MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902327952

The influence of expected benefits and perceived costs on the performance of protective behaviours against email phishing threats

2018· dissertation· en· W2902327952 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Samantha Bax

Bibliographic record

VenueMurdoch Research Repository (Murdoch University) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsPhishingIdentity theftInternet privacyPsychologyOrder (exchange)Qualitative researchApplied psychologySocial psychologyBusinessComputer scienceThe InternetWorld Wide WebFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Email phishing is the use of email communications to deceive individuals into providing their personal information to fraudulent versions of legitimate websites. These details can be used for identity theft, and often result in financial loss to the victim of email phishing. This research aims to investigate the reasons why individuals do not perform protective behaviours against email phishing threats. The reasons proposed in this study for not undertaking these behaviours relate to the benefits expected to be gained from not performing these behaviours, and the perceived costs for the actual performance of these behaviours. This research predicts that the benefits expected to be gained from a phishing email would encourage an individual to respond to it and thus, omit to perform the recommended protective behaviours. Furthermore, this research study predicts that the costs perceived to be incurred for the performance of protective behaviours against email phishing threats will discourage an individual from taking these actions. A research model based upon Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) (Rogers, 1983; Rogers & Prentice-Dunn, 1997) was proposed to support this study. \n \nIn order to achieve the objectives of this study, a mixed-methods research approach was used involving two phases. The first, qualitative, phase consisted of interviews with participants who could potentially be recipients of phishing emails. This phase aimed to gain a greater understanding of the roles played by the expected benefits and the perceived costs in relation to performing recommended email phishing protective behaviours. The findings of this phase indicated that, consistent with the literature, benefit-related factors including need and greed, compliance with authority, altruism, satisfaction of curiosity and diminishing concerns could potentially encourage individuals to respond to phishing emails. Two additional factors were also identified: automatic behaviour and fear of missing out (FoMO). Consistent with the response costs literature, potential costs in effort, costs in time and financial costs were identified as potentially influencing individuals to not perform protective behaviours against email phishing threats. Two other factors were also identified: costs of mis-identified phish, and loss of trust. The findings from the first phase of the research study were used to inform the development of the questionnaire used in the second phase. \n \nThe second phase of the research study tested the proposed research model. A questionnaire data collection method was used, and PLS-SEM was the technique used for data analysis. Of the eight hypotheses proposed, seven were supported. The hypothesis relating to perceived costs negatively influencing the intention to perform protective behaviours against email phishing threats was supported. However, the hypothesis relating to expected benefits negatively influencing the intention to perform protective behaviours against email phishing threats was not supported. Post hoc analysis suggested that expected benefits were instead associated with maladaptive behaviours. More research is required to further explore the relationship between expected benefits and the intentions to perform protective behaviours against email phishing. Furthermore, the relationship between maladaptive behaviours and the intentions to perform protective behaviours may also provide some insight into the undertaking of information security behaviours when there are potential maladaptive rewards available. \n \nThis research has contributed to knowledge relating to the mitigation of information security threats, and in particular email phishing. It has identified factors that may encourage individuals to not perform protective behaviours against email phishing threats, and factors that may discourage them from performing these protective behaviours. The outcomes of this research study provide important implications for both research and practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMurdoch Research Repository (Murdoch University)Same topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207