Content uploaded by Mikko Siponen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mikko Siponen on Apr 30, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
87. Which Factors Explain Employees’ Adherence to Information Security
Policies? An Empirical Study
Seppo Pahnila
University of Oulu, Finland
seppo.pahnila@oulu.fi
Mikko Siponen
University of Oulu, Finland
mikko.siponen@oulu.fi
Adam Mahmood
University of Texas,USA
mmahmood@utep.edu
Abstract
It is widely agreed that a key threat to information security is caused by careless employees
who do not adhere to the information security policies of their organizations. In order to
ensure that employees comply with the organization’s information security procedures, a
number of information security policy compliance measures have been proposed in the past.
Prior research has, however, criticized these measures as lacking theoretically and
empirically grounded principles. To fill this gap in research, the present study advances a
novel model that explains employees’ adherence to information security policies. This model
modifies and combines the Protection Motivation Theory, the General Deterrence Theory,
the Theory of Reasoned Action, the Innovation Diffusion Theory and Rewards. In order to
empirically validate this model, we collected data (N=917) from four different companies.
The findings show that direct paths from threat appraisal, self-efficacy, normative beliefs,
and visibility to the intention to comply with IS security policies were significant. Response
efficacy, on the other hand, did not have a significant effect on the intention to comply with IS
security policies. Sanctions have a significant effect on actual compliance with IS security
policies, whereas rewards did not have a significant effect on actual compliance with the IS
security policies. Finally, the intention to comply with IS security policies has a significant
effect on actual compliance with the IS security policies.
Keywords: information security compliance, protection motivation theory, general
deterrence theory.
Introduction
Information security incidents that organizations have confronted within the last few years
have increased. While in 1997-1999 surveys, 37-50% of the organizations were victims of
information security breaches (Thompson, 1997), the same numbers in the years 2001-2003
ranged from 75% to 91% (Bagchi & Udo, 2003, p. 684; Gordon & Loeb, 2002 p. 438-439;
Hinde 2002 p. 310).
In order to cope with increased information security threats, not only different technical
protection means (e.g., anti-virus software tools) but also information security policies
(Dhillon & Backhouse, 2001; Siponen, 2005; Villarroel et al. 2005) have been suggested in
the literature. Employees in organizations, unfortunately, seldom comply with these
information security techniques and policies, placing their organization’s assets and interests
in serious jeopardy (Stanton et al. 2005 p. 125). Effective information security, therefore,
requires that employees comply with information security (IS) policies and guidelines. In
order to address this crucial information security concern, several IS security policy
compliance measures, often referred to as information security awareness, education, and
enforcement approaches, have been proposed in the information security literature. Aytes and
Connolly (2003), Pahnila et al. (2007), Puhakainen (2006), Siponen (2000) and Siponen et al.
(2007) have criticized existing information security awareness approaches as lacking not only
theoretically grounded methods, but also there is no empirical evidence on their effectiveness.
These studies show that while 30 information security awareness, education and enforcement
approaches exist, only four approaches incorporate a theoretically and empirically grounded
model. Of these four, Woon et al. (2005) studied wireless network users, while Straub (1990)
and Straub and Welke (1998) focused on classical deterrence theory, and Aytes and Connolly
(2004) apply the Rational Choice Model. Thus, with the exception of the studies by Straub
(1990), Straub and Welke (1998), and Aytes and Connolly (2004), the existing information
security awareness, education and enforcement approaches do not offer a theoretical model
combined with evidence that explains why employees in organizations do not comply with
information security guidelines, nor do they consider what factors affect employees’
information security policy compliance. This paper fills this gap in research by first building
a new theoretical model, derived from the Protection Motivation Theory, the General
Deterrence Theory, the Theory of Reasoned Action, The Innovation Diffusion Theory and
Rewards, aimed at explaining how employees’ compliance with information security policies
and guidelines can be improved. The model is then empirically validated using a quantitative
survey.
The results of this study are of relevance to researchers and practitioners. Since the existing
studies on information security policy compliance present only anecdotal information as to
which factors explain employees’ adherence to information security policies (with the three
exceptions; see Aytes & Connolly, 2004; Straub, 1990; Straub & Welke, 1998; Woon et al.
