https://is.theorizeit.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Anupriya+Khan&feedformat=atomIS Theory - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T05:56:11ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.3https://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Influence_Theory&diff=1039Social Influence Theory2017-02-28T19:30:29Z<p>Anupriya Khan: /* Links from this theory to other theories */</p>
<hr />
<div>= Kelman's Social Influence Theory =<br />
<br />
== Acronym ==<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
Kelman's three process theory<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
The central theme of social influence theory, as proposed by Kelman (1958), is that an individual’s attitudes, beliefs, and subsequent actions or behaviors are influenced by referent others through three processes: compliance, identification, and internalization. Kelman (1958) posited that social influence brings about changes in attitude and actions, and that changes may occur at different “levels.” This difference in the level of changes can be attributed by the differences in the processes through which individuals accept influence. Kelman (1958) delineated three primary processes of influence as described below:<br />
* ''Compliance'' is assumed to occur when individuals accept influence and adopt the induced behavior to gain rewards (or, approval) and avoid punishments (or, disapproval). Hence, “the satisfaction derived from compliance is due to the ''social effect'' of accepting influence.” (p. 53)<br />
* ''Identification'' is said to happen when individuals adopt the induced behavior in order to create or maintain a desired and beneficial relationship to another person or a group. Hence, the satisfaction occurs due to “the ''act'' of conforming.” (p. 53)<br />
* ''Internalization'' is assumed to occur when individuals accept influence after perceiving the content of the induced behavior is rewarding in which the content indicates the opinions and actions of others. It is also stated that individuals adopt the induced behavior realizing that it is congruent with their value system. In this case, therefore, the satisfaction occurs due to “the ''content'' of the new behavior.” (p. 53)<br />
Each of the three processes can be represented by a function of the following three determinants of influence: (a) the relative importance of the anticipated effect, (b) the relative power of the influencing agent, and (c) the prepotency of the induced response (Kelman 1958). However, for each process, these determinants are qualitatively different. So each process has a distinctive set of antecedent conditions; similarly each process leads to a distinctive set of consequent conditions.<br />
<br />
Since social influence can shape an individual’s attitudes, beliefs and actions, the impact of social influence on information systems (IS) acceptance and usage has been studied extensively. However, the initial theorizing on IS adoption and use (Lewis et al. 2003; Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003) is contended to consider the perspective of social normative ''compliance'', thereby overlooking the ''identification'' and ''internalization'' processes of social influence (Malhotra and Galletta 2005). It is argued that the ''subjective norm'' is the dominant conceptualization of social influence and the way it is operationalized that typically emphasizes compliance (Wang et al. 2013). Subjective norm is theorized in several behavioral models such as the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen 1991; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Technology-related subjective norm appears in different IS-specific models, including TAM2 and UTAUT (Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003).<br />
<br />
Realizing that only one aspect of social influence i.e., ''compliance'' may not predict the true relationship between the system users’ belief and behavior, and IS use, other researchers attempt to bring the perspectives of all three processes of social influence to provide the integrated impact of them (Malhotra and Galletta 2005; Wang et al. 2013). They believe that the effect of compliance-based social influence may reduce over time, whereas the effects of identification and internalization would persist over longer periods. Therefore, studies that theorize all three processes of social influence indicate that social influence may differ significantly across groups in organizations (Wang et al. 2013). Such conceptualization helps us to understand how the system users’ ''own'' beliefs and judgments also influence their commitment to adopt and use technology, complementing the understanding of previous studies that focus on how the system users ''comply'' and ''conform'' to the beliefs of salient others.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
N/A<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
* Kelman (1958)<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Kelman, H. C. 1958. “Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change,” ''Journal of Conflict Resolution'' (2:1), pp. 51-60.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
* Psychology<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
* Individual <br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_influence<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2), TAM3, [[Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology]], Self-determination theory, Organizational commitment<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Cheung, C. M., Chiu, P. Y., and Lee, M. K. 2011. “Online social networks: Why do students use facebook?,” ''Computers in Human Behavior'', (27:4), pp. 1337-1343.<br />
<br />
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R. 1989. “User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models,” ''Management science'', (35:8), pp. 982-1003.<br />
<br />
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. 1999. “Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs,” ''MIS quarterly'', pp. 183-213.<br />
<br />
Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., and Sambamurthy, V. 2003. “Sources of Influence on Beliefs about Information Technology Use: An Empirical Study of Knowledge Workers,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (27:4), pp. 657-678.<br />
<br />
Li, H., Zhang, J., and Sarathy, R. 2010. "Understanding compliance with internet use policy from the perspective of rational choice theory," ''Decision Support Systems'', (48:4), pp. 635-645.<br />
<br />
Malhotra, Y., and Galletta, D. 2005. “A Multidimensional Commitment Model of Volitional Systems Adoption and Usage Behavior,” ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' (22:1), pp. 117-151.<br />
<br />
Mun, Y. Y., Jackson, J. D., Park, J. S., and Probst, J. C. 2006. “Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: Toward an integrative view,” ''Information & Management'', (43:3), pp. 350-363.<br />
<br />
Srite, M., and Karahanna, E. 2006. “The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance,” ''MIS quarterly'', pp. 679-704.<br />
<br />
Venkatesh, V., and Bala, H. 2008. “Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions,” ''Decision sciences'', (39:2), pp. 273-315.<br />
<br />
Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. 2000. “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies,” ''Management science'', (46:2), pp. 186-204.<br />
<br />
Wang, Y., Meister, D. B., and Gray, P. H. 2013. “Social Influence and Knowledge Management Systems Use: Evidence from Panel Data,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (37:1), pp. 299-313.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
