Not all information security-related stresses are equal: the effects of challenge and hindrance stresses on employees’ compliance with information security policies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information security-related stresses (SRSs) are widely considered to play a negative role in the workplace, motivating employees' violation of information security policies (ISPs). However, researchers have neglected to challenge SRS and its role in promoting positive security actions. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the effect of both challenge and hindrance SRSs on employees' intention to comply with ISPs and the moderating mechanisms of regulatory focus in the relationship between SRSs and ISP compliance. Using survey data from 489 employees in Chinese enterprises, we applied a PLS-SEM method to test hypotheses. Our study found that the hindrance SRS had a negative effect on ISP compliance intention, differently, challenge SRS motivates employees to comply with ISPs. Our study also found prevention focus acted as a positive moderator in the relationship between hindrance SRS and compliance intention, while promotion focus had no effect on this relationship; Promotion focus positively moderated the relationship between challenge SRS and compliance intention, and prevention focus negatively moderated the relationship between challenge SRS and compliance intention. These findings provide new knowledge by examining the different effects and the boundary conditions to understand how two types of SRS influence employees' informaiton security dicisions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it