{"id":325,"date":"2025-12-05T13:50:54","date_gmt":"2025-12-05T13:50:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/wt-beiser9\/?page_id=325"},"modified":"2025-12-05T14:12:25","modified_gmt":"2025-12-05T14:12:25","slug":"cybersecurity-the-social-sciences","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/wt-beiser9\/cybersecurity-the-social-sciences\/","title":{"rendered":"Cybersecurity & The Social Sciences"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

William Beiser
9\/27\/2025
Article Review #1<\/strong>
The International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence & Cybercrime (IJCIC) plays a
crucial role in the field of social sciences by examining how human behavior, institutions, and
societal structures interact with digital threats (IJCIC, n.d.). Rather than limiting the study to
technical vulnerabilities alone, the research examines how individual perceptions, cultural
backgrounds, demographic factors, and power relations influence risk, resilience, and harm in
cyberspace. In this way, the studies in the IJCIC article focus on sociology, criminology,
psychology, and political science to understand not just what cybercrimes occur, but who is
vulnerable, why, and how social contexts either amplify or mitigate those vulnerabilities (IJCIC,
n.d.).
An example of this social science approach is the IJCIC article that explores phishing,
social engineering, and identity theft. In the study, researchers define independent variables, such
as scam type (generic vs. phishing), awareness or education condition, and demographic
attributes (low-level vs high-level). The dependent variable is typically some measure of
susceptibility, like clicking on fraudulent email links or disclosing personal information. Testing
of hypotheses occurs through different methods. Behavioral experiments or field observations
paired with self-report surveys, followed by statistical models (for example, generalized linear
models), are used to assess which independent variables significantly predict the dependent
variables, controlling for potential confounders (IJCIC, n.d.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marginalized groups are a central focus of this research. International students, first-year
students, nonnative speakers, or those with limited prior digital literacy often emerge as more
vulnerable. We discussed this in a previous class, where specific demographics, such as older
people, are more likely to be susceptible to attacks and scams.
Overall, the contributions of studies like IJCIC to society are helpful. They inform policy
and best practices in higher education, such as designing orientation programs or training
modules that specifically target at-risk populations. They can clarify which sociocultural or
demographic variables reliably predict risk. Finally, they help shift the talking points. Viewing
cybersecurity not solely as a technical or individual issue, but as deeply related to social
inequality and responsibility. In this way, the research helps build safer, more inclusive digital
spaces for people from all demographics.
References
International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence & Cybercrime [IJCIC]. (n.d.). Home.
Bridgewater State University. Retrieved from https:\/\/vc.bridgew.edu\/ijcic\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

William Beiser
11\/15\/2025
Article Review #2: Personality, Behavior, and Criminal Typologies in Cybercrime Research
Relations to Social Sciences<\/strong>
The Cybercrime Journal article by Ghaleb & Sattarov (2025) directly connects to core
principles of the social sciences by examining how psychological traits influence cybersecurity
behavior. The professor-provided article on cybercriminals versus traditional criminals situates
cyber offending within sociological and criminological frameworks, emphasizing how
environment, opportunity, and identity shape pathways into crime. Together, these works
highlight how human behavior, whether in compliance, ignorance, or criminal behavior, is
shaped by social structures, individual traits, and subjective situations.
Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Variables
Ghaleb & Sattarov (2025) examine how five main personality traits predict cybersecurity
compliance. They hypothesize that traits such as conscientiousness and neuroticism are
correlated with safer practices. The Independent Variables are personality trait scores, with
compliance attitudes and behaviors as the Dependent Variables. The \u201cMost Wanted Criminals\u201d
article asks how cybercriminals differ in background and behavior from traditional offenders. Its
independent variables are the type of offender, with specific characteristics. The dependent
variables include criminal behaviors, techniques, and criminal profiles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research Methods
Ghaleb & Sattarov (2025) employ a quantitative survey method, collecting self-reported
personality and behavioral data. They then statistically model the relationship between the two.
The comparison article uses secondary data analysis of offender records, case profiles, and
criminological typologies.
Data and Analysis
Ghaleb & Sattarov\u2019s study relies on numerical personality scores and compliance
measures, which are analyzed using regression models. The comparison study utilizes both
qualitative and quantitative data, such as arrest records, behavioral profiles, and demographic
patterns, to explore the similarities and differences between offender types. Both studies aim to
identify predictors of behavior using the same approaches.
Relation to Course Concepts
Both articles reinforce key concepts in PowerPoint, including risk factors, individual
differences, social learning, and criminological typologies. Ghaleb\u2019s focus on the link between
personality and safe behavior parallels the professor\u2019s article, showing how personality and
background shape pathways into cyber versus traditional crime.
Marginalized Groups
Ghaleb & Sattarov (2025) suggest that employees with lower digital literacy, often
younger staff or those from underrepresented backgrounds, may face increased risk. The<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

