Protection motivation and deterrence: a framework for security policy compliance in organisations

By Tejaswini C. Herath, H. Rao. European Journal of Information Systems, 2009

1,391 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems, Information Systems and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e0d0f68c717f0424a6c616c1b096166f1bf04079

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems

In Information Systems and Management

Citations in the corpus

Cyber Security Awareness, Knowledge and Behavior: A Comparative Study (2020, background): “8 ) This is because the weakest link in the cyber security chain remains human error (Anwar et al. 9 ; Herath and Rao 10 ; Schneier.”
Information systems security policy compliance: An empirical study of the effects of socialisation, influence, and cognition (2014, methodology): “The findings regarding the pertinence of both the individual’s locus of control and self-efficacy in the research model are consistent with the tenets of both SCT and TPB and mirror results from comparable studies [5,16,23,33,43,54].”
An Enhanced Fear Appeal Rhetorical Framework: Leveraging Threats to the Human Asset Through Sanctioning Rhetoric (2015, methodology): “2009) and policy violation intentions (Herath and Rao 2009).”
Motivating IS security compliance: Insights from Habit and Protection Motivation Theory (2012, background): “Of the four papers dealing with this [4,7,13,22] none discussed Antecedent sources of Information or Rewards.”
Future directions for behavioral information security research (2013, methodology): “Beyond PMT, other empirical studiesexistthatinvestigatebehavioralfactorsthataffectsuch areas as security policy compliance (Bulgurcu et al., 2010; Herath and Rao, 2009a; Hu et al., 2011a, 2012; Siponen and Vance, 2010; Warkentin et al., 2011a), information systems misuse(D’Arcy and Hovav,2007;…”
Beyond Deterrence: An Expanded View of Employee Computer Abuse (2013, background): “…and examined factors which either hinder or facilitate compliance with security policies (Boss et al. 2009; Bulgurcu et al. 2010; Dodge et al. 2007; Herath and Rao 2009; Johnston and Warkentin 2010; Lee and Larsen 2009; Myyry et al. 2009, Pahnila et al. 2007; Sasse et al. 2001; Siponen and Vance…”
Understanding Employee Responses to Stressful Information Security Requirements: A Coping Perspective (2014, background): “This finding is inconsistent with some security compliance studies [14, 29, 40], although others have reported that sanctions did not influence policy noncompliance [27, 33, 61].”
Why Do Adults Engage in Cyberbullying on Social Media? An Integration of Online Disinhibition and Deindividuation Effects with the Social Structure and Social Learning Model (2016, methodology): “Organizational commitment (OC) (Herath and Rao 2009) Reflective first-order [outside of model; used as a marker variable to detect any potential commonPrompt: “To what degree do the following statements accurately represent you and your current work organization or the last place you worked (if…”
A review and analysis of deterrence theory in the IS security literature: making sense of the disparate findings (2011, background): “The premise being that individuals’ fear of sanctions can promote desirable compliance behaviors in an organization (Herath & Rao, 2009a, b).”
What Do Systems Users Have to Fear? Using Fear Appeals to Engender Threats and Fear that Motivate Protective Security Behaviors (2015, methodology): “…this sense that are deliberately atheoretical and commonly used in the corresponding literature in the same manner include age (D’Arcy et al. 2009; Herath and Rao 2009; Hu et al. 2011; Johnston and Warkentin 2010; Siponen et al. 2010; Son 2011), gender (D’Arcy et al. 2009; Herath and Rao 2009b;…”
Managing Employee Compliance with Information Security Policies: The Critical Role of Top Management and Organizational Culture (2012, background): “…faced with practical difﬁculties for measuring actual behavior, researchers have often chosen to investigate behavioral intentions as the dependent variable (e.g., Gefen, Karahanna, & Straub, 2003; Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006; Herath & Rao, 2009a, 2009b; Bulgurcu et al., 2010; Siponen & Vance, 2010).”
The Impact of Organizational Commitment on Insiders’ Motivation to Protect Organizational Information Assets (2015, background): “It follows from these studies [41, 52] that insiders who are closely committed to their organizations should be more likely to be attentive and thoughtful when engaging in SETA programs, because they desire to acquire information about how best to protect the organization to which they are so deeply”