Behavioral Drivers of Digital Participation: Security Trust, Outcome Efficacy, and Procedural Cues in South Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The idea of "security trust" draws on old technology acceptance literature and does not adequately address today’s complex data privacy threats or current perceptions of ease of use. This weakens the understanding and application of the concept in today's sensitive digital environments.
2. The authors say the data documentation is missing key details, such as the recruitment vendor, the study dates, response and completion rates, the wording of the consent form, and the wording of the attention checks. This gap significantly harms the ability to reproduce the study, its internal validity, and the overall quality of the survey experiment.
3. The study did not perform a separate check to see if participants noticed the differences in the vignette treatments, such as the number of supporters (50 vs. 500). Without this check, the non-significant effects of the procedural cues cannot be clearly understood; participants may not have read or processed the differences, making the null findings unclear.
4. The statement that trust and confidence "significantly influence participation" is presented as an absolute fact without acknowledging factors that might affect it, such as demographic differences in technology use. This generalization overlooks important factors such as age and technical skills, thereby weakening the conclusions drawn from the referenced literature.
5. In Section 2.3, Digital Ability and Baseline Intention, after discussing self-assessed capability. It is suggested to refer from the paper: “Mobile banking adoption: A multi-factorial study on social influence, compatibility, digital self-efficacy, and perceived cost among Generation Z consumers in the United States “.This study directly supports the manuscript's focus on digital ability (specifically digital self-efficacy) and perceived barriers affecting platform adoption. Including this reference will significantly strengthen the theoretical rationale for the hypothesis regarding the role of digital ability in shaping behavior.
6. The authors should provide evidence from a pilot study or secondary data to show that the thresholds (50 vs. 500) and response manipulations were noticeable to respondents. If such data are unavailable, they must revise how they interpret the null findings, clearly noting manipulation failure as a major limitation and softening the conclusion that procedural cues "did not meaningfully shift stated willingness." It is crucial to know if participants noticed the cues, as this affects the validity of the experimental findings on procedural design.
7. The authors need to provide details such as the recruitment vendor, study dates, completion rates, wording of attention-check items, and ethical approval status. If some of this information is unavailable, they should provide a thorough explanation of the missing data and discuss how it limits the study's internal validity. These details are necessary to meet basic standards of reproducibility and ensure scientific integrity.
8. The theoretical framework addressing digital ability, perceived cost/effort, and security trust does not connect with recent studies on digital self-efficacy and technology adoption. The authors should include recent studies on digital self-efficacy, perceived ease of use, and security in mobile/digital platforms to enhance the behavioral framework. They need to update the literature review to reflect current digital privacy topics. This will better align the hypotheses with the current literature, ensuring that the behavioral drivers are relevant and well-defined.

Author Response

Comment 1

The idea of “security trust” draws on old technology-acceptance literature and does not adequately address today’s complex data-privacy threats or current perceptions of ease of use. This weakens the understanding and application of the concept in today’s sensitive digital environments.

Response 1

We agree and have revised the theoretical discussion of security trust. In the revised manuscript, security trust is no longer presented as a generic technology-acceptance construct. Instead, it is conceptualized as a perceived privacy and data-security condition for digital civic action. We now explicitly connect the concept to contemporary concerns about personal-data protection, unauthorized third-party sharing, privacy guidance, hacking or information-leak incidents, and overall platform-security confidence. We also clarify that security trust functions primarily as an upstream condition of baseline participation intention: citizens must first believe that digital participation is safe before they are likely to evaluate specific procedural opportunities. These revisions appear in Section 2.2 and in the revised measurement discussion in Section 3.4.

Comment 2

The authors say the data documentation is missing key details, such as the recruitment vendor, the study dates, response and completion rates, the wording of the consent form, and the wording of the attention checks. This gap significantly harms the ability to reproduce the study, its internal validity, and the overall quality of the survey experiment.

