Cognitive And Neural Mechanisms Of Users’ Contextualized Attitude Transformation In The Illusion Of Privacy Empowerment Paradox

In the era of digital intelligence,the information monopoly has widened the“wealth gap” in the field of data,and the platform has gained unprecedented power to interpret and scrutinize users from a high position,so it no longer stops at satisfying users’ desires.Instead,it has begun to use the privacy information available to completely control users.Nowadays,illusion of privacy empowerment(IPE)is becoming a major threat to human existence,which can not only sway public opinion,but also influence the political process,and users are beginning to fall victim to algorithms and losers in the cognitive warfare.Although the infringement of data rights by platforms has triggered widespread dissatisfaction among users,they still readily accept this convenience in exchange for autonomy,and less often take privacy protection actions,which is precisely the so-called illusion of privacy empowerment paradox(IPEP).Existing research on the IPEP also suffers from the following three shortcomings.First,most existing studies only explore the privacy paradox in a general sense,and less focus on the specific context of IPE,arguing that the formation of the privacy paradox is due to the high explanatory level of privacy attitudes that make it only affect the willingness to disclose privacy in the distant future.Second,previous studies have mostly focused on general and holistic privacy attitudes,which are difficult to explain users’ IPE behaviors in immediate contexts.Third,most of the existing explanations assume that users have difficulty in accurately identifying the phenomenon of IPE in a complex and volatile environment.However,with the continuous emergence of IPE,it has become difficult for users to ignore the existence of IPE.Based on this,the research uses brain neuroscience experiments to clarify the mechanism underlying the IPEP from the perspective of contextualized attitude formation and transformation,and to answer the question “Why does the paradox persist even though users have shifted from ignorance to sobriety in the IPE context”.To this end,this study breaks down the overall problem into three sub-problems,which are divided into the corresponding three sub-studies.Study 1 introduces attitude metacognition as an important manifestation of attitude strength,and explores the premise of contextualized attitude formation and transformation paths from deep attitudes.Study 2 builds on Study 1 to answer the questions of how individual contextualized attitudes are formed and what are the bases for their formation,when initial attitudes are vague.Study 3 builds on Study 1 by exploring how individual attitude and behavior inconsistency affects contextualized attitude transformation by influencing cognitive dissonance when initial attitudes are clear.The findings of the three studies are as follows.(1)The N1 amplitude induced by the real privacy empowerment(RPE)event is significantly higher than the N1 amplitude induced by IPE event,which shows that individuals can accurately identify IPE events and will devote more attention resources to RPE events.In addition,compared with individuals with weak initial attitude strength,individuals with high initial attitude strength generate greater emotional activation and induce higher P2 and LPP amplitude when confronted with IPE events.Therefore,the contextualized attitude of individuals with low initial attitude strength is formed immediately,and the contextualized attitude of individuals with high initial attitude strength is transformed from the initial attitude.(2)The contextualized IPE attitudes are formed immediately when initial IPE attitudes strength is low.Compared to face ambiguous information use of transparency cues,individuals who face ambiguous information use of transparency cues will be more willing to accept the IPE platform and induce lower N1 and P2 amplitudes.Thus,contextualized attitudes are formed under clear and explicit cues based on specific cues,that is,attitudes are formed based on context,whereas contextualized attitudes are formed under vague and uncertain cues based on past behavior,that is,attitudes are formed based on experience.(3)The contextualized IPE attitude is transformed from the initial attitude when the initial false privacy empowerment attitude intensity is high.When the external threat level is high,the individual will not produce cognitive dissonance,while when the external threat level is low,the individual is prone to produce cognitive dissonance,at which time,in order to reduce the sense of dissonance,individual IPE attitudes or behaviors will transform and then tend to be consistent.When the external threat level is low,the externally controlled individuals induce larger N1 and N2 amplitudes than the internally controlled individuals.The internally controlled individuals tend to refuse authorization,and the contextualized IPE attitude remains un-transformed,while the externally controlled individuals tend to agree to authorization,and the contextualized IPE attitude transform.That is,the internally controlled individuals tend to change their behavior to reduce the sense of dissonance,while the externally controlled individuals tend to transform their attitude to reduce the sense of dissonance.The theoretical contributions of this study are as follows: First,this study explains the IPEP by exploring the mechanism of contextualized attitude change,which makes up for the fact that the existing research rarely involves the IPEP.Second,the introduction of attitude strength clarifies the prerequisites for the formation and transformation of contextualized attitudes,enriching the study of contextualized attitudes while providing new ideas for clarifying the similarities and differences between attitude formation and transformation.Third,we introduced self-perception and cognitive dissonance theories to clarify the formation mechanism of contextualized attitudes of individuals with low initial attitude strength and the transformation mechanism of contextualized attitudes of individuals with high initial attitude strength,and to construct a complete model of the formation and transformation mechanism of users’ contextualized attitudes in the context of IPE on platforms,which expands the related research on the formation and transformation mechanism of attitudes.Fourth,brain neuroscience experiments using event-related potential technology were conducted to pinpoint the cognitive activities in the users’ decision-making process,which provides a reference for subsequent research on the cognitive neural mechanisms of user privacy decision-making.Accurately analyzing the formation and transformation of users’ contextualized attitudes in the context of IPE can guide users to pay attention to privacy while making more prudent privacy decisions to protect their own information security.It can prevent users from losing the ability to think and choose due to over-reliance on algorithms,and turning autonomous decisions into being decided.It also prevents the platform that holds the initiative from falling into the shackles of hegemonic thinking,overdrawing user trust and bringing losses to the platform in terms of image,reputation and credibility,which ultimately affects corporate business and revenue reports.This study proposes privacy protection strategies and recommendations from three perspectives.First,the user perspective: improve users’ online privacy literacy and cultivate their ability to see through the nature of the Internet and the hazards of technology transmission.Second,the platform perspective: correcting the value objectives of algorithms by formulating ethical rules,advocating platform-based enterprises to enhance the transparency of algorithms and the ethical awareness of technology controllers,and protecting the rights and interests of users’ data.Third,the government perspective: build a bridge between enterprises and users,strengthen users’ attention to privacy policies while promoting platforms to improve personal information protection policies,strictly combat illegal data collection and processing practices,and provide effective supervision over the implementation of privacy policies.