IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v15y2024i2p314-328.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions of social credit systems in Southeast Asia: An external technology acceptance model

Author

Listed:
  • Wiebke Rabe
  • Genia Kostka

Abstract

Digital data have become a valuable resource for autocratic governments seeking to influence societal behaviours. The rise of social credit systems in China has garnered a great deal of attention, with some even referring to them as ‘Orwellian’ surveillance systems. This study expands on previous research that has found surprisingly high levels of acceptance of social credit systems in China to the Southeast Asian region. Through an online opinion survey conducted in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, we discovered that citizens in these countries exhibit higher acceptance rates of social credit systems than opposition rates, although lower than those observed in China. Moreover, we find that acceptance rates would decline significantly if the technologies supporting these systems originated from China. By introducing an external technology acceptance model, we provide an explanation for these findings based on citizens' attitudes towards their domestic situation and their perceptions of China's potential benefits to their countries. Interestingly, most of the ‘China Threat’ perceptions do not translate into opposition against Chinese social credit system technologies, except for military risks. Instead, citizens' negative views are primarily influenced by specific technology‐related risks. These findings contribute to the existing literature on the acceptance of government‐run social credit systems and public perception in the context of international relations.

Suggested Citation

  • Wiebke Rabe & Genia Kostka, 2024. "Perceptions of social credit systems in Southeast Asia: An external technology acceptance model," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(2), pages 314-328, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:15:y:2024:i:2:p:314-328
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.13337
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13337
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.13337?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Darren W. Davis & Brian D. Silver, 2004. "Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 28-46, January.
    2. Matthew Gabel & Kenneth Scheve, 2007. "Estimating the Effect of Elite Communications on Public Opinion Using Instrumental Variables," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 1013-1028, October.
    3. Tamara Dinev & Paul Hart, 2006. "An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 61-80, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kirsten Hillebrand & Lars Hornuf, 2021. "The Social Dilemma of Big Data: Donating Personal Data to Promote Social Welfare," CESifo Working Paper Series 8926, CESifo.
    2. Kao, Yu-Hui & Sapp, Stephen G., 2022. "The effect of cultural values and institutional trust on public perceptions of government use of network surveillance," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    3. Joseph A. Cazier & Benjamin B. M. Shao & Robert D. St. Louis, 2007. "Sharing information and building trust through value congruence," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 515-529, November.
    4. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    5. Kenneth D. Nguyen & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2017. "Valuing Equal Protection in Aviation Security Screening," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2405-2419, December.
    6. Joseph A Hamm & Corwin Smidt & Roger C Mayer, 2019. "Understanding the psychological nature and mechanisms of political trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    7. Goethner, Maximilian & Hornuf, Lars & Regner, Tobias, 2021. "Protecting investors in equity crowdfunding: An empirical analysis of the small investor protection act," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    8. Corey Angst, 2009. "Protect My Privacy or Support the Common-Good? Ethical Questions About Electronic Health Information Exchanges," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 169-178, November.
    9. Huarng, Kun-Huang & Yu, Tiffany Hui-Kuang & Lee, Cheng fang, 2022. "Adoption model of healthcare wearable devices," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    10. Hoon S. Choi & Darrell Carpenter & Myung S. Ko, 2022. "Risk Taking Behaviors Using Public Wi-Fi™," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 965-982, June.
    11. Jongwoo Kim & Richard L. Baskerville & Yi Ding, 2020. "Breaking the Privacy Kill Chain: Protecting Individual and Group Privacy Online," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 171-185, February.
    12. Degutis, Mindaugas & UrbonaviÄ ius, Sigitas & Hollebeek, Linda D. & Anselmsson, Johan, 2023. "Consumers’ willingness to disclose their personal data in e-commerce: A reciprocity-based social exchange perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    13. Liu, Yu-li & Wu, Yanfei & Li, Changyan & Song, Chuling & Hsu, Wen-yi, 2024. "Does displaying one's IP location influence users' privacy behavior on social media? Evidence from China's Weibo," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5).
    14. April K. Clark & Michael Clark & Marie A. Eisenstein, 2014. "Stability and Change," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, March.
    15. Zhenhui (Jack) Jiang & Cheng Suang Heng & Ben C. F. Choi, 2013. "Research Note —Privacy Concerns and Privacy-Protective Behavior in Synchronous Online Social Interactions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 579-595, September.
    16. Ashraf Sharif & Saira Hanif Soroya & Shakil Ahmad & Khalid Mahmood, 2021. "Antecedents of Self-Disclosure on Social Networking Sites (SNSs): A Study of Facebook Users," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, January.
    17. Erdem Özkan, 2018. "Why Do Consumers Behave Differently in Personal Information Disclosure and Self-Disclosure? The Role of Personality Traits and Privacy Concern," Alphanumeric Journal, Bahadir Fatih Yildirim, vol. 6(2), pages 257-276, December.
    18. David Harborth & Sebastian Pape, 2020. "Empirically Investigating Extraneous Influences on the “APCO” Model—Childhood Brand Nostalgia and the Positivity Bias," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-16, December.
    19. Antoine Loeper & Jakub Steiner & Colin Stewart, 2014. "Influential Opinion Leaders," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 124(581), pages 1147-1167, December.
    20. Yi Sun & Shihui Li & Lingling Yu, 2022. "The dark sides of AI personal assistant: effects of service failure on user continuance intention," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 17-39, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:15:y:2024:i:2:p:314-328. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.