Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

Risk and protective factors for intuitive and rational judgment of cybersecurity risks in a large sample of K-12 students and teachers

Published: 01 August 2021 Publication History

Abstract

K-12 students and teachers are a vulnerable population for cybersecurity risks. Identifying both risk factors and protective factors associated with intuitive and rational judgment of cybersecurity risks would help them develop strategies to tackle cyber risks. A total of 2703 K-12 students and teachers from 45 GenCyber Summer Camps participated in the survey study at the beginning of the camps, and a total of 1021 K-12 students and teachers participated in the follow-up survey at the end of the camps. The Cybersecurity Judgment Questionnaire was developed and administered to assess intuitive and rational judgments of cybersecurity risks. Two major findings of the study include: (1) three significant risk factors associated with both intuitive and rational cybersecurity judgment were Age Group, Region, and Prior GenCyber Camp Experience. That is, younger students, the campers from the West region, and participants attending the camps before tended to have a lower level of cybersecurity judgment; and (2) two significant protective factors were Cyber Use Length and Current GenCyber Camp Experience, i.e., the experiences of both using computers, Internet, cellphones and participating in the current camps having significant advantages in judging cybersecurity risks intuitively and rationally. Thus, it is critical to use both the push strategy to minimize the risk factors and the pull strategy to maximize the protective factors. It is concluded with a summary of limitations and future studies, i.e., replicating the findings in regular K-12 schools, examining more risk and protective factors, conducting longitudinal studies, and studying underlying mechanisms.

Highlights

K-12 students and teachers are particularly vulnerable to cybersecurity risks.
Cybersecurity risk judgments was assessed with Cybersecurity Judgment Questionnaire.
2703 K-12 students and teachers from 17 states of US participated in the study.
Three major risk factors and two important protective factors were identified.

