{"id":136,"date":"2026-04-27T21:34:41","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T21:34:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ramankpaul\/?page_id=136"},"modified":"2026-04-27T22:37:20","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T22:37:20","slug":"article-reviews","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ramankpaul\/cyse-201s-course-tab\/article-reviews\/","title":{"rendered":"Article Reviews"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Article Review #1: The Impact of Cybersecurity on Bank Performance During COVID-19<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Student Name: <\/strong>Raman Paul<\/p>\n\n\n\n

School of Cybersecurity, Old Dominion University<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CYSE 201S: <\/strong>Cybersecurity and the Social Sciences<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instructor:<\/strong> Diwakar Yalpi<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Date:<\/strong> February 20, 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article I picked to review is by Al-Sartawi et al. (2025) where Al-Sartawi et al talk<\/p>\n\n\n\n

about how cybersecurity practices affected the financial success of banks in the Gulf<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cooperation Council (GCC) in the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the pandemic, a lot of banking<\/p>\n\n\n\n

services had to be pushed online, so protection of digital systems had become very important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The researchers saw that banks that had strong cybersecurity were generally performed<\/p>\n\n\n\n

better financially, and much better in terms of Return on Assets (ROA). This means that<\/p>\n\n\n\n

cybersecurity directly affects financial stability and is not just a technical issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Relation to Social Science Principles<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study relates to many social science principles we talked about in class and one main<\/p>\n\n\n\n

principle is empiricism<\/strong>. The writers rely on real data collected from 41 banks, not assumptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their conclusions come from actual measurable facts and statistics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another principle I found that relates to our classroom discussion is determinism<\/strong>. The<\/p>\n\n\n\n

study examines how one factor, like the level of cybersecurity, affects another factor, like<\/p>\n\n\n\n

financial performance. The researcher’s goal this connection and its cause and effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article also shows skepticism<\/strong> by discussing the previous research that had mixed<\/p>\n\n\n\n

results about cybersecurity effects performance. The authors didn\u2019t use the previous study<\/p>\n\n\n\n

results, but they decided to test the relationship again in a different region during a global<\/p>\n\n\n\n

COVID crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the writers showed that through the use of regression models and data analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They tried to minimize bias by applying consistent statistical methods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research Question:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What was the level of cybersecurity implementation among GCC banks during the<\/p>\n\n\n\n

COVID 19 pandemic, and what impact did it have on their financial performance?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My Hypothesis:<\/strong>The hypothesis proposes that banks with a higher level of cybersecurity would have<\/p>\n\n\n\n

better financial gains. The authors expected a good relationship between cybersecurity practices<\/p>\n\n\n\n

and profits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The independent variable (IV)<\/strong> is the Cybersecurity Level (CL)<\/strong>, which is how strongly each<\/p>\n\n\n\n

bank implemented their cybersecurity practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dependent variables (DV)<\/strong> are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Return on Assets (ROA)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Earnings Per Share (EPS)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Types of Research Methods Used<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The researchers used a quantitative research design. They gathered financial data from<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bloomberg, annual reports, stock exchange platforms, and official bank websites. A<\/p>\n\n\n\n

cybersecurity checklist was sent to IT and security professionals within the banks to find out<\/p>\n\n\n\n

about the cybersecurity practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their final data sample had 41 banks all across Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

and the UAE. The researchers analyzed data from several years, focusing on the COVID-19<\/p>\n\n\n\n

pandemic period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Types of Data and Analysis Used<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The researchers used many techniques in this study, such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

– Multiple regression analysis<\/p>\n\n\n\n

– Fixed effects panel regression<\/p>\n\n\n\n

– Correlation analysis<\/p>\n\n\n\n

– Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors also performed tests to make sure of the reliability of their findings. The<\/p>\n\n\n\n

results showed a positive relationship between the cybersecurity level and ROA. Another way to<\/p>\n\n\n\n

say this is that better cybersecurity was related to better financial results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Connection to Course Concepts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article connects strongly to the ideas from our class, like the idea that cybersecurity<\/p>\n\n\n\n

is part of a bigger social and organization system, not just a tech tool. The study shows us that<\/p>\n\n\n\n

things like leadership decisions, board structure, and IT governance all effect cybersecurity<\/p>\n\n\n\n

results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another very important idea is risk management. We can see that by investing in a strong<\/p>\n\n\n\n

cybersecurity, banks can lower financial risks and keep the public trust.Another way the article relates to our class material is how cyber threats can affect<\/p>\n\n\n\n

economic stability and national security, especially during global emergencies like COVID-19.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Connection to Marginalized Groups<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even though the article mostly talks about banks, it still connects to marginalized groups<\/p>\n\n\n\n

