IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v28y2017i2p378-396.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coping Responses in Phishing Detection: An Investigation of Antecedents and Consequences

Author

Listed:
  • Jingguo Wang

    (Information Systems and Operations Management, College of Business, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas 76019)

  • Yuan Li

    (Department of Management Information Systems, College of Business and Management, University of Illinois at Springfield, Springfield, Illinois 62703)

  • H. Raghav Rao

    (Department of Information Systems and Cyber Security, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas 78249; Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas 78249)

Abstract

This study investigates users’ coping responses in the process of phishing email detection. Three common responses are identified based on the coping literature: task-focused coping, emotion-focused coping (i.e., worry and self-criticism), and avoidance coping. The three responses are used to conceptualize a higher-order construct, coping adaptiveness, that resides on a continuum between maladaptive coping and adaptive coping (manifested as increased task-focused coping and decreased emotion-focused coping and avoidance coping). Drawing on the extended parallel process model and behavioral decision-making literature, this paper examines the antecedents (i.e., perceived phishing threat, perceived detection efficacy, and phishing anxiety) and behavioral consequences (i.e., detection effort and detection accuracy) of coping adaptiveness. A survey experiment with 547 U.S. consumers was conducted. The results show that perceived detection efficacy increases coping adaptiveness. Partially mediated by phishing anxiety, perceived phishing threat decreases coping adaptiveness. Coping adaptiveness positively impacts the two objective measures in the study, detection effort and detection accuracy. The results also suggest that coping adaptiveness and detection effort have different effects on false positives compared to false negatives: detection effort fully mediates the effect of coping adaptiveness on false positive rate (or detection accuracy related to legitimate emails), but has no impact on false negatives (or detection accuracy related to phishing emails), unlike coping adaptiveness. A post hoc analysis on coping responses reveals two patterns of coping among subjects, throwing more light on coping in phishing detection. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Jingguo Wang & Yuan Li & H. Raghav Rao, 2017. "Coping Responses in Phishing Detection: An Investigation of Antecedents and Consequences," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 378-396, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:28:y:2017:i:2:p:378-396
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2016.0680
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0680
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2016.0680?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. Peter Todd & Izak Benbasat, 1999. "Evaluating the Impact of DSS, Cognitive Effort, and Incentives on Strategy Selection," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 356-374, December.
    2. Siegel-Jacobs, Karen & Yates, J. Frank, 1996. "Effects of Procedural and Outcome Accountability on Judgment Quality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 1-17, January.
    3. Ryan T. Wright & Matthew L. Jensen & Jason Bennett Thatcher & Michael Dinger & Kent Marett, 2014. "Research Note ---Influence Techniques in Phishing Attacks: An Examination of Vulnerability and Resistance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 385-400, June.
    4. Bettman, James R. & Johnson, Eric J. & Payne, John W., 1990. "A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 111-139, February.
    5. Eric J. Johnson & John W. Payne, 1985. "Effort and Accuracy in Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 395-414, April.
    6. Rasha Salah El-Din & Paul Cairns & John Clark, 2014. "Mobile Users' Strategies for Managing Phishing Attacks," Journal of Management and Strategy, Journal of Management and Strategy, Sciedu Press, vol. 5(2), pages 70-81, May.
    7. Garbarino, Ellen C & Edell, Julie A, 1997. "Cognitive Effort, Affect, and Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 147-158, September.
    8. Michael Workman, 2008. "Wisecrackers: A theory‐grounded investigation of phishing and pretext social engineering threats to information security," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(4), pages 662-674, February.
    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. Nobles Calvin, 2022. "Stress, Burnout, and Security Fatigue in Cybersecurity: A Human Factors Problem," HOLISTICA – Journal of Business and Public Administration, Sciendo, vol. 13(1), pages 49-72, July.
    2. Fu, Shixuan & Zheng, Xiaojiang & Wang, Hongpeng & Luo, Yunzhong, 2023. "Fear appeals and coping appeals for health product promotion: Impulsive purchasing or psychological distancing?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Liu, Yu-li & Yan, Wenjia & Hu, Bo, 2021. "Resistance to facial recognition payment in China: The influence of privacy-related factors," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5).
    4. Yan Chen & Dennis F. Galletta & Paul Benjamin Lowry & Xin (Robert) Luo & Gregory D. Moody & Robert Willison, 2021. "Understanding Inconsistent Employee Compliance with Information Security Policies Through the Lens of the Extended Parallel Process Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 1043-1065, September.
    5. Xiongfei Cao & Ali Nawaz Khan & Ahsan Ali & Naseer Abbas Khan, 2020. "Consequences of Cyberbullying and Social Overload while Using SNSs: A Study of Users’ Discontinuous Usage Behavior in SNSs," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 1343-1356, December.
    6. Ahmed Abbasi & David Dobolyi & Anthony Vance & Fatemeh Mariam Zahedi, 2021. "The Phishing Funnel Model: A Design Artifact to Predict User Susceptibility to Phishing Websites," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 410-436, June.
    7. Xiongfei Cao & Ali Nawaz Khan & Ahsan Ali & Naseer Abbas Khan, 0. "Consequences of Cyberbullying and Social Overload while Using SNSs: A Study of Users’ Discontinuous Usage Behavior in SNSs," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-14.