* Anupriya Khan<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*28 Feb 2017<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<small>Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” ''Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes'' (50:2), pp. 179-211.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. 1975. ''Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research'', Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Kelman, H. C. 1958. “Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change,” ''Journal of Conflict Resolution'' (2:1), pp. 51-60.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., and Sambamurthy, V. 2003. “Sources of Influence on Beliefs about Information Technology Use: An Empirical Study of Knowledge Workers,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (27:4), pp. 657-678.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Malhotra, Y., and Galletta, D. 2005. “A Multidimensional Commitment Model of Volitional Systems Adoption and Usage Behavior,” ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' (22:1), pp. 117-151.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. 2000. “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies,” ''Management Science'' (46:2), pp. 186-204.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. 2003. “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View,” ''MIS Quarterly'' (27:3), pp. 425-478.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Wang, Y., Meister, D. B., and Gray, P. H. 2013. “Social Influence and Knowledge Management Systems Use: Evidence from Panel Data,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (37:1), pp. 299-313.</small></div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Technology_Threat_Avoidance_Theory_(TTAT)&diff=1038Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT)2017-02-28T18:07:50Z<p>Anupriya Khan: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
* TTAT<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Avoidance behavior<br />
<br />
Emotion-focused coping<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Risk tolerance, Social influence<br />
<br />
Users’ perceived susceptibility and severity of malicious IT<br />
<br />
A safeguarding measure's effectiveness, costs, and users' self-efficacy toward it<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT) explains why and how individual IT users engage in threat avoidance behaviors. Unlike most studies that have examined IT security at the organizational level, TTAT provides a framework at the individual user level. The theory has been developed by Liang and Xue<ref name=":0"><small>Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.</small></ref> by synthesizing the literature from diverse areas including psychology, health care, risk analysis, and information systems. The basic premise of TTAT is that when users perceive that an IT threat exists, they will be motivated to ''actively'' avoid an IT threat by taking a safeguarding measure if they believe that the threat can be avoided by following the safeguarding measure, or they will passively avoid the threat through emotion-focused coping if they perceive the threat not to be avoidable by any safeguarding measure available to them<ref name=":0" />.<br />
<br />
TTAT describes the processes and factors influencing individual users’ IT threat avoidance behavior. Drawing on cybernetic theory<ref name=":2"><small>Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality-Social, Clinical, and Health Psychology. ''Psychological Bulletin, 92''(1), 111-135.</small></ref><ref><small>Edwards, J. (1992). A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Weil-Being in Organizations. ''Academy of Management Review, 17''(2), 238-274.</small></ref>, TTAT posits that IT threat avoidance behavior can be represented by a cybernetic process in which users intend to enlarge the distance between their current security state and the undesired (unsafe) end state. With the help of coping theory<ref><small>Lazarus, R. (1966). ''Psychological Stress and the Coping Process.'' New York: McGraw-Hill.</small></ref><ref><small>Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). ''Stress, Coping, and Adaptation.'' New York: Springer-Verlag.</small></ref>, TTAT submits that users experience two cognitive processes, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. First, users appraise or assess the situation whether the IT threat exists and to what degree it exists. Then they decide what action they will take to avoid it—problem-focused coping and/or emotion-focused coping. TTAT identifies some key factors that explain user perception and motivation in this process. Integrating the literature of risk analysis<ref><small>Baskerville, R. (1991a). "Risk Analysis: An Interpretive Feasibility Tool in Justifying Information Systems Security". ''European Journal of Information Systems, 1''(2), 121-130.</small></ref><ref><small>Baskerville, R. (1991b). "Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge". ''Computer & Security, 10''(8), 749-764.</small></ref> and health psychology<ref name=":1"><small>Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. ''Health Education Quarterly, 11''(1), 1-45.</small></ref><ref><small>Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and Physiological Process in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In R. Petty, ''Social Psychophysiology: A Source Book'' (pp. 153-176). New York: Guilford Press.</small></ref><ref><small>Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived Probability, Perceived Severity, and Health-Protective Behavior. ''Health Psychology, 19''(1), 65-74.</small></ref>, TTAT suggests that users’ threat perception is determined by the perceived probability of the threat's occurrence and the perceived severity of the threat's negative consequences. Based on prior research on health protective behavior<ref name=":1" /><ref><small>Maddus, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy : A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19'', 469-479.</small></ref> and self-efficacy<ref><small>Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. ''American Psychologist, 37'', 122-147.</small></ref><ref><small>Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of A Measure and Initial Test. ''MIS Quarterly, 19''(2), 189-211.</small></ref>, TTAT proposes that users conceive three factors to assess to what extent the threat can be made avoidable by taking a safeguarding measure—the effectiveness of the safeguarding measure, the costs of the measure, and users' self-efficacy of applying the measure.<br />
<br />
TTAT makes significant contributions to the literature of IT security. This theory clarifies the approach-avoidance distinction which was neglected previously. TTAT posits that avoidance of a malicious threat is not similar to the acceptance of a safeguarding measure. This is based on the assumption that the avoidance and adoption behaviors are qualitatively different, hence the application of one theory in the other context may lead to inconsistent, even false findings. For example, when there exists the threat of spyware, studying adoption of anti-spyware may produce inconsistent findings. Moreover, the authors integrate a process theory view and a variance theory view of TTAT so that the theory can be tested by both process research and variance research. As process theory, TTAT describes IT users' avoidance behavior as a dynamic positive feedback loop<ref name=":2" />. The loop may start with the emergence of malicious IT in the environment. Once users become aware of that, they set being harmed by malicious IT as the anti-goal (undesired end state). If they perceive their current state is near the anti-goal, they will engage in coping mechanism to enlarge the discrepancy between the current state and the undesired end state. This threat avoidance behavior is said to continue until the discrepancy becomes too large that the threat disappears. The variance theory view of TTAT brings relevant variables to understand threat appraisal, coping appraisal, and coping. Furthermore, TTAT submits that users can apply both problem- and emotion-focused coping to reduce IT threats.<br />
<br />
TTAT has the potential to assist IT executives and managers in raising security awareness and designing effective mechanisms to educate employees about IT threats, by understanding why users actively and passively respond to IT threats. The awareness should include the likelihood of getting attacked by malicious IT as well as the negative outcomes if the attack becomes successful. Besides, TTAT provides some prescriptive guidelines for IT practice.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
[[File:Figure 1- The Process of IT Threat Avoidance.jpg|thumb|Figure 1: The Process of IT Threat Avoidance|none|542x542px]]<br />
[[File:Figure 2- The Variance Theory View of TTAT.jpg|thumb|Figure 2: The Variance Theory View of TTAT|none|547x547px]]<small>'''Source''': Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 71-90.</small><br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
* Liang and Xue (2009)<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*IS security<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
* Individual<br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
