pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.10142 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-09 · 💻 cs.CR · cs.CY

Privacy by Voice: Modeling Youth Privacy-Protective Behavior in Smart Voice Assistants

Molly Campbell , Ajay Kumar Shrestha This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 06:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR cs.CY
keywords privacy self-efficacysmart voice assistantsyouth privacyprivacy-protective behaviorsstructural equation modelingalgorithmic transparencyperceived privacy risksperceived benefits
0
0 comments X

The pith

Youth privacy protection with smart voice assistants depends primarily on their confidence in their own ability to act, with algorithmic trust influencing behavior only through that confidence.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests a structural model to explain what drives Canadian youth aged 16-24 to protect their privacy when interacting with smart voice assistants that are already embedded in daily routines. It finds that privacy self-efficacy is the strongest direct predictor of protective behaviors, while the effect of algorithmic transparency and trust on those behaviors is fully mediated by self-efficacy. Perceived benefits of the assistants directly reduce the likelihood of protective action but provide a small indirect boost by raising self-efficacy. The results quantify an efficacy gap in which simply highlighting risks or improving transparency fails to produce action unless youth first believe they can successfully protect themselves. This pathway from perception to behavior matters because ineffective privacy management leaves young users exposed to ongoing data collection by always-listening devices.

Core claim

A partial least squares structural equation model fitted to cross-sectional survey data from 469 youth shows that privacy self-efficacy is the strongest predictor of privacy-protective behaviors. The influence of algorithmic transparency and trust on protective behaviors is entirely mediated by privacy self-efficacy. Perceived benefits discourage protective behaviors directly yet slightly increase them indirectly by elevating self-efficacy. The model confirms that policy overload and hidden controls erode the self-efficacy needed for youth to translate awareness into action.

What carries the argument

A partial least squares structural equation model that quantifies direct and mediated paths among perceived privacy risks, perceived benefits, algorithmic transparency and trust, privacy self-efficacy, and privacy-protective behaviors.

If this is right

  • Design efforts should prioritize features that increase youth belief in their own capacity to control privacy rather than only surfacing risks or transparency information.
  • Making algorithmic processes visible helps protective behavior only when it first raises self-efficacy.
  • Perceived benefits of voice assistants can suppress protective actions, so interfaces must pair utility with immediately usable controls.
  • Reducing policy complexity and exposing hidden settings would raise self-efficacy and thereby increase protective behaviors.
  • The validated model supplies a measurable route from perceptions to actions that can guide future interface changes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If self-efficacy proves central, simplified privacy tutorials or step-by-step guides could be tested as direct interventions to raise protective behavior rates.
  • The same mediation pattern may appear in other youth-facing AI systems such as social media recommendation engines or smart home devices.
  • Longitudinal tracking of the same users over months would test whether gains in self-efficacy reliably precede sustained increases in actual protective actions.
  • Current voice assistant designs may inadvertently favor convenience over empowerment by keeping controls obscure, widening the efficacy gap the model identifies.

Load-bearing premise

Self-reported survey answers from the 469 participants accurately capture causal relationships and that those answers reflect actual privacy-protective actions rather than intentions or social desirability.

What would settle it

A study that collects actual device logs or observed changes to privacy settings on smart voice assistants and finds no reliable link between measured privacy self-efficacy and the observed actions.

read the original abstract

Smart Voice Assistants (SVAs) are deeply embedded in the lives of youth, yet the mechanisms driving the privacy-protective behaviors among young users remain poorly understood. This study investigates how Canadian youth (aged 16-24) negotiate privacy with SVAs by developing and testing a structural model grounded in five key constructs: perceived privacy risks (PPR), perceived benefits (PPBf), algorithmic transparency and trust (ATT), privacy self-efficacy (PSE), and privacy-protective behaviors (PPB). A cross-sectional survey of N=469 youth was analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling. Results reveal that PSE is the strongest predictor of PPB, while the effect of ATT on PPB is fully mediated by PSE. This identifies a critical efficacy gap, where youth's confidence must first be built up for them to act. The model confirms that PPBf directly discourages protective action, yet also indirectly fosters it by slightly boosting self-efficacy. These findings empirically validate and extend earlier qualitative work, quantifying how policy overload and hidden controls erode the self-efficacy necessary for protective action. This study contributes an evidence-based pathway from perception to action and translates it into design imperatives that empower young digital citizens without sacrificing the utility of SVAs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper develops and tests a structural model using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) on cross-sectional survey data from N=469 Canadian youth aged 16-24. It examines relationships among perceived privacy risks (PPR), perceived benefits (PPBf), algorithmic transparency and trust (ATT), privacy self-efficacy (PSE), and privacy-protective behaviors (PPB) in smart voice assistants, finding that PSE is the strongest predictor of PPB and fully mediates the effect of ATT on PPB, while PPBf has mixed direct and indirect effects.

