Advertisement

User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 701–750 | Cite as

Exploring user behavioral data for adaptive cybersecurity

  • Joyce H. Addae
  • Xu SunEmail author
  • Dave Towey
  • Milena Radenkovic
Article
  • 249 Downloads

Abstract

This paper describes an exploratory investigation into the feasibility of predictive analytics of user behavioral data as a possible aid in developing effective user models for adaptive cybersecurity. Partial least squares structural equation modeling is applied to the domain of cybersecurity by collecting data on users’ attitude towards digital security, and analyzing how that influences their adoption and usage of technological security controls. Bayesian-network modeling is then applied to integrate the behavioral variables with simulated sensory data and/or logs from a web browsing session and other empirical data gathered to support personalized adaptive cybersecurity decision-making. Results from the empirical study show that predictive analytics is feasible in the context of behavioral cybersecurity, and can aid in the generation of useful heuristics for the design and development of adaptive cybersecurity mechanisms. Predictive analytics can also aid in encoding digital security behavioral knowledge that can support the adaptation and/or automation of operations in the domain of cybersecurity. The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the techniques applied to extract input data for the Bayesian-based models for personalized adaptive cybersecurity assistance.

Keywords

Cybersecurity Behavioral analytics Predictive modeling Bayesian-inference Adaptive assistance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial support from the International Doctoral Innovation Centre (IDIC), Ningbo Education Bureau, Ningbo Science and Technology Bureau, China’s MoST and The University of Nottingham. This work was also supported by the Horizon Digital Economy Research, UK.

References

  1. Abdullah, F., Ward, R., Ahmed, E.: Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of tam on students’ perceived ease of use (peou) and perceived usefulness (pu) of e-portfolios. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63, 75–90 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. Addae, J., Radenkovic, M., Sun, X., Towey, D.: An augmented cybersecurity behavioral research model. In: Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), 2016 IEEE 40th Annual, pp. 602–603. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  3. Addae, J.H., Brown, M., Sun, X., Towey, D., Radenkovic, M.: Measuring attitude towards personal data for adaptive cybersecurity. Inf. Comput. Secur. 25(5), 560–579 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. Ahn, J.-H., Ezawa, K.J.: Decision support for real-time telemarketing operations through bayesian network learning. Decis. Support Syst. 21(1), 17–27 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. Akiki, P.A., Bandara, A.K., Yu, Y.: Adaptive model-driven user interface development systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 47(1), 9 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. Alavi, M., Joachimsthaler, E.A.: Revisiting dss implementation research: a meta-analysis of the literature and suggestions for researchers. Mis Q. 16, 95–116 (1992)Google Scholar
  7. Alharbi, S., Drew, S.: Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 5(1), 143–155 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. Amin, H.: Internet banking adoption among young intellectuals. J. Internet Bank. Commer. 12(3), 1–13 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. Anwar, M., He, W., Ash, I., Yuan, X., Li, L., Xu, L.: Gender difference and employees’ cybersecurity behaviors. Comput. Hum. Behav. 69, 437–443 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. Ardissono, L., Gena, C., Torasso, P., Bellifemine, F., Difino, A., Negro, B.: User modeling and recommendation techniques for personalized electronic program guides. In: Ardissono, L., Kobsa, A., Maybury, M. (eds.) Personalized Digital Television, pp. 3–26. Springer, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  11. Bélanger, F., Carter, L.: Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 17(2), 165–176 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. Bordo, V.: Overview of User Acceptance Testing (UAT) for Business Analysts (BAs). https://www.scriHrBbd.com/document/155942082/Overview-of-User-Acceptance-Testing-UAT-for-Business-Analysts-HrBBAs (2010). Accessed 2 May 2019