[[Protection motivation theory]], [[General systems theory]], [[Prospect theory]], [[Self-efficacy theory|Self-efficacy]], [[Social cognitive theory]], Cybernetic theory, Coping theory<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Arachchilage, N. A., & Love, S. (2014, September). Security awareness of computer users: A phishing threat avoidance perspective. ''Computers in Human Behavior, 38'', 304-312.<br />
<br />
Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., Banjara, K., Wilbur, J., & Rao, H. R. (2014, January). Security services as coping mechanisms: an investigation into user intention to adopt an email authentication service. ''Information Systems Journal, 24''(1), 61-84<br />
<br />
Lai, F., Li, D., & Hsieh, C.-T. (2012, January). Fighting Identity Theft: The Coping Perspective. ''Decision Support Systems, 52''(2), 353-363.<br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2010, July). Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. ''Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11''(7), 394-413.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
* Anupriya Khan<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*28 Feb 2017<br />
<br />
== References ==</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Technology_Threat_Avoidance_Theory_(TTAT)&diff=1037Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT)2017-02-28T17:45:48Z<p>Anupriya Khan: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
* TTAT<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Avoidance behavior<br />
<br />
Emotion-focused coping<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Risk tolerance, Social influence<br />
<br />
Users’ perceived susceptibility and severity of malicious IT<br />
<br />
A safeguarding measure's effectiveness, costs, and users' self-efficacy toward it<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT) explains why and how individual IT users engage in threat avoidance behaviors. Unlike most studies that have examined IT security at the organizational level, TTAT provides a framework at the individual user level. The theory has been developed by Liang and Xue<ref name=":0"><small>Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.</small></ref> by synthesizing the literature from diverse areas including psychology, health care, risk analysis, and information systems. The basic premise of TTAT is that when users perceive that an IT threat exists, they will be motivated to ''actively'' avoid an IT threat by taking a safeguarding measure if they believe that the threat can be avoided by following the safeguarding measure, or they will passively avoid the threat through emotion-focused coping if they perceive the threat not to be avoidable by any safeguarding measure available to them<ref name=":0" />.<br />
<br />
TTAT describes the processes and factors influencing individual users’ IT threat avoidance behavior. Drawing on cybernetic theory<ref name=":2"><small>Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality-Social, Clinical, and Health Psychology. ''Psychological Bulletin, 92''(1), 111-135.</small></ref><ref><small>Edwards, J. (1992). A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Weil-Being in Organizations. ''Academy of Management Review, 17''(2), 238-274.</small></ref>, TTAT posits that IT threat avoidance behavior can be represented by a cybernetic process in which users intend to enlarge the distance between their current security state and the undesired (unsafe) end state. With the help of coping theory<ref><small>Lazarus, R. (1966). ''Psychological Stress and the Coping Process.'' New York: McGraw-Hill.</small></ref><ref><small>Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). ''Stress, Coping, and Adaptation.'' New York: Springer-Verlag.</small></ref>, TTAT submits that users experience two cognitive processes, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. First, users appraise or assess the situation whether the IT threat exists and to what degree it exists. Then they decide what action they will take to avoid it—problem-focused coping and/or emotion-focused coping. TTAT identifies some key factors that explain user perception and motivation in this process. Integrating the literature of risk analysis<ref><small>Baskerville, R. (1991a). "Risk Analysis: An Interpretive Feasibility Tool in Justifying Information Systems Security". ''European Journal of Information Systems, 1''(2), 121-130.</small></ref><ref><small>Baskerville, R. (1991b). "Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge". ''Computer & Security, 10''(8), 749-764.</small></ref> and health psychology<ref name=":1"><small>Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. ''Health Education Quarterly, 11''(1), 1-45.</small></ref><ref><small>Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and Physiological Process in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In R. Petty, ''Social Psychophysiology: A Source Book'' (pp. 153-176). New York: Guilford Press.</small></ref><ref><small>Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived Probability, Perceived Severity, and Health-Protective Behavior. ''Health Psychology, 19''(1), 65-74.</small></ref>, TTAT suggests that users’ threat perception is determined by the perceived probability of the threat's occurrence and the perceived severity of the threat's negative consequences. Based on prior research on health protective behavior<ref name=":1" /><ref><small>Maddus, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy : A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19'', 469-479.</small></ref> and self-efficacy<ref><small>Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. ''American Psychologist, 37'', 122-147.</small></ref><ref><small>Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of A Measure and Initial Test. ''MIS Quarterly, 19''(2), 189-211.</small></ref>, TTAT proposes that users conceive three factors to assess to what extent the threat can be made avoidable by taking a safeguarding measure—the effectiveness of the safeguarding measure, the costs of the measure, and users' self-efficacy of applying the measure.<br />
<br />
TTAT makes significant contributions to the literature of IT security. This theory clarifies the approach-avoidance distinction which was neglected previously. TTAT posits that avoidance of a malicious threat is not similar to the acceptance of a safeguarding measure. This is based on the assumption that the avoidance and adoption behaviors are qualitatively different, hence the application of one theory in the other context may lead to inconsistent, even false findings. For example, when there exists the threat of spyware, studying adoption of anti-spyware may produce inconsistent findings. Moreover, the authors integrate a process theory view and a variance theory view of TTAT so that the theory can be tested by both process research and variance research. As process theory, TTAT describes IT users' avoidance behavior as a dynamic positive feedback loop<ref name=":2" />. The loop may start with the emergence of malicious IT in the environment. Once users become aware of that, they set being harmed by malicious IT as the anti-goal (undesired end state). If they perceive their current state is near the anti-goal, they will engage in coping mechanism to enlarge the discrepancy between the current state and the undesired end state. This threat avoidance behavior is said to continue until the discrepancy becomes too large that the threat disappears. The variance theory view of TTAT brings relevant variables to understand threat appraisal, coping appraisal, and coping. Furthermore, TTAT submits that users can apply both problem- and emotion-focused coping to reduce IT threats.<br />
<br />
TTAT has the potential to assist IT executives and managers in raising security awareness and designing effective mechanisms to educate employees about IT threats, by understanding why users actively and passively respond to IT threats. The awareness should include the likelihood of getting attacked by malicious IT as well as the negative outcomes if the attack becomes successful. Besides, TTAT provides some prescriptive guidelines for IT practice.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
[[File:Figure 1- The Process of IT Threat Avoidance.jpg|thumb|Figure 1: The Process of IT Threat Avoidance|none|542x542px]]<br />
[[File:Figure 2- The Variance Theory View of TTAT.jpg|thumb|Figure 2: The Variance Theory View of TTAT|none|547x547px]]<small>'''Source''': Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 71-90.</small><br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