Significance. If the results hold after addressing design limitations, the work quantifies pathways from perception to action in youth SVA privacy behavior, extending prior qualitative findings with empirical mediation analysis and translating them into concrete design imperatives for empowering users without sacrificing utility.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: The claim that ATT's effect on PPB is 'fully mediated' by PSE and that 'youth's confidence must first be built up for them to act' requires temporal precedence and causal directionality. Cross-sectional PLS-SEM on self-reported data cannot establish that ATT precedes PSE which precedes PPB, nor rule out reverse causation, omitted variables, or stable individual differences.
  2. [Methods] Methods: No model fit statistics, construct reliability/validity metrics, or tests for common method bias are reported despite the reliance on latent constructs measured by self-report; this leaves the structural paths and mediation findings unsupported.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will make revisions to improve clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: The claim that ATT's effect on PPB is 'fully mediated' by PSE and that 'youth's confidence must first be built up for them to act' requires temporal precedence and causal directionality. Cross-sectional PLS-SEM on self-reported data cannot establish that ATT precedes PSE which precedes PPB, nor rule out reverse causation, omitted variables, or stable individual differences.

    Authors: We agree that cross-sectional data cannot establish temporal precedence or rule out reverse causation. The mediation is statistical and grounded in theory, but we will revise the abstract and results to replace causal language (e.g., 'must first be built up') with correlational phrasing such as 'the association between ATT and PPB is fully mediated by PSE'. We will add an explicit limitations section discussing these constraints and the possibility of omitted variables. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods: No model fit statistics, construct reliability/validity metrics, or tests for common method bias are reported despite the reliance on latent constructs measured by self-report; this leaves the structural paths and mediation findings unsupported.

    Authors: We will add these metrics prominently in the revised Methods and Results sections, including a summary table with Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, AVE, HTMT ratios for validity, SRMR and other PLS fit indices, and Harman's single-factor test for common method bias. An appendix will provide full diagnostics to support the structural paths and mediation results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical PLS-SEM on independent survey data

full rationale

The paper fits a structural equation model (PPR, PPBf, ATT, PSE, PPB) via PLS-SEM to a fresh cross-sectional survey (N=469). Reported paths, including full mediation of ATT on PPB via PSE, are statistical outputs from that data fit. No equations reduce inputs to outputs by construction, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no self-citation chain supplies the central result. The derivation is self-contained against the collected responses.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard behavioral modeling assumptions applied to privacy psychology; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond the five measured constructs.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Self-reported survey responses validly measure latent constructs such as perceived privacy risks, self-efficacy, and protective behaviors.
    Invoked implicitly in the PLS-SEM analysis of cross-sectional data; standard in the field but requires validation data not described in abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5517 in / 1190 out tokens · 29548 ms · 2026-05-16T06:18:03.147251+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Privacy, sociality and the failure of regulation: Lessons learned from young Canadians’ online experiences,

    V. Steeves, “Privacy, sociality and the failure of regulation: Lessons learned from young Canadians’ online experiences,” in Social Dimensions of Privacy: Interdisciplinary Perspectives , Cambridge University Press, 2015, ch. 13, pp. 244 –260. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107280557.014

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781107280557.014 2015

  2. [2]

    Teens, social media and technology 2022,

    E. A. Vogels, R. Gelles-Watnick, and N. Massarat, “Teens, social media and technology 2022,” 2022. Accessed: Oct. 01, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/20/2022/08/PI_2022.08.10_Teens-and- Tech_FINAL.pdf

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Covert surveillance in smart devices: A SCOUR framework analysis of youth privacy implications,

    A. Shouli, Y. Bobkova, and A. K. Shrestha, “Covert surveillance in smart devices: A SCOUR framework analysis of youth privacy implications,” in IEEE Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON) , New York, NY, USA: IEEE, Dec. 2025, pp. 0124-0133. doi: 10.1109/UEMCON67449.2025.11267573

    work page doi:10.1109/uemcon67449.2025.11267573 2025

  4. [4]

    Investigating users’ preferences and expectations for always -listening voice assistants,

    M. Tabassum et al., “Investigating users’ preferences and expectations for always -listening voice assistants,” Proc ACM Interact Mob Wearable Ubiquitous Technol , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1 –23, 2019, doi: 10.1145/3369807

    work page doi:10.1145/3369807 2019

  5. [5]

