## 5 Results
### Structural Model Results and Hypotheses Testing
Consistent with prior studies [69], our study found that users who have a stronger confidence in the availability of information security technologies and procedures, in general, have expressed greater belief in their ability to manipulate personal threats to information security. Figure 6: Structural model result. Note: in figure presented direct effects \(\beta\), (t-value) and \(p\)-value. The dotted lines are non-significant. security. Hypothesis 4 suggests a positive relationship between Perceived Response Efficacy (PRE) and users' intention to use BBCA technology. Perceived Response Efficacy (PRE) contributes positively to Privacy Concerns (PC) (b = 0.532; \(p<0.01\)); thus supporting Hypothesis 4. This is consistent with current research, which has found that response effectiveness is one of the strongest predictors of behavioral outcomes related to information security [95,96]. Hypothesis 5 proposes a negative relationship between response costs and intention to use BBCA technology. Response costs (b = -0.007; \(p<0.01\)) as hypothesized works as an inhibitor to the intention to use BBCA technology, which is aligned with prior studies [49]. Hypothesis 6 proposes a positive relationship between innovativeness and users' intention to use BBCA technology. Innovativeness contributes positively to users' intention to use BBCA technology (b = 0.347; \(p<0.01\)); thus supporting Hypothesis 6. This is in alignment with [70] that found that the acceptance of innovative information technologies by their intended users is an important issue for both users and practitioners. The model of our study explains 34% of Perceived Vulnerability (PV) and 20.8% of Perceived Severity (PS), as both H7 and H8 are supported. Hypothesis 7 suggests a positive relationship between Privacy Concerns (PC) and Perceived Vulnerability (PV). Privacy Concern (PC) is a strong antecedent of Perceived Vulnerability (PV) (b = 0.583; \(p<0.01\)). Also Hypothesis 8 proposes a positive relationship between Privacy Concerns (PC) and perceived severity. Privacy Concern contributes positively to perceived severity (b = 0.456; \(p<0.01\)); thus supporting Hypothesis 8. Both findings are consistent with studies that claim that the level of privacy concern motivates coping behaviors to deal with privacy risks [89]. Hypothesis 9 suggests a positive relationship between Privacy Concerns (PC) and self-efficacy. Privacy concern has a positive effect on self-efficacy (b = 0.242; \(p<0.01\)), thus supporting Hypothesis 9. This suggests that users' who are concerned about their privacy are more interested in learning how to use privacy-protecting technologies. This finding supports prior studies that show a significant relationship between self-efficacy and privacy concerns [52]. Hypothesis 10 proposes a positive relationship between Privacy Concerns (PC) and Perceived Response Efficacy (PRE). Privacy Concerns (PC) contribute positively to Perceived Response Efficacy (PRE) (b = 0.073; \(p<0.01\)); thus supporting Hypothesis 10. This is in consistence with prior studies [7,61,65] that have found that users who have higher privacy concerns seek sufficient information about the efficacy of a suggested coping mechanisms in providing protection from a threat or danger and they are more likely to follow adaptive behavior. Hypothesis 11 suggests a positive relationship between Privacy Concerns (PC) and Perceived Response Cost (PRC). Privacy concerns has a positive effect on Perceived Response Cost (PRC) (b = 0.213; \(p<0.01\)), thus supporting Hypothesis 11. Users may be concerned about their privacy, as well as the possibility that this technology will jeopardize their personal data. Hypothesis 12 suggests a positive relationship between Trust (T) and Perceived Response Efficacy (PRE). Privacy Concerns (PC) contribute positively to Perceived Response Efficacy (PRE) (b = 0.784; \(p<0.01\)), thus supporting Hypothesis 12.