(2005), is it of the utmost importance to study this matter. This information is also useful for
practitioners who want to obtain empirically validated information as to how they can
improve their employees’ adherence to information security policies, and in the process,
enhance the security of their organization’s information.
The second section of the paper proposes the research model and third part discusses the
research methodology. The empirical findings are presented in the fourth section. The fifth
section discusses the implications of the study for practice.
The Research Model to Explain Employees’ Adherence to IS security policies
In this section, we present the theoretical model (Fig 1) which is derived from the Protection
Motivation Theory, the Theory of Reasoned Action, the Innovation Diffusion Theory, the
General Deterrence Theory and Rewards. We next we discuss each element of the theoretical
model in detail.
Normative beliefs means expectations of colleagues, peers and superiors, which may have a
persuasive influence on whether or not an employee will adhere to a specific behavior norm
(Ajzen, 1991). In the context of IS security policy compliance, we suggest, based on the idea
of normative beliefs, that the behavior of managers, IS security staff and peers will have a
persuasive effect on employees’ IS security policy compliance. Hence, we hypothesize:
H1: Normative beliefs affect employees’ intention to comply with information security
policies.
Threat appraisal
Threat appraisal consists of two dimensions: perceived vulnerability and perceived severity.
Perceived vulnerability means conditional probability that a negative event will take place if
no measures are taken to counter it (Rippetoe and Rogers, 1987). In the context of our study,
the negative event is any information security threat. Therefore also in the context of our
study, perceived vulnerability refers to employees’ perceived assessment of whether their
organization is vulnerable to information security threats, and the immediacy of such threats
if no measures are undertaken to counter them.
In turn, perceived severity encompasses both psychological and physical harm the threat can
cause (Rippetoe and Rogers, 1987). In the context of our study, it means potential negative
consequences caused by information security breaches for the organization.
Figure 2. The research model explaining compliance with information security policies.
Here our assumption is that if an organization’s employees do not realize that they are really
confronted by information security threats (threat appraisal) and if they do not feel that these
threats can cause consequences with a destructive impact for the organization (perceived
severity), they will not comply with information security policies. Therefore, we hypothesize:
H2: Threat appraisal affects employees’ intention to comply with information security
policies.
Self-efficacy and response efficacy
Response efficacy and self-efficacy come from a coping appraisal, which is a component of
the Protection Motivation Theory (Rogers 1983; Rogers and Prentice-Dunn, 1997). Response
efficacy relates to the belief in the perceived benefits of coping action (Rogers, 1983). That
is, carrying out the coping action removes the threat. In our study, it means that adherence to
information security policies is an effective mechanism for detecting an information security
threat. Self-efficacy emphasizes the individual’s ability or judgment of their capabilities to
perform the coping response actions (Bandura 1977). To place self-efficacy theory in the
context of our study, it refers to the situation whereby workers’ beliefs on whether they can
apply and adhere to IS security policies will lead to compliance with these policies. Maddux
and Rogers (1982) found in their study that self-efficacy was the most powerful predictor of
intention. Therefore, we hypothesize:
H3: Self-efficacy affects employees’ intention to comply with information security
H4
H8
H7
H6
H5
H3
H2
H1
Sanctions
Threat appraisal
Intention to comply w ith
informat ion secu rity
policies
Actual complianc e with
informat ion secu rity
policies
Visibility
Rewards
Normative beliefs
Self-efficacy
Response efficacy
policies.
H4: Response efficacy affects employees’ intention to comply with information security
policies.
Visibility. In technology acceptance literature, visibility refers to the degree to which one can see
others using the system (Moore and Benbasat, 1991). In the computer abuse context, it refers to the
overall visibility of IS security in an organization which, through different IS security actions
(enforcement of IS security policies), reduces computer abuse within the organization (Straub, 1990).
In our study, visibility represents environmental information which has persuasive effect on the
cognitive process. Accordingly, IS security visibility refers to the degree to which one can see not
only IS security actions, campaigns, advertisements, and formal or informal information
communications within the organization, but also security measures outside the organization via
media. Hence, we hypothesize:
H5: Visibility affects employees’ intention to comply with information security policies.
