Data governance has received research attention, but its effect on public attitude has not been sufficiently explored. To analyse the attitude towards public participation in data governance in the context of a tourism platform, we conduct an empirical model that aims to understand the impact of data governance environment and participants’ cognitive ability on attitude. Taking tourism sharing platforms as an example, we collected 339 questionnaires for data analysis. Results show that data quality and website design have a positive effect on users’ attitude towards data governance through data literacy self-efficacy. Data literacy self-efficacy has a suppression effect between data quality and attitude towards data governance and has the same effect between website design and attitude towards data governance. Data quality and website design have a positive effect on users’ attitude towards data governance through platform interaction. Platform interactivity plays a mediating role between data quality and attitude towards data governance and has the same effect between website design and attitude towards data governance. Data policy has a positive effect on users’ data literacy self-efficacy but no significant effect on platform interactivity. Moreover, this study provides theoretical and practical implications that can guide the government in policy implementation and platform managers in data governance.
GregoryKMCousijnHGrothPet al. Understanding data search as a socio-technical practice. J Inf Sci2019; 46(4): 459–475.
2.
ChengMFoleyC. The sharing economy and digital discrimination: the case of Airbnb. Int J Hosp Manag2018; 70: 95–98.
3.
Talón-BallesteroPGonzález-SerranoLSoguero-RuizCet al. Using Big Data from Customer Relationship Management information systems to determine the client profile in the hotel sector. Tourism Manage2018; 68: 187–197.
4.
LiuSGaoBGallivanMet al. Free add-on services and perceived value in competitive environments: evidence from online hotel reviews. Int J Hosp Manag2020; 90: 102611.
5.
LiYHuCHuangCet al. The concept of smart tourism in the context of tourism information services. Tourism Manage2017; 58: 293–300.
6.
HouZCuiFMengYet al. Opinion mining from online travel reviews: a comparative analysis of Chinese major OTAs using semantic association analysis. Tourism Manage2019; 74: 276–289.
7.
AbrahamRSchneiderJvom BrockeJ. Data governance: a conceptual framework, structured review, and research agenda. Int J Inform Manage2019; 49: 424–438.
8.
ImineYLounisABouabdallahA. An accountable privacy-preserving scheme for public information sharing systems. Comput Secur2020; 93: 101786.
9.
YangT-MLoJShiangJ. To open or not to open? Determinants of open government data. J Inf Sci2015; 41(5): 596–612.
10.
GhasemaghaeiMCalicG. Can Big Data improve firm decision quality? The role of data quality and data diagnosticity. Decis Support Syst2019; 120: 38–49.
11.
WeberKOttoBÖsterleH. One size does not fit all – a contingency approach to data governance. J Data Inform Qual2009; 1(1): 4.
12.
FerracaneMFKrenJvan der MarelE. Do data policy restrictions impact the productivity performance of firms and industries?Rev Int Econ2020; 28(3): 676–722.
13.
AharonyNGazitT. Students’ information literacy self-efficacy: an exploratory study. J Libr Inf Sci2018; 52(1): 224–236.
14.
LeeTLeeB-KLee-GeillerS. The effects of information literacy on trust in government websites: evidence from an online experiment. Int J Inform Manage2020; 52: 102098.
15.
BarredaAABilgihanANusairKet al. Online branding: development of hotel branding through interactivity theory. Tourism Manage2016; 57: 180–192.
16.
MollenAWilsonH. Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience: reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. J Bus Res2010; 63(9–10): 919–925.
17.
DianatIAdeliPAsgari JafarabadiMet al. User-centred web design, usability and user satisfaction: the case of online banking websites in Iran. Appl Ergon2019; 81: 102892.
18.
PengnateSSarathyR. An experimental investigation of the influence of website emotional design features on trust in unfamiliar online vendors. Comput Hum Behav2017; 67: 49–60.
19.
WuG. The mediating role of perceived interactivity in the effect of actual interactivity on attitude toward the website. J Interact Advertis2005; 5(2): 29–39.
20.
BrovelliMAMinghiniMZamboniG. Public participation in GIS via mobile applications. ISPRS J Photogramm2016; 114: 306–315.
21.
CyrDHeadMLimEet al. Using the elaboration likelihood model to examine online persuasion through website design. Inform Manage2018; 55(7): 807–821.
22.
AlbarracinDShavittS. Attitudes and attitude change. Annu Rev Psychol2018; 69: 299–327.
23.
NagarK. Support for the underdog brand biography: effects on consumer attitude and behavior. J Market Comm2019; 25(5): 477–493.
24.
GerberNGerberPVolkamerM. Explaining the privacy paradox: a systematic review of literature investigating privacy attitude and behavior. Comput Secur2018; 77: 226–261.