    Alexa, are you listening?: Privacy perceptions, concerns and privacy -seeking behaviors with smart speakers,

    J. Lau, B. Zimmerman, and F. Schaub, “Alexa, are you listening?: Privacy perceptions, concerns and privacy -seeking behaviors with smart speakers,” Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact, vol. 2, no. CSCW, pp. 1–31, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1145/3274371

    work page doi:10.1145/3274371 2018

  6. [6]

    Privacy controls for always- listening devices,

    N. Malkin, S. Egelman, and D. Wagner, “Privacy controls for always- listening devices,” in Proceedings of the New Security Paradigms Workshop, New York, NY, USA: ACM, Sep. 2019, pp. 78 –91. doi: 10.1145/3368860.3368867

    work page doi:10.1145/3368860.3368867 2019

  7. [7]

    Unpacking youth privacy management in AI systems: A privacy calculus model analysis,

    A. Shouli, A. Barthwal, M. Campbell, and A. K. Shrestha, “Unpacking youth privacy management in AI systems: A privacy calculus model analysis,” IEEE Access , vol. 13, pp. 115780 –115803, 2025, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3585635

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2025.3585635 2025

  8. [8]

    Security and privacy analysis of youth - oriented connected devices,

    S. Solera-Cotanilla, M. Vega-Barbas, J. Pérez, G. López, J. Matanza, and M. Álvarez- Campana, “Security and privacy analysis of youth - oriented connected devices,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 11, May 2022, doi: 10.3390/s22113967

    work page doi:10.3390/s22113967 2022

  9. [9]

    Privacy ethics alignment in AI: A stakeholder -centric framework for ethical AI,

    A. Barthwal, M. Campbell, and A. K. Shrestha, “Privacy ethics alignment in AI: A stakeholder -centric framework for ethical AI,” Systems 2025, vol. 13, no. 6, p. 455, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.3390/SYSTEMS13060455

    work page doi:10.3390/systems13060455 2025

  10. [10]

    Applying communication privacy management theory to youth privacy management in AI contexts,

    M. Campbell, S. Joshi, A. Barthwal, A. Shouli, and A. K. Shrestha, “Applying communication privacy management theory to youth privacy management in AI contexts,” in 2025 IEEE 4th International Conference on AI in Cybersecurity (ICAIC), Houston, Texas, USA: IEEE, Feb. 2025, pp. 1–10. doi: 10.1109/ICAIC63015.2025.10848639

    work page doi:10.1109/icaic63015.2025.10848639 2025

  11. [11]

    Helping youth navigate privacy protection: Developing and testing the children’s online privacy scale,

    J. C. Andrews, K. L. Walker, R. G. Netemeyer, and J. Kees, “Helping youth navigate privacy protection: Developing and testing the children’s online privacy scale,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 223 –241, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1177/07439156231165250

    work page doi:10.1177/07439156231165250 2023

  12. [12]

    Convenience vs. control: A qualitative study of youth privacy with smart voice assistants,

    M. Campbell, T. De Clark, M. Sheikho Al Jasem, S. Joshi, and A. K. Shrestha, “Convenience vs. control: A qualitative study of youth privacy with smart voice assistants,” in 2026 IEEE 16th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference , Las Vegas, USA, Jan. 2026

    work page 2026

  13. [13]

    Balancing usability and compliance in AI smart devices: A privacy- by-design audit of Google Home, Alexa, and Siri,

    T. De Clark, Y. Bobkova, M. Sheikho Al Jasem, and A. K. Shrestha, “Balancing usability and compliance in AI smart devices: A privacy- by-design audit of Google Home, Alexa, and Siri,” in IEEE Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC), 2026, “in press”

    work page 2026

  14. [14]

    Participation in post-secondary education: Recent trends,

    J. Berger, “Participation in post-secondary education: Recent trends,” in The price of knowledge: Access and student finance in Canada, 4th ed., J. Berger, A. Motte, and A. Parkin, Eds., Montreal: Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, 2009, ch. 2, pp. 25–44. Accessed: Mar. 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://library.carleton.ca/sites/default/files/...

    work page 2009

  15. [15]

    The Dangers of surveillance,

    N. M. Richards, “The Dangers of surveillance,” Harv Law Rev , vol. 126, no. 7, pp. 1934 –1965, May 2013, Accessed: Dec. 01, 2025. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23415062

    work page arXiv 1934

  16. [16]

    Privacy as a concept and a social issue: A multidimensional developmental theory,