in important ways. For example, lower income people are usually hit harder by cyberattacks<\/p>\n\n\n\n

because losing money can have a greater effect on them. Strong cybersecurity helps protect them<\/p>\n\n\n\n

from things like fraud and identity theft. The study also talks about female representation on<\/p>\n\n\n\n

boards, which relates to gender diversity and its importance in leadership and cybersecurity<\/p>\n\n\n\n

decision making. In addition, during COVID-19 a lot of elderly people and people with limited<\/p>\n\n\n\n

technology skills relied on online banking. Having strong cybersecurity systems in place helps<\/p>\n\n\n\n

protect these vulnerable groups from scams and exploitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall Societal Contributions \/ Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study finds that investing in cybersecurity can boost both financial performance and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

public trust in banks. It talks about how cybersecurity is not just an added expense, but it shows<\/p>\n\n\n\n

that it can give organizations a competitive edge. The authors recommend that regulators should<\/p>\n\n\n\n

set up a standard way for banks to report their cybersecurity practices, which could make<\/p>\n\n\n\n

financial institutions more transparent and accountable. In conclusion, the article explains how<\/p>\n\n\n\n

cybersecurity relates to governance, the economy, and society, especially during major events<\/p>\n\n\n\n

like the COVID-19 pandemic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reference<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Al-Sartawi, A. M. A. M., Sanad, Z., Shehadeh, M., & Binsaddig, R. (2025). Cybersecurity and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

bank performance: Evidence from Gulf Cooperation Council. International Journal of Cyber<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Criminology, 19(1), 54\u201371. https:\/\/www.cybercrimejournal.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Raman Paul Article Review 1.pdf<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article Review 2, Perceived Security Risks and Cybersecurity Compliance Attitude:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Role of Personality Traits and Cybersecurity Behavior<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Student Name: Raman Paul<\/p>\n\n\n\n

School of Cybersecurity, Old Dominion University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CYSE 201S Cybersecurity and the Social Sciences<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instructor Name: Diwakar Yalpi<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Date: April 5, 2026Paul 2<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This review digs into “Perceived Security Risks and Cybersecurity Compliance Attitude:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Role of Personality Traits and Cybersecurity Behavior” by Ghaleb and Sattarov, published in the<\/p>\n\n\n\n

International Journal of Cyber Criminology, Volume 19, Issue 1. The main idea here is pretty clear,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

who you are (your makeup across the Big Five personality traits) really shapes whether you will<\/p>\n\n\n\n

follow cybersecurity rules at work. But it is not just about personality, but perceived security risk<\/p>\n\n\n\n

and actual security behavior both play big roles in this equation. That matters a lot because it shifts<\/p>\n\n\n\n

the focus in cybersecurity. Instead of just patching technical holes, we have to look at why people<\/p>\n\n\n\n

do or do not play by the rules in the first place (Ghaleb and Sattarov 27).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Connection to Social Science Principles<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, thinking about social science principles, the article stands out for a few reasons. First,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

it is all about empiricism. Ghaleb and Sattarov did not just guess or rely on stories; they got hard<\/p>\n\n\n\n

numbers from 259 employees and ran stats to prove their points. That is the kind of evidence social<\/p>\n\n\n\n

science thrives on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Determinism is key, too. The researchers’ figure compliance is not random personality,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

behavior, and risk perceptions are real drivers. They are basically saying people’s security behavior<\/p>\n\n\n\n

follows patterns you can study, not just wild guesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then there’s relativism. Not everyone sees a security threat the same way, and those<\/p>\n\n\n\n

differences matter for compliance. That is pretty obvious if you have worked in any organization,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

some people worry about risks while others shrug them off. The study also makes sure to stay<\/p>\n\n\n\n

objective, using tested scales rather than homemade ones that might skew results. And, honestly,Paul 3<\/p>\n\n\n\n

the article embraces skepticism, it does not take the easy road of blaming “just tech” or “just<\/p>\n\n\n\n

awareness.” There is more going on underneath.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research Question<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, what is the research question? It is straightforward, do the Big Five personality traits<\/p>\n\n\n\n

affect employees’ attitudes toward cybersecurity compliance, and how do perceived risks and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

behaviors play into that? The authors hypothesize these traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

extraversion, neuroticism, openness) directly shape compliance attitudes. Security behavior<\/p>\n\n\n\n

mediates that relationship, while perceived risk tweaks how strong the personality effect is (Ghaleb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

and Sattarov 30).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of variables, the Big Five traits are the independent variables. The dependent<\/p>\n\n\n\n

variable is the compliance attitude, meaning whether employees follow security protocols or not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Security behavior is the bridge (mediator), while perceived risk is the knob that changes how much<\/p>\n\n\n\n

