Despite the rapid escalation of cybercrimes in modern society, few viable cybersecurity and cybercrime prevention programs exist. Consequently, this research considers cybersecurity as a key element for mitigating the potential risk and incidents of cybercrime. The study aims to understand the role of individuals’ cybersecurity knowledge and awareness in shaping their cybersecurity intention and behavior in the United States. The results reveal that information and communications technology variables, education, income, and gender are contributing predictors of a level of cybersecurity knowledge. The effects of information and communications technology variables varied across gender for both correct and uncertain responses. The findings highlight the importance of a comprehensive understanding of both technical and human/individual factors for cybersecurity knowledge and education.
AbawajyJ. (2014). User preference of cyber security awareness delivery methods. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(3), 237–248.
2.
AcquisitiA.GrossR. (2006). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. Proceedings of the 2006 iDMAa and IMS Code Conference, June 28–30, 2006, Cambridge, UK.
3.
AnwarM.He.W.AshI.YuanX.LiL.XuL. (2017). Gender difference and employees’ cybersecurity behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 437–443.
4.
ArendI.ShabtaiA.IdanT.KeinanR.Bereby-MeyerY. (2020). Passive- and not active-risk tendencies predict cyber security behavior. Computers & Security, 97, 101964.
5.
AytesK.ConnollyT. (2004). Computer security and risky computing practices: A rational choice perspective. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(3), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2004070102
BosslerA. M.HoltT. J. (2009). On-line activities, guardianship, and malware infection: An examination of routine activity theory. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(1), 400–420.
8.
Branley-BellD.CoventryLDixonM.JoinsonA.BriggsP. (2022). Exploring age and gender differences in ICT cybersecurity behaviour. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2022, 2693080. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2693080
9.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022, January20). Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
10.
CainA. A.EdwardsM. E.StillJ. D. (2018). An exploratory study of cyber hygiene behaviors and knowledge. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 42, 36–45.
11.
ChenM.WangH.ZhangR. (2022). Using the extended theory of planned behavior to predict privacy-protection behavioral intentions in the big data era: The role of privacy concern [Conference session]. 2022 2nd International Conference on Social Development and Media Communication (SDMC 2022). November 25–27, 2022, Hainan, China. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202315503011
12.
ChengC.ChanL.ChauC. (2020). Individual differences in susceptibility to cybercrime victimization and its psychological aftermath. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, 106311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106311
13.
ChoiK.-S. (2008). Computer crime victimization and integrated theory: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2(1), 308–333.
14.
ClarkeR. V.FelsonM. (Eds.). (1993). Routine activity and rational choice. Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 5). London and New York: Routledge.
15.
CohenL. E.FelsonM. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608.
16.
De KimpeL.WalraveM.VerdegmP.PonnetK. (2022). What we think we know about cybersecurity: An investigation of the relationship between perceived knowledge, internet trust, and protection motivation in a cybercrime context. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(8), 1796–1808.
17.
DebtainB.LovejoyJ. P.HornA.-K.HughesB. N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 83–108.
18.
DinevT.HuQ. (2007). The centrality of awareness in the formation of user behavioral intention toward protective information technologies.Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(7), 386–408. https://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol8/iss7/23
19.
DodelM.MeschG. (2017). Cyber-victimization preventive behavior: A health belief model approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 359–367.
20.
EckJ. E.ClarkeR. V. (2003). Classifying common police problems: A routine activity theory approach. In SmithM. J.CornishD. B. (Eds.), Theory and practice in situational crime prevention. Crime prevention studies (Vol. 16, pp. 7–39). Criminal Justice Press.
21.
EgelmanS.HarbachM.PeerE. (2016, May7–12). Behavior ever follows intention? A validation of the security behavior intentions scale (SeBIS) [Conference session]. 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA (pp. 5257–5261).
22.
EgelmanS.PeerE. (2015, April18–23). Scaling the security wall: Developing a security behavior intentions scale (SeBIS) [Conference session]. 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul Republic of Korea, (pp. 2873–2882). ACM.
23.
FatokunF. B.HamidS.NormanA.FatokunJ. O. (2019). 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, 012098, 10.1088/1742-6596/1339/1/012098.
24.
FelsonM.CohenL. E. (1980). Human ecology and crime: A routine activity approach. Human Ecology, 8, 389–406.
25.
FurnellS.MooreL. (2014). Security literacy: The missing link in today’s online society?Computer Fraud & Security, 5, 12–18.
26.