Response 2

We agree that the original manuscript did not report the available survey documentation sufficiently. We have revised Section 3.1 and Appendix C to report the documentation available to us. The revised manuscript now states that the article analyzes a de-identified secondary survey dataset, identifies the Korea Local Administration Institute as the organizing institution and Research Lab Co., Ltd. as the survey agency, reports that the survey instrument is dated November 2025, and reports the expected response time of approximately 12-15 minutes. It also describes the available anonymity and confidentiality language, including the statement that responses were used for research/statistical purposes only and protected under Article 33 of the Korean Statistics Act. Appendix A now reports exact Korean scale-item wording, item-code mapping, scale composition, four condition-specific vignette versions, and measurement/documentation limits. Full consent-form wording and detailed attention-check wording remain unavailable, so the manuscript states those limits transparently rather than substituting unsupported details.

At the same time, we agree that some documentation remains unavailable. The revised manuscript now transparently states that the available materials do not report exact start and end field dates, the recruitment panel or sampling frame, response and completion rates, respondent compensation, a public data repository or external access terms, a formal IRB approval or exemption number, or detailed attention-check and exclusion procedures. We therefore limit the claims accordingly and interpret the findings as unweighted estimates from a balanced survey sample and randomized vignette comparisons within that sample, rather than as nationally representative estimates.

Comment 3

The study did not perform a separate check to see if participants noticed the differences in the vignette treatments, such as the number of supporters (50 vs. 500). Without this check, the non-significant effects of the procedural cues cannot be clearly understood; participants may not have read or processed the differences, making the null findings unclear.

Response 3

We agree. The revised manuscript now explicitly acknowledges that the study did not include a separate manipulation-check item. We have added a new subsection, Section 3.3, titled “Design Sensitivity and Manipulation Salience.” This section explains that although the questionnaire text clearly embedded the 50-versus-500 threshold manipulation and the generic-versus-concrete response manipulation, the study cannot verify whether respondents noticed, understood, or recalled these differences. Accordingly, we revised the interpretation of the null findings. We no longer claim that procedural cues are irrelevant. Instead, we state that the cues did not produce detectable moderate direct effects on stated willingness within this particular vignette design. We also added this point to the Limitations section.

Comment 4

The statement that trust and confidence “significantly influence participation” is presented as an absolute fact without acknowledging factors that might affect it, such as demographic differences in technology use. This generalization overlooks important factors such as age and technical skills, thereby weakening the conclusions drawn from the referenced literature.

Response 4

We agree and have revised the language throughout the manuscript to avoid absolute causal claims. The revised manuscript now consistently distinguishes between randomized treatment effects and measured associations. We also emphasize that demographic and resource-related variables, especially digital ability, age, education, political orientation, region, and past participation, are included in the empirical models. The revised discussion now states that security trust, digital ability, baseline participation intention, and outcome efficacy are associated with participation willingness within this sample, rather than presenting trust and confidence as universal determinants. The Limitations section also now states that population generalization is limited because the analysis is based on an unweighted balanced survey sample.

Comment 5

In Section 2.3, Digital Ability and Baseline Intention, after discussing self-assessed capability, it is suggested to refer to the paper “Mobile banking adoption: A multi-factorial study on social influence, compatibility, digital self-efficacy, and perceived cost among Generation Z consumers in the United States.” This study directly supports the manuscript’s focus on digital ability and perceived barriers affecting platform adoption.

Response 5

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have added the recommended Addula (2025) study to the revised theoretical discussion of digital ability and baseline participation intention. The revised Section 2.4 now uses this study to support the broader behavioral argument that digital-service adoption depends not only on platform availability, but also on self-efficacy, compatibility, social context, and perceived barriers. We also added the full reference to the reference list.

Comment 6

The authors should provide evidence from a pilot study or secondary data to show that the thresholds (50 vs. 500) and response manipulations were noticeable to respondents. If such data are unavailable, they must revise how they interpret the null findings, clearly noting manipulation failure as a major limitation.