References

[1]
A. Acquisti, L. Brandimarte, G. Loewenstein, Privacy and human behavior in the age of information, Science 347 (6221) (2015) 509–514.
[2]
H. Aguinis, K.J. Bradley, Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies, Organizational Research Methods 17 (4) (2014) 351–371.
[3]
H. Aldawood, G. Skinner, Reviewing cyber security social engineering training and awareness programs—pitfalls and ongoing issues, Future Internet 11 (3) (2019) 1–16.
[4]
M.H. Almeshekah, E.H. Spafford, Cyber security deception. Cyber Deception , Springer, 2016.
[5]
American Psychology Association (APA) (2021): Judgment. https://dictionary.apa.org/judgment/.
[6]
L. Amo, Addressing gender gaps in teens' cybersecurity engagement and self-efficacy, IEEE Security & Privacy 14 (1) (2016) 72–75.
[7]
M. Anwar, W. He, I. Ash, X. Yuan, L. Li, L. Xu, Gender difference and employees' cybersecurity behaviors, Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 437–443.
[8]
P.M. Arezes, A.S. Miguel, Risk perception and safety behaviour: A study in an occupational environment, Safety Science 46 (6) (2008) 900–907.
[9]
C. Atzmüller, P.M. Steiner, Experimental vignette studies in survey research, Methodology 6 (3) (2010) 128–138.
[10]
T. Aven, What is safety science?, Safety Science 67 (2014) 15–20.
[11]
T. Aven, Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation, European Journal of Operational Research 253 (1) (2016) 1–13.
[12]
T. Aven, R. Flage, Foundational challenges for advancing the field and discipline of risk analysis, Risk Analysis (2020) 1–9.
[13]
T. Aven, E. Zio, Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management, Risk Analysis 34 (7) (2014) 1164–1172.
[14]
R. Azen, D.V. Budescu, The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression, Psychological Methods 8 (2) (2003) 129–148.
[15]
N. Ben-Asher, C. Gonzalez, Effects of cyber security knowledge on attack detection, Computers in Human Behavior 48 (2015) 51–61.
[16]
S. Bordoff, Q. Chen, Z. Yan, Cyber attacks, contributing factors, and tackling strategies: The current status of the science of cybersecurity. Cyber law, privacy, and security: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications , IGI Global, 2019.
[17]
F.P. Bresz, People—often the weakest link in security, but one of the best places to start, Journal of Health Care Compliance 6 (4) (2004) 57–60.
[18]
D.V Budescu, Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression, Psychological Bulletin 114 (3) (1993) 542–551.
[19]
H. de Bruijn, M. Janssen, Building cybersecurity awareness: The need for evidence-based framing strategies, Government Information Quarterly 34 (1) (2017) 1–7.
[20]
A.J. Burns, C. Posey, T.L. Roberts, P.B. Lowry, Examining the relationship of organizational insiders' psychological capital with information security threat and coping appraisals, Computers in Human Behavior 68 (2017) 190–209.
[21]
A.A. Cain, M.E. Edwards, J.D. Still, An exploratory study of cyber hygiene behaviors and knowledge, Journal of Information Security and Applications 42 (2018) 36–45.
[22]
N.H. Chowdhury, M.T. Adam, T. Teubner, Time pressure in human cybersecurity behavior: Theoretical framework and countermeasures, Computers & Security (2020) 1–34.
[23]
J. Cohen, P. Cohen, S.G. West, L.S. Aiken, Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, Routledge, 2013.
[24]
Z.A. Collier, D. DiMase, S. Walters, M.M. Tehranipoor, J.H. Lambert, I. Linkov, Cybersecurity standards: Managing risk and creating resilience, Computer 47 (9) (2014) 70–76.
[25]
M. Compare, E. Zio, E.L.I.S.A. Moroni, G. Portinari, T. Zanini, Development of a methodology for systematic analysis of risk reduction by protective measures in tyre production machinery, Safety Science 110 (2018) 13–28.
[26]
H. Cong-Pham, L. Brennan, J. Richardson, J. El-Den, A new approach to security engagement from a positive psychology perspective: A conceptual model, 10th European Conference on Information Systems Management, ECISM, 2016.
[27]
N.Y. Conteh, P.J. Schmick, Cybersecurity: Risks, vulnerabilities and countermeasures to prevent social engineering attacks, International Journal of Advanced Computer Research 6 (23) (2016) 31–38.
[28]
M.D. Cooper, Towards a model of safety culture, Safety Science 36 (2) (2000) 111–136.
[29]
S.R. Cotten, D.B. Shank, W.A. Anderson, Gender, technology use and ownership, and media-based multitasking among middle school students, Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 99–106.
[30]
G. Craciun, K. Moore, Credibility of negative online product reviews: Reviewer Gender, reputation and emotion effects, Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 104–115.
[31]
N. Davinson, E. Sillence, It won't happen to me: Promoting secure behaviour among internet users, Computers in Human Behavior 26 (6) (2010) 1739–1747.