    R. S. Laufer and M. Wolfe, “Privacy as a concept and a social issue: A multidimensional developmental theory,” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 22–42, Jul. 1977, doi: 10.1111/j.1540- 4560.1977.tb01880.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1540- 1977

  17. [17]

    Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation,

    M. Culnan and P. Armstrong, “Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation,” Organization Science, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 104–115, Jan. 1999, Accessed: Nov. 26, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2640390

    work page arXiv 1999

  18. [18]

    The privacy calculus revisited: An empirical investigation of online privacy decisions on between - and within-person levels,

    Y. Meier and N. C. Krämer, “The privacy calculus revisited: An empirical investigation of online privacy decisions on between - and within-person levels,” Communic Res, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 178 –202, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1177/00936502221102101

    work page doi:10.1177/00936502221102101 2024

  19. [19]

    Getting the privacy calculus right: Analyzing the relations between privacy concerns, expected benefits, and self -disclosure using response surface analysis,

    M. Kezer, T. Dienlin, and L. Baruh, “Getting the privacy calculus right: Analyzing the relations between privacy concerns, expected benefits, and self -disclosure using response surface analysis,” Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, vol. 16, no. 4, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.5817/CP2022-4-1

    work page doi:10.5817/cp2022-4-1 2022

  20. [20]

    Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model,

    N. K. Malhotra, S. S. Kim, and J. Agarwal, “Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model,” Information Systems Research, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 336– 355, 2004, doi: 10.1287/ISRE.1040.0032

    work page doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0032 2004

  21. [21]

    Information privacy: Measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices,

    H. J. Smith, S. J. Milberg, and S. J. Burke, “Information privacy: Measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices,” MIS Q, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 167–195, 1996, doi: 10.2307/249477

    work page doi:10.2307/249477 1996

  22. [22]

    An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E - Commerce Transactions,

    T. Dinev and P. Hart, “An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E - Commerce Transactions,” Information Systems Research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 61–80, Mar. 2006, doi: 10.1287/ISRE.1060.0080

    work page doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0080 2006

  23. [23]

    Privacy and rationality in individual decision making,

    A. Acquisti and J. Grossklags, “Privacy and rationality in individual decision making,” IEEE Secur Priv, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 26–33, Jan. 2005, doi: 10.1109/MSP.2005.22

    work page doi:10.1109/msp.2005.22 2005

  24. [24]

    How shall I trust the faceless and the intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust,

    A. Beldad, M. De Jong, and M. Steehouder, “How shall I trust the faceless and the intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust,” Comput Human Behav, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 857–869, Sep. 2010, doi: 10.1016/J.CHB.2010.03.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.013 2010

  25. [25]

    Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review,

    H. Jeff Smith, T. Dinev, and H. Xu, “Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review,” MIS Q, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 989–1015, 2011, doi: 10.2307/41409970

    work page doi:10.2307/41409970 2011

  26. [26]

    Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change,

    A. Bandura, “Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change,” Psychol Rev, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 191 –215, Mar. 1977, doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

    work page doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 1977

  27. [27]

    Does the type of privacy -protective behaviour matter? An analysis of online privacy protective action and motivation,

    E. Orszaghova and G. Blank, “Does the type of privacy -protective behaviour matter? An analysis of online privacy protective action and motivation,” Inf Commun Soc , vol. 27, no. 14, pp. 2530 –2547, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2024.2334906

    work page doi:10.1080/1369118x.2024.2334906 2024

  28. [28]

    Couldn’t or wouldn’t? The influence of privacy concerns and self-efficacy in privacy management on privacy protection,

    H. T. Chen and W. Chen, “Couldn’t or wouldn’t? The influence of privacy concerns and self-efficacy in privacy management on privacy protection,” Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 13–19, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1089/CYBER.2014.0456

    work page doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0456 2015

  29. [29]

    Navigating AI to unpack youth privacy concerns: An in -depth exploration and systematic review,

    A. K. Shrestha et al. , “Navigating AI to unpack youth privacy concerns: An in -depth exploration and systematic review,” pp. 116 – 123, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1109/IEMCON62851.2024.11093125

    work page doi:10.1109/iemcon62851.2024.11093125 2025

  30. [30]

    The concept of privacy in the digital world according to teenagers,

    G. Vespoli, B. Taddei, E. Imbimbo, L. De Luca, and A. Nocentini , “The concept of privacy in the digital world according to teenagers,” Journal of Public Health 2024 33:12, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 2731–2742, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1007/S10389-024-02242-X

    work page doi:10.1007/s10389-024-02242-x 2024

  31. [31]

    Adolescents’ privacy concerns and information disclosure online: The role of parents and the Internet,