  13. Bostrom, R.P., Olfman, L., Sein, M.K.: The importance of learning style in end-user training. MIS Q. 17, 101–119 (1990)Google Scholar
  14. Buczak, A.L., Guven, E.: A survey of data mining and machine learning methods for cyber security intrusion detection. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 18(2), 1153–1176 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. Bunt, A., Conati, C., McGrenere, J.: What role can adaptive support play in an adaptable system? In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 117–124. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  16. Calisir, F., Altin Gumussoy, C., Bayraktaroglu, A.E., Karaali, D.: Predicting the intention to use a web-based learning system: perceived content quality, anxiety, perceived system quality, image, and the technology acceptance model. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 24(5), 515–531 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. Cambazoglu, V., Thota, N.: Computer science students’ perception of computer network security. In: Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE), pp. 204–207. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2013)Google Scholar
  18. Canongia, C., Mandarino Jr., R.: Cybersecurity: The new challenge of the information society. In: Merkel, M., Wolfe, K., DeMarco, A. (eds.) Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, Crisis Management, p. 60. IGI Global, Hershey, PA (2013)Google Scholar
  19. Castaneda, J.A., Frías, D.M., Rodríguez, M.A.: Antecedents of internet acceptance and use as an information source by tourists. Online Inf. Rev. 33(3), 548–567 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. Cavelty, M.D.: Breaking the cyber-security dilemma: aligning security needs and removing vulnerabilities. Sci. Eng. Ethics 20(3), 701–715 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. Chang, P. V.: The validity of an extended technology acceptance model (TAM) for predicting intranet/portal usage, Master Thesis, University of North Carolina (2004)Google Scholar
  22. Chang, A. J.-T.: Roles of perceived risk and usefulness in information system security adoption. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology (ICMIT), pp. 1264–1269. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  23. Chau, P.Y.: Influence of computer attitude and self-efficacy on it usage behavior. J. Organ. End User Comput. 13(1), 26 (2001)Google Scholar
  24. Chellappa, R.K., Sin, R.G.: Personalization versus privacy: an empirical examination of the online consumer’s dilemma. Inf. Technol. Manag. 6(2), 181–202 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. Cheung, J., Li, S., Totolici, A., Zheng, P.: Usability Analysis of Sophos Antivirus. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.625.9214&rep=rep1&type=pdf (2001). Accessed 2 May 2019
  26. Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., Newsted, P.R.: A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf. Syst. Res. 14(2), 189–217 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. Church, L.: End User Security: The democratisation of security usability. 1st international workshop on Security and Human Behaviour. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luke_Church/publication/228851094_End_User_Security_The_democratisation_of_security_usability/links/0c96052a117ae3a4f5000000/End-User-Security-The-democratisation-of-security-usability.pdf (2008). Accessed 2 May 2019
  28. Compeau, D., Higgins, C.A., Huff, S.: Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: a longitudinal study. MIS Q. 23, 145–158 (1999)Google Scholar
  29. Conklin, W.: Computer Security Behaviors Of Home PC Users: A Diffusion of Innovation Approach. The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio (2006)Google Scholar
  30. Coventry, L., Briggs, P., Blythe, J., Tran, M.: Using behavioural insights to improve the public’s use of cyber security best practices. Gov. UK report (2014)Google Scholar
  31. Craigen, D., Diakun-Thibault, N., Purse, R.: Defining cybersecurity. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 4(10), 13–21 (2014)Google Scholar
  32. Crossler, R., Bélanger, F.: An extended perspective on individual security behaviors: protection motivation theory and a unified security practices (usp) instrument. ACM SIGMIS Database Database Adv. Inf. Syst. 45(4), 51–71 (2014)Google Scholar
  33. Dai, B., Forsythe, S., Kwon, W.-S.: The impact of online shopping experience on risk perceptions and online purchase intentions: does product category matter? J. Electron. Commer. Res. 15(1), 13 (2014)Google Scholar
