The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving Employees' Compliance Through Information Systems Security Training: An Action Research Study1
Abstract
Employee noncompliance with information systems security policies is a key concern for organizations. If users do not comply with IS security policies, security solutions lose their efficacy. Of the different IS security policy compliance approaches, training is the most commonly suggested in the literature. Yet, few of the existing studies about training to promote IS policy compliance utilize theory to explain what learning principles affect user compliance with IS security policies, or offer empirical evidence of their practical effectiveness. Consequently, there is a need for IS security training approaches that are theory-based and empirically evaluated. Accordingly, we propose a training program based on two theories: the universal constructive instructional theory and the elaboration likelihood model. We then validate the training program for IS security policy compliance training through an action research project. The action research intervention suggests that the theory-based training achieved positive results and was practical to deploy. Moreover, the intervention suggests that information security training should utilize contents and methods that activate and motivate the learners to systematic cognitive processing of information they receive during the training. In addition, the action research study made clear that a continuous communication process was also required to improve user IS security policy compliance. The findings of this study offer new insights for scholars and practitioners involved in IS security policy compliance.
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
Vygotsky, L. S. (1964) · Bulletin of the Orton Society · doi:10.1007/bf02928399 · Cited by 20,704
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes
Lakatos, I. (1970) · Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139171434.009 · Cited by 4,649
Walsham, G. (2006) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000589 · Cited by 2,217
Diversity in information systems action research methods
Baskerville, R., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1998) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000298 · Cited by 689
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
Self-citationConfiguring New Business Models for Circular Economy through Product–Service Systems
P. P. Pieroni, M., C. McAloone, T., & C. A. Pigosso, D. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11133727 · Cited by 150
Devising and Detecting Phishing Emails Using Large Language Models
Heiding, F., Schneier, B., Vishwanath, A., Bernstein, J., & Park, P. S. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3375882 · Cited by 123
Emerging technologies and the use case: A multi‐year study of drone adoption
Maghazei, O., Lewis, M. A., & Netland, T. H. (2022) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1002/joom.1196 · Cited by 117
Solutions for counteracting human deception in social engineering attacks
Campbell, C. C. (2019) · Information Technology & People · doi:10.1108/itp-12-2017-0422 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Puhakainen, P., & Siponen, M.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2010-12-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 757-778
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W2170899042
- Cited by
- 638
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 73.19
- 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
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.