Understanding information systems security policy compliance: An integration of the theory of planned behavior and the protection motivation theory

By Princely Ifinedo. Computers & security, 2012

902 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications, Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fd6c86fadbc9beeec93d678531a88f57fb21a412

How researchers see this paper

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

In Computer Networks and Communications

1. Allen C. Johnston
2. Merrill Warkentin
3. Paul Benjamin Lowry
4. Qing Hu
5. Richard L. Baskerville
6. Robert E. Crossler
7. Princely Ifinedo
8. Steven Marcus Furnell

In Information Systems

1. Paul Benjamin Lowry
2. Merrill Warkentin
3. Allen C. Johnston
4. Princely Ifinedo
5. Qing Hu
6. Mikko T. Siponen
7. Steven Marcus Furnell
8. Nader Sohrabi Safa

Citations in the corpus

• What Do Systems Users Have to Fear? Using Fear Appeals to Engender Threats and Fear that Motivate Protective Security Behaviors (2015, background): “(2008), Lee and Larsen (2009), Liang and Xue (2010), and Johnston and Warkentin (2010a). We also considered the Herath and Rao (2009b) and Johnston et al.”
• Future directions for behavioral information security research (2013, methodology): “…to consider, because fear is an underlying driver of Rogers’ (1983) Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) that has been examined in recent studies within the Behavioral Info-Sec domain (Herath and Rao, 2009b; Ifinedo, 2012; Johnston and Warkentin, 2010; Liang and Xue, 2010; Posey et al., 2011c).”
• An Enhanced Fear Appeal Rhetorical Framework: Leveraging Threats to the Human Asset Through Sanctioning Rhetoric (2015, background): “PMT is decades old and has been adapted numerous times in attempts to predict security policy compliance attitudes (Herath and Rao 2009; Ifinedo 2012; Johnston and Warkentin 2010), intentions to engage in protective behavior through the adoption of protective software (Lee 2011; Lee et al.”
• Information systems security policy compliance: An empirical study of the effects of socialisation, influence, and cognition (2014, background): “Thus, an employee’s attitude about ISSP compliance at his or her organisation can be influenced by the pervading views of referent individuals or groups [7,13,15,23].”
• Information security policy compliance model in organizations (2016, background): “Although organizations invest in the technological aspects of information security and tools, the number of security incidents and breaches continues to be a significant problem due to the lack of attention to employees in organizations (Ifinedo, 2012).”