* Liang and Xue (2009)<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*IS security<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
* Individual<br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
[[Protection motivation theory]], [[General systems theory]], [[Prospect theory]], [[Self-efficacy theory|Self-efficacy]], [[Social cognitive theory]]<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Arachchilage, N. A., & Love, S. (2014, September). Security awareness of computer users: A phishing threat avoidance perspective. ''Computers in Human Behavior, 38'', 304-312.<br />
<br />
Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., Banjara, K., Wilbur, J., & Rao, H. R. (2014, January). Security services as coping mechanisms: an investigation into user intention to adopt an email authentication service. ''Information Systems Journal, 24''(1), 61-84<br />
<br />
Lai, F., Li, D., & Hsieh, C.-T. (2012, January). Fighting Identity Theft: The Coping Perspective. ''Decision Support Systems, 52''(2), 353-363.<br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2010, July). Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. ''Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11''(7), 394-413.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
* Anupriya Khan<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*28 Feb 2017<br />
<br />
== References ==</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Influence_Theory&diff=1031Social Influence Theory2017-02-28T10:20:51Z<p>Anupriya Khan: /* Concise description of theory */</p>
<hr />
<div>= Kelman's Social Influence Theory =<br />
<br />
== Acronym ==<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
Kelman's three process theory<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
The central theme of social influence theory, as proposed by Kelman (1958), is that an individual’s attitudes, beliefs, and subsequent actions or behaviors are influenced by referent others through three processes: compliance, identification, and internalization. Kelman (1958) posited that social influence brings about changes in attitude and actions, and that changes may occur at different “levels.” This difference in the level of changes can be attributed by the differences in the processes through which individuals accept influence. Kelman (1958) delineated three primary processes of influence as described below:<br />
* ''Compliance'' is assumed to occur when individuals accept influence and adopt the induced behavior to gain rewards (or, approval) and avoid punishments (or, disapproval). Hence, “the satisfaction derived from compliance is due to the ''social effect'' of accepting influence.” (p. 53)<br />
* ''Identification'' is said to happen when individuals adopt the induced behavior in order to create or maintain a desired and beneficial relationship to another person or a group. Hence, the satisfaction occurs due to “the ''act'' of conforming.” (p. 53)<br />
* ''Internalization'' is assumed to occur when individuals accept influence after perceiving the content of the induced behavior is rewarding in which the content indicates the opinions and actions of others. It is also stated that individuals adopt the induced behavior realizing that it is congruent with their value system. In this case, therefore, the satisfaction occurs due to “the ''content'' of the new behavior.” (p. 53)<br />
Each of the three processes can be represented by a function of the following three determinants of influence: (a) the relative importance of the anticipated effect, (b) the relative power of the influencing agent, and (c) the prepotency of the induced response (Kelman 1958). However, for each process, these determinants are qualitatively different. So each process has a distinctive set of antecedent conditions; similarly each process leads to a distinctive set of consequent conditions.<br />
<br />
Since social influence can shape an individual’s attitudes, beliefs and actions, the impact of social influence on information systems (IS) acceptance and usage has been studied extensively. However, the initial theorizing on IS adoption and use (Lewis et al. 2003; Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003) is contended to consider the perspective of social normative ''compliance'', thereby overlooking the ''identification'' and ''internalization'' processes of social influence (Malhotra and Galletta 2005). It is argued that the ''subjective norm'' is the dominant conceptualization of social influence and the way it is operationalized that typically emphasizes compliance (Wang et al. 2013). Subjective norm is theorized in several behavioral models such as the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen 1991; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Technology-related subjective norm appears in different IS-specific models, including TAM2 and UTAUT (Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003).<br />
<br />
Realizing that only one aspect of social influence i.e., ''compliance'' may not predict the true relationship between the system users’ belief and behavior, and IS use, other researchers attempt to bring the perspectives of all three processes of social influence to provide the integrated impact of them (Malhotra and Galletta 2005; Wang et al. 2013). They believe that the effect of compliance-based social influence may reduce over time, whereas the effects of identification and internalization would persist over longer periods. Therefore, studies that theorize all three processes of social influence indicate that social influence may differ significantly across groups in organizations (Wang et al. 2013). Such conceptualization helps us to understand how the system users’ ''own'' beliefs and judgments also influence their commitment to adopt and use technology, complementing the understanding of previous studies that focus on how the system users ''comply'' and ''conform'' to the beliefs of salient others.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
* Kelman (1958)<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Kelman, H. C. 1958. “Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change,” ''Journal of Conflict Resolution'' (2:1), pp. 51-60.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
* Psychology<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
* Individual <br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_influence<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Cheung, C. M., Chiu, P. Y., and Lee, M. K. 2011. “Online social networks: Why do students use facebook?,” ''Computers in Human Behavior'', (27:4), pp. 1337-1343.<br />
<br />
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R. 1989. “User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models,” ''Management science'', (35:8), pp. 982-1003.<br />
<br />
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. 1999. “Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs,” ''MIS quarterly'', pp. 183-213.<br />
<br />
Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., and Sambamurthy, V. 2003. “Sources of Influence on Beliefs about Information Technology Use: An Empirical Study of Knowledge Workers,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (27:4), pp. 657-678.<br />
<br />
Malhotra, Y., and Galletta, D. 2005. “A Multidimensional Commitment Model of Volitional Systems Adoption and Usage Behavior,” ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' (22:1), pp. 117-151.<br />
<br />
Mun, Y. Y., Jackson, J. D., Park, J. S., and Probst, J. C. 2006. “Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: Toward an integrative view,” ''Information & Management'', (43:3), pp. 350-363.<br />
<br />
Srite, M., and Karahanna, E. 2006. “The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance,” ''MIS quarterly'', pp. 679-704.<br />
<br />
Venkatesh, V., and Bala, H. 2008. “Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions,” ''Decision sciences'', (39:2), pp. 273-315.<br />
<br />
Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. 2000. “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies,” ''Management science'', (46:2), pp. 186-204.<br />
<br />
Wang, Y., Meister, D. B., and Gray, P. H. 2013. “Social Influence and Knowledge Management Systems Use: Evidence from Panel Data,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (37:1), pp. 299-313.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
