Employee Moral Disengagement in Response to Stressful Information Security Requirements: A Methodological Replication of a Coping-Based Model

Employee responses to information security related stress: Coping and violation intention

“…These studies, in general, find that employees' emotion-focused coping with SRS contributes to their ISP violations, which is consistently observed in studies by D'Arcy and colleagues D'Arcy et al, 2018;. However, few studies have explored other types of coping responses, such as problem-focused coping, to directly deal with ISP requirements, although they acknowledge the existence of the other responses .…”

“…The SRS literature (see Appendix , Table A.1) presents two approaches to measuring behavioural outcomes: ISP violation intention (D'Arcy et al, 2014; D'Arcy et al, 2018) and ISP compliance intention (D'Arcy & Teh, 2019; Hwang & Cha, 2018; Pham et al, 2016). Although ISP violation is often considered a synonym for ISP non‐compliance (Moody et al, 2018), the two are not exactly the opposite (Cram et al, 2019).…”

Stress in the cybersecurity profession: a systematic review of related literature and opportunities for future research

“…Security demands can also be internal when imposed by an organization's own InfoSec requirements or external due to government or industry mandates (D'Arcy et al, 2014;Ament and Haag, 2016a;Lee et al, 2016). Security demands can cause physical, cognitive and emotional overload among those who are tasked with attending to them (D'Arcy et al, 2014(D'Arcy et al, , 2018.…”

“…3.1.3 Security-related stress (SRS) technostress creators. Technostress creators are further contextualized in the InfoSec as SRS and security-related technostress creators; however, only three dimensions of technostress creatorsoverload, complexity and uncertaintyhave been deemed appropriate (D'Arcy et al, 2014(D'Arcy et al, , 2018Hwang and Cha, 2018;Hwang et al, 2021). D' Arcy et al (2014), the first article to contextualize technostress creators to the InfoSec context, relabels these dimensions as SRS overload, SRS complexity and SRS uncertainty to make them more context-specific.…”

“…However, the stress literature applicable to the study of stress among cybersecurity professionals revealed that demand appraisals have been given limited attention among scholars (see Appendix 3). When attended to, demand appraisals have been explained primarily through one of three theoretical lenses (transactional theory of stress, P-E fit theory and cybernetic theory), in which individuals perform a subjective evaluation of their environment in terms of opportunity or threat (D'Arcy et al, 2014(D'Arcy et al, , 2018Galluch et al, 2015;Liang et al, 2019), (mis)fit (Ayyagari et al, 2011;Stich et al, 2019b;Chilton et al, 2005), or (in) equilibrium (Stich et al, 2019a) However, what has lacked the most attention is the explanation of the factors that may influence the demand appraisal process for cybersecurity professionals and how certain factors are more influential than others, creating a challenge or hindrance perception of demand. Some early research suggests that age, gender and personality differences can play an influential role in the stress process, but we have an underdeveloped understanding of how these differences affect cybersecurity professionals' appraisal of demands (Ragu-Nathan et al, 2008;Tams et al, 2017;Srivastava et al, 2015;Maier et al, 2019;Hwang and Cha, 2018;Lazarus and Folkman, 1987).…”