Protection motivation and deterrence: a framework for security policy compliance in organisations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enterprises establish computer security policies to ensure the security of information resources; however, if employees and end-users of organisational information systems (IS) are not keen or are unwilling to follow security policies, then these efforts are in vain. Our study is informed by the literature on IS adoption, protection-motivation theory, deterrence theory, and organisational behaviour, and is motivated by the fundamental premise that the adoption of information security practices and policies is affected by organisational, environmental, and behavioural factors. We develop an Integrated Protection Motivation and Deterrence model of security policy compliance under the umbrella of Taylor-Todd's Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour. Furthermore, we evaluate the effect of organisational commitment on employee security compliance intentions. Finally, we empirically test the theoretical model with a data set representing the survey responses of 312 employees from 78 organisations. Our results suggest that (a) threat perceptions about the severity of breaches and response perceptions of response efficacy, self-efficacy, and response costs are likely to affect policy attitudes; (b) organisational commitment and social influence have a significant impact on compliance intentions; and (c) resource availability is a significant factor in enhancing self-efficacy, which in turn, is a significant predictor of policy compliance intentions. We find that employees in our sample underestimate the probability of security breaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".