[32]
J.T. Dignam, S.G. West, Social support in the workplace: Tests of six theoretical models, American Journal of Community Psychology 16 (5) (1988) 701–724.
[33]
A. Dryer, N. Walia, A. Chattopadhyay, A middle-school module for introducing data-mining, big-data, ethics and privacy using rapidminer and a Hollywood theme, Proceedings of the 49th ACM technical symposium on computer science education, 2018.
[34]
A. Evesti, T. Kanstrén, T. Frantti, Cybersecurity situational awareness taxonomy. 2017 international conference on cyber situational awareness, data analytics and assessment (cyber SA), IEEE, 2017.
[35]
N.C. Facione, P.A. Facione, Critical thinking and clinical reasoning in the health sciences: An international multidisciplinary teaching anthology, Vol. 285, California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA, 2008.
[36]
F.B. Fatokun, S. Hamid, A. Norman, J.O. Fatokun, The impact of age, gender, and educational level on the cybersecurity behaviors of tertiary institution students: An empirical investigation on Malaysian universities, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1339 (2019) (IOP Publishing).
[37]
S. Fenz, J. Heurix, T. Neubauer, F. Pechstein, Current challenges in information security risk management, Information Management & Computer Security 22 (5) (2014) 410–430.
[38]
N. Garmezy, Stress-resistant children: The search for protective factors, Recent Research in Developmental Psychopathology 4 (1985) 213–233.
[39]
S.A. Gelman, M. Martinez, N.S. Davidson, N.S. Noles, Developing digital privacy: Children's moral judgments concerning mobile GPS devices, Child Development 89 (1) (2018) 17–26.
[40]
I.A. Gheyas, A.E. Abdallah, Detection and prediction of insider threats to cyber security: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis, Big Data Analytics 1 (2016) 6.
[41]
A.R. Gillam, W.T. Foster, Factors affecting risky cybersecurity behaviors by US workers: An exploratory study, Computers in Human Behavior 108 (2020) (2020) 106319.
[42]
F. González-Gómez, J. Guardiola, Ó. Martín Rodríguez, M.Á. Montero Alonso, Gender differences in e-learning satisfaction, Computers and Education 58 (1) (2012) 283–290.
[43]
G.A. Grimes, M.G. Hough, E. Mazur, M.L. Signorella, Older adults' knowledge of internet hazards, Educational Gerontology 36 (3) (2010) 173–192.
[44]
F.W. Guldenmund, The nature of safety culture: A review of theory and research, Safety Science 34 (1–3) (2000) 215–257.
[45]
L. Hadlington, Human factors in cybersecurity; examining the link between Internet addiction, impulsivity, attitudes towards cybersecurity, and risky cybersecurity behaviours, Heliyon 3 (7) (2017).
[46]
L. Hadlington, The “human factor” in cybersecurity: Exploring the accidental insider, Psychological and behavioral examinations in cyber security, IGI Global, 2018.
[47]
L. Hadlington, J. Binder, N. Stanulewicz, Fear of missing out predicts employee information security awareness above personality traits, age, and gender, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking (2020) 1–6.
[48]
M.J. Hutchins, R. Bhinge, M.K. Micali, S.L. Robinson, J.W. Sutherland, D. Dornfeld, Framework for identifying cybersecurity risks in manufacturing, Procedia Manufacturing 1 (2015) 47–63.
[49]
IBM Corp, IBM SPSS statistics for windows, 2015, [Computer Software]. https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-23 Version 23.0.
[50]
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2009): Guide 73: Risk management. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:guide:73:ed-1:v1:en.
[51]
G. Javidi, E. Sheybani, K-12 cybersecurity education, research, and outreach, in: IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE), IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–5.
[52]
D. Jeske, P. Van Schaik, Familiarity with Internet threats: Beyond awareness, Computers & Security 66 (2017) 129–141.
[53]
P. Jiang, X. Tian, C. Xin, W. He, Teaching hands-on cyber defense labs to middle school and high school students: Our experience from GenCyber camps. EdMedia+ innovate learning, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2017.
[54]
G. Jin, M. Tu, T.H. Kim, J. Heffron, J. White, Game based cybersecurity training for high school students, Proceedings of the 49th ACM technical symposium on computer science education, 2018.
[55]
D. Kahneman, Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice, Nobel Prize Lecture 8 (2002) 351–401.
[56]
D. Kahneman, A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality, American Psychologist 58 (9) (2003) 697.
[57]
D. Kahneman, Thinking, fast and slow, Macmillan, New York, 2011.
[58]
H.F. Kaiser, An index of factorial simplicity, Psychometrika 39 (1) (1974) 31–36.
[59]