* Anupriya Khan<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*28 Feb 2017<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<small>Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” ''Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes'' (50:2), pp. 179-211.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. 1975. ''Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research'', Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Kelman, H. C. 1958. “Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change,” ''Journal of Conflict Resolution'' (2:1), pp. 51-60.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., and Sambamurthy, V. 2003. “Sources of Influence on Beliefs about Information Technology Use: An Empirical Study of Knowledge Workers,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (27:4), pp. 657-678.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Malhotra, Y., and Galletta, D. 2005. “A Multidimensional Commitment Model of Volitional Systems Adoption and Usage Behavior,” ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' (22:1), pp. 117-151.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. 2000. “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies,” ''Management Science'' (46:2), pp. 186-204.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. 2003. “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View,” ''MIS Quarterly'' (27:3), pp. 425-478.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Wang, Y., Meister, D. B., and Gray, P. H. 2013. “Social Influence and Knowledge Management Systems Use: Evidence from Panel Data,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (37:1), pp. 299-313.</small></div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Technology_Threat_Avoidance_Theory_(TTAT)&diff=1030Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT)2017-02-28T10:17:32Z<p>Anupriya Khan: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
* TTAT<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Avoidance behavior<br />
<br />
Emotion-focused coping<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Risk tolerance, Social influence<br />
<br />
Users’ perceived susceptibility and severity of malicious IT<br />
<br />
A safeguarding measure's effectiveness, costs, and users' self-efficacy toward it<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT) explains why and how individual IT users engage in threat avoidance behaviors. Unlike most studies that have examined IT security at the organizational level, TTAT provides a framework at the individual user level. The theory has been developed by Liang and Xue<ref name=":0"><small>Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.</small></ref> by synthesizing the literature from diverse areas including psychology, health care, risk analysis, and information systems. The basic premise of TTAT is that when users perceive that an IT threat exists, they will be motivated to ''actively'' avoid an IT threat by taking a safeguarding measure if they believe that the threat can be avoided by following the safeguarding measure, or they will passively avoid the threat through emotion-focused coping if they perceive the threat not to be avoidable by any safeguarding measure available to them<ref name=":0" />.<br />
<br />
TTAT describes the processes and factors influencing individual users’ IT threat avoidance behavior. Drawing on cybernetic theory<ref name=":2"><small>Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality-Social, Clinical, and Health Psychology. ''Psychological Bulletin, 92''(1), 111-135.</small></ref><ref><small>Edwards, J. (1992). A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Weil-Being in Organizations. ''Academy of Management Review, 17''(2), 238-274.</small></ref>, TTAT posits that IT threat avoidance behavior can be represented by a cybernetic process in which users intend to enlarge the distance between their current security state and the undesired (unsafe) end state. With the help of coping theory<ref><small>Lazarus, R. (1966). ''Psychological Stress and the Coping Process.'' New York: McGraw-Hill.</small></ref><ref><small>Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). ''Stress, Coping, and Adaptation.'' New York: Springer-Verlag.</small></ref>, TTAT submits that users experience two cognitive processes, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. First, users appraise or assess the situation whether the IT threat exists and to what degree it exists. Then they decide what action they will take to avoid it—problem-focused coping and/or emotion-focused coping. TTAT identifies some key factors that explain user perception and motivation in this process. Integrating the literature of risk analysis<ref><small>Baskerville, R. (1991a). "Risk Analysis: An Interpretive Feasibility Tool in Justifying Information Systems Security". ''European Journal of Information Systems, 1''(2), 121-130.</small></ref><ref><small>Baskerville, R. (1991b). "Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge". ''Computer & Security, 10''(8), 749-764.</small></ref> and health psychology<ref name=":1"><small>Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. ''Health Education Quarterly, 11''(1), 1-45.</small></ref><ref><small>Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and Physiological Process in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In R. Petty, ''Social Psychophysiology: A Source Book'' (pp. 153-176). New York: Guilford Press.</small></ref><ref><small>Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived Probability, Perceived Severity, and Health-Protective Behavior. ''Health Psychology, 19''(1), 65-74.</small></ref>, TTAT suggests that users’ threat perception is determined by the perceived probability of the threat's occurrence and the perceived severity of the threat's negative consequences. Based on prior research on health protective behavior<ref name=":1" /><ref><small>Maddus, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy : A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19'', 469-479.</small></ref> and self-efficacy<ref><small>Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. ''American Psychologist, 37'', 122-147.</small></ref><ref><small>Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of A Measure and Initial Test. ''MIS Quarterly, 19''(2), 189-211.</small></ref>, TTAT proposes that users conceive three factors to assess to what extent the threat can be made avoidable by taking a safeguarding measure—the effectiveness of the safeguarding measure, the costs of the measure, and users' self-efficacy of applying the measure.<br />
<br />
TTAT makes significant contributions to the literature of IT security. This theory clarifies the approach-avoidance distinction which was neglected previously. TTAT posits that avoidance of a malicious threat is not similar to the acceptance of a safeguarding measure. This is based on the assumption that the avoidance and adoption behaviors are qualitatively different, hence the application of one theory in the other context may lead to inconsistent, even false findings. For example, when there exists the threat of spyware, studying adoption of anti-spyware may produce inconsistent findings. Moreover, the authors integrate a process theory view and a variance theory view of TTAT so that the theory can be tested by both process research and variance research. As process theory, TTAT describes IT users' avoidance behavior as a dynamic positive feedback loop<ref name=":2" />. The loop may start with the emergence of malicious IT in the environment. Once users become aware of that, they set being harmed by malicious IT as the anti-goal (undesired end state). If they perceive their current state is near the anti-goal, they will engage in coping mechanism to enlarge the discrepancy between the current state and the undesired end state. This threat avoidance behavior is said to continue until the discrepancy becomes too large that the threat disappears. The variance theory view of TTAT brings relevant variables to understand threat appraisal, coping appraisal, and coping. Furthermore, TTAT submits that users can apply both problem- and emotion-focused coping to reduce IT threats.<br />
<br />
TTAT has the potential to assist IT executives and managers in raising security awareness and designing effective mechanisms to educate employees about IT threats, by understanding why users actively and passively respond to IT threats. The awareness should include the likelihood of getting attacked by malicious IT as well as the negative outcomes if the attack becomes successful. Besides, TTAT provides some prescriptive guidelines for IT practice.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