comparison article notes that traditional criminals disproportionately come from marginalized
communities due to structural inequalities, whereas cybercriminals often come from more
privileged or technically skilled backgrounds. Together, these studies demonstrate how various
forms of marginalization give rise to distinct forms of vulnerability or deviance.
Overall Contributions to Society
Both studies provide valuable insights for prevention. Ghaleb\u2019s findings support the use
of tailored cybersecurity training based on personality and behavioral profiles. At the same time,
the comparison article helps law enforcement understand the diversity of offenders in cybercrime
versus traditional crime. Together, they advance social science theory and contribute to more
effective, equitable responses to crime in digital and physical spaces.
Conclusion
When examined together, these articles demonstrate that cybersecurity behavior and
cyber offending cannot be understood without considering psychology, social structure, and
criminological theory. Ghaleb & Sattarov (2025) show how personality predicts compliance,
while a comparison study illustrates how different offender backgrounds influence criminal
pathways. Both contribute valuable social science insights that help organizations, law
enforcement, and society better understand and manage behaviors in the digital age.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References
Ghaleb, M. M. S. (2025). Role of personality traits and cybersecurity behavior. Cybercrime
Journal.
https:\/\/cybercrimejournal.com\/menuscript\/index.php\/cybercrimejournal\/article\/view\/438\/124
America\u2019s most wanted criminals: Comparing cybercriminals and traditional criminals. (PDF
provided by professor)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cybersecurity Professional Career Paper: SOC Analyst
Student Name: William Beiser
School of Cybersecurity, Old Dominion University
CYSE 201S: Cybersecurity and the Social Sciences
Instructor Name: Diwakar Yalpi
Date: 11\/16\/2025<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Security Operations Center (SOC) Analyst is one of the most critical roles in
cybersecurity. SOC analysts monitor networks, investigate suspicious activities, and protect
organizations from cyberattacks. While the job seems purely technical, professionals in this field
rely heavily on ideas from the social sciences. Concepts from sociology, psychology,
criminology, and even communication studies help SOC analysts understand human behavior,
how attackers think, and how different groups in society experience cybersecurity risk. This
paper explains how SOC analysts apply social science principles in their everyday work, the
impact of this role on marginalized groups, and the interactions between SOC analysts and
society.
Even though SOC analysts deal with computers, the root of cyberattacks is almost always
human behavior. Attackers employ psychological methods, such as social engineering, to
deceive employees into clicking on harmful links or divulging sensitive information. For this
reason, SOC analysts must understand psychology and human decision-making. For example,
research indicates that individuals are more likely to click on phishing emails when they are
stressed, distracted, or under pressure from authority figures (Cybersecurity & Infrastructure
Security Agency, 2023). Knowing this helps SOC analysts design better warnings, reports, and
training programs for employees.
SOC analysts also utilize criminology, particularly theories that explain why people
commit crimes. Rational choice theory posits that criminals, including cybercriminals, act when
the reward is high and the risk of detection is low (Holt & Bossler, 2022). SOC analysts utilize<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

this understanding to strengthen systems, making attacks seem too risky for offenders. They also
use routine and behavioral pattern studies to predict when attacks are more likely to occur, such
as during holidays or late-night hours.
Another central area of social science that SOC analysts rely on is communication.
Analysts must write clear reports, explain complex threats to non-technical audiences, and
collaborate with IT teams, managers, and law enforcement. Clear communication helps prevent
misunderstandings and keeps organizations safe.
SOC analysts use data analysis methods similar to those used by social science
researchers. They collect data, including login attempts, network traffic, and user behavior
patterns. They look for trends and anomalies the same way social scientists examine survey
results. SOC analysts also make hypotheses, such as predicting whether a suspicious login
attempt is an attack and test them using evidence.
They also use qualitative analysis, especially when interviewing employees about
phishing attempts or studying attacker behavior reported in cybersecurity journals. This blend of
quantitative and qualitative methods reflects common research strategies in the social sciences.
Cybersecurity affects marginalized groups differently. People with limited digital
literacy, older adults, immigrants, and low-income workers are more vulnerable to online scams
and identity theft (Anderson, 2021). SOC analysts play a role in protecting these groups by
creating training that is easy to understand, accessible, and culturally sensitive. They may also
notice patterns showing that specific communities are targeted more by scammers, allowing the
organization to respond more fairly and responsibly. This shows that SOC analysts do not just
protect computers, they help protect people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SOC analysts contribute to society by helping businesses, governments, hospitals, and
schools stay safe from cyberattacks. When SOC analysts prevent breaches, they protect people\u2019s
private information, financial stability, and even physical safety. In a world where almost
everything depends on technology, their work supports social trust and reduces fear of online
threats.
A SOC analyst is much more than a technical job. It requires understanding people,
effective communication, human behavior. Social science plays a significant role in helping SOC
analysts predict attacks, investigate threats, and communicate with different groups. Their work
also supports and protects marginalized communities that face greater cybersecurity risks. By
blending technology with social science, SOC analysts help create a safer and more secure
digital world for everyone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References
Anderson, R. (2021). Security engineering: A guide to building dependable distributed systems
(3rd ed.). Wiley.
Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency. (2023). Security tip: Avoiding social
engineering and phishing attacks. https:\/\/www.cisa.gov
Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. (2022). Cybercrime and digital forensics: An introduction. Routledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/figure>\n\n\n\n