w. b. Kannel, t. r. Dawber, g. d. Friedman, w. e. Glennon, p. m. Mcnamara, Risk factors in coronary heart disease: The Framingham study, Annals of Internal Medicine 61 (1964) 888–899.
[60]
T. Kanstrén, P. Savolainen, P. Heino, K. Kanstrén, A study on cybersecurity industrial end-user perspectives in Finland, Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Software Architecture: Companion Proceedings (2017) 95–101.
[61]
G. Klein, Sources of power: How people make decisions, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1998.
[62]
G. Klein, Intuition at work: Why developing your gut instincts will make you better at what you do, Doubleday, New York, 2003.
[63]
A. Konak, Experiential learning builds cybersecurity self-efficacy in K-12 students, Journal of Cybersecurity Education, Research and Practice 2018 (1) (2018) 6.
[64]
H.C. Kraemer, A.E. Kazdin, D.R. Offord, R.C. Kessler, P.S. Jensen, D.J. Kupfer, Coming to terms with the terms of risk, Archives of General Psychiatry 54 (4) (1997) 337–343.
[65]
D. Krewski, M. Westphal, M.E. Andersen, G.M. Paoli, W.A. Chiu, M. Al-Zoughool, I. Cote, A framework for the next generation of risk science, Environmental Health Perspectives 122 (8) (2014) 796–805.
[66]
T. Ladabouche, S. LaFountain, Gencyber: Inspiring the next generation of cyber stars, IEEE Security & Privacy 14 (5) (2016) 84–86.
[67]
J.S. Lerner, D. Keltner, Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice, Cognition & Emotion 14 (4) (2000) 473–493.
[68]
X. Lin, M. Featherman, S.L. Brooks, N. Hajli, Exploring gender differences in online consumer purchase decision making: An online product presentation perspective, Information Systems Frontiers 21 (5) (2019) 1187–1201.
[69]
C.-C. Liu, Understanding player behavior in online games: The role of Gender, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 111 (2016) 265–274.
[70]
R.X. Liu, J. Kuang, Q. Gong, X.L. Hou, Principal component regression analysis with SPSS, Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 71 (2) (2003) 141–147.
[71]
S. Livingstone, U. Hasebrink, A. Görzig, Towards a general model of determinants of risks and safety, Children, Risk and Safety on the Internet (2012) 323–339.
[72]
S. Livingstone, J. Sefton-Green, The class: Living and learning in the digital age, Vol. 1, NYU Press, 2016.
[73]
P.J. Macaulay, M.J. Boulton, L.R. Betts, L. Boulton, E. Camerone, J. Down, J. Hughes, C. Kirkbride, R. Kirkham, Subjective versus objective knowledge of online safety/dangers as predictors of children's perceived online safety and attitudes towards e-safety education in the United Kingdom, Journal of Children and Media 14 (3) (2020) 376–395.
[74]
A. McCormac, T. Zwaans, K. Parsons, D. Calic, M. Butavicius, M. Pattinson, Individual differences and information security awareness, Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 151–156.
[75]
L. McDaniel, E. Talvi, B. Hay, Capture the flag as cyber security introduction, in: 2016 49th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), IEEE, 2016, pp. 5479–5486.
[76]
J.H. McDonald, Handbook of biological statistics, Sparky House Publishing, 2009.
[77]
A. McGettrick, Toward effective cybersecurity education, IEEE Security & Privacy 11 (6) (2013) 66–68.
[78]
A. Moallem, Cyber security Awareness among college students, International conference on applied human factors and ergonomics, Springer, 2018.
[79]
P.K.H. Mo, S.H. Malik, N.S. Coulson, Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: A systematic literature review of online health-related support groups, Patient Education and Counseling 75 (1) (2009) 16–24.
[80]
D. Nelson, K.P.L. Vu, Effectiveness of image-based mnemonic techniques for enhancing the memorability and security of user-generated passwords, Computers in Human Behavior 26 (4) (2010) 705–715.
[81]
G. Öğütçü, Ö.M. Testik, O. Chouseinoglou, Analysis of personal information security behavior and awareness, Computers & Security 56 (2016) 83–93.
[82]
C.W. Park, D. gook Kim, S. Cho, H.J. Han, Adoption of multimedia technology for learning and Gender difference, Computers in Human Behavior 92 (2019) 288–296.
[83]
S.L. Pfleeger, D.D. Caputo, Leveraging behavioral science to mitigate cyber security risk, Computers & Security 31 (4) (2012) 597–611.
[84]
E.M. Raineri, T. Fudge, Exploring the sufficiency of undergraduate students' cybersecurity knowledge within top universities' entrepreneurship programs, Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice 19 (4) (2019) 73–92.
[85]
H.S. Rhee, Y.U. Ryu, C.T. Kim, Unrealistic optimism on information security management, Computers & Security 31 (2) (2012) 221–232.
[86]
M.D. Richardson, P.A. Lemoine, W.E. Stephens, R.E. Waller, Planning for cyber security in schools: The human factor, Educational Planning 27 (2) (2020) 23–39.
