bodies in the digital age. GIQ serves as a premier journal, disseminating high-quality research and insights that bridge the realms of policy, information technology, government, and public engagement.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信