[[File:Figure 1- The Process of IT Threat Avoidance.jpg|thumb|Figure 1: The Process of IT Threat Avoidance|none|542x542px]]<br />
[[File:Figure 2- The Variance Theory View of TTAT.jpg|thumb|Figure 2: The Variance Theory View of TTAT|none|547x547px]]<small>'''Source''': Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 71-90.</small><br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
* Liang and Xue (2009)<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*IS security<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
* Individual<br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Arachchilage, N. A., & Love, S. (2014, September). Security awareness of computer users: A phishing threat avoidance perspective. ''Computers in Human Behavior, 38'', 304-312.<br />
<br />
Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., Banjara, K., Wilbur, J., & Rao, H. R. (2014, January). Security services as coping mechanisms: an investigation into user intention to adopt an email authentication service. ''Information Systems Journal, 24''(1), 61-84<br />
<br />
Lai, F., Li, D., & Hsieh, C.-T. (2012, January). Fighting Identity Theft: The Coping Perspective. ''Decision Support Systems, 52''(2), 353-363.<br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2010, July). Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. ''Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11''(7), 394-413.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
* Anupriya Khan<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*28 Feb 2017<br />
<br />
== References ==</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Technology_Threat_Avoidance_Theory_(TTAT)&diff=1029Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT)2017-02-28T07:40:16Z<p>Anupriya Khan: /* Diagram/schematic of theory */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
* TTAT<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Avoidance behavior<br />
<br />
Emotion-focused coping<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Risk tolerance, Social influence<br />
<br />
Users’ perceived susceptibility and severity of malicious IT<br />
<br />
A safeguarding measure's effectiveness, costs, and users' self-efficacy toward it<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT) explains why and how individual IT users engage in threat avoidance behaviors. Unlike most studies that have examined IT security at the organizational level, TTAT provides a framework at the individual user level. The theory has been developed by Liang and Xue<ref name=":0"><small>Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.</small></ref> by synthesizing the literature from diverse areas including psychology, health care, risk analysis, and information systems. The basic premise of TTAT is that when users perceive that an IT threat exists, they will be motivated to ''actively'' avoid an IT threat by taking a safeguarding measure if they believe that the threat can be avoided by following the safeguarding measure, or they will passively avoid the threat through emotion-focused coping if they perceive the threat not to be avoidable by any safeguarding measure available to them<ref name=":0" />.<br />
<br />
TTAT describes the processes and factors influencing individual users’ IT threat avoidance behavior. Drawing on cybernetic theory<ref name=":2"><small>Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality-Social, Clinical, and Health Psychology. ''Psychological Bulletin, 92''(1), 111-135.</small></ref><ref><small>Edwards, J. (1992). A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Weil-Being in Organizations. ''Academy of Management Review, 17''(2), 238-274.</small></ref>, TTAT posits that IT threat avoidance behavior can be represented by a cybernetic process in which users intend to enlarge the distance between their current security state and the undesired (unsafe) end state. With the help of coping theory<ref><small>Lazarus, R. (1966). ''Psychological Stress and the Coping Process.'' New York: McGraw-Hill.</small></ref><ref><small>Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). ''Stress, Coping, and Adaptation.'' New York: Springer-Verlag.</small></ref>, TTAT submits that users experience two cognitive processes, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. First, users appraise or assess the situation whether the IT threat exists and to what degree it exists. Then they decide what action they will take to avoid it—problem-focused coping and/or emotion-focused coping. TTAT identifies some key factors that explain user perception and motivation in this process. Integrating the literature of risk analysis<ref><small>Baskerville, R. (1991a). "Risk Analysis: An Interpretive Feasibility Tool in Justifying Information Systems Security". ''European Journal of Information Systems, 1''(2), 121-130.</small></ref><ref><small>Baskerville, R. (1991b). "Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge". ''Computer & Security, 10''(8), 749-764.</small></ref> and health psychology<ref name=":1"><small>Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. ''Health Education Quarterly, 11''(1), 1-45.</small></ref><ref><small>Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and Physiological Process in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In R. Petty, ''Social Psychophysiology: A Source Book'' (pp. 153-176). New York: Guilford Press.</small></ref><ref><small>Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived Probability, Perceived Severity, and Health-Protective Behavior. ''Health Psychology, 19''(1), 65-74.</small></ref>, TTAT suggests that users’ threat perception is determined by the perceived probability of the threat's occurrence and the perceived severity of the threat's negative consequences. Based on prior research on health protective behavior<ref name=":1" /><ref><small>Maddus, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy : A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19'', 469-479.</small></ref> and self-efficacy<ref><small>Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. ''American Psychologist, 37'', 122-147.</small></ref><ref><small>Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of A Measure and Initial Test. ''MIS Quarterly, 19''(2), 189-211.</small></ref>, TTAT proposes that users conceive three factors to assess to what extent the threat can be made avoidable by taking a safeguarding measure—the effectiveness of the safeguarding measure, the costs of the measure, and users' self-efficacy of applying the measure.<br />
<br />
TTAT makes significant contributions to the literature of IT security. This theory clarifies the approach-avoidance distinction which was neglected previously. TTAT posits that avoidance of a malicious threat is not similar to the acceptance of a safeguarding measure. This is based on the assumption that the avoidance and adoption behaviors are qualitatively different, hence the application of one theory in the other context may lead to inconsistent, even false findings. For example, when there exists the threat of spyware, studying adoption of anti-spyware may produce inconsistent findings. Moreover, the authors integrate a process theory view and a variance theory view of TTAT so that the theory can be tested by both process research and variance research. As process theory, TTAT describes IT users' avoidance behavior as a dynamic positive feedback loop<ref name=":2" />. The loop may start with the emergence of malicious IT in the environment. Once users become aware of that, they set being harmed by malicious IT as the anti-goal (undesired end state). If they perceive their current state is near the anti-goal, they will engage in coping mechanism to enlarge the discrepancy between the current state and the undesired end state. This threat avoidance behavior is said to continue until the discrepancy becomes too large that the threat disappears. The variance theory view of TTAT brings relevant variables to understand threat appraisal, coping appraisal, and coping. Furthermore, TTAT submits that users can apply both problem- and emotion-focused coping to reduce IT threats.<br />
<br />
TTAT has the potential to assist IT executives and managers in raising security awareness and designing effective mechanisms to educate employees about IT threats, by understanding why users actively and passively respond to IT threats. The awareness should include the likelihood of getting attacked by malicious IT as well as the negative outcomes if the attack becomes successful. Besides, TTAT provides some prescriptive guidelines for IT practice.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