[87]
G. Roldán-Molina, M. Almache-Cueva, C. Silva-Rabadão, I. Yevseyeva, V. Basto-Fernandes, A comparison of cybersecurity risk analysis tools, Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 568–575.
[88]
J.E. Rolf, A.S. Masten, D.K. Cicchetti, S. Nuechterlein, S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1993.
[89]
RStudio Team (2020): RStudio [computer software]. https://rstudio.com/products/rstudio/#rstudio-desktop.
[90]
M. Russell, D. Bebell, L. O'Dwyer, K. O'Connor, Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation, Journal of Teacher Education 54 (4) (2003) 297–310.
[91]
M. Rutter, Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder, The British Journal of Psychiatry 147 (6) (1985) 598–611.
[92]
D. Sarathchandra, K. Haltinner, N. Lichtenberg, College students' cybersecurity risk perceptions, awareness, and practices. 2016 Cybersecurity Symposium (CYBERSEC), IEEE, 2016.
[93]
M.A. Sasse, S. Brostoff, D. Weirich, Transforming the ‘weakest link’—a human/computer interaction approach to useable and effective security, BT Technology Journal 19 (3) (2001) 122–131.
[94]
R. Schaeffer, April). National information assurance (IA) glossary. Committee on national security systems, 2010, https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=7447.
[95]
S. Sheng, M. Holbrook, P. Kumaraguru, L.F. Cranor, J. Downs, April). 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, 2010, pp. 373–382.
[96]
J. Shropshire, M. Warkentin, S. Sharma, Personality, attitudes, and intentions: Predicting initial adoption of information security behavior, Computers & Security 49 (2015) 177–191.
[97]
M. Siegrist, C. Keller, H. Kastenholz, S. Frey, A. Wiek, Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards, Risk Analysis 27 (1) (2007) 59–69.
[98]
D.K. Smetters, R.E. Grinter, Moving from the design of useable security technologies to the design of useful secure applications, in: Proceedings of the 2002 workshop on New security paradigms, 2002, pp. 82–89.
[99]
G.W. Snedecor, W.G. Cochran, Statistical methods, 8th ed., Iowa State University Press, 1989.
[100]
R. Steen, T. Aven, A risk perspective suitable for resilience engineering, Safety Science 49 (2) (2011) 292–297.
[101]
P.M. Steiner, C. Atzmüller, D. Su, Designing valid and reliable vignette experiments for survey research: A case study on the fair gender income gap, Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences 7 (2) (2016) 52–94.
[102]
M.J. Stern, S.R. Cotten, P. Drentea, The separate spheres of online health, Journal of Family Issues 33 (10) (2012) 1324–1350.
[103]
D. Su, P.M. Steiner, An evaluation of experimental designs for constructing vignette sets in factorial surveys, Sociological Methods & Research 49 (2) (2020) 455–497.
[104]
G. Thieman, Using technology as a tool for learning and developing 21st century skills: An examination of technology use by pre-service teachers with their K-12 students, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 8 (4) (2008) 342–366.
[105]
S. Tifferet, Gender differences in privacy tendencies on social network sites: A meta-analysis, Computers in Human Behavior 93 (2019) 1–12.
[106]
S. Tifferet, I. Vilnai-Yavetz, Self-presentation in LinkedIn portraits: Common features, Gender, and occupational differences, Computers in Human Behavior 80 (2018) 33–48.
[107]
U.S. Census Bureau, April 17). Census Regions and Divisions of the United States , 2013, https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf.
[108]
C. Valli, A. Woodward, P. Hannay, M. Johnstone, Why penetration testing is a limited use choice for sound cyber security practice, in: Annual ADFSL conference on digital forensics, security and law, 2014.
[109]
P. Van Schaik, J. Jansen, J. Onibokun, J. Camp, P. Kusev, Security and privacy in online social networking: Risk perceptions and precautionary behaviour, Computers in Human Behavior 78 (2018) 283–297.
[110]
P. Van Schaik, D. Jeske, J. Onibokun, L. Coventry, J. Jansen, P. Kusev, Risk perceptions of cyber-security and precautionary behaviour, Computers in Human Behavior 75 (2017) 547–559.
[111]
Vargo, D., Zhu, L., Benwell, B., & Yan, Z. (in press). Digital technology use during covid-19 pandemic: A rapid review. Human behavior and emerging technologies.
[112]
L. Wang, F.S. Wang, M.E. Gershwin, Human autoimmune diseases: A comprehensive update, Journal of Internal Medicine 278 (4) (2015) 369–395.
[113]
M. Warkentin, A.C. Johnston, J. Shropshire, W.D. Barnett, Continuance of protective security behavior: A longitudinal study, Decision Support Systems 92 (2016) 25–35.
[114]
R. Weiss, J. Mache, B. Taylor, S. Kaza, A. Chattopadhyay, Discussion of integrating hands-on cybersecurity exercises into the curriculum in 2019, in: Proceedings of the 50th ACM technical symposium on computer science education, 2019, 1245-1245.