  34. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989)Google Scholar
  35. Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 38(3), 475–487 (1993)Google Scholar
  36. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)Google Scholar
  37. Dillon, A.: User Acceptance of Information Technology. Taylor and Francis, London (2001)Google Scholar
  38. Ellis, G.: NAE grand challenges for engineering. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 1(37), 3 (2009)Google Scholar
  39. EU: Attitudes on data protection and electronic identity in the european union. Eurobarometer Special Surveys, 359 (2011)Google Scholar
  40. Featherman, M.S., Pavlou, P.A.: Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 59(4), 451–474 (2003)Google Scholar
  41. Forsythe, S.M., Shi, B.: Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in internet shopping. J. Bus. Res. 56(11), 867–875 (2003)Google Scholar
  42. Forsythe, S., Liu, C., Shannon, D., Gardner, L.C.: Development of a scale to measure the perceived benefits and risks of online shopping. J. Interact. Mark. 20(2), 55–75 (2006)Google Scholar
  43. Furnell, S., Clarke, N.: Power to the people? The evolving recognition of human aspects of security. Comput. Secur. 31(8), 983–988 (2012)Google Scholar
  44. Garson, D.: Partial Least Squares: Regression and Path Modeling. Statistical Publishing Associates, Asheboro, NC (2012)Google Scholar
  45. Gefen, D., Straub, D.W.: The relative importance of perceived ease of use in is adoption: a study of e-commerce adoption. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 1(1), 8 (2000)Google Scholar
  46. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W.: Trust and tam in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q. 27(1), 51–90 (2003)Google Scholar
  47. Gelman, A., Carlin, J.B., Stern, H.S., Dunson, D.B.: Bayesian Data Analysis, vol. 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2014)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Gratian, M., Bandi, S., Cukier, M., Dykstra, J., Ginther, A.: Correlating human traits and cyber security behavior intentions. Comput. Secur. 73, 345–358 (2018)Google Scholar
  49. Haddadi, H., Howard, H., Chaudhry, A., Crowcroft, J., Madhavapeddy, A., Mortier, R.: Personal data: thinking inside the box. arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.04737 (2015)
  50. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E.: Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th edn. Prentice-Hall Inc, Upper Saddle River (2010)Google Scholar
  51. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19(2), 139–152 (2011)Google Scholar
  52. Hair Jr., J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Hasan, B.: Delineating the effects of general and system-specific computer self-efficacy beliefs on is acceptance. Inf. Manag. 43(5), 565–571 (2006)Google Scholar
  54. Heckerman, D., Geiger, D., Chickering, D.M.: Learning Bayesian networks: the combination of knowledge and statistical data. Mach. learn. 20(3), 197–243 (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Henseler, J., Hubona, G., Ray, P.A.: Using pls path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116(1), 2–20 (2016)Google Scholar
  56. Herath, T., Rao, H.R.: Protection motivation and deterrence: a framework for security policy compliance in organisations. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 18(2), 106–125 (2009)Google Scholar
  57. Hof, H.-J.: User-centric IT security-how to design usable security mechanisms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.07167 (2015)
  58. Holden, H., Rada, R.: Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 43(4), 343–367 (2011)Google Scholar
  59. Hong, W., Thong, J.Y., Wai-Man Wong, K.-Y.T.: Determinants of user acceptance of digital libraries: an empirical examination of individual differences and system characteristics. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 18(3), 97–124 (2002)Google Scholar
  60. Howe, A.E., Ray, I., Roberts, M., Urbanska, M., Byrne, Z.: The psychology of security for the home computer user. In: 2012 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 209–223. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  61. Huth, D.: A pattern catalog for GDPR compliant data protection. In: PoEM Doctoral Consortium, pp. 34–40 (2017)Google Scholar
  62. Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., Cavaye, A.L.: Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: a structural equation model. MIS Q. 21, 279–305 (1997)Google Scholar