    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. S. Iglesias-Parro & A. Ortega & E. De la Fuente & I. Martín, 2001. "Context Variables as Cognitive Effort Modulators in Decision Making Using an Alternative-Based Processing Strategy," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 311-323, August.
    2. Naci Akdemir & Serkan Yenal, 2021. "How Phishers Exploit the Coronavirus Pandemic: A Content Analysis of COVID-19 Themed Phishing Emails," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    3. Cédric Gutierrez & Tomasz Obloj & Douglas H. Frank, 2021. "Better to have led and lost than never to have led at all? Lost leadership and effort provision in dynamic tournaments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 774-801, April.
    4. Dennis F. Galletta & Raymond M. Henry & Scott McCoy & Peter Polak, 2006. "When the Wait Isn’t So Bad: The Interacting Effects of Website Delay, Familiarity, and Breadth," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 20-37, March.
    5. Chattaraman, Veena & Kwon, Wi-Suk & Ross, Kassandra & Sung, Jihyun & Alikhademi, Kiana & Richardson, Brianna & Gilbert, Juan E., 2024. "‘Smart’ Choice? Evaluating AI-Based mobile decision bots for in-store decision-making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    6. Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D. & Wilson, Darryl D. & Ross Taylor, A. & Kottemann, Jeffrey E., 2006. "User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 273-285, February.
    7. O. Alan Tidwell & Paul Gallimore, 2014. "The influence of a decision support tool on real estate valuations," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 45-63, March.
    8. Jella Pfeiffer & Michael Scholz, 2013. "A Low-Effort Recommendation System with High Accuracy," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 5(6), pages 397-408, December.
    9. Chu, P. C. & Spires, Eric E., 2003. "Perceptions of accuracy and effort of decision strategies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 203-214, July.
    10. Alan L. Montgomery & Kartik Hosanagar & Ramayya Krishnan & Karen B. Clay, 2004. "Designing a Better Shopbot," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 189-206, February.
    11. Martin S. Schilling & Nadine Oeser & Cornelius Schaub, 2007. "How Effective Are Decision Analyses? Assessing Decision Process and Group Alignment Effects," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 227-242, December.
    12. Gerald Häubl & Valerie Trifts, 2000. "Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 4-21, May.
    13. Mathmann, Frank & Chylinski, Mathew & de Ruyter, Ko & Higgins, E. Tory, 2017. "When Plentiful Platforms Pay Off: Assessment Orientation Moderates the Effect of Assortment Size on Choice Engagement and Product Valuation," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 212-227.
    14. Sonntag, Axel, 2015. "Search costs and adaptive consumers: Short time delays do not affect choice quality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 64-79.
    15. Hall, Angela T. & Bowen, Michael G. & Ferris, Gerald R. & Royle, M. Todd & Fitzgibbons, Dale E., 2007. "The accountability lens: A new way to view management issues," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 50(5), pages 405-413.
    16. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    17. Meißner, Martin & Oppewal, Harmen & Huber, Joel, 2020. "Surprising adaptivity to set size changes in multi-attribute repeated choice tasks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 163-175.
    18. Nitin Walia & Mark Srite & Wendy Huddleston, 2016. "Eyeing the web interface: the influence of price, product, and personal involvement," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 297-333, September.
    19. Rosenboim, Mosi & Shavit, Tal & Cohen, Chen, 2013. "Do bidders require a monetary premium for cognitive effort in an auction?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 99-105.
    20. Sulin Ba & Jan Stallaert & Andrew B. Whinston, 2001. "Research Commentary: Introducing a Third Dimension in Information Systems Design—The Case for Incentive Alignment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 225-239, September.

    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:orisre:v:28:y:2017:i:2:p:378-396. 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.