## 5 Empirical Analysis
### Analysis of Empirical Results  
Conducting regression analysis from Equation (4), the influence relationship from privacy fatigue on the privacy paradox is investigated. The results are shown in Table 6. Regression results in list (1) indicate that every unit increase in individual privacy concern would raise 0.066 units of intention for privacy protection behavior. In contrast, when the individual is under a state of privacy fatigue (cynicism), the relationship between privacy concern and intention for privacy protection behavior is altered. Every unit increase in privacy concern instead lowers the intention for privacy protection behavior by 0.110 units. Figure 3: Check common support. Figure 2: Comparison of kernel density function before and after matching. As a whole, for individuals under privacy fatigue, each unit increase in privacy concern lessens the intention for privacy protection behavior by 0.044 units. Our hypothesis 1 is valid, namely, cynicism would dissolve the positive influence relationship between privacy concern and intention for privacy protection behavior. Lists (2) and (3) reflect that, after changing the proxy variables of privacy concern, the above conclusion still holds. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Variable** & **(1)** & **(2)** & **(3)** \\ \hline pc1 & 0.066 *** & & & \\  & (\(-\)0.021) & & & \\ pc1 \(\times\) D & \(-\)0.110 *** & & & \\  & (\(-\)0.017) & & & \\  & pro & \(-\)0.001 & \(-\)0.001 & \(-\)0.001 \\  & (\(-\)0.009) & (\(-\)0.009) & (\(-\)0.009) \\ sex & \(-\)0.094 & \(-\)0.097 & \(-\)0.103 \\  & (\(-\)0.064) & (\(-\)0.064) & (\(-\)0.064) \\ age & 0.015 & 0.012 & 0.014 \\  & (\(-\)0.028) & (\(-\)0.028) & (\(-\)0.027) \\ edu & 0.057 & 0.037 & 0.049 \\  & (\(-\)0.041) & (\(-\)0.041) & (\(-\)0.041) \\ freq & \(-\)0.041 * & \(-\)0.040 * & \(-\)0.041 * \\  & (\(-\)0.024) & (\(-\)0.024) & (\(-\)0.024) \\ friends & \(-\)0.018 & \(-\)0.020 & \(-\)0.020 \\  & (\(-\)0.029) & (\(-\)0.029) & (\(-\)0.029) \\ pc2 & & 0.099 *** & & \\  & & (\(-\)0.021) & & \\ pc2 \(\times\) D & & \(-\)0.108 *** & & \\  & & (\(-\)0.018) & & \\ pc3 & & & & 0.102 *** \\  & & & & (\(-\)0.023) \\ pc3 \(\times\) D & & & & \(-\)0.117 *** \\  & & & & (\(-\)0.017) \\ Constant & 2.364 *** & 2.294 *** & 2.273 *** \\  & (\(-\)0.231) & (\(-\)0.230) & (\(-\)0.232) \\ \hline Observations & 905 & 905 & 905 \\ R-squared & 0.058 & 0.065 & 0.070 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Notes: *, *** respectively denote significance on the 10%, 1% levels, and standard error is in parentheses.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: The results of regression. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mean**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\%Bias**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\%Reduct Bias**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**t**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-6}  & & **Experience Group** & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{pro} & Unmatched & 17.438 & 17.083 & 11.9 & \multirow{2}{*}{98.7} & 1.89 * \\  & Matched & 17.380 & 17.375 & 0.2 & & 0.02 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{sex} & Unmatched & 1.694 & 1.760 & \(-\)14.9 & \multirow{2}{*}{50.9} & \(-\)2.51 ** \\  & Matched & 1.696 & 1.728 & \(-\)7.3 & & \(-\)0.92 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{age} & Unmatched & 2.515 & 2.777 & \(-\)26.5 & \multirow{2}{*}{97.4} & \(-\)4.53 *** \\  & Matched & 2.521 & 2.514 & 0.7 & & 0.08 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{edu} & Unmatched & 1.566 & 1.549 & 2.1 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)368.4} & 0.37 \\  & Matched & 1.539 & 1.464 & 10 & & 1.32 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{freq} & Unmatched & 2.753 & 2.853 & \(-\)8.4 & \multirow{2}{*}{27.2} & \(-\)1.41 \\  & Matched & 2.753 & 2.680 & 6.1 & & 0.76 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{friends} & Unmatched & 1.857 & 2.017 & \(-\)15.3 & \multirow{2}{*}{31.5} & \(-\)2.55 ** \\  & Matched & 1.855 & 1.746 & 10.5 & & 1.39 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Notes: *, ** and *** respectively denote significance on the 10%, 5% and 1% levels.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Results of the balance test.