情報システム・サービスの利用者の安心感と納得感に関する調査

全文

(1)Vol.2014-SPT-8 No.16 2014/3/27. IPSJ SIG Technical Report. †1. †2. †3. †1. 1. Survey on Sense of Security and Consent for Information Systems and Services KAORI OKUMURA†1 MASAMI MOHRI†2 YOSHIAKI SHIRAISHI†3 AKIRA IWATA†1 There is concern over the abuse of personal information and the breach of privacy in spite of having been developing security infrastructure technology, systems construction and operation technique. It was thought that the user felt relieved by a safe technique. However, safe systems do not necessarily give Anshin to the people. It can be expected that the studies of Anshin can help system construction and providing services available in Anshin. In this research, on the assumption that the sense of consent is contained in factors of sense of security, we identify the factors that make up the sense of security and consent. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis by asking two hundred and ten college students. We divide them into two groups according to their use intention of information systems and services, and compare the factors of the high use intention group with that of the low use intention group. From the results, the low use intention group tends to get security by realizing usability rather than by understanding safety or a guarantee, and get consent by good efficiency and convenience rather than by influence of imminent others.. 1. [1] [2] [3] [1]. [3] [3] [3][4][5]. [3] [4]. [5] [3] [6] †1 Nagoya Institute of Technology †2 Gifu University †3 Kobe University. ⓒ 2014 Information Processing Society of Japan. [6]. 1.

(2) Vol.2014-SPT-8 No.16 2014/3/27. IPSJ SIG Technical Report. ” 6 2. 2. [4] 2 5 3. 4 5. 6. 2. 2.1. 2.3 [1][2][7] [1][2] [1] [1] [2] [7]. [7]. [6]. [1][2][7] 2.4. 2.2. [6] [3][4][5]. [6] [3]. ⓒ 2014 Information Processing Society of Japan. 1. 2.

(3) Vol.2014-SPT-8 No.16 2014/3/27. IPSJ SIG Technical Report [4]. 1. [5]. 1 2. [3]. [4] [5]. 3.. 2.5. (Technology Acceptance Model: TAM) TAM(. )[8]. 1. [3]. [4]. [3]. [4]. 4. [5]. TAM. TAM 5. TAM [11]. 2 [9]. 2 3.2 2. TAM[8]. TAM. TAM2[12]. TAM 1.. 4.. 1. TAM[8]. 2. TAM[8]. 1 TAM. 3. 3. TAM2[12] 1 [10]. 4. TAM. 3.1 [3][4][5][11] 1.. 5.. 3.3. 1. [3]. ⓒ 2014 Information Processing Society of Japan. 38. 16. 3.

(4) Vol.2014-SPT-8 No.16 2014/3/27. IPSJ SIG Technical Report 1 5 2013. 12. 17. -0.094 -0.034 -0.027 0.079. 0.174 0.044 -0.092 0.064. 0.102. 0.189. -0.275. 0.023. 0.101. -0.069. 0.159. -0.111. 0.490. -0.229. 0.150. 0.279. 0.210. 0.474 0.473 0.462. 0.303 0.097 -0.023. 0.141 0.301 -0.066. -0.085 -0.108 -0.025. 0.116 0.260 0.276. -0.054. 0.694. 0.232. 0.016. -0.084. 0.317. 0.647. -0.181. -0.253. 0.101. -0.005. 0.642. 0.264. 0.207. -0.101. 0.173 -0.085. 0.625 0.585. -0.160 -0.232. -0.109 0.080. 0.092 0.338. 0.210. 0.491. 0.244. 0.033. -0.066. -0.099 0.136 0.070 -0.076. 0.466 0.442 -0.087 0.054. 0.267 -0.094 0.863 0.806. 0.105 0.198 0.078 0.068. 0.222 0.046 0.144 0.186. 0.244. 0.181. 0.430. 0.180. 0.041. 0.118 0.001 -0.103. -0.111 0.148 0.248. 0.399 0.382 0.354. 0.560 0.213 0.292. 0.090 0.414 0.157. JMP Pro 10. 0.037. 0.017. -0.075. 0.689. 0.143. Quartimin. -0.024. 0.050. 0.251. 0.664. -0.107. 20. 219. 9 185. 210. 25. 21.4. (. ). 5 105 105. 4.. Cronbach. [13]. 4.1 4.1.1. (%) (%) Cronbach. 1. :. ( 2. 3. 4. 5. ). :. :. :. : ”. (%) (%) Cronbach. ⓒ 2014 Information Processing Society of Japan. 0.017 0.079 -0.236 0.236. 0.675 0.634. -0.078 0.075 0.194 -0.117. 0.136. 0.123. -0.020. 0.615. 0.084. -0.111. -0.120. 0.155. 0.357. 0.572. 0.113. 0.070. -0.027. 0.007. 0.609. -0.002. -0.007. 0.181. 0.155. 0.591. 0.095. 0.099. 0.021. -0.097. 0.522. 0.031 9.986 31.206 31.206 0.899. -0.003 4.385 13.702 44.908 0.841. 0.154 2.527 7.895 52.803 0.898. 0.141 1.643 5.134 57.937 0.780. 0.435 1.394 4.357 62.295 0.707. 0.805. 0.022. -0.059. -0.133. 0.056. 0.788. 0.319. -0.198. -0.250. 0.132. 0.692. 0.041. 0.060. -0.076. 0.005. 0.653. -0.017. 0.262. 0.105. -0.014. 0.642. -0.158. -0.044. 0.059. 0.007. 0.618. 0.048. -0.110. 0.036. 0.105. 0.565. 0.069. -0.163. 0.160. 0.255. 0.560. -0.126. 0.092. 0.046. 0.075. 0.534. -0.089. 0.090. 0.016. 0.060. 0.532. 0.037. 0.113. 0.047. 0.085. 0.523. -0.224. 0.094. 0.209. -0.084. 0.441. 0.021. 0.138. 0.053. 0.018. 0.426. -0.028. 0.026. -0.035. -0.074. 2. 0.7. 1. 0.792 0.785 0.782 0.734. 0.392. 0.085. -0.141. 0.213. -0.112. -0.189. 0.789. 0.120. 0.035. -0.015. 0.093. 0.712. 0.089. 0.044. 0.158. -0.054. 0.685. 0.019. -0.019. -0.070. -0.132 0.164. 0.626 0.604. 0.048 0.393. 0.052 -0.233. 0.017 0.032. 0.221. 0.400. -0.091. 0.318. -0.066. 0.080. 0.052. 0.765. -0.088. -0.081. -0.057. 0.143. 0.714. -0.002. 0.044. 0.098. 0.360. 0.620. -0.112. 0.123. 0.152. -0.007. 0.453. 0.248. -0.018. 0.069. 0.021. -0.001. 0.844. -0.102. -0.147. -0.036. -0.089. 0.681. 0.193. 0.107. 0.152. 0.077. 0.517. 0.135. 0.091. -0.037. 0.119. 0.434. 0.254. 0.067. 0.032. 0.063. -0.017. 0.931. 0.032. -0.033. -0.005. 0.151. 0.595. -0.321. 0.097. 0.230. 0.234. 0.394. 0.080. -0.014. -0.067. -0.042. 0.392. 6.888 21.524 21.524 0.887. 4.502 14.070 35.594 0.842. 2.792 8.725 44.319 0.707. 1.836 5.737 50.056 0.769. 1.683 5.258 55.314 0.646. 4.