[115]
R. West, C. Mayhorn, J. Hardee, J. Mendel, The weakest link: A psychological perspective on why users make poor security decisions, in: Social and Human elements of information security: Emerging Trends and countermeasures, IGI Global, 2009, pp. 43–60.
[116]
M. Whitty, J. Doodson, S. Creese, D. Hodges, Individual differences in cyber security behaviors: An examination of who is sharing passwords, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 18 (1) (2015) 3–7.
[117]
K. Wilson, S. Fornasier, K.M. White, Psychological predictors of young adults' use of social networking sites, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 13 (2) (2010) 173–177.
[118]
J. Winn, C. Heeter, Gaming, Gender, and time: Who makes time to play?, Sex Roles 61 (1–2) (2009) 1–13.
[119]
Z. Yan, Is our school at risk in cyber space? Intuitive and rational judgment of cybersecurity risks among 2667 k-12 students and teachers, [Manuscript submitted for publication] School of Education, University at Albany, State University of, New York, 2020.
[120]
H. Yang, C. Thompson, Nurses' risk assessment judgements: A confidence calibration study, Journal of Advanced Nursing 66 (12) (2010) 2751–2760.
[121]
Z. Yan, T. Robertson, R. Yan, S.Y. Park, S. Bordoff, Q. Chen, E. Sprissler, Finding the weakest links in the weakest link: How well do undergraduate students make cybersecurity judgment?, Computers in Human Behavior 84 (2018) 375–382.
[122]
R.B. Zajonc, Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences, American Psychologist 35 (2) (1980) 151.
[123]
M. Zwilling, G. Klien, D. Lesjak, Ł. Wiechetek, F. Cetin, H.N. Basim, Cyber security awareness, knowledge and behavior: A comparative study, Journal of Computer Information Systems (2020) 1–16.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Evaluating the Use of Hypothetical 'Would You Rather' Scenarios to Discuss Privacy and Security Concepts with ChildrenProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36410048:CSCW1(1-32)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
  • (2024)A Structural Equation Approach and Modelling of Pre-service Teachers' Perspectives of Cybersecurity EducationEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-023-11973-529:3(3699-3727)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2024
  • (2023)"We picked community over privacy": Privacy and Security Concerns Emerging from Remote Learning Sociotechnical Infrastructure During COVID-19Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36100367:CSCW2(1-29)Online publication date: 4-Oct-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Risk and protective factors for intuitive and rational judgment of cybersecurity risks in a large sample of K-12 students and teachers
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image Computers in Human Behavior
        Computers in Human Behavior  Volume 121, Issue C
        Aug 2021
        442 pages

        Publisher

        Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

        Netherlands

        Publication History

        Published: 01 August 2021

        Author Tags

        1. Risk factor
        2. Protective factor
        3. Cybersecurity risk judgment
        4. Cybersecurity
        5. Intuitive judgment
        6. Rational judgment
        7. K-12 students
        8. K-12 teachers
        9. Cybersecurity risks
        10. Experimental survey

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
        Reflects downloads up to 28 Feb 2025

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2024)Evaluating the Use of Hypothetical 'Would You Rather' Scenarios to Discuss Privacy and Security Concepts with ChildrenProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36410048:CSCW1(1-32)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
        • (2024)A Structural Equation Approach and Modelling of Pre-service Teachers' Perspectives of Cybersecurity EducationEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-023-11973-529:3(3699-3727)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2024
        • (2023)"We picked community over privacy": Privacy and Security Concerns Emerging from Remote Learning Sociotechnical Infrastructure During COVID-19Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36100367:CSCW2(1-29)Online publication date: 4-Oct-2023
        • (2023)Uncovering Privacy and Security Challenges In K-12 SchoolsProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3580777(1-28)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023

        View Options

        View options

        Figures

        Tables

        Media

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media