IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v15y2013i1d10.1007_s10796-010-9265-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding insiders: An analysis of risk-taking behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Fariborz Farahmand

    (Purdue University)

  • Eugene H. Spafford

    (Purdue University)

Abstract

There is considerable research being conducted on insider threats directed to developing new technologies. At the same time, existing technology is not being fully utilized because of non-technological issues that pertain to economics and the human dimension. Issues related to how insiders actually behave are critical to ensuring that the best technologies are meeting their intended purpose. In our research, we have investigated accepted models of perceptions of risk and characteristics unique to insider threat, and we have introduced ordinal scales to these models to measure insider perceptions of risk. We have also investigated decision theories, leading to a conclusion that prospect theory, developed by Tversky and Kahneman, may be used to describe the risk-taking behavior of insiders and can be accommodated in our model. Our results indicate that there is an inverse relationship between perceived risk and benefit by insiders and that their behavior cannot be explained well by the models that are based on the traditional methods of engineering risk analysis and expected utility. We discuss the results of validating that model with forty-two senior information security executives from a variety of organizations. We also discuss how the model may be used to identify characteristics of insiders’ perceptions of risk and benefit, their risk-taking behavior and how to frame insider decisions. Finally, we recommend understanding risk of detection and creating a fair working environment to reduce the likelihood of committing criminal acts by insiders.

Suggested Citation

  • Fariborz Farahmand & Eugene H. Spafford, 2013. "Understanding insiders: An analysis of risk-taking behavior," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 5-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:15:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s10796-010-9265-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10796-010-9265-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10796-010-9265-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10796-010-9265-x?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Dan Lovallo, 1993. "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 17-31, January.
    2. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. repec:bla:jfinan:v:53:y:1998:i:5:p:1775-1798 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Murray E. Jennex & Suzanne Zyngier, 2007. "Security as a contributor to knowledge management success," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 493-504, November.
    6. Finn Olav Sveen & Eliot Rich & Matthew Jager, 2007. "Overcoming organizational challenges to secure knowledge management," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 481-492, November.
    7. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    8. Robin L. Dillon & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2008. "How Near-Misses Influence Decision Making Under Risk: A Missed Opportunity for Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1425-1440, August.
    9. John D'Arcy & Anat Hovav & Dennis Galletta, 2009. "User Awareness of Security Countermeasures and Its Impact on Information Systems Misuse: A Deterrence Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 79-98, March.
    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. Hoon S. Choi & Darrell Carpenter & Myung S. Ko, 2022. "Risk Taking Behaviors Using Public Wi-Fi™," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 965-982, June.
    2. John A. Sokolowski & Catherine M. Banks & Thomas J. Dover, 2016. "An agent-based approach to modeling insider threat," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 273-287, September.
    3. Martin Offei & Francis Kofi Andoh-Baidoo & Emmanuel W. Ayaburi & David Asamoah, 2022. "How Do Individuals Justify and Rationalize their Criminal Behaviors in Online Romance Fraud?," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 475-491, April.
    4. Shuyuan Mary Ho & Merrill Warkentin, 0. "Leader’s dilemma game: An experimental design for cyber insider threat research," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    5. Carly L. Huth & David W. Chadwick & William R. Claycomb & Ilsun You, 2013. "Guest editorial: A brief overview of data leakage and insider threats," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 1-4, March.
    6. Shaio Yan Huang & Chi-Chen Lin & An-An Chiu & David C. Yen, 2017. "Fraud detection using fraud triangle risk factors," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 1343-1356, December.
    7. Ruochen Liao & Shenaz Balasinorwala & H. Raghav Rao, 2017. "Computer assisted frauds: An examination of offender and offense characteristics in relation to arrests," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 443-455, June.
    8. Shaio Yan Huang & Chi-Chen Lin & An-An Chiu & David C. Yen, 0. "Fraud detection using fraud triangle risk factors," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-14.
    9. Shuyuan Mary Ho & Merrill Warkentin, 2017. "Leader’s dilemma game: An experimental design for cyber insider threat research," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 377-396, April.
    10. Laurence Brooks & M. Shahanoor Alam, 2015. "Designing an information system for updating land records in Bangladesh: Action design ethnographic research (ADER)," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 79-93, February.

    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. Hönl, Andreas & Meissner, Philip & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Risk attribution theory: An exploratory conceptualization of individual choice under uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 20-27.
    2. Hardin, Andrew M. & Looney, Clayton Arlen, 2012. "Myopic loss aversion: Demystifying the key factors influencing decision problem framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 311-331.
    3. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    4. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    5. Martín Egozcue & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2015. "Optimal output for the regret-averse competitive firm under price uncertainty," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(2), pages 279-295, December.
    6. T. K. Das & Bing-Sheng Teng, 1998. "Time and Entrepreneurial Risk Behavior," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 22(2), pages 69-88, January.
    7. Tomas Bonavia & Josué Brox-Ponce, 2018. "Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    8. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    9. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    10. Raymond H. Chan & Ephraim Clark & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2020. "New development on the third-order stochastic dominance for risk-averse and risk-seeking investors with application in risk management," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(2), pages 108-132, June.
    11. Philip Bromiley, 2009. "A Prospect Theory Model of Resource Allocation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 124-138, September.
    12. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    13. Christiane Ernst & Christian Thöni, 2013. "Bimodal Bidding in Experimental All-Pay Auctions," Games, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-16, October.
    14. LiCalzi, Marco & Sorato, Annamaria, 2006. "The Pearson system of utility functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 560-573, July.
    15. Chantal C. Cantarelli & Bent Flybjerg & Eric J. E. Molin & Bert van Wee, 2013. "Cost overruns in Large-Scale Transportation Infrastructure Projects: Explanations and Their Theoretical Embeddedness," Papers 1307.2176, arXiv.org.
    16. Meissner, Philip & Wulf, Torsten, 2014. "Antecendents and effects of decision comprehensiveness: The role of decision quality and perceived uncertainty," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 625-635.
    17. Barberis, Nicholas & Huang, Ming, 2009. "Preferences with frames: A new utility specification that allows for the framing of risks," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1555-1576, August.
    18. Steul, Martina, 2006. "Does the framing of investment portfolios influence risk-taking behavior? Some experimental results," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 557-570, August.
    19. Alexander K. Koch & Julia Nafziger, 2019. "Correlates of Narrow Bracketing," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(4), pages 1441-1472, October.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:4:p:361-379 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.

    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:spr:infosf:v:15:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s10796-010-9265-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.