Improving the Design of Information Security Messages by Leveraging the Effects of Temporal Distance and Argument Nature

S. Schuetz, P. Lowry, Daniel A. Pienta, J. Thatcher
{"title":"Improving the Design of Information Security Messages by Leveraging the Effects of Temporal Distance and Argument Nature","authors":"S. Schuetz, P. Lowry, Daniel A. Pienta, J. Thatcher","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3718606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A substantial amount of previous research has examined the efficacy of fear appeals to elicit security-enhancing behaviors from users. However, despite more than a decade of research on fear appeals in security contexts, researchers have yet to understand which factors drive users’ responses to fear appeals. Instead, the literature is riddled with inconsistent findings on the antecedents that predict fear-appeal outcomes, fueling controversy and inhibiting progress on the problem. This research addresses the inconsistent findings by using construal level theory (CLT) to explain how temporal distance and argument nature affect fear-appeal appraisal. Based on two online experiments, we report evidence showing that temporal distance determines which antecedents drive fear-appeal outcomes, which helps explain inconsistent results found in prior literature. Moreover, we found that depending on the temporal distance condition, argument nature (i.e., “how” or “why” arguments) can impact the effectiveness of fear appeals. Overall, our findings refine the understanding of when certain factors influence users’ responses to fear appeals and provide guidance for future research on how to create more effective fear appeals.","PeriodicalId":13594,"journal":{"name":"Information Systems & Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information Systems & Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3718606","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

A substantial amount of previous research has examined the efficacy of fear appeals to elicit security-enhancing behaviors from users. However, despite more than a decade of research on fear appeals in security contexts, researchers have yet to understand which factors drive users’ responses to fear appeals. Instead, the literature is riddled with inconsistent findings on the antecedents that predict fear-appeal outcomes, fueling controversy and inhibiting progress on the problem. This research addresses the inconsistent findings by using construal level theory (CLT) to explain how temporal distance and argument nature affect fear-appeal appraisal. Based on two online experiments, we report evidence showing that temporal distance determines which antecedents drive fear-appeal outcomes, which helps explain inconsistent results found in prior literature. Moreover, we found that depending on the temporal distance condition, argument nature (i.e., “how” or “why” arguments) can impact the effectiveness of fear appeals. Overall, our findings refine the understanding of when certain factors influence users’ responses to fear appeals and provide guidance for future research on how to create more effective fear appeals.
利用时间距离和争论性质的影响改进信息安全消息的设计
之前的大量研究已经检验了恐惧诉求在诱导用户增强安全行为方面的功效。然而,尽管在安全环境中对恐惧诉求进行了十多年的研究,研究人员还没有弄清楚是哪些因素驱动了用户对恐惧诉求的反应。相反,文献中充斥着关于预测恐惧-上诉结果的前因的不一致的发现,这加剧了争议,阻碍了这个问题的进展。本研究运用解释水平理论(CLT)解释时间距离和争论性质对恐惧-上诉评价的影响。基于两个在线实验,我们报告的证据表明,时间距离决定了哪些前事驱动恐惧-上诉结果,这有助于解释先前文献中发现的不一致的结果。此外,我们发现,根据时间距离条件,争论性质(即“如何”或“为什么”争论)可以影响恐惧上诉的有效性。总的来说,我们的研究结果完善了对某些因素何时影响用户对恐惧呼吁的反应的理解,并为如何创造更有效的恐惧呼吁的未来研究提供了指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信