Sanctions. The concept of deterrence has been a key focus of criminological theories for
more than thirty years. A leading theory in the field is the General Deterrence Theory,
originally developed for controlling criminal behaviour (Higgins et al. 2005). Traditionally,
the classical deterrence theory suggests that certainty, severity, and celerity of punishment,
affect people’s decision on whether to commit a crime or not (Higgins et al. 2005). Certainty
means that an individual believes that his or her criminal behavior will be detected, while
severity means that it will be harshly punished. In turn, celerity signifies that the detection
will occur at once. Straub (1990) found that stating penalties for information security policy
non-compliance increases proper information security behavior. However, studies by Straub
(1990) and Straub and Welke (1998) employ what Higgins et al. (2005) call the classical
deterrence theory. Therefore, these seminal studies by Straub (1990, Straub and Welke 1998)
do not address three important components of contemporary General Deterrence Theory:
social disapproval, self-disapproval and impulsivity. Social disapproval refers to the degree to
which family members, friends and co-workers disapprove of an action. Self-disapproval
refers to an individual’s feeling of shame, guilt, and embarrassment about an action, while
impulsivity means low self-control, that is, the inability of an individual to resist a temptation
toward criminal behavior when an opportunity for it exists. This leads to the following
hypothesis:
H6. Sanctions affect employees’ actual compliance with information security policies.
Rewards. Rewards can be used as effective means for cultivating interest and increasing motivation
and performance (Cameron and Pierce 2002 p. 20). Rewards can be tangible (e.g., money, gold stars,
medals, and awards) or intangible (praise by peers) - the use of rewards is individual: what may work
as reinforcement for one person may not work for another person (Cameron and Pierce 2002 p. 24).
Considering employees’ attitudes and intentions toward actual compliance, we can hypothesize:
H7. Rewards affect employees’ actual compliance of the security policies
Intention
Intention to comply with information security policies and actual compliance with
information security policies are based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein
and Ajzen 1975). Attitude indicates a person’s positive or negative feelings toward some
stimulus object (Ajzen 1991). According to Ajzen (1991), intentions capture the motivational
factors that have an influence on behavior, and they indicate how hard people are willing to
try to perform the behavior in question. According to TRA, the stronger the intention to
commit oneself to a form of behavior, the more likely the behavior will be carried out.
According to our model, the stronger the intention to comply with information security
policies is, the more likely the individual will actually comply with the information security
policies. Rogers and Prentice-Dunn (1997) suggest that the intentions are the most applicable
measure of protection motivation. Previous research on technology acceptance, for instance,
shows that intentions are good predictors of actual behavior (e.g., Venkatesh et al., 2003),
which is adherence to information security policies in the context of our study. In our study,
behavioral intention is an indicator of the effects of persuasion related to information security
policies. Thus, we can hypothesize:
H8. Employees’ intention to comply with information security policies has a significant
impact on actual compliance with information security policies.
Research methodology
According to Straub (1989) and Boudreau et al. (2001), using validated and tested questions will
improve the reliability of constructs and results. Accordingly, we used items that have been tried and
tested by previous studies, when available (Table 1).
Table 1. Summary of research constructs.
Construct Theoretical background Measures modified from
Intention to comply The Theory of Reasoned Action Agarwal and Prasad (1998)
Moon and Kim (2001)
Actual compliance The Theory of Reasoned Action Limayem and Hirt (2003), Heijden (2003)
Normative belief The Theory of Reasoned Action Karahanna, Straub and Chervany (1999)
Threat appraisal and copying
appraisal
Protection Motivation theory Roger and Prentice-Dunn (1997)
Visibility Innovation Diffusion Theory Moore and Benbasat (1991), Straub (1990)
Sanctions The General Deterrence Theory Higgins, Wilson and Fell (2005)
Rewards Rewards Cameron and Pierce (2002)
All the items are measured using a standard seven-point Likert scale (strongly disagree – strongly
agree). Since the measures presented in table 2 are not previously tested in the context of information
security policy compliance, the present research tests these measures in that context. Hence, the
questions were pilot tested using 15 people. Based on their feedback, the readability factor of the
questions was improved. The data was collected from four Finnish companies. A total 3130
respondents were asked to fill out the web-based questionnaire. Taking into consideration missing
data and invalid responses, we had a total of 917 reliable responses. Thus, the response rate of the
survey was 29.3 %, which can be deemed to be acceptable. One company did not include in their
questionnaire the measure “years in service”, as shown in Table 2.