personality matters (moderator). That makes for a pretty sophisticated setup.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Types of Research Methods Used<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The researchers went with a quantitative approach. They used structured surveys built from<\/p>\n\n\n\n

trusted, previously validated scales. Surveys work well here; they are quick, standardized, and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

make comparisons easy. The study is not experimental, nothing was manipulated, just measured.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So we are dealing with real-world personality and risk perceptions, not anything cooked up in a<\/p>\n\n\n\n

lab.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Types of Data and Analysis Done<\/strong>Paul 4<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When it comes to data analysis, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is center stage, done<\/p>\n\n\n\n

with STATA software. SEM is powerful; it lets you look at multiple relationships all at once, like<\/p>\n\n\n\n

direct personality effects, mediation via behavior, and moderation through risk. That is exactly<\/p>\n\n\n\n

what this study needs. The use of standardized scales probably means the authors checked<\/p>\n\n\n\n

reliability in ways researchers always do, like calculating Cronbach’s alpha (Ghaleb and Sattarov<\/p>\n\n\n\n

35).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Connections to Course Concepts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Looking back at what we have studied this semester, the article ties closely to Protection<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Motivation Theory (PMT). PMT says people react to threats realistically when they believe the<\/p>\n\n\n\n

risk is real, and they know their actions can help. In this study, perceived risk works as a moderator,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

and people who take threats seriously are more likely to let their personality impact their<\/p>\n\n\n\n

compliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Social Learning Theory comes into play here. In the workplace, your behavior isn’t just<\/p>\n\n\n\n

about your own personality, it really depends on your surroundings. Workers who are more<\/p>\n\n\n\n

conscientious or agreeable might start following safe habits just by watching others, or sometimes<\/p>\n\n\n\n

they just don\u2019t want to stand out by breaking the rules. And there\u2019s a deterrence to consider. The<\/p>\n\n\n\n

threat of getting caught or facing consequences pushes people to comply, right along with how<\/p>\n\n\n\n

risky they think the situation is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Connections to the Concerns<\/strong>Paul 5<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article doesn\u2019t highlight the marginalized communities directly, but the implications<\/p>\n\n\n\n

are there. Employees in lower pay jobs usually do not get much security training. For them,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

compliance rests more on personality than knowledge, which really is not fair. Besides that, risk<\/p>\n\n\n\n

perceptions and willingness to trust rules often vary across racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

rooted in history with discrimination or oversight. If risk shapes compliance, but marginalized<\/p>\n\n\n\n

groups perceive risk differently, the study misses something by leaving out those demographic<\/p>\n\n\n\n

layers. Adding them would have made the research stronger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coming to a close, Ghaleb and Sattarov’s study gives cybersecurity research a real boost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It shows that personality drives compliance, but perceived risk and security behavior matter, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That means organizations must look beyond technical fixes; they should factor in the psychology<\/p>\n\n\n\n

of their teams when planning security measures. As cyber threats keep growing, understanding<\/p>\n\n\n\n

what makes people vulnerable or strong is crucial. This study recommends personalized training<\/p>\n\n\n\n

and smart hiring, tuned to individual differences. In the end, the message is clear, cybersecurity is<\/p>\n\n\n\n

a people problem just as much as a tech problem, and the tools we need come from social science<\/p>\n\n\n\n

as much as IT.Paul 6<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reference<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ghaleb, M. M. S., & Sattarov, A. (2025). Perceived security risks and cybersecurity compliance<\/p>\n\n\n\n

attitude: Role of personality traits and cybersecurity behavior. International Journal of<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cyber Criminology, 19<\/em>(1), 27\u201353.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article Link:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/cybercrimejournal.com\/menuscript\/index.php\/cybercrimejournal\/article\/view\/438\/124<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/olddominion-my.sharepoint.com\/:b:\/r\/personal\/rpaul008_odu_edu\/Documents\/presentation\/Raman%20Paul%20Article%20review%202.pdf?csf=1&web=1&e=hM1ygm<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Article Review #1: The Impact of Cybersecurity on Bank Performance During COVID-19 Student Name: Raman Paul School of Cybersecurity, Old Dominion University CYSE 201S: Cybersecurity and the Social Sciences Instructor: Diwakar Yalpi Date: February 20, 2026 Introduction The article I… Continue Reading →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":31289,"featured_media":0,"parent":126,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ramankpaul\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/136"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ramankpaul\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ramankpaul\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ramankpaul\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/31289"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ramankpaul\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=136"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ramankpaul\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/136\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":176,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ramankpaul\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/136\/revisions\/176"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ramankpaul\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/126"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/ramankpaul\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}