IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v24y2022i5d10.1007_s10796-019-09970-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Examination of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messaging on Smart Home Security Training Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Miloslava Plachkinova

    (University of Tampa)

  • Philip Menard

    (University of Texas at San Antonio)

Abstract

The Internet of Things (IoT) has gained popularity among home consumers due to its characteristics related to automation, information gathering, and purported physical security benefits. In an effort to capitalize on an expanding market, IoT developers have rushed products to market without proper due diligence regarding device cybersecurity. By being more focused on the utility and convenience of IoT devices without being concerned about their devices’ inherent security flaws, consumers may be unwittingly putting themselves at risk. Gain- and loss-framed messaging has been an extensively studied form of persuasive communication in other research fields but has not been previously examined in the context of information security research. Using an experimental design, we assess the efficacy of applying gain- and loss-framed principles to a security education training and awareness (SETA) program designed to bolster IoT users’ concerns related to pertinent IoT-based threats and provide information about their corresponding countermeasures. We found that for consumers with low initial IoT security concerns, loss-framed messaging is more effective in increasing security concerns. For consumers with higher initial concerns, messages focusing on desirable outcomes, regardless of an overall gain- or loss-framed message valence, are effective at increasing IoT security concerns.

Suggested Citation

  • Miloslava Plachkinova & Philip Menard, 2022. "An Examination of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messaging on Smart Home Security Training Programs," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 1395-1416, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:24:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s10796-019-09970-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10796-019-09970-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10796-019-09970-6
    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/s10796-019-09970-6?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. Landers, Richard N. & Behrend, Tara S., 2015. "An Inconvenient Truth: Arbitrary Distinctions Between Organizational, Mechanical Turk, and Other Convenience Samples," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 142-164, June.
    2. Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Davidson, Rosemary & Bicket, Martha & Whitmarsh, Lorraine, 2013. "Social barriers to the adoption of smart homes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 363-374.
    3. Matthew J C Crump & John V McDonnell & Todd M Gureckis, 2013. "Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a Tool for Experimental Behavioral Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Smith, Nicholas A. & Sabat, Isaac E. & Martinez, Larry R. & Weaver, Kayla & Xu, Shi, 2015. "A Convenient Solution: Using MTurk To Sample From Hard-To-Reach Populations," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 220-228, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Deena A. Isom & Hunter M. Boehme & Toniqua C. Mikell & Stephen Chicoine & Marion Renner, 2021. "Status Threat, Social Concerns, and Conservative Media: A Look at White America and the Alt-Right," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Laurie A. Garrow & Ziran Chen & Mohammad Ilbeigi & Virginie Lurkin, 2020. "A new twist on the gig economy: conducting surveys on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 23-42, February.
    3. Shuili Du & Mayowa T. Babalola & Premilla D’Cruz & Edina Dóci & Lucia Garcia-Lorenzo & Louise Hassan & Gazi Islam & Alexander Newman & Ernesto Noronha & Suzanne Gils, 2024. "The Ethical, Societal, and Global Implications of Crowdsourcing Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 193(1), pages 1-16, August.
    4. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    5. Xu, Xiaojing & Chen, Chien-fei & Zhu, Xiaojuan & Hu, Qinran, 2018. "Promoting acceptance of direct load control programs in the United States: Financial incentive versus control option," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 1278-1287.
    6. Clarke, Samuel L. & Rhodes, Eric S., 2020. "Entrepreneurial apologies: The mediating role of forgiveness on future cooperation," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 13(C).
    7. Katrien Luijkx & Leonieke van Boekel & Meriam Janssen & Marjolein Verbiest & Annerieke Stoop, 2020. "The Academic Collaborative Center Older Adults: A Description of Co-Creation between Science, Care Practice and Education with the Aim to Contribute to Person-Centered Care for Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Younjoo Cho & Anseop Choi, 2020. "Application of Affordance Factors for User-Centered Smart Homes: A Case Study Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-23, April.
    9. Ronayne, David & Sgroi, Daniel & Tuckwell, Anthony, 2021. "Evaluating the sunk cost effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 318-327.
    10. Łukasz Brzeziński & Magdalena Krystyna Wyrwicka, 2022. "Fundamental Directions of the Development of the Smart Cities Concept and Solutions in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-52, November.
    11. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    12. Attour, Amel & Baudino, Marco & Krafft, Jackie & Lazaric, Nathalie, 2020. "Determinants of energy tracking application use at the city level: Evidence from France," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    13. Birgul Basarir-Ozel & Hande Bahar Turker & Vesile Aslihan Nasir, 2022. "Identifying the Key Drivers and Barriers of Smart Home Adoption: A Thematic Analysis from the Business Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    14. Allison, Thomas H. & Davis, Blakley C. & Webb, Justin W. & Short, Jeremy C., 2017. "Persuasion in crowdfunding: An elaboration likelihood model of crowdfunding performance," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 707-725.
    15. Ciotti, Fabrizio & Hornuf, Lars & Stenzhorn, Eliza, 2021. "Lock-In Effects in Online Labor Markets," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2021014, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    16. Drysdale, Brian & Wu, Jianzhong & Jenkins, Nick, 2015. "Flexible demand in the GB domestic electricity sector in 2030," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 281-290.
    17. Wilson, Charlie & Hargreaves, Tom & Hauxwell-Baldwin, Richard, 2017. "Benefits and risks of smart home technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 72-83.
    18. Petra Mesarić & Damira Đukec & Slavko Krajcar, 2017. "Exploring the Potential of Energy Consumers in Smart Grid Using Focus Group Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-17, August.
    19. Buchanan, Kathryn & Banks, Nick & Preston, Ian & Russo, Riccardo, 2016. "The British public’s perception of the UK smart metering initiative: Threats and opportunities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 87-97.
    20. Kate Farrow & Gilles Grolleau & Lisette Ibanez, 2017. "Designing more effective norm interventions: the role of valence," Post-Print hal-01680539, HAL.

    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:24:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s10796-019-09970-6. 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.