In this study, the data analysis was conducted using SPSS 14.0 and AMOS 6.0 structural equation
modeling software (SEM). The use of a SEM should be based on theory and on the researcher’s clear
view of the suggested model, since SEMs do not include sophisticated methods for model
specification. AMOS is a tool based on covariance which can be used for confirmatory factor
analysis.
As mentioned earlier, the content validity of the instrument was ensured by using experts and
practitioners who assessed the used items. Convergent validity was ensured by assessing the factor
loadings and by calculating variance extracted. We conducted a single confirmatory factor analysis
for each of the constructs. As Table 3 shows, nearly all the model items loaded well, exceeding the
0.50 (Hair et al. 1998). There were two items which where slightly below 0.50, but they are
acceptable, exceeding the threshold 0.40. Divergent validity was assessed by computing the
correlations between constructs. Correlations between all pairs of constructs were below the threshold
value of 0.90. Variance extracted from all the constructs exceeded 0.5 (Hair et al. 2006). Internal
consistency reliability among the items was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha. As Table 3
shows, Cronbach’s alpha exceeded the suggested value of 0.60 for all constructs. Hence, according to
results it seems that the reliability and validity of the constructs in the model are acceptable.
Results
The number of males (56.1%) and females (43.9%) are fairly equally distributed. Most of the
respondents are middle-aged, 31.3% representing the age group 31-40 and 30.0%
representing the age group 41-50 (Table 2).
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the respondents
Frequen cy Percen t
Gender (N=917)
Male 514 56.1
Female 403 43.9
Age (N=919)
<30 135 14.7
31-40 288 31.4
41-50 276 30.0
>50 220 23.9
Years in service in the existing company (N=670)
<5 202 30.1
5-10 155 23.1
>10 313 46.8
Most respondents have long working experience. Over forty six percent of the respondents
(46.7 %) have served in their company for more than ten years. Quite often selection bias,
which simply means that the respondents of a study are not relevant representatives of the
sample, limits the generalizability of the results (Hair, 1998). In our study, gender and age
groups of the respondents were fairly equally distributed, and they covered a wide
geographical area. While these issues are important to minimizing bias (Hair, 1998),
nevertheless the selection bias has to be mentioned as a potential limitation in generalizing
the results of the present study.
Table 3. Mean and standard deviation of the constructs.
Construct Mean Standard deviation Min Max
Actual compliance 6.16 0.98 1 7
Intention to comply 6.35 0.88 1 7
Normative beliefs 6.29 0.97 1 7
Threat appraisal 5.72 0.99 1 7
Response efficacy 4.75 1.43 1 7
Self-efficacy 5.89 1.02 1 7
Visibility 4.55 0.82 1 7
Sanctions 3.80 1.58 1 7
Rewards 2.67 1.44 1 7
Table 4. Convergent validity and internal consistency and reliability
Construct Items Factor loading Variance extracted
Cronbach’s alpha
Actual compliance Actcomp1 0.65 0.81
0.84
Actcomp2 0.88
Actcomp3 0.89
Intention to
comply
Intcomp1 0.71 0.80
0.85
Intcomp2 0.86
Intcomp3 0.84
Normative beliefs Normbel1 0.80 0.77
0.87
Normbel2 0.92
Normbel3 0.73
Normbel4 0.70
Threat appraisal Thrappr1 0.54 0.62
0.76
Thrappr2 0.65
Thrappr3 0.60
Thrappr4 0.61
Thrappr5 0.70
Thrappr6 Dropped
Response efficacy Respeffi1 0.73 0.75
0.80
Respeffi2 0.88
Respeffi3 0.66
Self-efficacy Selfeffi1 Dropped 0.85
0.83
Selfeffi2 0.89
Selfeffi3 0.80
Visib ility Visibi1 0.54 0.54
0.61
Visib i2 0.4 5
Visib i3 0.5 6
Visib i4 0.5 9
Sanctions Sanctio1 0.91 0.83
0.90
Sanctio2 0.96
Sanctio3 0.89
Sanctio4 Dropped
Sanctio5 0.59
Sanctio6 Dropped
Rewards Reward1 0.46 0.74
0.77
Reward2 0.91
Reward3 0.84
The model was estimated using the maximum likelihood method. The fitness of the model
was tested using the goodness-of-fit statistics, which indicate the degree of compatibility
between the proposed model and the observed covariances and correlations. The fit indices
chosen for this study are based on the literature, and represent two different fit characteristics:
absolute fit and comparative fit. The chi-square test (2) with degrees of freedom, p-value and
sample size is commonly used as an absolute model fit criteria (Hoyle, 1995; Schumacker &
Lomax, 1996). The root-mean-square residual index (RMSEA) is used to assess the error due
to simplification of the hypothesized model. The Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and Comparative
Fit Index (CFI) are recommended for comparing the hypothesized model to the independent
model (Hoyle, 1995; Schumacker & Lomax, 1996). The fit indices indicate that the research
model provides a good fit with the data. The recommended fit criteria and the result of our
analysis are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Fit criteria.