[[File:Figure 1- The Process of IT Threat Avoidance.jpg|thumb|Figure 1: The Process of IT Threat Avoidance|none|542x542px]]<br />
[[File:Figure 2- The Variance Theory View of TTAT.jpg|thumb|Figure 2: The Variance Theory View of TTAT|none|547x547px]]<small>'''Source''': Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 71-90.</small><br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
* Liang and Xue (2009)<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*IS security<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
* Individual<br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Arachchilage, N. A., & Love, S. (2014, September). Security awareness of computer users: A phishing threat avoidance perspective. ''Computers in Human Behavior, 38'', 304-312.<br />
<br />
Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., Banjara, K., Wilbur, J., & Rao, H. R. (2014, January). Security services as coping mechanisms: an investigation into user intention to adopt an email authentication service. ''Information Systems Journal, 24''(1), 61-84<br />
<br />
Lai, F., Li, D., & Hsieh, C.-T. (2012, January). Fighting Identity Theft: The Coping Perspective. ''Decision Support Systems, 52''(2), 353-363.<br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2010, July). Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. ''Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11''(7), 394-413.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
* Anupriya Khan<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*28 Feb 2017</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Technology_Threat_Avoidance_Theory_(TTAT)&diff=1028Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT)2017-02-28T07:25:47Z<p>Anupriya Khan: /* Diagram/schematic of theory */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
* TTAT<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Avoidance behavior<br />
<br />
Emotion-focused coping<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Risk tolerance, Social influence<br />
<br />
Users’ perceived susceptibility and severity of malicious IT<br />
<br />
A safeguarding measure's effectiveness, costs, and users' self-efficacy toward it<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT) explains why and how individual IT users engage in threat avoidance behaviors. Unlike most studies that have examined IT security at the organizational level, TTAT provides a framework at the individual user level. The theory has been developed by Liang and Xue<ref name=":0"><small>Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.</small></ref> by synthesizing the literature from diverse areas including psychology, health care, risk analysis, and information systems. The basic premise of TTAT is that when users perceive that an IT threat exists, they will be motivated to ''actively'' avoid an IT threat by taking a safeguarding measure if they believe that the threat can be avoided by following the safeguarding measure, or they will passively avoid the threat through emotion-focused coping if they perceive the threat not to be avoidable by any safeguarding measure available to them<ref name=":0" />.<br />
<br />
TTAT describes the processes and factors influencing individual users’ IT threat avoidance behavior. Drawing on cybernetic theory<ref name=":2"><small>Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality-Social, Clinical, and Health Psychology. ''Psychological Bulletin, 92''(1), 111-135.</small></ref><ref><small>Edwards, J. (1992). A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Weil-Being in Organizations. ''Academy of Management Review, 17''(2), 238-274.</small></ref>, TTAT posits that IT threat avoidance behavior can be represented by a cybernetic process in which users intend to enlarge the distance between their current security state and the undesired (unsafe) end state. With the help of coping theory<ref><small>Lazarus, R. (1966). ''Psychological Stress and the Coping Process.'' New York: McGraw-Hill.</small></ref><ref><small>Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). ''Stress, Coping, and Adaptation.'' New York: Springer-Verlag.</small></ref>, TTAT submits that users experience two cognitive processes, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. First, users appraise or assess the situation whether the IT threat exists and to what degree it exists. Then they decide what action they will take to avoid it—problem-focused coping and/or emotion-focused coping. TTAT identifies some key factors that explain user perception and motivation in this process. Integrating the literature of risk analysis<ref><small>Baskerville, R. (1991a). "Risk Analysis: An Interpretive Feasibility Tool in Justifying Information Systems Security". ''European Journal of Information Systems, 1''(2), 121-130.</small></ref><ref><small>Baskerville, R. (1991b). "Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge". ''Computer & Security, 10''(8), 749-764.</small></ref> and health psychology<ref name=":1"><small>Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. ''Health Education Quarterly, 11''(1), 1-45.</small></ref><ref><small>Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and Physiological Process in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In R. Petty, ''Social Psychophysiology: A Source Book'' (pp. 153-176). New York: Guilford Press.</small></ref><ref><small>Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived Probability, Perceived Severity, and Health-Protective Behavior. ''Health Psychology, 19''(1), 65-74.</small></ref>, TTAT suggests that users’ threat perception is determined by the perceived probability of the threat's occurrence and the perceived severity of the threat's negative consequences. Based on prior research on health protective behavior<ref name=":1" /><ref><small>Maddus, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy : A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19'', 469-479.</small></ref> and self-efficacy<ref><small>Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. ''American Psychologist, 37'', 122-147.</small></ref><ref><small>Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of A Measure and Initial Test. ''MIS Quarterly, 19''(2), 189-211.</small></ref>, TTAT proposes that users conceive three factors to assess to what extent the threat can be made avoidable by taking a safeguarding measure—the effectiveness of the safeguarding measure, the costs of the measure, and users' self-efficacy of applying the measure.<br />
<br />
TTAT makes significant contributions to the literature of IT security. This theory clarifies the approach-avoidance distinction which was neglected previously. TTAT posits that avoidance of a malicious threat is not similar to the acceptance of a safeguarding measure. This is based on the assumption that the avoidance and adoption behaviors are qualitatively different, hence the application of one theory in the other context may lead to inconsistent, even false findings. For example, when there exists the threat of spyware, studying adoption of anti-spyware may produce inconsistent findings. Moreover, the authors integrate a process theory view and a variance theory view of TTAT so that the theory can be tested by both process research and variance research. As process theory, TTAT describes IT users' avoidance behavior as a dynamic positive feedback loop<ref name=":2" />. The loop may start with the emergence of malicious IT in the environment. Once users become aware of that, they set being harmed by malicious IT as the anti-goal (undesired end state). If they perceive their current state is near the anti-goal, they will engage in coping mechanism to enlarge the discrepancy between the current state and the undesired end state. This threat avoidance behavior is said to continue until the discrepancy becomes too large that the threat disappears. The variance theory view of TTAT brings relevant variables to understand threat appraisal, coping appraisal, and coping. Furthermore, TTAT submits that users can apply both problem- and emotion-focused coping to reduce IT threats.<br />
<br />
TTAT has the potential to assist IT executives and managers in raising security awareness and designing effective mechanisms to educate employees about IT threats, by understanding why users actively and passively respond to IT threats. The awareness should include the likelihood of getting attacked by malicious IT as well as the negative outcomes if the attack becomes successful. Besides, TTAT provides some prescriptive guidelines for IT practice.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
