近年來，由於911事件發生，全球安全議題隨之加溫，數位監控系統之應用範圍也日益越來越廣。本研究以認知監控系統模型作為研究架構之基礎，並結合分解式計畫行為理論之主觀規範變數；擬探討使用者在校園採用數位監控系統之影響因素。研究結果發現，使用意願會正向受到態度、有用性認知與主觀規範影響；主觀規範會正向受到主管影響及同儕影響；態度會正向受到有用性認知與公平感影響；隱私侵犯會負向影響公平感、有用性認知及態度。

This study examined the acceptance of applying video surveillance system on campus. We combined awareness system acceptance model with measured variables, subjective norm, in decomposed theory of planned behavior as our theoretical basis.
Results found that attitudes, usefulness and subjective norm have positive influence for the intention to use. The subjective norm is affected by the opinions from supervisors and peers. Fairness and usefulness will increase the attitudes to use. In addition, Privacy invasion has negative impacts on fairness, usefulness and attitudes.

一、中文部份
1.黃俊英 (1999)，『行銷研究-管理與技術』，第六版，華泰書局
2.林清河、吳萬益(2000)，『企業研究方法』，第二版，華泰書局
3.林俊名(民91)。電子監控系統對員工隱私侵犯與程序公平感認知之影響。國立中央大學資訊管理系碩士論文。
4.王淑娟(民91)。資訊系統採用行為之研究－以某大學資訊系統為例。國立雲林科技大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文
5.邱惠雯(民91)網際網路使用行為之限制─從隱私權保護觀之探討。國立中正大學/犯罪防治研究所
6.DIGITIMES 2007/4/20報導-林宗輝：數位監控的新時代
7.聯合報2007/7/20報導-錢震宇：北市15億裝新監視器 「比貓纜還貴」
8.新電子 2005 年 11 月號 236 期報導-王智弘：數位監控市場競爭更趨白熱化，創造產品差異性成致勝關鍵
9.國際邊緣網站-隱私專題報導：http://intermargins.net/Forum/2001%20July-Dec/privacy/privacy_index.htm
10.聯合報2003/12/18報導編譯-王麗娟：處處監視器 英國堪稱「老大哥」之最
11.蘋果日報2003/01/23報導：英人一天被側錄三百次

二、英文部份
1.Alge, B. J., & Ballinger, G. (2001). Electronic Workplace Surveillance: The Effects of Advanced Notice and Task Discretion on Perceptions of Privacy and Procedural Justice. Paper presented at the 16thAnnual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
2.Altman, I., 1975. The Environment and Social Behaviour Privacy, Personal space, Territory, Crowding. Cole Publish-ing Company, Monterey, CA.
3.Ambrose, M. L., & Alder, G. S. (2000). Designing, implementing, and utilizing computerized performance monitoring: enhancing organizational justice. Research in personnel and human resource management, 18, 187–219.
4.Bies, R. J. (1993). Privacy and procedural justice in organizations. Social Justice Research, 6, 69–86.
5.Burgoon, J., 1982. Privacy and communication. Communication Yearbook 6, 206–249.
6.Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: iunneling through the maze. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 317–372). London: Wiley.
7.Curtin, L., 1981. Privacy: belonging to oneself. Perspectives in Psychiatry Care 19 (3–4), 112–115.
8.Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology. Management Science, 35, 982–1003.
9.Eddy, E. R., Stone, D. L., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1999). The effects of information management on reactions to human resource information systems: an integration of privacy and procedural justice perspectives. Personnel Psychology, 52, 335–358.
10.Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11.Greenberg, S., & Kuzuoka, H. (2000). Using digital but physical surrogates to mediate awareness, communication and privacy in media spaces. Personal Technologies, 4, 182–198.
12.Hudson, S. E., & Smith, I. (1996). Techniques for addressing fundamental privacy and disruption tradeoffs in awareness support systems. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Cooperative Work ’96 Conference (pp. 248–257).
13.Lee, A., & Girgensohn, A. (2002). Design, experiences and user preferences for a web-based awareness tool. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 56, 75–107.
14.Lee, A., Schlueter, K., & Girgensohn, A. (1997). Sensing activity in video images. CHI’97 extended abstracts (pp. 319–320). ACM Press.
15.Leino-Kilpi H.1; Valimaki M.; Dassen T.; Gasull M.; Lemonidou C.; Scott A.; Arndt M.,2001. Privacy: a review of the literature. Journal of Nursing Studies 38 (2001) 663-671.
16.Rawnsley, M., 1980. The concept of privacy. Advances in Nursing Science 2 (2), 25–31.
17.Stanton, J. M., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (1996). Effects of electronic performance monitoring on personal control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 738–745.
18.Stone, E. F., & Stone, D. L. (1990). Privacy in organizations: theoretical issues, research findings, and protection mechanisms. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 8, 349–411.
19.Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A., “Understanding Information Technology Usage: A
Test of Competing Models,” Information Systems Research, Vol.6, No.2, 1995a, pp. 144-176.
20.Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. D., “A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test.” Decision Sciences, Vol.27, No.3, 1996 pp.451-481.
21.Webster, J. (1998). Desktop videoconferencing: experiences of complete users, wary users and non-users. MIS Quarterly, 22, 257–286.
22.Zweig, D. I., & Webster, J. (2002) Where is the line between benign and invasive? An examination of psychological barriers to the acceptance of awareness monitoring systems. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(5), 605-633
23.Zweig, D. I., & Webster, J. (2003) “Personality as a moderator of monitoring acceptance,” Computers in Human Behavior 19 (2003) 479-493