  63. Izquierdo-Yusta, A., Olarte-Pascual, C., Reinares-Lara, E.: Attitudes toward mobile advertising among users versus non-users of the mobile internet. Telemat. Inform. 32(2), 355–366 (2015)Google Scholar
  64. Jacoby, J., Kaplan, L.: The components of perceived risk. Adv. Consum. Res. 3, 382–383 (1972)Google Scholar
  65. Jason, B., Calitz, A., Greyling, J.: The evaluation of an adaptive user interface model. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, pp. 132–143. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  66. Jeyaraj, A., Rottman, J.W., Lacity, M.C.: A review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in it innovation adoption research. J. Inf. Technol. 21(1), 1–23 (2006)Google Scholar
  67. Juarez-Ramirez, R., Navarro-Almanza, R., Gomez-Tagle, Y., Licea, G., Huertas, C., Quinto, G.: Orchestrating an adaptive intelligent tutoring system: towards integrating the user profile for learning improvement. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 106, 1986–1999 (2013)Google Scholar
  68. Judson, R., Elloumi, F., Setzer, R.W., Li, Z., Shah, I.: A comparison of machine learning algorithms for chemical toxicity classification using a simulated multi-scale data model. BMC Bioinform. 9(1), 241 (2008)Google Scholar
  69. Kainda, R., Flechais, I., Roscoe, A.: Security and usability: analysis and evaluation. In: ARES’10 International Conference on Availability, Reliability, and Security, 2010, pp. 275–282. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  70. Kaplan, L.B., Szybillo, G.J., Jacoby, J.: Components of perceived risk in product purchase: a cross-validation. J. Appl. Psychol. 59(3), 287 (1974)Google Scholar
  71. Kim, J.W., Lee, B.H., Shaw, M.J., Chang, H.-L., Nelson, M.: Application of decision-tree induction techniques to personalized advertisements on internet storefronts. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 5(3), 45–62 (2001)Google Scholar
  72. Koller, D., Friedman, N., Getoor, L., Taskar, B.: Graphical models in a nutshell. http://www.seas.upenn.edu/taskar/pubs/gms-srl07.pdf (2007)
  73. Kuflik, T., Kay, J., Kummerfeld, B.: Challenges and solutions of ubiquitous user modeling. In: Ubiquitous Display Environments, pp. 7–30. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  74. Kumaraguru, P., Cranshaw, J., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L., Hong, J., Blair, M.A., Pham, T.: A real-word evaluation of anti-phishing training. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University (2009)Google Scholar
  75. LaRose, R., Rifon, N., Liu, S., Lee, D.: Understanding online safety behavior: a multivariate model. In: The 55th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, New York city (2005)Google Scholar
  76. LaRose, R., Rifon, N.J., Enbody, R.: Promoting personal responsibility for internet safety. Commun. ACM 51(3), 71–76 (2008)Google Scholar
  77. Lee, M.-C.: Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: an integration of tam and tpb with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 8(3), 130–141 (2009)Google Scholar
  78. Lee, Y., Kozar, K.A.: An empirical investigation of anti-spyware software adoption: a multitheoretical perspective. Inf. Manag. 45(2), 109–119 (2008)Google Scholar
  79. Lin, W.-S.: Perceived fit and satisfaction on web learning performance: is continuance intention and task-technology fit perspectives. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 70(7), 498–507 (2012)Google Scholar
  80. Lin, J.C.-C., Lu, H.: Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use a web site. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 20(3), 197–208 (2000)Google Scholar
  81. Liu, B., Andersen, M.S., Schaub, F., Almuhimedi, H., Zhang, S.A., Sadeh, N., Agarwal, Y., Acquisti, A.: Follow my recommendations: A personalized privacy assistant for mobile app permissions. In: Twelfth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (\(\{\)SOUPS\(\}\) 2016), pp. 27–41 (2016)Google Scholar
  82. Lu, H.-P., Hsu, C.-L., Hsu, H.-Y.: An empirical study of the effect of perceived risk upon intention to use online applications. Inf. Manag. Comput. Sec. 13(2), 106–120 (2005)Google Scholar
  83. Lu, J., Lu, C., Yu, C.-S., Yao, J.E.: Exploring factors associated with wireless internet via mobile technology acceptance in mainland china. Commun. IIMA 3(1), 9 (2014)Google Scholar