25.
PettyRECacioppoJTGoldmanR. Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol1981; 41(5): 847–855.
26.
BanduraA. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev1977; 84(2): 191–215.
27.
ChangHHLuY-YLinSC. An elaboration likelihood model of consumer respond action to facebook second-hand marketplace: impulsiveness as a moderator. Inform Manage2020; 57(2): 103171.
28.
WangLFanLBaeS. How to persuade an online gamer to give up cheating? Uniting elaboration likelihood model and signaling theory. Comput Hum Behav2019; 96: 149–162.
29.
TsengS-YWangC-N. Perceived risk influence on dual-route information adoption processes on travel websites. J Bus Res2016; 69(6): 2289–2296.
30.
KitchenPJKerrGSchultzDEet al. The elaboration likelihood model: review, critique and research agenda. Eur J Marketing2014; 48(11–12): 2033–2050.
31.
ThomasMACipollaJLambertBet al. Data management maturity assessment of public sector agencies. Gov Inform Q2019; 36(4): 101401.
32.
EvansRVermeulenWJV. Governing electronics sustainability: meta-evaluation of explanatory factors influencing modes of governance applied in the electronics value chain. J Clean Prod2021; 278: 122952.
33.
Van den BroekTVan VeenstraAF. Governance of Big Data collaborations: how to balance regulatory compliance and disruptive innovation. Technol Forecast Soc2018; 129: 330–338.
34.
BenfeldtOPerssonJSMadsenS. Data governance as a collective action problem. Inform Syst Front2020; 22(2): 299–313.
35.
SchunkDHDiBenedettoMK. Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemp Educ Psychol2020; 60: 101832.
36.
HuangXLeeJCKYangX. What really counts? Investigating the effects of creative role identity and self-efficacy on teachers’ attitudes towards the implementation of teaching for creativity. Teach Teach Educ2019; 84: 57–65.
37.
LopatovskaIArapakisI. Theories, methods and current research on emotions in library and information science, information retrieval and human–computer interaction. Inform Process Manag2011; 47(4): 575–592.
38.
ChenSGuoXWuTet al. Exploring the online doctor-patient interaction on patient satisfaction based on text mining and empirical analysis. Inform Process Manag2020; 57(5): 102253.
39.
AgeevaEMelewarTCForoudiPet al. Examining the influence of corporate website favorability on corporate image and corporate reputation: findings from fsQCA. J Bus Res2018; 89: 287–304.
40.
HungW-HChangL-MLinC-Pet al. E-readiness of website acceptance and implementation in SMEs. Comput Hum Behav2014; 40: 44–55.
41.
ArtyushinaA. Is civic data governance the key to democratic smart cities? The role of the urban data trust in Sidewalk Toronto. Telemat Inform2020; 55: 101456.
42.
WangRYStrongDM. Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. J Manage Inform Syst1996; 12(4): 5–33.
43.
CyrDKindraGSDashS. Web site design, trust, satisfaction and e-loyalty: the Indian experience. Online Inform Rev2008; 32(6): 773–790.
44.
LeVHNguyenHTTNguyenNet al. Development and validation of a scale measuring hotel website service quality (HWebSQ). Tourism Manage Perspect2020; 35: 100697.
45.
AhnTRyuSHanI. The impact of Web quality and playfulness on user acceptance of online retailing. Inform Manage2007; 44(3): 263–275.
46.
Lo SchiavoMPrinariBSaitoIet al. A dynamical systems approach to triadic reciprocal determinism of social cognitive theory. Math Comput Simulat2019; 159: 18–38.
47.
MezzanzanicaMBoselliRCesariniMet al. A model-based evaluation of data quality activities in KDD. Inform Process Manag2015; 51(2): 144–166.
48.
NagleTRedmanTSammonD. Assessing data quality: a managerial call to action. Bus Horizons2020; 63(3): 325–337.
49.
AlruwaieMEl-HaddadehRWeerakkodyV. Citizens’ continuous use of eGovernment services: the role of self-efficacy, outcome expectations and satisfaction. Gov Inform Q2020; 37(3): 101485.
50.
PipinoLLLeeYWWangRY. Data quality assessment. Commun ACM2002; 45(4): 211–218.
51.
PriyadarshiniCSreejeshSAnusreeMR. Effect of information quality of employment website on attitude toward the website: a moderated mediation study. Int J Manpower2017; 38(5): 729–745.
52.
XuFQiYLiX. What affects the user stickiness of the mainstream media websites in China?Electron Commer R A2018; 29: 124–132.
53.