Model Criteria
212.717
df 6
p0.048
TLI 0.980 >0.9
CFI 0.997 >0.9
RMSEA 0.035 <0.05
The findings indicate that the direct paths from threat appraisal, self-efficacy, normative
beliefs and visibility to the intention to comply with IS security policies were significant.
Response efficacy, in turn, does not have a significant effect on intention to comply with IS
security policies (see table 6). Sanctions have significant effect on actual compliance with the
policies, whereas rewards did not have a significant effect on actual compliance. Intention to
comply with IS security policies has a significant effect on actual compliance with IS security
policies. The model accounts for 72 % (R2= 0.72) of the variance in intention to comply.
Standardized beta weight (ß) from intention to comply with IS security policies to actual
compliance with IS security policies was 0.40; p
0.05.
Table 6. Summary of hypotheses
Hypothesis Support
Intcomp Actcomp Supported
Thrappr Intcomp Supported
Respeffi Intcomp Not supported
Selfeffi Intcomp Supported
Normbel Intcomp Supported
Visib i Intcomp Supported
Sanctio Actcomp Supported
Reward Actcomp Not supported
Concluding discussion
The literature agrees that the major threat to information security is constituted by careless
employees who do not comply with organizations’ information security policies and
procedures. Hence, employees not only have to be aware of, but will also have to comply
with organizations’ information security policies and procedures. To address this important
concern, different information security awareness, education and enforcement approaches
have been proposed. Prior research on information security policy compliance has criticized
these extant information security policy compliance approaches as lacking theoretically
grounded and empirically validated principles to ensure that employees comply with
information security policies. In order to address these two problems in the literature, the
present research put forth a novel model in order to explain employees’ information security
compliance. The model combined the Protection Motivation Theory, the General Deterrence
Theory, the Theory of Reasoned Action, The Innovation Diffusion Theory and Rewards. The
proposed model was then empirically validated using data (N=917) collected from four
companies.
The findings of the present research indicated that the direct paths from threat appraisal, self-
efficacy, normative beliefs and visibility to intention to comply with IS security policies were
significant. Response efficacy, on the other hand, did not have a significant effect on
intention to comply with IS security policies. Sanctions also had a significant effect on actual
compliance with IS security policies whereas rewards did not have a significant effect on
actual compliance with them. Finally, intention to comply with IS security policies had a
significant effect on actual compliance.
The findings regarding threat appraisal suggest that employees should be made aware of the
information security threats and their severity and celerity for the organization by information
security staff. To be more precise, our findings regarding threat appraisal suggest that
information security personnel of an organization should emphasize to the employees that not
only are information security breaches becoming increasingly serious for the organization,
but also their severity with regard to conducting the normal business of the organization is
increasing.
Self-efficacy, as stated earlier, refers to the employees’ beliefs about whether they can apply
and adhere to information security policies. The present research empirically showed that
self-efficacy had a significant impact on intention to comply with information security
policies. The respondents do not see that the existence of security staff or IS security policies
as such keep the IS security breaches down. Instead, what is required, according to the results
of our study, is the respondents’ own actions in complying with IS security policies. This
finding also stresses the perceived relevance of information security policies. If information
security policies are not perceived as being relevant and sufficiently up-to-date for their work
by employees, they do not adhere to them. Yet, the finding also suggests that it is important
to ensure that, throughinformation security education, for example, employees really can use
information security measures.