(5) Vol.2014-SPT-8 No.16 2014/3/27. IPSJ SIG Technical Report 4.1.2. 3. 2 5 5 1. 2. 3. 0.7. 0.5. :. :. : (%) (%) Cronbach. 4. 5. :. 4.2.1 3 4 4 5. 5. 0.7. 0.5. :. (%) (%) Cronbach. 2. -0.126. 0.105. 0.710. -0.062. 0.034. -0.019 0.182. 0.529. 0.279. -0.049. -0.001. 0.408. 0.200. 0.010. 0.080. 0.329. 0.128. 0.133. 0.217. 0.318. 0.128. 0.109. 0.111. 0.236. 0.646. -0.125. 0.023. -0.065. 0.585. 0.111. -0.059. 0.080. 0.553. 0.226. 0.297. -0.123 0.153. 0.129 -0.026. 0.671 0.652. 0.095 -0.095. 0.258. 0.010. 0.436. 0.013. 0.028 0.093 5.036 35.972 35.972 0.809. 0.040 -0.163 1.420 10.141 46.112 0.700. -0.127 0.274 1.292 9.225 55.338 0.666. 0.694 0.610 0.975 6.963 62.301 0.628. 0.916. -0.162. -0.021. 0.103. 0.707. 0.105. -0.150. 0.092. 0.394. 0.004. 0.119. -0.115. 0.376. -0.032. 0.314. 0.143. 0.367 -0.077 -0.111 0.087. 0.171 0.791 0.618 0.612. 0.050 -0.045 0.299 0.029. -0.290 0.007 -0.209 0.264. 0.159. 0.493. 0.003. 0.121. -0.001. 0.017. 0.783. -0.146. -0.227. 0.213. 0.568. 0.178. 0.263. 0.020. 0.542. 0.143. 0.148. 0.286. 0.004. 0.678. -0.086. 0.234. 0.221. 0.420. 4.023 28.734 28.734 0.698. 2.243 16.018 44.752 0.760. 1.393 9.950 54.702 0.690. 1.089 7.776 62.477 0.627. 4. :. 4.2. 1. 0.852. 1. :. 2. :. 3. :. 4. :. :. 3. :. 4. :. 4.2.2 4 2. 0.7. 0.5. ⓒ 2014 Information Processing Society of Japan. 5.

(6) Vol.2014-SPT-8 No.16 2014/3/27. IPSJ SIG Technical Report. 5.. Vol.2011 SPT-1 No.8 2). 2. pp.1-7. 2011 .. Vol.26. pp.27-80. 2010. 3) Vol.48. No.9. pp.3193-3203. 2007. 4) Vol.50. No.9. pp.2207-2217. 2009. 5) 2011. (. pp.612-617 6). ). Vol.2011. No.3. 2011. Vol.8. No.2. pp.27-30. 2006. 7). 2. 1. 2012 Vol.2012 No.3 pp.547-554 2012 8) Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R.: User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models, Management Science, Vol.36, pp.9-21(1989). 9) -TAM Vol.10 No.2 pp.51-77 2001 10) 1998 11) INSS JOURNAL Vol.10 pp.10-70 2003 12) Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D.: User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View, MIS Quarterly, Vol.27, No.3, pp.425-478(2003). 13) 2001. 6.. 1). ⓒ 2014 Information Processing Society of Japan. 6.

(7)