BackRMParkJ-YBufquinDet al. Effects of hotel website photograph size and human images on perceived transportation and behavioral intentions. Int J Hosp Manag2020; 89: 102545.
54.
YangSWangBLuY. Exploring the dual outcomes of mobile social networking service enjoyment: the roles of social self-efficacy and habit. Comput Hum Behav2016; 64: 486–496.
55.
EffendiPMSusantoTD. Test of citizens’ physical and cognitive on Indonesian E-Government website design. Procedia Comput Sci2019; 161: 333–340.
56.
LinH-F. Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. J Inf Sci2007; 33(2): 135–149.
57.
LiouY-HDalyAJ. Investigating leader self-efficacy through policy engagement and social network position. Educ Policy2020; 34(3): 411–448.
58.
AliOOsmanajV. The role of government regulations in the adoption of cloud computing: a case study of local government. Comput Law Secur Rev2020; 36: 105396.
59.
IslamAYMASheikhA. A study of the determinants of postgraduate students’ satisfaction of using online research databases. J Inf Sci2019; 46(2): 273–287.
60.
TeoH-HOhL-BLiuCet al. An empirical study of the effects of interactivity on web user attitude. Int J Hum-Comput St2003; 58(3): 281–305.
61.
SudeDJPearsonGDHKnobloch-WesterwickS. Self-expression just a click away: source interactivity impacts on confirmation bias and political attitudes. Comput Hum Behav2021; 114: 106571.
62.
FongLHNLawRYeBH. Outlook of tourism recovery amid an epidemic: importance of outbreak control by the government. Ann Tourism Res2020; 86: 102951.
63.
SekerdejMSzwedP. Perceived self-efficacy facilitates critical reflection on one’s own group. Pers Indiv Differ2021; 168: 110302.
64.
BurnetteJLPollackJMForsythRBet al. A growth mindset intervention: enhancing students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy and career development. Entrep Theory Pract2020; 44(5): 878–908.
65.
McMillanSJHwangJ-S. Measures of perceived interactivity: an exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. J Advertising2002; 31(3): 29–42.
66.
JamalAKizginHRanaNPet al. Impact of acculturation, online participation and involvement on voting intentions. Gov Inform Q2019; 36(3): 510–519.
67.
SreejeshSPaulJStrongCet al. Consumer response towards social media advertising: effect of media interactivity, its conditions and the underlying mechanism. Int J Inform Manage2020; 54: 102155.
68.
OhJLimHSCoppleJGet al. Harnessing the persuasive potential of data: the combinatory effects of data visualization and interactive narratives on obesity perceptions and policy attitudes. Telemat Inform2018; 35(6): 1755–1769.
69.
ShroutPEBolgerN. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychol Methods2002; 7(4): 422–445.
70.
KimJGambinoA. Do we trust the crowd or information system? Effects of personalization and bandwagon cues on users’ attitudes and behavioral intentions toward a restaurant recommendation website. Comput Hum Behav2016; 65: 369–379.
71.
KuECSChenC-D. Cultivating travellers’ revisit intention to e-tourism service: the moderating effect of website interactivity. Behav Inform Technol2015; 34(5): 465–478.
72.
HaneemFKamaNTaskinNet al. Determinants of master data management adoption by local government organizations: an empirical study. Int J Inform Manage2019; 45: 25–43.
73.
ChengXBaoYZarifisA. Investigating the impact of IT-mediated information interruption on emotional exhaustion in the workplace. Inform Process Manag2020; 57(6): 102281.
74.
ChughMChanderwalNUpadhyayRet al. Effect of knowledge management on software product experience with mediating effect of perceived software process improvement: an empirical study for Indian software industry. J Inf Sci2019; 46(2): 258–272.
75.
ChenMChenCCSheldonOJ. Relaxing moral reasoning to win: how organizational identification relates to unethical pro-organizational behavior. J Appl Psychol2016; 101(8): 1082–1096.
76.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJ-Yet al. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol2003; 88(5): 879–903.
77.
ReinartzWHaenleinMHenselerJ. An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. Int J Res Mark2009; 26(4): 332–344.
78.
GaoBLiXLiuSet al. How power distance affects online hotel ratings: the positive moderating roles of hotel chain and reviewers’ travel experience. Tourism Manage2018; 65: 176–186.
79.
GuptaDRaniR. A study of Big Data evolution and research challenges. J Inf Sci2018; 45(3): 322–340.
80.
SaxenaDLamestM. Information overload and coping strategies in the Big Data context: evidence from the hospitality sector. J Inf Sci2018; 44(3): 287–297.
81.
PengJWangZChenX. Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? A moderated dual-path model. J Bus Ethics2019; 159(2): 419–433.
