IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v16y2019i3p157-171.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characterizing Conflicting User Values for Cyber Authentication Using a Virtual Public Values Forum

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Kusumastuti

    (Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089; National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE), University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089)

  • Heather Rosoff

    (National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE), University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089)

  • Richard S. John

    (Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089; National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE), University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089)

Abstract

Authentication is a major component in protecting the security of online user services. An effective implementation of security policies requires compliance from users, who are one class of key stakeholders in the cybersecurity policy decision problem. We examine this multiple stakeholder decision problem by conducting a virtual public values forum, a policy decision structuring methodology to characterize stakeholder values by eliciting essential trade‐offs among conflicting objectives. We assess trade‐offs for a sample of users to explore heterogeneity in user values and the relationship of trade‐offs to both individual user characteristics and online context. We obtained responses from 265 online service users and elicited their trade‐offs among three conflicting objectives related to authentication security: (1) maximizing security, (2) maximizing convenience, and (3) minimizing cost. Using an additive multiattribute value model with four attributes, we obtained scaling coefficients that denote the relative valuation of each attribute to the decision maker and discovered that for the attribute ranges considered, security followed by cost receive the highest priority; however, there is a group of respondents who consider convenience to have higher valuation than either cost or security. We also explore the relationships between user characteristics (self-efficacy, response efficacy, response cost, and perceived severity) and the calculated scaling coefficients.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Kusumastuti & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2019. "Characterizing Conflicting User Values for Cyber Authentication Using a Virtual Public Values Forum," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 157-171, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:16:y:2019:i:3:p:157-171
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.2018.0383
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2018.0383
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.2018.0383?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ralph L. Keeney & Timothy L. McDaniels, 1992. "Value-Focused Thinking about Strategic Decisions at BC Hydro," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 94-109, December.
    2. Ralph L. Keeney & Detlof von Winterfeldt & Thomas Eppel, 1990. "Eliciting Public Values for Complex Policy Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(9), pages 1011-1030, September.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. L. Robin Keller & Craig W. Kirkwood & Nancy S. Jones, 2010. "Assessing stakeholder evaluation concerns: An application to the Central Arizona water resources system," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 58-71, March.
    5. Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 1994. "Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(8), pages 1035-1048, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vicki M. Bier & Simon French, 2020. "From the Editors: Decision Analysis Focus and Trends," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 1-8, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Badami, Madhav G., 2004. "Environmental policy-making in a difficult context: motorized two-wheeled vehicle emissions in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(16), pages 1861-1877, November.
    2. Hobbs, Benjamin F & Horn, Graham TF, 1997. "Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 357-375, February.
    3. Kenneth C. Fletcher & Ali E. Abbas, 2018. "A Value Measure for Public‐Sector Enterprise Risk Management: A TSA Case Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 991-1008, May.
    4. Melissa Garber & Shahram Sarkani & Thomas Mazzuchi, 2017. "A Framework for Multiobjective Decision Management with Diverse Stakeholders," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 335-356, July.
    5. Timothy McDaniels & William Trousdale, 1999. "Value-Focused Thinking in a Difficult Context: Planning Tourism for Guimaras, Philippines," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 58-70, August.
    6. Ralph L. Keeney, 2012. "Value-Focused Brainstorming," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 303-313, December.
    7. Gregory, Robin & Slovic, Paul, 1997. "A constructive approach to environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 175-181, June.
    8. Marttunen, Mika & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 1995. "Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 551-563, December.
    9. Timothy McDaniels, 2021. "Four Decades of Transformation in Decision Analytic Practice for Societal Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 491-502, March.
    10. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2009. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2535-2548, August.
    11. Ralph L. Keeney & Timothy L. McDaniels, 1999. "Identifying and Structuring Values to Guide Integrated Resource Planning at BC Gas," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 651-662, October.
    12. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    13. Donald L. Keefer & Craig W. Kirkwood & James L. Corner, 2004. "Perspective on Decision Analysis Applications, 1990–2001," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 4-22, March.
    14. Keeney, Ralph L., 1996. "Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 537-549, August.
    15. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    16. Gurpreet Dhillon & Kane J. Smith, 2019. "Defining Objectives for Preventing Cyberstalking," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 137-158, June.
    17. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2006. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2604-2622.
    18. Shapansky, Bradford & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 2008. "Assessing information provision and respondent involvement effects on preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 626-635, April.
    19. Gregory, Robin & Wellman, Katharine, 2001. "Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-52, October.
    20. Nigel Martin & John Rice, 2010. "Analysing emission intensive firms as regulatory stakeholders: a role for adaptable business strategy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 64-75, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:16:y:2019:i:3:p:157-171. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.