## 2 Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
### Cultural Differences in Privacy Concerns  
Cultural values significantly shape individuals' privacy attitudes and technology acceptance behaviors, particularly through the lens of individualism and collectivism [29]. Individualism emphasizes personal freedom, autonomy, and achievement, where individuals prioritize personal goals over group interests. Decision-making is decentralized, and people value independence, self-expression, and personal responsibility [30]. Examples include the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. In contrast, collectivist cultures emphasize group harmony, loyalty, and interdependence. Individuals in these societies prioritize the welfare of their family, community, or organization, often placing group interests above personal desires. Social norms encourage conformity, and authority or group consensus heavily influences decisions. Countries like China, Japan, and South Korea exemplify high collectivism [29]. These cultural distinctions influence privacy sensitivity regarding ARSGs. In American culture, individual autonomy fosters lower sensitivity toward recording and sharing, Americans often view recording public experiences as a form of free expression protected by legal rights [29]. Conversely, Koreans are more sensitive to being unknowingly recorded, as collectivist values emphasize maintaining social harmony and protecting personal boundaries. Unauthorized recording may evoke shame or social embarrassment, reinforcing stricter social norms about privacy in public spaces [29]. This cultural divergence also manifests in legal frameworks. In the U.S., privacy is largely conceptualized as a passive right that limits government intrusion. Legally, individuals entering public spaces often forfeit certain privacy expectations, and courts recognize that publicly visible behavior can be recorded without explicit consent [31]. Freedom of expression generally overrides privacy concerns unless highly invasive circumstances exist. Moreover, privacy laws vary across jurisdictions and periods, creating inconsistencies in legal protections [32]. For instance, in public settings where behavior is observable by others, U.S. law typically offers limited privacy claims. In South Korea, privacy protections focus on safeguarding personal dignity, self-determination, and personality rights [31]. The legal framework emphasizes protecting individuals from unauthorized exposure, even in public spaces. The Supreme Court of South Korea ruled that photographing someone wearing legislings in public can constitute an illegal camera offense, highlighting the country's stricter privacy protections [31]. Unlike the U.S., Korean law places greater weight on protecting individuals from unwanted exposure regardless of location, aligning with the cultural emphasis on face-saving and social harmony. Social norms further shape attitudes toward recording practices. In the U.S., there is broad cultural acceptance of public recording, influenced by values of transparency and accountability [32]. Americans often do not expect devices to issue alerts when recording occurs. In contrast, Koreans expect clear signals such as mosaics or alert sounds when photographs or recordings are made, reflecting heightened sensitivity to unauthorized capturing of personal images [33]. This cultural expectation reinforces caution toward ARSGs' use in South Korea, where users may be particularly vigilant about privacy boundaries in both personal and public contexts. These legal, cultural, and normative differences underscore why privacy concerns regarding ARSGs diverge between the U.S. and South Korea. In the U.S., individuals may prioritize personal liberties to record public experiences without considering the privacy of others. In contrast, Koreans exhibit higher concern about being recorded without consent, as it is seen as an intrusion on dignity and social standing. Thus, ARSGs' ability to record and share content presents distinct challenges in each cultural context, affecting both user acceptance and public attitudes.