Time Will Tell: The Case for an Idiographic Approach to Behavioral Cybersecurity Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many of the theories used in behavioral cybersecurity research have been applied with a nomothetic approach, which is characterized by cross-sectional data (e.g., one-time surveys) that identify patterns across a population of individuals. Although this can provide valuable between-person, point-in-time insights (e.g., employees who use neutralization techniques, such as denying responsibility for cybersecurity policy violations, tend to comply less), it is unable to reveal within-person patterns that account for varying experiences and situations over time. This paper articulates why an idiographic approach, which undertakes a within-person analysis of longitudinal data, can: (1) help validate widely used theories in behavioral cybersecurity research that imply patterns of behavior within a given person over time and (2) provide distinct theoretical insights on behavioral cybersecurity phenomena by accounting for such within-person patterns. To these ends, we apply an idiographic approach to an established theory in behavioral cybersecurity research—neutralization theory—and empirically test a within-person variant of this theory using a four-week experience sampling study. Our results support a more granular application of neutralization theory in the cybersecurity context that considers the behavior of a given person over time. We conclude the paper by highlighting the contexts and theories that provide the most promising opportunities for future behavioral cybersecurity research using an idiographic approach.
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 | 0.067 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".