Julian Pablo<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CYSE 201S<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Professor Trinity Woodbury<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Due Date: September 20, 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Article Review #1<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Intro<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The article I have chosen is titled, \u201cPerceived Security Risks and Cybersecurity Compliance Attitude: Role of Personality Traits and Cybersecurity Behavior.\u201d This research goes into how the big five personality traits affect people\u2019s behavior, compliances, and risks associated with cybersecurity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Principles<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The article is able to reflect the principles of relativism, skepticism, and parsimony. For relativism this article is based on how the system of one\u2019s personality traits affects their system of compliance and behavior with cybersecurity polices. The assumption that generalized polices are affective for everyone is also challenged with articles skepticism to push for psychological based frameworks. Lastly, they provide multiple models and figures to show the relation of traits and compliance\/behaviors to make understanding as simplistic as it can be to reflect parsimony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Question\/Hypothesis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The main research question mentioned before is how do the five personality traits affect cybersecurity compliance? This would lead to the hypothesis of each of the big five personality traits directly influence one\u2019s compliance, and their behavior is what serves as a mediator for traits and compliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Method<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The methodology used was a quantitative survey of 259 employees from different organizations. They factored in items\/questions that revealed their traits, compliance, and perceived privacy\/security risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Data<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The data examined was the numerical data from the surveys. The ways it was analyzed was using the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and was done with STATA software. This essentially sets that data up in a framework that checks the validity of the data and tests the variables out to see how they interact\/influence each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concepts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This article relates to a few different concepts that have been discussed in this class. First, I believe the inspection of one\u2019s traits is a good implementation of human factors. The main point is to design around a person behavior and capabilities, and the articles conclusion does suggest that security policies should be tailored to fit people with differing traits. Another concept to relate would be victim precipitation or the victim behavior that may draw a cybercrime against them. For example, someone with low consciousness may have trouble doing multiple passwords and instead uses the same simple passwords that hackers would easily be drawn towards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, the main concept that relates to this article is the big five personality traits\/personality theory. The research does find a striking positive correlation between all the traits with compliance attitudes. While the subject does focus on personality traits, the article still acknowledges behavior as an important concept. It\u2019s essentially the mediator of people\u2019s traits and their actual compliance which bridges personality and behavioral studies\/theories together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Problems of Marginalized Groups<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/strong>The main problem this topic tackles are how a general security training framework will not work for everyone. For example, people with lower conscientiousness will likely struggle to comply completely due to harder time staying organized with proper procedures. It\u2019s important to tailor training to people\u2019s weaker areas to help make up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another concern that could be raised is how people have different perspectives of risk and vulnerability. People that are more open and agreeable may be more likely to fall for phishing scams without realizing. In the specific study it also found people who are neurotic were surprisingly secure mainly due to high anxieties. Risk perception is also a mediator alongside behavior meaning it\u2019s just as important to tailor to these different perceptions for trainings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Contribution of Study<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The study showed how generic trainings should transition to tailored versions that can fit different employee\u2019s traits. This can easily be done through personality tests to get a consensus of everyone\u2019s traits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It also highlights the importance of looking at cybersecurity through a psychological lens. People\u2019s traits and the way they think is directly connected to their behavior in the cyberspace, and recognizing these processes could be what prevents others from making a slip up that causes the next security breach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Article\/Reference<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ghaleb, M. M. S., & Sattarov, A. (2025). Perceived Security Risks and Cybersecurity Compliance Attitude: Role of Personality Traits and Cybersecurity Behavior. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 19(1), 27\u201353. https:\/\/cybercrimejournal.com\/menuscript\/index.php\/cybercrimejournal\/article\/view\/438\/124<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Julian Pablo CYSE 201S Professor Trinity Woodbury Due Date: September 20, 2026 Article Review #1 Intro The article I have chosen is titled, \u201cPerceived Security Risks and Cybersecurity Compliance Attitude: Role of Personality Traits and Cybersecurity Behavior.\u201d This research goes into how the big five personality traits affect people\u2019s behavior, compliances, and risks associated… <\/p>\n