Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 218

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimating the Contextual Risk of Data Breach: An Empirical Approach

Sen, Ravi, Borle, Sharad·2015·Journal of Management Information Systems

Abstract

Data breach incidents are on the rise, and have resulted in severe financial and legal implications for the affected organizations. We apply the opportunity theory of crime, the institutional anomie theory, and institutional theory to identify factors that could increase or decrease the contextual risk of data breach. We investigate the risk of data breach in the context of an organization’s physical location, its primary industry, and the type of data breach that it may have suffered in the past. Given the location of an organization, the study finds support for application of the opportunity theory of crime and the institutional anomie theory in estimating the risk of data breach incidents within a state. In the context of the primary industry in which an organization operates, we find support for the institutional theory and the opportunity theory of crime in estimating risk of data breach incidents within an industry. Interestingly though, support for the opportunity theory of crime is partial. We find that investment in information technology (IT) security corresponds to a higher risk of data breach incidents within both a state and an industry, a result contrary to the one predicted by the opportunity theory of crime. A possible explanation for the contradiction is that investments in IT security are not being spent on the right kind of data security controls, a fact supported by evidence from the industry. The work has theoretical and practical implications. Theories from criminology are used to identify the risk factors of data breach incidents and the magnitude of their impact on the risk of data breach. Insights from the study can help IT security practitioners to assess the risk environment of their firm (in terms of data breaches) based on the firm’s location, its industry sector, and the kind of breaches that the firm may typically be prone to.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07421222.2015.1063315

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 218

Metadata

Authors
Sen, R., & Borle, S.
Venue
Journal of Management Information Systems
Published
2015-04-03
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
314-341
ISSN
  • 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-928X
OpenAlex
W1533444565
Cited by
218
References
1
FWCI
31.53
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: Estimating the Contextual Risk of Data Breach: An Empirical Approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/07421222.2015.1063315
The paper
Sen, R., & Borle, S. (2015). Estimating the Contextual Risk of Data Breach: An Empirical Approach. Journal of Management Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1063315

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.