The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A review and analysis of deterrence theory in the IS security literature: making sense of the disparate findings
Abstract
Deterrence theory is one of the most widely applied theories in information systems (IS) security research, particularly within behavioral IS security studies. Based on the rational choice view of human behavior, the theory predicts that illicit behavior can be controlled by the threat of sanctions that are certain, severe, and swift. IS scholars have used deterrence theory to predict user behaviors that are either supportive or disruptive of IS security, and other IS security-related outcome variables. A review of this literature suggests an uneven and often contradictory picture regarding the influence of sanctions and deterrence theory in general in the IS security context. In this paper, we set out to make sense of the discrepant findings in the IS deterrence literature by drawing upon the more mature body of deterrence literature that spans multiple disciplines. In doing so, we speculate that a set of contingency variables and methodological and theoretical issues can shed light on the inconsistent findings and inform future research in this area. The review and analysis presented in this paper facilitates a deeper understanding of deterrence theory in the IS security domain, which can assist in cumulative theory-building efforts and advance security management strategies rooted in deterrence principles.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206306294258 · Cited by 1,837
Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: a meta-analysis
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.3.238 · Cited by 667 · cited 1×
“Concomitant with this is that external constraints that would typically regulate deviant behavior are rendered less effective (Postmes & Spears, 1998).”
BackgroundPredd, J., Pfleeger, S. L., Hunker, J., & Bulford, C. (2008) · IEEE Security & Privacy Magazine · doi:10.1109/msp.2008.87 · Cited by 79
Cited by
Toward a Unified Model of Information Security Policy Compliance1
Moody, G. D., Siponen, M., & Pahnila, S. (2018) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2018/13853 · Cited by 450
Hwang, K., & Choi, M. (2017) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2017.02.001 · Cited by 85
Metadata
- Authors
- D'Arcy, J., & Herath, T.
- Venue
- European Journal of Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-11
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 643-658
- ISSN
- 0960-085X (ISSN-L)
- 1476-9344
- OpenAlex
- W2024419606
- Cited by
- 373
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 47.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A review and analysis of deterrence theory in the IS security literature: making sense of the disparate findings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1057/ejis.2011.23
- The paper
- D'Arcy, J., & Herath, T. (2011). A review and analysis of deterrence theory in the IS security literature: making sense of the disparate findings. European Journal of Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.23
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.