Our results show that response efficacy does not have a significant effect on intention to
comply with information security policies. Sanctions have a significant impact on actual
compliance with information security policies. This is consistent with previous findings on IS
security that highlight the role of sanctions (Hoffer & Straub, 1989). This finding regarding
sanctions means in practice that practitioners need to state the sanctions for information
security policy non-compliance in a visible manner. In particular, it is important to get
employees to believe that their non-compliance with information security policies will be
detected and severe legal sanctions will take place. The findings suggest that the detection
must occur quickly. Also, on the basis of our findings regarding sanctions (social
disapproval) and normative beliefs, information security practitioners should realize that
social pressure towards information security policy compliance from top management,
immediate supervisor, peers and information security staff is important for ensuring
employees’ information security policy compliance. This is consistent with the findings that
the social environment has an effect on an individual’s behavior (Ajzen, 1991). To ensure
such social pressure, top management, immediate supervisors and information security staff
should explicitly make clear the importance of complying with information security policies
to their employees. This finding has implications for the information security education
strategy of organizations. In the light of our findings, organizations should pay special
attention to educating top management, immediate supervisors and information security staff
in order that they can spread the word on the importance of adhering to information security
policies, and in that way, create social pressure towards information security policy
compliance. This is definitely good news for large corporations who may have difficulty in
educating all their employees for practical reasons.
Our results suggest that visibility has a significant effect on intention to comply with IS
security policies. For practitioners, this means that IS security must be advocated in the
organization through education and campaigns in a visible manner. In other words, here the
importance is on the visibility, not the exact means by which the security matters are
advocated in organizations. External IS security visibility also has an impact on the cognitive
process of PMT. Potential sources of external visibility include news or commercials in
media such as newspapers, radio, the Internet or TV. For practitioners, this means that IS
security incidents reported in the media should be made visible to employees and these
should be discussed in organizations.
One possible explanation for rewards not having a significant effect on actual behavior is that
there may not be a tangible award system used in the organization. It is also possible that our
respondents did not receive any form of appreciation or positive acknowledgement for
complying with IS security policies from their organizations. Future research is needed to
study organizations that use both tangible and intangible reward systems to facilitate
adherence to IS security policy compliance.
Finally, intention to comply with information security policies had a significant impact on
actual compliance with information security policies. This is consistent with the literature in
the area of technology acceptance: the intention to use a form of technology is shown to
correlate with the actual use of that technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
References
Agarwal, R. and J. Prasad. "Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal
Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology." Information Systems
Research, 1998, 9:2, pp. 204-215.
Ajzen, I. "The Theory of Planned Behavior", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 50:2, 1991, pp.179-211.
Aytes, K. and Connolly, T. “A Research Model for Investigating Human Behavior Related to
Computer Security”, Proceedings of the 2003 American Conference On Information
Systems, Tampa, FL, August 4-6. 2003.
Aytes, K. and Connolly, T. “Computer and Risky Computing Practices: A Rational Choice
Perspective”, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16:2, 2004, pp. 22-40.
Bagchi, K. and Udo, G. “An analysis of the growth of computer and Internet security
breaches”, Communications of AIS 12, 2003, pp. 684–700.
Bandura, A. "Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behaviour Change", Psychological
Review 84:2, 1977, pp. 191-215.
Boudreau, M.-C., Gefen, D. and Straub, D. W. "Validation in information systems research:
A state-of-the-art assessment." MIS Quarterly 25:1, 2001, pp. 1-16.
Cameron, J. and Pierce, W. Rewards and intrinsic motivation. Westport, Conn: Bergin &
Garvey, 2002.
Dhillon, G. and Backhouse, J. “Current directions in information security research: toward
socio-organizational perspectives”, Information Systems Journal, 2001, 11:2.
Fishbein,M.andAjzen,I.Belief,Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research. MA, Addison-Wesley. 1975.
Gordon, L & Loeb, M. The economics of information security investment. ACM
Transactions on Information and System Security, 2002, 5:4, pp. 438-457.
Hair, J.F.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W. C. Multivariate data analysis.5th
ed: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall Inc, 1998.
Hair,J.F.J.,Black,W.C.,Babin,B.J.Anderson,R.E.,Tatham,R.L.Multivariate data
analysis. 6th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.