    W. Shin and H. Kang, “Adolescents’ privacy concerns and information disclosure online: The role of parents and the Internet,” Comput Human Behav , vol. 54, pp. 114 –123, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1016/J.CHB.2015.07.062

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.062 2016

  32. [32]

    The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors,

    P. A. Norberg, D. R. Horne, and D. A. Horne, “The privacy paradox: Personal information disclosure intentions versus behaviors,” Journal of Consumer Affairs , vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 100 –126, Jun. 2007, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00070.x 2007

  33. [33]

    The privacy paradox applies to IoT devices too: A Saudi Arabian study,

    N. Aleisa, K. Renaud, and I. Bongiovanni, “The privacy paradox applies to IoT devices too: A Saudi Arabian study,” Comput Secur, vol. 96, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2020.101897

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cose.2020.101897 2020

  34. [34]

    The privacy paradox – Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – A systematic literature review,

    S. Barth and M. D. T. de Jong, “The privacy paradox – Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – A systematic literature review,” Telematics and Informatics, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1038 –1058, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1016/J.TELE.2017.04.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013 2017

  35. [35]

    Strategies for reducing online privacy risks: Why consumers read (or don’t read) online privacy notices,

    G. R. Milne and M. J. Culnan, “Strategies for reducing online privacy risks: Why consumers read (or don’t read) online privacy notices,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 15–29, Jan. 2004, doi: 10.1002/DIR.20009

    work page doi:10.1002/dir.20009 2004

  36. [36]

    Determinants of online privacy concern and its influence on privacy protection behaviors among young adolescents,

    S. Youn, “Determinants of online privacy concern and its influence on privacy protection behaviors among young adolescents,” Journal of Consumer Affairs , vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 389 –418, Sep. 2009, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2009.01146.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2009.01146.x 2009

  37. [37]

    User acceptance of usable blockchain-based research data sharing system: An extended TAM - based study,

    A. K. Shrestha and J. Vassileva, “User acceptance of usable blockchain-based research data sharing system: An extended TAM - based study,” Proceedings - 1st IEEE International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems and Applications, TPS-ISA 2019 , pp. 203– 208, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1109/TPS - ISA48467.2019.00033

    work page doi:10.1109/tps 2019

  38. [38]

    Augmenting the technology acceptance model with trust model for the initial adoption of a blockchain -based system,

    A. K. Shrestha, J. Vassileva, S. Joshi, and J. Just, “Augmenting the technology acceptance model with trust model for the initial adoption of a blockchain -based system,” PeerJ Comput Sci , vol. 7, pp. 1 –38, May 2021, doi: 10.7717/PEERJ-CS.502/SUPP-7

    work page doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.502/supp-7 2021

  39. [39]

    W. W. Chin, B. L. Marcolin, and P. R. Newsted, “A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study,” Information Systems Research, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 189 –217, Jun. 2003, doi: 10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018

    work page doi:10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018 2003

  40. [40]

    J. F. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS -SEM), Second. Thousand Oaks, California, United States, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://eli.johogo.com/Class/CCU/SEM/_A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling_Hair.pdf

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    When to use and how to report the results of PLS -SEM,

    J. F. Hair, J. J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, and C. M. Ringle, “When to use and how to report the results of PLS -SEM,” European Business Review, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 2 –24, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1108/EBR -11- 2018-0203

    work page doi:10.1108/ebr 2019

  42. [42]

    Structural equation modeling in marketing: Some practical reminders,

    W. W. Chin, R. A. Peterson, and S. P. Brown, “Structural equation modeling in marketing: Some practical reminders,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice , vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 287 –298, Sep. 2008, doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679160402

    work page doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679160402 2008

  43. [43]

    A model for mandatory use of software technologies: An integrative approach by applying multiple levels of abstraction of informing science,

    C. E. Koh, V. R. Prybutok, S. D. Ryan, and Y. Wu, “A model for mandatory use of software technologies: An integrative approach by applying multiple levels of abstraction of informing science,” Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, vol. 13, pp. 177–203, 2010, doi: 10.28945/1326

    work page doi:10.28945/1326 2010

  44. [44]

    Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation,

    P. R. Warshaw and F. D. Davis, “Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation,” J Exp Soc Psychol , vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 213–228, May 1985, doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(85)90017-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-1031(85)90017-4 1985

  45. [45]

    Predictive model assessment in PLS -SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict,

    G. Shmueli et al. , “Predictive model assessment in PLS -SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict,” Eur J Mark , vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 2322–2347, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189

    work page doi:10.1108/ejm-02-2019-0189 2019