## 5 Empirical Analysis
### Heterogeneity Analysis  
From results of Table 9, it can be seen that, for men, the explanatory strength of privacy fatigue on the privacy paradox is even stronger. Compared to the situations of females, the negative relationship between privacy concern and intention for privacy protection behavior is more prominent for men under conditions of privacy fatigue. There is a stronger positive relationship between privacy concern and intention for privacy protection behavior for individuals under 30. However, the weakening of this positive relationship from privacy fatigue is also bigger. Compared to individuals with higher levels of education, the explanatory strength of privacy fatigue on the privacy paradox is greater for those of lower education levels.  
From the results in Table 10, it can be seen that, without considering privacy fatigue, respondents who have used WeChat for a short period of time pay more attention to the protection of personal information, and, for them, the positive force between privacy concerns and privacy protection behavior willingness is obviously stronger than the respondents who have used WeChat for a long time, and privacy fatigue has no significant difference in the degree of dissolving the positive relationship between privacy concern and privacy protection behavior. Therefore, we would conclude that for the respondents who have used WeChat for a long time, the explanation of the effect of privacy fatigue on the privacy paradox is stronger, and for the respondents who have few WeChat friends, the explanation of the effect of privacy fatigue on the privacy paradox is stronger compared to respondents with more WeChat friends.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **(1)** & **(2)** & **(3)** & **(4)** \\ \hline pc1 & 0.064 *** & 0.058 *** & 0.081 *** & 0.067 *** \\  & (\(-\)0.018) & (\(-\)0.016) & (\(-\)0.020) & (\(-\)0.021) \\ pc1 \(\times\) D & \(-\)0.141 *** & \(-\)0.128 *** & \(-\)0.092 *** & \(-\)0.081 *** \\  & (\(-\)0.017) & (\(-\)0.015) & (\(-\)0.014) & (\(-\)0.029) \\ pro & \(-\)0.004 & 0.005 & 0.008 & 0.004 \\  & (\(-\)0.013) & (\(-\)0.007) & (\(-\)0.008) & (\(-\)0.023) \\ sex & \(-\)0.041 & \(-\)0.092 * & \(-\)0.122 ** & \(-\)0.072 \\  & (\(-\)0.062) & (\(-\)0.049) & (\(-\)0.057) & (\(-\)0.068) \\ age & 0.010 & 0.017 & \(-\)0.004 & 0.026 \\  & (\(-\)0.027) & (\(-\)0.022) & (\(-\)0.026) & (\(-\)0.031) \\ edu & 0.018 & 0.012 & 0.017 & \(-\)0.057 \\  & (\(-\)0.045) & (\(-\)0.033) & (\(-\)0.038) & (\(-\)0.061) \\ freq & \(-\)0.026 & \(-\)0.026 & \(-\)0.017 & \(-\)0.021 \\  & (\(-\)0.024) & (\(-\)0.019) & (\(-\)0.022) & (\(-\)0.027) \\ friends & 0.014 & \(-\)0.002 & \(-\)0.025 & 0.025 \\  & (\(-\)0.032) & (\(-\)0.023) & (\(-\)0.026) & (\(-\)0.040) \\ Constant & 2.377 *** & 2.307 *** & 2.335 *** & 2.256 *** \\  & (\(-\)0.272) & (\(-\)0.175) & (\(-\)0.202) & (\(-\)0.447) \\ \hline Observations & 1249 & 1734 & 1123 & 1077 \\ R-squared & 0.060 & 0.047 & 0.050 & 0.022 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Notes: *, ** and *** respectively denote significance on the 10%, 5% and 1% levels, and standard error is in parentheses.  
\end{table}
Table 8: The result of robustness test.