GratianM.BandiS.CukierM.DykstraJ.GintherA. (2018). Correlating human traits and cyber security behavior intentions. Computers & Security, 73, 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2017.11.015
27.
GrossJ. B.RossonM. B. (2007, July18–20). End user concern about security and privacy threats. SOUPS 2007: The 3rd symposium on usable privacy and security [Symposium]. Third Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, Pittsburgh, PA (pp. 167–168).
28.
HadlingtonL. (2017). Human factors in cybersecurity: Examining the link between Internet addiction, impulsivity, attitudes towards cybersecurity, and risky cybersecurity behaviours. Heliyon, 3(7), e00346.
29.
HanusB.WuY. A. (2016). Impact of users’ security awareness on desktop security behavior: A protection motivation theory perspective. Information Systems Management, 33(1), 2–16.
30.
HearthT.RaoH. R. (2009). Protection motivation and deterrence: A framework for security policy compliance in organizations. European Journal of Information Systems, 18(2), 106–125.
31.
HerreroJ.TorresA.VivasP.HidalgoA.RodríguezF. J.UrueñaA. (2021). Smartphone addiction and cybercrime victimization in the context of Lifestyles Routine Activities and Self-Control Theories: The user’s dual vulnerability model of cybercrime victimization. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3763. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073763
32.
HindelangM. J.GottfredsonM. R.GarofaloJ. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Ballinger.
33.
HongY.FurnellS. (2021). Understanding cybersecurity behavioral habits: Insights from situational support. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 57, 102710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2020.102710
34.
HoyM. G.MilneG. (2010). Gender differences in privacy-related measures for young adult Facebook users. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 28–45.
35.
IfeC. C.DaviesT.MurdochS. J.StringhiniG. (2022). Bridging information security and environmental criminology research to better mitigate cybercrime. arXiv, 1910.06380
36.
IfinedoP. (2012). Understanding information systems security policy compliance: An integration of the theory of planned behavior and the protection motivation theory. Computer & Security, 31(1), 83–95.
37.
IfinedoP. (2014). Information systems security policy compliance: An empirical study of the effects of socialisation, influence, and cognition. Information Management, 51(1), 69–79.
38.
JeongJ.MihelcicJ.OliverG.RudolphC. (2019, December12–14). Towards an improved understanding of human factors in cybersecurity [Conference session]. 2019 IEEE 5th International Conference on Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC), Los Angeles, CA, USA (pp. 338-345). https://doi.org/10.1109/CIC48465.2019.00047
39.
JiaY.QiY.ShangH.JiangR.LiA. (2018). A practical approach to constructing a knowledge graph for cybersecurity. Engineering, 4(1), 53–60.
40.
KangR.DabbishLFruchterN.KieslerS. (2015). “My data just goes everywhere:” User mental models of the internet and implications for privacy and security. 2015 Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (pp. 39–52). July 22–24, 2015, Ottawa, Canada.
41.
KennisonS. M.Chan-TinE. (2020). Taking risks with cybersecurity: Using knowledge and personal characteristics to predict self-reported cybersecurity behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 546546. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.546546
42.
KokolakisS. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & Security, 64, 122–134.
43.
LaricM. V.PittaD. A.KatsanisL. P. (2009). Consumer concerns for healthcare information privacy: A comparison of US and Canadian perspectives. Research in Healthcare Financial Management, 12, 93.
44.
LeeC. S.KimD. (2022). Pathways to cybersecurity awareness and protection behaviors in South Korea. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 63(1), 94–106, https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2022.2031347
45.
LeeC. S.WangY. (2022). Typology of cybercrime victimization in Europe: A multilevel latent class analysis. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221118880
46.
LeeD.LaroseR.RifonN. (2008). Keeping our network safe: A model of online protection behaviour. Behaviour & Information Technology, 27(5), 445–454.
47.
MamonovS.Benbunan-FichR. (2018). The Impact of information security threat awareness on privacy-protective behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 32–44.
48.
MaxfieldM. G. (1987). Lifestyle and routine activity theories of crime: Empirical studies of victimization, delinquency, and offender decision-making. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 275–282.
49.
McCormacA.ZwaansT.ParsonsK.CalicD.ButaviciusM.PattinsonM. (2017). Individual differences and information security awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 151–156.
50.
MikkolaM.OksanenA.KaakinenM.MillerB. L.SavolainenI.SirolaA.ZychI.PaekJ. (2020). Situational and Individual risk factors for cybercrime victimization in a cross-national context. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20981041
51.
MorrisM. G.VenkateshV.AckermanP. L. (2005). Gender and age differences in employee decisions about new technology: An extension to the theory of planned behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52(1), 69–84.
52.
MylonasA.KastaniaA.GritzalisD. (2013). Delegate the smartphone user? Security awareness in smartphone platforms. Computers & Security, 34, 47–66.
53.
NeigelA. R.ClaypooleV. L.WaldfogleG. E.AcharyaS.HancockG. M. (2020). Holistic cyber hygiene education: Accounting for the human factors. Computers & Security, 92, 101731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.101731
54.
NewmanG. R.ClarkeR. V. (2003). Superhighway robbery: Preventing E-commerce crime. Willan.
55.
NgB. Y.KankanhalliA.XuY. C. (2009). Studying users’ computer security behavior: A health belief perspective. Decision Support Systems, 46(4), 815–825.
56.
NgB. Y.XuY. (2007, July4–6). Studying users’ computer security behavior using the Health Belief Model [Conference session]. PACIS 2007 Proceedings, Auckland, New Zealand, (Vol. 45).
57.
NgoF. T.PaternosterR. (2011). Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5(1), 773–793.
58.
ÖğütçüG.TestikÖ. M.ChouseinoglouO. (2016). Analysis of personal information security behavior and awareness. Computers & Security, 56(C), 83–93.
59.
PfleegerS. L.CaputoD. D. (2012). Leveraging behavioral science to mitigate cyber security risk. Computers & Security, 31(4), 597–611.
60.
PuseyP. M.SaderaW. A. (2011). Cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 82–85.
61.
RedmilesE. M.MaloneA. R.MazurekM. L. (2016, May22–26). I think they’re trying to tell me something: Advice sources and selection for digital security [Conference session]. 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), San Jose, CA (pp. 272–288).
62.
ReynsB. W. (2010). A situational crime prevention approach to cyberstalking victimization: Preventive tactics for Internet users and online place managers. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 12(2), 99–118.
63.
ReynsB. W. (2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further expanding routine activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 216–238.
64.
ReynsB. W. (2017). Routine activity theory and cybercrime: A theoretical appraisal and literature review. In K. Steinmetz & M. R. Nobles, Technocrime and criminological theory (pp. 35–54). Routledge.
65.
ReynsB. W.HensonB.FisherB. S. (2012). Stalking in the twilight zone: Extent of cyberstalking victimization and offending among college students. Deviant Behavior, 33(1), 1–25.
66.
RogersR. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In CacioppoJ.PettyR. (Eds.), Social psychophysiology (pp. 153–177). Guilford Press.
67.
RosenstockI. M. (1974). The health belief model and preventive health behavior. Health Education Monographs, 2, 354–386.
68.
ShillairR.CotenS. R.TsaiH.-Y. S.AlhabashS.LaRoseR.RifonN. J. (2015). Online safety begins with you and me: Convincing internet users to protect themselves. Computers in Human Behavior, 48(C), 199–207.
69.
SiponenM. T. (2000). A conceptual foundation for organizational information security awareness. Information Management & Computer Security, 8(1), 31–41.
70.
TaddickenM. (2014). The ‘Privacy paradox’ in the social web: The impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance on different forms of self-disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 248–273.
71.
ThompsonN.McGillT. J.WangX. (2017). ‘Security begins at home’: Determinants of home computer and mobile device security behavior. Computers & Security, 70, 376–391.
72.
TsaiH.-Y. S.JiangM.AlhabashS.LaRoseR.RifonN. J.CottenS. R. (2016). Understanding online safety behaviors: A protection motivation theory perspective. Computers & Security, 59(C), 138–150.
von SolmsR.van NiekerkJ. (2013). From information security to cyber security. Computers & Security, 38, 97–102.
75.
WashR. (2010July14–16). Folk models of home computer security [Symposium]. Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), Redmond, WA, USA.
76.
YangX.-N.WangW.XuX.-F. (2018). Research on the construction of a novel cyberspace security ecosystem. Engineering, 4(1), 47–52.
77.
YarM. (2005). The novelty of ‘cybercrime’: An assessment in light of routine activity theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2(4), 407–427.
78.
YucedalB. (2010). Victimization in cyberspace: An application of routine activity and lifestyle exposure theories [Ph.D. dissertation]. Kent State University.
79.
ZwillingM.KlienG.LesjakD.WilchetekLCetinF.BasimH. N. (2022). Cyber security awareness, knowledge and behavior: A comparative study. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 62(1), 82–97.