Response 6

We agree. The revised manuscript and survey supplement now list the four vignette versions separately: 50 supporters with a generic response, 50 supporters with a concrete action plan/timeline, 500 supporters with a generic response, and 500 supporters with a concrete action plan/timeline. The available documentation does not include a pilot study or a separate manipulation-check item. We therefore revised the manuscript to avoid overinterpreting the null treatment findings. Section 3.3 now states that the null treatment estimates should be interpreted as an absence of detectable moderate direct effects within this vignette design, not as definitive evidence that participants fully noticed the cues and found them irrelevant. The Limitations section also identifies the absence of a manipulation check as a major limitation.

Comment 7

The authors need to provide details such as the recruitment vendor, study dates, completion rates, wording of attention-check items, and ethical approval status. If some of this information is unavailable, they should provide a thorough explanation of the missing data and discuss how it limits the study’s internal validity. These details are necessary to meet basic standards of reproducibility and ensure scientific integrity.

Response 7

We agree and have revised the manuscript to improve reporting transparency. Section 3.1 now reports the available documentation: the organizing institution, survey agency, month-level survey-instrument date, expected survey duration, anonymity and confidentiality language, consent-screening procedure, and use of the survey for research/statistical purposes. Appendix A now provides the exact Korean item wording, item-code mapping, scale composition, four condition-specific vignette versions, and documentation limits.

We also explicitly report what remains unavailable. The revised manuscript states that the available documentation does not provide exact start and end field dates, recruitment panel or sampling frame, response and completion rates, respondent compensation, a public data repository or external access terms, formal IRB approval or exemption number, complete consent-form wording, or detailed attention-check/exclusion procedures. We revised the ethics, informed-consent, and data-availability statements accordingly and removed any implication that a formal IRB approval number can be verified from the available materials. The revised Limitations section explains that these omissions limit population generalization and prevent a complete audit of recruitment and data-quality procedures.

Comment 8

The theoretical framework addressing digital ability, perceived cost/effort, and security trust does not connect with recent studies on digital self-efficacy and technology adoption. The authors should include recent studies on digital self-efficacy, perceived ease of use, and security in mobile/digital platforms to enhance the behavioral framework.

Response 8

We agree and have revised the theoretical framework accordingly. The revised manuscript now treats digital ability as a practical self-efficacy resource and security trust as a privacy and data-security risk condition. We also added the reviewer-recommended Addula (2025) study to the discussion of digital ability and perceived barriers to digital-service adoption. The revised framework now links digital participation to three behavioral questions: whether participation feels safe, whether it appears consequential, and whether citizens feel capable of completing it. These revisions strengthen the theoretical connection between digital-government participation, digital self-efficacy, perceived barriers, and security trust.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article proposes an interesting analysis of the behavioral factors that drive digital participation in South Korea: security trust, outcome efficacy, and procedural cues. The research topic is interesting, and the relevance of the subject makes this initiative worthwhile. However, I have some comments, which can be summarized as follows:

1. The introduction presents the main arguments of the article, but it does not sufficiently highlight the novelty of the study, nor does it adequately link it to the existing literature to identify the gap it aims to fill. Why should the reader be interested in this paper?
2. The authors propose six research hypotheses, but due to an editorial oversight, the last two hypotheses are listed as "Hypothesis 5".
3. The manuscript is based on secondary data, but this is not clearly stated. The information regarding the available documentation indicates the absence of important details, such as the recruitment vendor, the study period, the response or completion rate, remuneration, the consent wording, ethics committee approval etc. To ensure greater transparency regarding the data used, authors should nevertheless indicate the source of this data, the database where it is available, terms of access, or at least provide a justification for their decision to use this secondary data in their research. Moreover, in the presentation of the method, the authors note that the study employed a 2 × 2 “vignette” experiment based on an idea for improving public transportation. However, it is unclear who developed this scenario. Has the collected data been previously used for such an experiment-based study? The authors refer here to the study by Campbell (2023), which also uses a 2 × 2 “vignette” experiment embedded in a survey conducted in South Korea, but this is a different survey with data collected from students. I believe that more explicit clarification is needed regarding the data used and how the 2 × 2 vignette experiment was designed.
4. Also, the results should be presented more clearly. The authors should not only indicate what the analysis revealed, but also address each hypothesis tested and indicate whether or not it is supported. The working hypotheses, the result and the discussion should be 'in tune'. 

