This study integrates the Perceived Risk Theory and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, along with factors such as trust and procedural legitimacy, to assess the Chinese public’s risk perception and acceptance of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) in law enforcement. Analyzing 1,561 valid questionnaires collected from February to July 2023, the results demonstrate that trust and procedural legitimacy positively influence public acceptance of FRT. Trust also mediates the effects of perceived privacy and functional risks on FRT acceptance. Privacy and social risks deter public acceptance, while functional risks surprisingly show positive effects. The study identifies a descending order of negative impact among these risk categories. In addition, the convenience, location and purpose of FRT use, and the severity of crimes it targets significantly delineate public acceptance boundaries, reflecting a consequentialist approach to technology ethics that prioritizes utility and outcomes.
AbdullahFWardR (2016) Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for e-Learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior56: 238–256.
2.
AkinnuwesiBAUzokaF-MEOkwunduOSFashotoG (2016) Exploring biometric technology adoption in a developing country context using the modified UTAUT. International Journal of Business Information Systems23(4): 482–521.
3.
BaptistaGOliveiraT (2015) Understanding mobile banking: The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology combined with cultural moderators. Computers in Human Behavior50: 418–430.
4.
BauerRA (1960) Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association (AMA).
5.
BradfordBYesbergJAJacksonJDawsonP (2020) Live facial recognition: Trust and legitimacy as predictors of public support for police use of new technology. The British Journal of Criminology60(6): 1502–1522.
6.
BragiasAHineKFleetR (2021) “Only in our best interest, right?” Public perceptions of police use of facial recognition technology. Police Practice and Research22(6): 1637–1654.
7.
BrombergDECharbonneauÉSmithA (2018) Body-worn cameras and policing: A list experiment of citizen overt and true support. Public Administration Review78(6): 883–891.
8.
ByunSByunS-E (2013) Exploring perceptions toward biometric technology in service encounters: A comparison of current users and potential adopters. Behaviour & Information Technology32(3): 217–230.
9.
CanalFZMüllerTRMatiasJCScottonGGde Sa JuniorARPozzebonE, et al (2022) A survey on facial emotion recognition techniques: A state-of-the-art literature review. Information Sciences582: 593–617.
10.
ChenT (2020) Case-based analysis of discrimination in police surveillance scene regarding facial recog. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering914(1): 012029.
11.
ChenWWangM (2023) Regulating the use of facial recognition technology across borders: A comparative case analysis of the European Union, the United States, and China. Telecommunications Policy47(2): 102482.
12.
CiftciOChoiE-KBerezinaK (2021) Let’s face it: Are customers ready for facial recognition technology at quick-service restaurants?International Journal of Hospitality Management95: 102941.
13.
CouchmanH (2019) Policing by Machine: Predictive Policing and the Threat to Our Rights. New York, NY: Liberty Publishing House.
14.
DowlingGRStaelinR (1994) A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research21(1): 119–134.
15.
EnemanMLjungbergJRaviolaERolandssonB (2022) The sensitive nature of facial recognition: Tensions between the Swedish police and regulatory authorities. Information Polity27(2): 219–232.
FangK (2003) “Harmony without uniformity”: Significance and value as a view of culture. Journal of University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences1: 26–33 (in Chinese).
18.
FeathermanMSPavlouPA (2003) Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies59(4): 451–474.
19.
FeiX (1989) A “diverse and integrated pattern” of the Chinese nationality. Journal of Peking University4: 3–21 (in Chinese).
20.
FleetRWHineKA (2022) Surprise, anticipation, sadness, and fear: A sentiment analysis of social media’s portrayal of police use of facial recognition technology. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice16(4): 630–647.
21.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50.
GrayM (2002) Urban surveillance and panopticism: Will we recognize the facial recognition society?Surveillance & Society1(3): 314–330.
24.
GuanTChenX (2023) The emerging scientific public sphere in China’s digital economy: Weibo discussions on facial recognition technology. Public Understanding of Science32(2): 208–223.
25.
GuoZKennedyL (2023) Policing based on automatic facial recognition. Artificial Intelligence and Law31(2): 397–443.
26.
HanH (2015) Beyond the Tacitus trap: The dilemma and redemption of government credibility. Hubei Social Sciences 7: 29–34 (in Chinese).
HeenMSJLiebermanJDMietheTD (2018) The thin blue line meets the big blue sky: Perceptions of police legitimacy and public attitudes towards aerial drones. Criminal Justice Studies31(1): 18–37.
29.
HillDO’ConnorCDSlaneA (2022) Police use of facial recognition technology: The potential for engaging the public through co-constructed policy-making. International Journal of Police Science & Management24(3): 325–335.
HiroseM (2017) Privacy in public spaces: The reasonable expectation of privacy against the dragnet use of facial recognition technology. Connecticut Law Review49(5): 1591–1620.
32.
HoodJ (2020) Making the body electric: The politics of body-worn cameras and facial recognition in the United States. Surveillance & Society18(2): 157–169.
33.
HuL (2021) Facial recognition: Identity systems, personal information, and legal regulation. The Jurist2: 41–55.
34.
HuLBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal6(1): 1–55.
35.
HuqAZJacksonJTrinknerR (2017) Legitimating practices: Revisiting the predicates of police legitimacy. The British Journal of Criminology57: 1101–1122.
JohnsonTLJohnsonNNMcCurdyDOlajideMS (2022) Facial recognition systems in policing and racial disparities in arrests. Government Information Quarterly39(4): 101753.
38.
KollerM (1988) Risk as a determinant of trust. Basic and Applied Social Psychology9(4): 265–276.
39.