Heijden, H. V. D. "Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in
The Netherlands." Information & Management, 2003, 40, pp. 541-549.
Hoffer, J. A. and D. W. Straub. "The 9 to 5 Underground: Are you Policing Computer
Crimes." Sloan Management Review, 1989, 30:4, pp. 35-43.
Hoyle, R.H. Structural Equation Model. Concepts, Issues, and Applications,H.R.Hoyle
(ed.), SAGE publications, Inc, 1995.
Higgins, G.E., Wilson, A.L. and Fell, B.D. “An Application of Deterrence Theory to
Software Piracy”, Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 2005, 12:3, pp. 166-
184.
Hinde, S. “Security surveys spring crop”, Computers & Security, 2002, 21:4, pp. 310-321.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W. and Chervany, N. L. "Information technology adoption across
time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs", MIS
Quarterly, 1999, 23:2, pp. 183-213.
Limayem, M., and Hirt, S.G. “Force of Habit and Information Systems Usage: Theory and
Initial Validation”, Journal of Association for Information Systems, 2003, 4, pp. 65-97.
Moon, J.-W. and Y.-G. Kim. "Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context."
Information & Management, 2001, 38, pp. 217-230.
Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of
Adopting an Information Technology Innovation”. Information Systems Research, 1991,
2:3, pp. 191-222.
Pahnila, S., Siponen, M., Mahmood, A. ”Employees’ Behavior Towards IS Security Policy
Compliance”. Proceedings of 2007 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
2007.
Puhakainen, P. A design theory for information security awareness. Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, Oulu, Finland, 2006.
Rippetoe, S. and Rogers, R. W., “Effects of Components of Protection - Motivation Theory
on Adaptive and Maladaptive Coping with a Health Threat”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1987, 52:3, pp. 596-604.
Rogers, R. W. “Cognitive and Physiological Processes in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change:
A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation Theory”, in Social Psychophysiology,J.
Cacioppo and R. Petty (Eds.), Guilford, New York, 1983.
Rogers, R. W. and Prentice-Dunn, S. “Protection motivation theory”, In D. S. Gochman
(Ed.), Handbook of Health Behavior Research I: Personal and Social Determinants,New
York, NY, Plenum Press, 1997, pp. 113-132.
Schumacker, R.E. and R.G. Lomax, A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling,
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996, pp. 288.
Siponen, M. “A Conceptual Foundation for Organizational Information Security Awareness”,
Information Management & Computer Security, 2000, 8:1, pp. 31-41.
Siponen, M.T. “Analysis of modern information security development approaches: towards
the next generation of social and adaptable ISS methods”, Information and organization,
2005, 15:4, pp. 339-375.
Siponen, M. T., Pahnila, S., Mahmood, A. Adherence to Information Security Policies: An
Empirical Study. Proceedings of the IFIP SEC2007, Sandton, Gauteng, South Africa,
2007.
Stanton, J. M., Stam, K. R., Mastrangelo, P. and Jolton, J. “An analysis of end user security
behaviors”, Computers & Security, 2005, 24, pp. 124-133
Straub, D. W. “Validating Instruments in MIS Research", MIS Quarterly, 1989, 13:2, pp.
147-169.
Straub, D.W. "Effective IS Security: An Empirical Study", Information Systems Research,
1990, 1:3, pp. 255-276.
Straub, D.W. and Welke, R.J. "Coping with Systems Risk: Security Planning Models for.
Management Decision-Making", MIS Quarterly, 1998, 22:4, pp. 441-469.
Thompson, D. “1997 Computer crime and security survey”, Information Management &
Computer Security, 1998, 6:2, pp. 78–101.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B. and Davis, F. D. "User Acceptance of
Information Technology: Toward a Unified View", MIS Quarterly, 2003, 27:3, pp. 425-
478
Villarroel, R., Fernández-Medina, E. and Piattini, M. “Secure information systems
development – a survey and comparison”, Computers & Security, 2005, 24:4, pp. 308-
321.
Woon, I. M. Y., Tan, G. W. and Low, R. T. “A Protection Motivation Theory Approach to
Home Wireless Security”, Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Conference on
Information Systems, Las Vegas, 2005, pp. 367-380.