  84. Madsen, A.L., Jensen, F., Kjaerulff, U.B., Lang, M.: The hugin tool for probabilistic graphical models. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools 14(03), 507–543 (2005)Google Scholar
  85. Maguire, M.: Context of use within usability activities. Int. J. Human Comput. Stud. 55(4), 453–483 (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  86. Mezhoudi, N., Medina, J.L.P., Khaddam, I., Vanderdonckt, J.: Context-awareness meta-model for user interface runtime adaptation. Int. J. Softw. Eng. 2 (2015)Google Scholar
  87. Milne, G.R., Labrecque, L.I., Cromer, C.: Toward an understanding of the online consumer’s risky behavior and protection practices. J. Consum. Aff. 43(3), 449–473 (2009)Google Scholar
  88. Mitnick, K.D., Simon, W.L.: The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security. Wiley, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  89. Morris, M.G., Venkatesh, V.: Age differences in technology adoption decisions: implications for a changing work force. Pers. Psychol. 53(2), 375–403 (2000)Google Scholar
  90. Mun, Y.Y., Hwang, Y.: Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Hum Comput. Stud. 59(4), 431–449 (2003)Google Scholar
  91. Nadkarni, S., Shenoy, P.P.: A causal mapping approach to constructing bayesian networks. Decis. Support Syst. 38(2), 259–281 (2004)Google Scholar
  92. Ng, B.-Y., Rahim, M.: A socio-behavioral study of home computer users’ intention to practice security. In: PACIS 2005 Proceedings, p. 20 (2005)Google Scholar
  93. Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  94. Nielsen, T.D., Jensen, F.V.: Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  95. Notario, N., Crespo, A., Martín, Y.-S., Del Alamo, J.M., Le Métayer, D., Antignac, T., Kung, A., Kroener, I., Wright, D.: Pripare: integrating privacy best practices into a privacy engineering methodology. In: Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), 2015 IEEE, pp. 151–158. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  96. Omidosu, J., Ophoff, J.: A theory-based review of information security behavior in the organization and home context. In: 2016 International Conference on Advances in Computing and Communication Engineering (ICACCE), pp. 225–231. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  97. Özkan, S., Bindusara, G., Hackney, R.: Facilitating the adoption of e-payment systems: theoretical constructs and empirical analysis. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 23(3), 305–325 (2010)Google Scholar
  98. Parsons, K., McCormac, A., Butavicius, M., Ferguson, L.: Human factors and information security: individual, culture and security environment. Report, DTIC Document (2010)Google Scholar
  99. Pearson, S.: Privacy, Security and Trust in Cloud Computing, Book Section 1, pp. 9–13. Springer, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  100. Pituch, K.A., Lee, Y.-K.: The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Comput. Educ. 47(2), 222–244 (2006)Google Scholar
  101. Raghu, T., Kannan, P., Rao, H.R., Whinston, A.B.: Dynamic profiling of consumers for customized offerings over the internet: a model and analysis. Decis. Support Syst. 32(2), 117–134 (2001)Google Scholar
  102. Rainie, L., Kiesler, S., Kang, R., Madden, M., Duggan, M., Brown, S., Dabbish, L.: Anonymity, Privacy, and Security Online. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC (2013)Google Scholar
  103. Ramayah, T.: Doing e-research with e-library: determinants of perceived ease of use of e-library. Int. J. Technol. Knowl. Soc. 1(4), 71–82 (2006)Google Scholar
  104. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.-M.: Smartpls 3. SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt (2015). http://www.smartpls.com
  105. Ross, R.S., Johnson, L.A.: Guide for Assessing the Security Controls in Federal Information Systems and Organizations: Building Effective Security Assessment Plans. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg (2010)Google Scholar
  106. Sakellaropoulos, G., Nikiforidis, G.: Prognostic performance of two expert systems based on bayesian belief networks. Decis. Support Syst. 27(4), 431–442 (2000)Google Scholar
  107. Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M.: Multigroup Analysis in Partial Least Squares (PLS) Path Modeling: Alternative Methods and Empirical Results, pp. 195–218. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley (2011)Google Scholar
  108. Schneier, B.: Secrets and lIes: Digital Security in a Networked World. Wiley, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  109. Schwartz, A.M.: Cybersecurity, innovation, and the internet economy. Report (2011)Google Scholar
