IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/vyid10.1007_s10796-015-9599-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Leader’s dilemma game: An experimental design for cyber insider threat research

Author

Listed:
  • Shuyuan Mary Ho

    (Florida State University)

  • Merrill Warkentin

    (Mississippi State University)

Abstract

One of the problems with insider threat research is the lack of a complete 360° view of an insider threat dataset due to inadequate experimental design. This has prevented us from modeling a computational system to protect against insider threat situations. This paper provides a contemporary methodological approach for using online games to simulate insider betrayal for predictive behavioral research. The Leader’s Dilemma Game simulates an insider betrayal scenario for analyzing organizational trust relationships, providing an opportunity to examine the trustworthiness of focal individuals, as measured by humans as sensors engaging in computer-mediated communication. This experimental design provides a window into trustworthiness attribution that can generate a rigorous and relevant behavioral dataset, and contributes to building a cyber laboratory that advances future insider threat study.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v::y::i::d:10.1007_s10796-015-9599-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10796-015-9599-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10796-015-9599-5
    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/s10796-015-9599-5?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. Howard Chivers & John A. Clark & Philip Nobles & Siraj A. Shaikh & Hao Chen, 2013. "Knowing who to watch: Identifying attackers whose actions are hidden within false alarms and background noise," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 17-34, March.
    2. Saravanan Muthaiyah & Larry Kerschberg, 2007. "Virtual organization security policies: An ontology-based integration approach," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 505-514, November.
    3. Shuyuan Mary Ho & Izak Benbasat, 2014. "Dyadic attribution model: A mechanism to assess trustworthiness in virtual organizations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(8), pages 1555-1576, August.
    4. Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Crawford, Vincent P & Broseta, Bruno, 2001. "Cognition and Behavior in Normal-Form Games: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(5), pages 1193-1235, September.
    5. Abbink, Klaus & Irlenbusch, Bernd & Renner, Elke, 2000. "The moonlighting game: An experimental study on reciprocity and retribution," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 265-277, June.
    6. Nancy Buchan & Rachel Croson, 1999. "Gender and Culture: International Experimental Evidence from Trust Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 386-391, May.
    7. McCabe, Kevin A. & Rigdon, Mary L. & Smith, Vernon L., 2003. "Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 267-275, October.
    8. Cooper, Joseph & Brady, David W., 1981. "Institutional Context and Leadership Style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 75(2), pages 411-425, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Allen S. Lee & Richard L. Baskerville, 2003. "Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 221-243, September.
    11. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    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. 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.
    2. Croson, Rachel & Konow, James, 2009. "Social preferences and moral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 201-212, March.
    3. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, "undated". "Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity - Evidence and Economic Applications," IEW - Working Papers 075, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    4. Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Mestelman, Stuart & Nainar, Khalid & Shehata, Mohamed, 2009. "The impact of social value orientation and risk attitudes on trust and reciprocity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 368-380, June.
    5. Fehr, Ernst & Falk, Armin, 2002. "Psychological foundations of incentives," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4-5), pages 687-724, May.
    6. Becchetti, Leonardo & Conzo, Pierluigi, 2011. "Enhancing capabilities through credit access: Creditworthiness as a signal of trustworthiness under asymmetric information," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3-4), pages 265-278, April.
    7. Ashraf, Nava & Bohnet, Iris & Piankov, Nikita, 2003. "Is Trust a Bad Investment?," Working Paper Series rwp03-047, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    8. Rodet, Cortney Stephen, 2013. "Seniority, Information and Electoral Accountability," MPRA Paper 49863, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Rigdon, Mary, 2009. "Trust and reciprocity in incentive contracting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 93-105, May.
    10. Alessandro Innocenti & Maria Grazia Pazienza, 2004. "Experimenter bias across gender differences," Department of Economics University of Siena 438, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    11. Cassar, Alessandra & Rigdon, Mary, 2011. "Trust and trustworthiness in networked exchange," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 282-303, March.
    12. Ola Kvaløy & Miguel Luzuriaga, 2014. "Playing the trust game with other people’s money," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 615-630, December.
    13. Tobias Cagala & Ulrich Glogowsky & Veronika Grimm & Johannes Rincke, 2019. "Public Goods Provision with Rent-extracting Administrators," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(620), pages 1593-1617.
    14. Ismael Rodriguez-Lara, 2018. "No evidence of inequality aversion in the investment game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Kiridaran Kanagaretnam & Stuart Mestelman & Khalid Nainar & Mohamed Shehata, 2006. "Trust, Reciprocity and the Roles of Sex, Value Orientation and Risk Attitudes in an Investment Game," Department of Economics Working Papers 2006-04, McMaster University.
    16. Tan, Jonathan H.W. & Vogel, Claudia, 2008. "Religion and trust: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 832-848, December.
    17. Bejarano, Hernán & Gillet, Joris & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2021. "Trust and trustworthiness after negative random shocks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    18. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2005. "The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism – Experimental Evidence and New Theories," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 66, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    19. Ola Kvaløy & Miguel Luzuriaga & Trond E. Olsen, 2017. "A trust game in loss domain," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(4), pages 860-877, December.
    20. Croson, Rachel & Konow, James, 2007. "Double Standards: Social Preferences and Moral Biases," MPRA Paper 2729, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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::y::i::d:10.1007_s10796-015-9599-5. 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.