The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A conceptual foundation for organizational information security awareness
Abstract
Education The current approaches in terms of information security awareness and education are descriptive (i.e. they are not accomplishment-oriented nor do they recognize the factual/normative dualism); and current research has not explored the possibilities offered by motivation/behavioural theories. The first situation, level of descriptiveness, is deemed to be questionable because it may prove eventually that end-users fail to internalize target goals and do not follow security guidelines, for example ± which is inadequate. Moreover, the role of motivation in the area of information security is not considered seriously enough, even though its role has been widely recognised. To tackle such weaknesses, this paper constructs a conceptual foundation for information systems/organizational security awareness. The normative and prescriptive nature of end-user guidelines will be considered. In order to understand human behaviour, the behavioural science framework, consisting in intrinsic motivation, a theory of planned behaviour and a technology acceptance model, will be depicted and applied. Current approaches (such as the campaign) in the area of information security awareness and education will be analysed from the viewpoint of the theoretical framework, resulting in information on their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, a novel persuasion strategy aimed at increasing users ' commitment to security guidelines is presented.
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
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
(1997) · Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found its Language · doi:10.4135/9781446221815.n7 · Cited by 15,148
Mathieson, K. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.173 · Cited by 4,216
Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study
Straub, D., Keil, M., & Brenner, W. (1997) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/s0378-7206(97)00026-8 · Cited by 1,246
Cited by
Protection motivation and deterrence: a framework for security policy compliance in organisations
Herath, T., & Rao, H. R. (2009) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2009.6 · Cited by 1,249
Fear Appeals and Information Security Behaviors: An Empirical Study1
Johnston, A. C., & Warkentin, M. (2010) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25750691 · Cited by 1,247
Employees' Behavior towards IS Security Policy Compliance
Pahnila, S., Siponen, M., & Mahmood, A. (2007) · 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2007.206 · Cited by 429
Self-citationUnderstanding Nonmalicious Security Violations in the Workplace: A Composite Behavior Model
Guo, K. H., Yuan, Y., Archer, N. P., & Connelly, C. E. (2011) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222280208 · Cited by 405
User Participation in Information Systems Security Risk Management1
Spears, J. L., & Barki, H. (2010) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25750689 · Cited by 281
Metadata
- Authors
- Siponen, M. T.
- Venue
- Information Management & Computer Security
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-41
- ISSN
- 0968-5227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2049571112
- Cited by
- 617
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 15.71
- 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 conceptual foundation for organizational information security awareness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09685220010371394
- The paper
- Siponen, M. T. (2000). A conceptual foundation for organizational information security awareness. Information Management & Computer Security. https://doi.org/10.1108/09685220010371394
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.