Author Response

Comment 1

The Introduction presents the main arguments of the article, but it does not sufficiently highlight the novelty of the study, nor does it adequately link it to the existing literature to identify the gap it aims to fill. Why should the reader be interested in this paper?

Response 1

We agree and have revised the Introduction to make the novelty and literature gap clearer. The revised Introduction now explains that much digital-participation research focuses on access, transparency, responsiveness, or platform design, while less attention is given to how procedural cues interact with behavioral beliefs such as security trust, outcome efficacy, and digital ability. We also clarify why South Korea is an important case: it is a high-capacity digital-government environment where procedural availability is already relatively advanced, making it useful for examining why citizens may still hesitate to participate. The revised Introduction now states the article’s contribution more directly: it shows that digital participation is better understood as a behavioral decision shaped by perceived safety, expected consequences, and self-assessed capability than as a simple response to procedural design alone.

Comment 2

The authors propose six research hypotheses, but due to an editorial oversight, the last two hypotheses are listed as “Hypothesis 5.”

Response 2

Thank you for identifying this error. We have corrected the hypothesis numbering. The outcome-efficacy hypothesis is now Hypothesis 5, and the digital ability/baseline participation intention hypothesis is now Hypothesis 6. We also updated the Results and hypothesis-summary table to use the corrected numbering consistently.

Comment 3

The manuscript is based on secondary data, but this is not clearly stated. The information regarding the available documentation indicates the absence of important details, such as the recruitment vendor, the study period, response or completion rate, remuneration, consent wording, and ethics committee approval. The authors should explain the source of the data, the database where it is available, terms of access, or provide justification for using this secondary data. The method section also refers to Campbell (2023), which uses a 2 × 2 vignette experiment. It is unclear whether the present data were collected by the authors or whether they come from Campbell’s study.

Response 3

We agree and have substantially revised the Methods section. The revised manuscript now states clearly that the article analyzes a de-identified secondary survey dataset from South Korea. It also clarifies that the data analyzed in this manuscript do not come from Campbell (2023). Campbell (2023) is cited only as a methodological precedent for using vignette experiments in public-participation research. The public-transportation scenario used in this manuscript was part of the present South Korean survey instrument.

We also added available source documentation. Section 3.1 now reports that the survey documentation identifies the Korea Local Administration Institute as the organizing institution and Research Lab Co., Ltd. as the survey agency, with the survey instrument dated November 2025 and an expected response time of approximately 12-15 minutes. The revised manuscript reports the available survey purpose, anonymity/confidentiality language, consent-screening procedure, exact Korean item wording, item-code mapping, and four condition-specific vignette versions. At the same time, it transparently reports that exact start and end field dates, the recruitment panel or sampling frame, response/completion rates, compensation, a public repository or access terms, a formal IRB approval or exemption number, full consent-form wording, and detailed attention-check/exclusion procedures remain unavailable. We therefore restrict the claims to internal vignette comparisons and measured associations within the sample.

Comment 4

The results should be presented more clearly. The authors should not only indicate what the analysis revealed, but also address each hypothesis tested and indicate whether or not it is supported. The working hypotheses, the result, and the discussion should be “in tune.”

Response 4

We agree and have revised the Results section to make the hypothesis-level interpretation explicit. We added a hypothesis-summary table that reports each hypothesis, the expected relationship, the empirical result, and the interpretation. The revised Results now state clearly that H1, H2, and H3 are not supported because the procedural treatment effects and interaction are not statistically significant. H4 is supported because security trust is positively associated with baseline participation intention. H5 is supported because outcome efficacy is positively associated with scenario-based willingness. H6 is supported because digital ability and baseline participation intention are positively associated with scenario willingness. We also revised the Discussion and Conclusion so that they match this hypothesis-level interpretation.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to revise this manuscript again.

The revised version shows that the authors took the comments from the previous review round seriously. The introduction more clearly highlights the innovative nature of the work and the gaps in the existing literature; methodological transparency has been improved; and the interpretation of the hypothesis has been formulated more explicitly. I have no other comments or suggestions regarding the content of this manuscript.