Cited by 104User Authentication and Security SystemsAdvanced Authentication Protocols SecurityTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Usable security: User preferences for authentication methods in eBanking and the effects of experience

Weir, Catherine S., Douglas, Gary, Richardson, Tim, Jack, Mervyn·2010·Interacting with Computers

Abstract

Multi-factor authentication involves the use of more than one mode in authentication processes and is typically employed to increase security compared to a fixed password (knowledge-based mode). This research compared three different eBanking authentication processes, a two-layer password (1-factor) method and two alternative 2-factor solutions. The 2-factor processes used One-Time-Passcodes (OTPs) delivered either via a small, single-use device or by text message to a mobile phone. The three authentication methods were compared in a repeated-measures experiment with 141 participants. Three user groups were balanced in the experiment to investigate the effect of experience (current users of the service) on perceptions of usability and security. Attitudes toward usability and observations were taken for each process. Other data gathered quality ratings, preferences and ranked comparisons regarding convenience and security issues. Both 2-factor methods scored significantly higher than the 1-factor method for eBanking authentication usability metrics overall, but experienced users gave higher scores to the 1-factor method they currently use. Overall preferences were spread evenly between the three methods. However, the majority of the participant sample perceived the 1-factor method they had most experience with as being the most secure and most convenient option. The results offer insight into customer attitudes important in their selection of authentication options: convenienc…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.intcom.2009.10.001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior work has shown that lack of clarity about the functionality and security benefits of authentication methods leads to lower security ratings, lower acceptance, and reluctance to switch to a new authentication method.

    “Prior work has shown that lack of clarity about the functionality and security benefits of authentication methods leads to lower security ratings, lower acceptance, and reluctance to switch to a new authentication method [34], [33], [55], [26].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weir, C. S., Douglas, G., Richardson, T., & Jack, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Lloyds Banking Group (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Weir, Catherine S.
Venue
Interacting with Computers
Published
2010-05
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
153-164
ISSN
0953-5438 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059942829
Cited by
104
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
13.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Interacting with Computers (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › User Authentication and Security Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Advanced Authentication Protocols Security
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
usable security, multi-factor authentication, two-factor authentication, authentication mechanisms, user experience, user preferences, perceived security, convenience, password authentication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review