Common Misunderstandings of Deterrence Theory in Information Systems Research and Future Research Directions

被引:11
|
作者
Siponen, Mikko [1 ]
Soliman, Wael [1 ]
Vance, Anthony [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Jyvaskyla, Informat Syst, Jyvaskyla, Finland
[2] Virginia Tech, Pamplin Coll Business, Dept Business Informat Technol, Blacksburg, VA USA
来源
关键词
Deterrence Theory; Deterrent Effect; Information Security Policy Compliance; SECURITY POLICY COMPLIANCE; COMPUTER ABUSE; SOCIAL-CONTROL; PROTECTION MOTIVATION; GENERAL DETERRENCE; SOFTWARE PIRACY; EMPLOYEE MISUSE; BEHAVIOR; MODEL; ORGANIZATIONS;
D O I
10.1145/3514097.3514101
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
In the 1980s, information systems (IS) borrowed deterrence theory (DT) from the field of criminology to explain information security behaviors (or intention). Today, DT is among the most commonly used theories in IS security research. Our review of IS research applying DT highlights that many fundamental assumptions of DT are unrecognized and therefore unexamined. This may have resulted in misunderstandings and conceptual confusions regarding some of the basic concepts of DT. For example, some IS studies confuse general deterrence with specific deterrence or do not recognize the difference between the two. Moreover, these fundamental assumptions, when directly examined, may provide important information about the applicability of DT in certain IS security contexts. This research commentary aims to identify and discuss some of the fundamental assumptions of DT and their implications for IS research. By examining these assumptions, IS researchers can study the previously unexplored aspects of DT in different IS contexts. Further, by recognizing these assumptions, IS scholars can revise them and build new variants of DT to better account for specific characteristics of IS behaviors and contexts.
引用
收藏
页码:25 / 60
页数:36
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH: REVIEW, SYNTHESIS, AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
    Roberts, Nicholas
    Galluch, Pamela S.
    Dinger, Michael
    Grover, Varun
    [J]. MIS QUARTERLY, 2012, 36 (02) : 625 - 648
  • [2] Information systems for small businesses: A survey and future research directions
    Hsu, LY
    Lo, WA
    [J]. DECISION SCIENCES INSTITUTE, 1997 ANNUAL MEETING, PROCEEDINGS, VOLS 1-3, 1997, : 568 - 570
  • [3] EQUITY THEORY - DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
    COOK, KS
    PARCEL, TL
    [J]. SOCIOLOGICAL INQUIRY, 1977, 47 (02) : 75 - 88
  • [4] Digital Sustainability in Information Systems Research: Conceptual Foundations and Future Directions
    Kotlarsky, Julia
    Oshri, Ilan
    Sekulic, Nevena
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 2023, 24 (04): : 936 - 952
  • [5] Research on information systems failures and successes: Status update and future directions
    Dwivedi, Yogesh K.
    Wastell, David
    Laumer, Sven
    Henriksen, Helle Zinner
    Myers, Michael D.
    Bunker, Deborah
    Elbanna, Amany
    Ravishankar, M. N.
    Srivastava, Shirish C.
    [J]. INFORMATION SYSTEMS FRONTIERS, 2015, 17 (01) : 143 - 157
  • [6] Research on information systems failures and successes: Status update and future directions
    Yogesh K. Dwivedi
    David Wastell
    Sven Laumer
    Helle Zinner Henriksen
    Michael D. Myers
    Deborah Bunker
    Amany Elbanna
    M. N. Ravishankar
    Shirish C. Srivastava
    [J]. Information Systems Frontiers, 2015, 17 : 143 - 157
  • [7] DETERRENCE THEORY AND RESEARCH
    GIBBS, JP
    [J]. NEBRASKA SYMPOSIUM ON MOTIVATION, 1985, 33 : 88 - 130
  • [8] Future directions for behavioral information security research
    Crossler, Robert E.
    Johnston, Allen C.
    Lowry, Paul Benjamin
    Hu, Qing
    Warkentin, Merrill
    Baskerville, Richard
    [J]. COMPUTERS & SECURITY, 2013, 32 : 90 - 101
  • [9] Life review: Theory, research, and future directions
    Haber, D
    [J]. GERONTOLOGIST, 2005, 45 : 344 - 344
  • [10] Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research
    Pettigrew, Thomas R.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL RELATIONS, 2008, 32 (03) : 187 - 199