2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2012.08.001
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of multilevel sanctions on information security violations: A mediating model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
47
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 86 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
47
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The granting of rewards for security compliance may not yet be common practice (Guo & Yuan, 2012). Boss, Kirsch, Angermeier, Shingler, and Boss (2009) argued that rewards may increase how mandatory users perceive compliance with security policies, which in turn may enforce security precaution-taking behaviour.…”
Section: Sanctions For Non-compliance and Rewards For Compliancementioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The granting of rewards for security compliance may not yet be common practice (Guo & Yuan, 2012). Boss, Kirsch, Angermeier, Shingler, and Boss (2009) argued that rewards may increase how mandatory users perceive compliance with security policies, which in turn may enforce security precaution-taking behaviour.…”
Section: Sanctions For Non-compliance and Rewards For Compliancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition enforcing a sanction and rewardbased approach can have a negative impact on staff cooperation (Guo & Yuan, 2012). …”
Section: Sanctions For Non-compliance and Rewards For Compliancementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Many of these factors relate to the consequentialism ethical perspective, where factors such as perceived threat vulnerability (employees' perceptions of probability of harm occurring to organizations resulting from IS policy noncompliance behaviors) and perceived threat severity (employees' perceptions of severity of harm to organizations resulting from IS policy noncompliance behaviors if harm has occurred) [2,5,9,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Concurrently, others have studied factors with the deontological focus, such as moral obligation (employees' perceptions of severity of harm to organization resulting from their noncompliance behaviors if harm has occurred) [23,[26][27][28][29][30]. However, regarding the virtue perspective, there was no evidence of any study examining factors relating to this perspective.…”
Section: Critical Review Of Is Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The five studied factors were based on established behavioural theories including protection motivation theory (Rogers 1975), the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991) and rational choice theory (Becker 1968). A number of previous studies have provided empirical evidence that the listed factors influenced security compliance , Guo and Yuan 2012, Siponen et al 2014, Ifinedo 2011. However, little research appears to have compared how end-users and security experts/managers perceive the impact of these factors on security compliance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%