Reducing data privacy breaches: an empirical study of relevant antecedents and an outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to increase understanding of pertinent exogenous and endogenous antecedents that can reduce data privacy breaches. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional survey was used to source participants' perceptions of relevant exogenous and endogenous antecedents developed from the Antecedents-Privacy Concerns-Outcomes (APCO) model and Social Cognitive Theory. A research model was proposed and tested with empirical data collected from 213 participants based in Canada. Findings The exogenous factors of external privacy training and external privacy self-assessment tool significantly and positively impact the study's endogenous factors of individual privacy awareness, organizational resources allocated to privacy concerns, and group behavior concerning privacy laws. Further, the proximal determinants of data privacy breaches (dependent construct) are negatively influenced by individual privacy awareness, group behavior related to privacy laws, and organizational resources allocated to privacy concerns. The endogenous factors fully mediated the relationships between the exogenous factors and the dependent construct. Research limitations/implications This study contributes to the budding data privacy breach literature by highlighting the impacts of personal and environmental factors in the discourse. Practical implications The results offer management insights on mitigating data privacy breach incidents arising from employees' actions. Roles of external privacy training and privacy self-assessment tools are signified. Originality/value Antecedents of data privacy breaches have been underexplored. This paper is among the first to elucidate the roles of select exogenous and endogenous antecedents encompassing personal and environmental imperatives on data privacy 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 | 0.024 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".