  110. Shaughnessy, P., Livingston, G.: Evaluating the causal explanatory value of Bayesian network structure learning algorithms. Research Paper, 13 (2005)Google Scholar
  111. Sheng, S., Holbrook, M., Kumaraguru, P., Cranor, L. F., Downs, J.: Who falls for phish?: a demographic analysis of phishing susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 373–382. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  112. Shin, D.-H.: Towards an understanding of the consumer acceptance of mobile wallet. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25(6), 1343–1354 (2009)Google Scholar
  113. Suh, B., Han, I.: The impact of customer trust and perception of security control on the acceptance of electronic commerce. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 7(3), 135–161 (2003)Google Scholar
  114. Sun, H., Zhang, P.: The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 64(2), 53–78 (2006)Google Scholar
  115. Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.-M., Lauro, C.: PLS path modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 48(1), 159–205 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  116. Thong, J.Y., Hong, W., Tam, K.-Y.: Understanding user acceptance of digital libraries: what are the roles of interface characteristics, organizational context, and individual differences? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 57(3), 215–242 (2002)Google Scholar
  117. Thong, J.Y., Hong, W., Tam, K.Y.: What leads to user acceptance of digital libraries? Commun. ACM 47(11), 78–83 (2004)Google Scholar
  118. Topa, I., Karyda, M.: Identifying factors that influence employees’ security behavior for enhancing isp compliance. In: International Conference on Trust and Privacy in Digital Business, pp. 169–179. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  119. Tsai, H.-Y.S., Jiang, M., Alhabash, S., LaRose, R., Rifon, N.J., Cotten, S.R.: Understanding online safety behaviors: a protection motivation theory perspective. Comput. Secur. 59, 138–150 (2016)Google Scholar
  120. Tsanas, A., Xifara, A.: Accurate quantitative estimation of energy performance of residential buildings using statistical machine learning tools. Energy Build. 49, 560–567 (2012)Google Scholar
  121. Urbach, N., Ahlemann, F.: Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. J. Inf. Technol. Theory Appl. 11(2), 5 (2010)Google Scholar
  122. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)Google Scholar
  123. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G.: Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Q. 24, 115–139 (2000)Google Scholar
  124. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27, 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  125. Whitten, A., Tygar, J. D.: Why Johnny can’t encrypt: A usability evaluation of PGP 5.0. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on USENIX Security Symposium—Volume 8, SSYM’99, pp. 14–14, Berkeley, CA, USA. USENIX Association (1999)Google Scholar
  126. Wong, T.: On the usability of firewall configuration. In: Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (2008)Google Scholar
  127. Woon, I., Tan, G.-W., Low, R.: A protection motivation theory approach to home wireless security. In: ICIS 2005 Proceedings, p. 31 (2005)Google Scholar
  128. Xu, D.J.: The influence of personalization in affecting consumer attitudes toward mobile advertising in china. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 47(2), 9–19 (2006)Google Scholar
  129. Xu, D.J., Liao, S.S., Li, Q.: Combining empirical experimentation and modeling techniques: a design research approach for personalized mobile advertising applications. Decis. Support Syst. 44(3), 710–724 (2008)Google Scholar
  130. Yiu, C.S., Grant, K., Edgar, D.: Factors affecting the adoption of internet banking in hong kong-implications for the banking sector. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 27(5), 336–351 (2007)Google Scholar
  131. Zurko, M.E., Simon, R.T.: User-centered security. In: Proceedings of the 1996 Workshop on New Security Paradigms, NSPW ’96, pp. 27–33, New York, NY, USA. ACM (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joyce H. Addae
    • 1
  • Xu Sun
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dave Towey
    • 1
  • Milena Radenkovic
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Science and EngineeringUniversity of Nottingham Ningbo ChinaNingboChina
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations