The present study investigated if the same users are vulnerable to phishing emails, scam text messages, and fake news headlines and if there are universal predictors of susceptibility for all three tasks.
Background
Theoretical research provides support for the notion that the same users likely fall for multiple forms of online deception. However, no research has directly compared susceptibility for various online deceptions (eg phishing, disinformation, scam text messages) within the same group of users.
Method
Participants completed an online survey consisting of demographic questions, the Cognitive Reflection Test (ie impulsivity), and the Digital Literacy Scale, and classified 90 legitimate and deceptive emails, text messages, and news headlines.
Results
Results suggest that individuals who struggle to discriminate between deceptive and legitimate stimuli on one task experience similar difficulties on the other two tasks. Additionally, while lower levels of digital literacy and cognitive reflectiveness predicted poorer discrimination abilities across all three tasks, age did not predict performance. Interestingly, participants appeared to be the most susceptible to phishing emails.
Conclusion
Overall, individuals who fall for one form of online deception appear to be more likely to fall for other forms of deception, and digital literacy and cognitive reflectiveness can predict widespread vulnerability to online deception.
Application
Organizations may be able to identify potential vulnerabilities for a variety of online attacks by measuring digital literacy, cognitive reflectiveness, and performance in one online deception task. Additionally, training interventions may be the most needed for phishing emails.
AllcottH.GentzkowM. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
2.
AllenJ.HowlandB.MobiusM.RothschildD.WattsD. J. (2020). Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem.Science advances, 6(14), eaay3539. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay3539
3.
AmazeenM. A.BucyE. P. (2019). Conferring resistance to digital disinformation: The inoculating influence of procedural news knowledge. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63(3), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2019.1653101
4.
BataillerC.BrannonS. M.TeasP. E.GawronskiB. (2022). A Signal Detection approach to understanding the identification of fake news. Perspectives on psychological science: a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 17(1), 78–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620986135
5.
BrashierN. M.SchacterD. L. (2020). Aging in an era of fake news. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 316–323, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420915872
6.
BryanovK.VziatyshevaV. (2021). Determinants of individuals’ belief in fake news: A scoping review determinants of belief in fake news. PloS One, 16(6), Article e0253717. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253717
7.
BuchananT. (2020). Why do people spread false information online? The effects of message and viewer characteristics on self-reported likelihood of sharing social media disinformation. PLoS ONE, 15(10), Article e0239666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239666
8.
ButaviciusM.ParsonsK.PattinsonM.McCormacA. (2016). Breaching the human firewall: Social engineering in phishing and spear-phishing emails. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.00887.
9.
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, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2018.08.002
10.
CalvilloD. P.GarciaR. J.BertrandK.MayersT. A. (2021). Personality factors and self-reported political news consumption predict susceptibility to political fake news. Personality and Individual Differences, 174, 110666, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110666
11.
CanfieldC. I.FischhoffB.DavisA. (2016). Quantifying phishing susceptibility for detection and behavior decisions. Human Factors, 58(8), 1158–1172, https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816665025
12.
ClasenM.LiF.WilliamsD. (2021). Friend or foe: An investigation into recipient identification of SMS-based phishing. In Human Aspects of Information Security and Assurance (pp. 148–163). Springer International Publishing.
13.
DownsJ. S.HolbrookM. B.CranorL. F. (2006). Decision strategies and susceptibility to phishing. Proceedings of the second symposium on Usable privacy and security (pp. 79–90). ACM.
FloresW. R.HolmH.SvenssonG.EricssonG. (2014). Using phishing experiments and scenario-based surveys to understand security behaviours in practice. Information Management & Computer Security.
17.
FongB. (2021). Analysing the behavioural finance impact of fake news' phenomena on financial markets: a representative agent model and empirical validation. Financial Innovation, 7(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-021-00271-z
GeY.LuL.CuiX.ChenZ.QuW. (2021). How personal characteristics impact phishing susceptibility: The mediating role of mail processing.Applied Ergonomics, 97, 103526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103526
20.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1988). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Los Altos, CA: Peninsula Pub, 1988.
21.
GrimesG. A.HoughM. G.SignorellaM. L. (2007). Email end users and spam: relations of gender and age group to attitudes and actions. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1) 318–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.015
22.
HadlingtonL. (2017). Human factors in cybersecurity; examining the link between Internet addiction, impulsivity, attitudes towards cybersecurity, and risky cybersecurity behaviours. Heliyon, 3(7), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00346
23.
HertzogC.SmithR. M.ArielR. (2018). Does the Cognitive Reflection Test actually capture heuristic versus analytic reasoning styles in older adults?Experimental Aging Research, 44(1), 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2017.1398508
24.
JonesH. S.TowseJ. N.RaceN.HarrisonT. (2019). Email fraud: The search for psychological predictors of susceptibility. PLoS ONE, 14(1), Article e0209684. Gale Academic OneFile.
25.
Jones-JangS. M.MortensenT.LiuJ. (2021). Does media literacy help identification of fake news? Information literacy helps, but other literacies don’t. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869406
26.
KahnemanD. (2011).Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
27.
KircanskiK.NotthoffN.DeLiemaM.Samanez-LarkinG. R.ShadelD.MottolaG.CarstensenL. L.GotlibI. H.GotlibI. H. (2018). Emotional arousal may increase susceptibility to fraud in older and younger adults. Psychology and aging, 33(2), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000228
28.
KumarS.TalwarS.KrishnanS.KaurP.DhirA. (2021). Purchasing natural personal care products in the era of fake news? The moderation effect of brand trust.Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 63, 102668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102668
29.
KumaraguruP.RheeY.ShengS.HasanS.AcquistiA.CranorL. F.HongJ. (2007, October). Getting users to pay attention to anti-phishing education: evaluation of retention and transfer. In Proceedings of the anti-phishing working groups 2nd annual eCrime researchers summit (pp. 70–81).
30.
LawsonP.PearsonC. J.CrowsonA.MayhornC. B. (2020). Email phishing and signal detection: How persuasion principles and personality influence response patterns and accuracy.Applied ergonomics, 86, 103084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103084
31.
LeeN. M. (2018). Fake news, phishing, and fraud: a call for research on digital media literacy education beyond the classroom.Communication Education, 67(4), 460–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1503313
32.
LevineT. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT) a theory of human deception and deception detection.Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x14535916
33.
MartinJ.DubéC.CoovertM. D. (2018). Signal Detection Theory (SDT) is effective for modeling user behavior toward phishing and spear-phishing attacks. Human Factors, 60(8), 1179–1191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818789818
MooreR. C.HancockJ. T. (2022). A digital media literacy intervention for older adults improves resilience to fake news. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 6008. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08437-0
36.
ParsonsK.McCormacA.PattinsonM.ButaviciusM.JerramC. (2013). Phishing for the truth: A scenario-based experiment of users’ behavioural response to emails. IFIP International Information Security Conference (pp. 366–378). Springer.
37.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
38.
PennycookG.BinnendykJ.NewtonC.RandD. G. (2021a). A practical guide to doing behavioral research on fake news and misinformation. Collabra: Psychology, 7(1), 25293. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.25293
39.
PennycookG.EpsteinZ.MoslehM.ArecharA. A.EcklesD.RandD. G. (2021b). Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature, 592(7855), 590–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2
40.
PetersE.HessT. M.VästfjällD.AumanC. (2007). Adult age differences in dual information processes: Implications for the role of affective and deliberative processes in older adults' decision making.Perspectives on psychological science: a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 2(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00025.x
41.
ProctorR. W.ChenJ. (2015). The role of human factors/ergonomics in the science of security: decision making and action selection in cyberspace.Human factors, 57(5), 721–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815585906
42.
RauwolfP. (2022). Interpersonal factors and mental well‐being are associated with accuracy in judging the veracity of political news. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(3), 581–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3946
Rodríguez-de-DiosI.van OostenJ. M.IgartuaJ. J. (2018). A study of the relationship between parental mediation and adolescents’ digital skills, online risks and online opportunities. Computers in Human Behavior, 82, 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.012
45.
SarnoD. M.LewisJ. E.BohilC. J.NeiderM. B. (2020). Which phish is on the hook?: Phishing vulnerability for older versus younger adults. Human factors, 62 (5), 704–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819855570
46.
SarnoD. M.NeiderM. B. (2021). So many phish, so little time: Exploring email task factors and phishing susceptibility. Human Factors, 0018720821999174.
47.
SarnoD. M.McPhersonR.NeiderM. B. (2022). Is the key to phishing training persistence?: Developing a novel persistent intervention.Journal of experimental psychology. Applied, 28(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000410
48.
SawyerB. D.HancockP. A. (2018). Hacking the human: The prevalence paradox in cybersecurity. Human Factors, 60(5), 597–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818780472
49.
SchaewitzL.KluckJ. P.KlöstersL.KrämerN. C. (2020). When is disinformation (in)credible? Experimental findings on message characteristics and individual differences. Mass Communication and Society, 23(4), 484–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1716983
50.
ShengS.HolbrookM.KumaraguruP.CranorL.DownsJ. (2011). Who falls for phish?: A demographic analysis of phishing susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings, 373–382.
51.
SirlinN.EpsteinZ.ArecharA. A.RandD. G. (2021). Digital literacy is associated with more discerning accuracy judgments but not sharing intentions. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review.
52.
StanislawH.TodorovN. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures.Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers: a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc, 31(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03207704
53.
ThomsonK. S.OppenheimerD. M. (2016). Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500007622
54.
Van de VordR. (2009). Predictors of credibility assessments in online information seeking of college students. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
VijaykumarS.JinY.RogersonD.LuX.SharmaS.MaughanA.FadelB.de Oliveira CostaM. S.PagliariC.MorrisD. (2021). How shades of truth and age affect responses to COVID-19 (Mis)information: randomized survey experiment among WhatsApp users in UK and Brazil. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00752-7
57.
VishwanathA.HarrisonB.NgY. J. (2018). Suspicion, Cognition, and Automaticity Model of phishing susceptibility. Communication Research, 45(8), 1146–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215627483
WelkA. K.HongK. W.ZielinskaO. A.TembeR.Murphy-HillE.MayhornC. B. (2015). Will the “Phisher-Men” Reel You In?: Assessing individual differences in a phishing detection task.International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning (IJCBPL), 5(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcbpl.2015100101
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