KostkaGSteinackerLMeckelM (2021) Between security and convenience: Facial recognition technology in the eyes of citizens in China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Public Understanding of Science30(6): 671–690.
40.
KostkaGSteinackerLMeckelM (2023) Under big brother’s watchful eye: Cross-country attitudes toward facial recognition technology. Government Information Quarterly40(1): 101761.
41.
LaiXPatrick RauP-L (2021) Has Facial Recognition Technology been misused? A public perception model of facial recognition scenarios. Computers in Human Behavior124: 106894.
42.
LeeM-C (2009) Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: An integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications8(3): 130–141.
LinC-PAnolB (2008) Learning online social support: An investigation of network information technology based on UTAUT. Cyberpsychology & Behavior11(3): 268–272.
45.
LiuY-LYanWHuB (2021) Resistance to facial recognition payment in China: The influence of privacy-related factors. Telecommunications Policy45(5): 102155.
46.
McCartneyL (2022) Using the UTAUT2 model to explain the intention to use phone biometrics. Master’s Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
47.
McSorleyT (2021) The case for a ban on facial recognition surveillance in Canada. Surveillance & Society19(2): 250–254.
48.
MatulionyteR (2024) Increasing transparency around facial recognition technologies in law enforcement: Towards a model framework. Information & Communications Technology Law33(1): 66–84.
49.
MietheTDDudinskayaTForepaughCSousaWH (2023) Facial recognition technology in policing: A national survey of public support for this technology and privacy/safety concerns. Crime & Delinquency. Epub ahead of print 29 January. DOI: 10.1177/00111287221150172.
50.
MiltgenCLPopovičAOliveiraT (2013) Determinants of end-user acceptance of biometrics: Integrating the “Big 3” of technology acceptance with privacy context. Decision Support Systems56: 103–114.
51.
MorosanC (2020) Hotel facial recognition systems: Insight into guests’ system perceptions, congruity with selfimage, and anticipated emotions. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research21: 21–38.
52.
MoyLM (2021) A taxonomy of police technology’s racial inequity problems. University of Illinois Law Review2021: 139–193.
53.
NeyroudPDisleyE (2008) Technology and policing: Implications for fairness and legitimacy. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice2(2): 226–232.
NissenbaumH (1998) Protecting privacy in an information age: The problem of privacy in public. Law and Philosophy17(5): 559–596.
56.
OzkanSKanatIE (2011) E-Government adoption model based on theory of planned behavior: Empirical validation. Government Information Quarterly28(4): 503–513.
57.
PavoneVEspostiSD (2012) Public assessment of new surveillance-oriented security technologies: Beyond the trade-off between privacy and security. Public Understanding of Science21(5): 556–572.
58.
PengY (2022) The role of ideological dimensions in shaping acceptance of facial recognition technology and reactions to algorithm bias. Public Understanding of Science32(2): 190–207.
59.
PeterJPRyanMJ (1976) An investigation of perceived risk at the brand level. Journal of Marketing Research13(2): 184–188.
ReddickCGChatfieldATJaramilloPA (2015) Public opinion on National Security Agency surveillance programs: A multi-method approach. Government Information Quarterly32(2): 129–141.
62.
RitchieKLCartledgeCGrownsBYanAWangYGuoK, et al (2021) Public attitudes towards the use of automatic facial recognition technology in criminal justice systems around the world. PLoS One16(10): e0258241.
63.
RosseelY (2012) Lavaan: An R Package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software48(2): 1–36.
64.
SchuetzPN (2021) Fly in the face of bias: Algorithmic bias in law enforcement’s facial recognition technology and the need for an adaptive legal framework. Law & Inequality39(1): 221–254.
StoneRNGrønhaugK (1993) Perceived risk: Further considerations for the marketing discipline. European Journal of Marketing27(3): 39–50.
67.
SuchmanMC (1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review20(3): 571–610.
68.
SunYLuoWZhangC (2022) How does public perception affect willingness and behavior to use face recognition technology? The moderated mediation model based on use context. Public Administration Review15(5): 88–104 (in Chinese).
69.
SunshineJTylerTR (2003) The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review37(3): 513–548.
70.
SurendranP (2012) Technology acceptance model: A survey of literature. Journal of Business and Social Research2(4): 175–178.
71.
TrinknerRJacksonJTylerTR (2018) Bounded authority: Expanding “appropriate” police behavior beyond procedural justice. Law and Human Behavior42(3): 280–293.
72.
Van HeekJArningKZiefleM (2017) The surveillance society: Which factors form public acceptance of surveillance technologies?Communications in Computer and Information Science738: 170–191.
73.
VenkateshVDavisFD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science46(2): 186–204.
74.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGBDavisFD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
75.
WangMKangYDengBLanX (2024) Exploring college students’ risk perception and acceptance intention of facial recognition technology in China. Telematics and Informatics95: 102193. DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2024.102193.
76.
WangY-SShihY-W (2009) Why do people use information kiosks? A validation of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Government Information Quarterly26(1): 158–165.
77.
YangXPengDXieF (2016) A study on the effects of TAM/TPB-based perceived risk cognition on user’s trust and behavior taking Yu’ebao, a value-added payment product, as an example. Management Review28(6): 229–240 (in Chinese).
78.
YoungMMBullockJBLecyJD (2019) Artificial discretion as a tool of governance: A framework for understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on public administration. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance2(4): 301–313.
79.
ZhangL (2022) Application of face recognition in public security management and its standardized path. Administration and Law3: 61–70 (in Chinese).
80.
ZhangQGongH (2018) An empirical study on users behavioral intention of face identification mobile payment. The Theory and Practice of Finance and Economics39(5): 109–115 (in Chinese).
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