[[File:Figure 1- The Process of IT Threat Avoidance.jpg|thumb|Figure 1: The Process of IT Threat Avoidance|none|542x542px]]<br />
[[File:Figure 2- The Variance Theory View of TTAT.jpg|thumb|Figure 2: The Variance Theory View of TTAT|none|547x547px]]<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
* Liang and Xue (2009)<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*IS security<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
* Individual<br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Arachchilage, N. A., & Love, S. (2014, September). Security awareness of computer users: A phishing threat avoidance perspective. ''Computers in Human Behavior, 38'', 304-312.<br />
<br />
Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., Banjara, K., Wilbur, J., & Rao, H. R. (2014, January). Security services as coping mechanisms: an investigation into user intention to adopt an email authentication service. ''Information Systems Journal, 24''(1), 61-84<br />
<br />
Lai, F., Li, D., & Hsieh, C.-T. (2012, January). Fighting Identity Theft: The Coping Perspective. ''Decision Support Systems, 52''(2), 353-363.<br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2010, July). Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. ''Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11''(7), 394-413.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
* Anupriya Khan<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*28 Feb 2017</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Technology_Threat_Avoidance_Theory_(TTAT)&diff=1027Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT)2017-02-28T07:20:39Z<p>Anupriya Khan: /* Concise description of theory */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
* TTAT<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Avoidance behavior<br />
<br />
Emotion-focused coping<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Risk tolerance, Social influence<br />
<br />
Users’ perceived susceptibility and severity of malicious IT<br />
<br />
A safeguarding measure's effectiveness, costs, and users' self-efficacy toward it<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT) explains why and how individual IT users engage in threat avoidance behaviors. Unlike most studies that have examined IT security at the organizational level, TTAT provides a framework at the individual user level. The theory has been developed by Liang and Xue<ref name=":0"><small>Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.</small></ref> by synthesizing the literature from diverse areas including psychology, health care, risk analysis, and information systems. The basic premise of TTAT is that when users perceive that an IT threat exists, they will be motivated to ''actively'' avoid an IT threat by taking a safeguarding measure if they believe that the threat can be avoided by following the safeguarding measure, or they will passively avoid the threat through emotion-focused coping if they perceive the threat not to be avoidable by any safeguarding measure available to them<ref name=":0" />.<br />
<br />
TTAT describes the processes and factors influencing individual users’ IT threat avoidance behavior. Drawing on cybernetic theory<ref name=":2"><small>Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality-Social, Clinical, and Health Psychology. ''Psychological Bulletin, 92''(1), 111-135.</small></ref><ref><small>Edwards, J. (1992). A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Weil-Being in Organizations. ''Academy of Management Review, 17''(2), 238-274.</small></ref>, TTAT posits that IT threat avoidance behavior can be represented by a cybernetic process in which users intend to enlarge the distance between their current security state and the undesired (unsafe) end state. With the help of coping theory<ref><small>Lazarus, R. (1966). ''Psychological Stress and the Coping Process.'' New York: McGraw-Hill.</small></ref><ref><small>Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). ''Stress, Coping, and Adaptation.'' New York: Springer-Verlag.</small></ref>, TTAT submits that users experience two cognitive processes, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. First, users appraise or assess the situation whether the IT threat exists and to what degree it exists. Then they decide what action they will take to avoid it—problem-focused coping and/or emotion-focused coping. TTAT identifies some key factors that explain user perception and motivation in this process. Integrating the literature of risk analysis<ref><small>Baskerville, R. (1991a). "Risk Analysis: An Interpretive Feasibility Tool in Justifying Information Systems Security". ''European Journal of Information Systems, 1''(2), 121-130.</small></ref><ref><small>Baskerville, R. (1991b). "Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge". ''Computer & Security, 10''(8), 749-764.</small></ref> and health psychology<ref name=":1"><small>Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. ''Health Education Quarterly, 11''(1), 1-45.</small></ref><ref><small>Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and Physiological Process in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In R. Petty, ''Social Psychophysiology: A Source Book'' (pp. 153-176). New York: Guilford Press.</small></ref><ref><small>Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived Probability, Perceived Severity, and Health-Protective Behavior. ''Health Psychology, 19''(1), 65-74.</small></ref>, TTAT suggests that users’ threat perception is determined by the perceived probability of the threat's occurrence and the perceived severity of the threat's negative consequences. Based on prior research on health protective behavior<ref name=":1" /><ref><small>Maddus, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy : A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19'', 469-479.</small></ref> and self-efficacy<ref><small>Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. ''American Psychologist, 37'', 122-147.</small></ref><ref><small>Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of A Measure and Initial Test. ''MIS Quarterly, 19''(2), 189-211.</small></ref>, TTAT proposes that users conceive three factors to assess to what extent the threat can be made avoidable by taking a safeguarding measure—the effectiveness of the safeguarding measure, the costs of the measure, and users' self-efficacy of applying the measure.<br />
<br />
TTAT makes significant contributions to the literature of IT security. This theory clarifies the approach-avoidance distinction which was neglected previously. TTAT posits that avoidance of a malicious threat is not similar to the acceptance of a safeguarding measure. This is based on the assumption that the avoidance and adoption behaviors are qualitatively different, hence the application of one theory in the other context may lead to inconsistent, even false findings. For example, when there exists the threat of spyware, studying adoption of anti-spyware may produce inconsistent findings. Moreover, the authors integrate a process theory view and a variance theory view of TTAT so that the theory can be tested by both process research and variance research. As process theory, TTAT describes IT users' avoidance behavior as a dynamic positive feedback loop<ref name=":2" />. The loop may start with the emergence of malicious IT in the environment. Once users become aware of that, they set being harmed by malicious IT as the anti-goal (undesired end state). If they perceive their current state is near the anti-goal, they will engage in coping mechanism to enlarge the discrepancy between the current state and the undesired end state. This threat avoidance behavior is said to continue until the discrepancy becomes too large that the threat disappears. The variance theory view of TTAT brings relevant variables to understand threat appraisal, coping appraisal, and coping. Furthermore, TTAT submits that users can apply both problem- and emotion-focused coping to reduce IT threats.<br />
<br />
TTAT has the potential to assist IT executives and managers in raising security awareness and designing effective mechanisms to educate employees about IT threats, by understanding why users actively and passively respond to IT threats. The awareness should include the likelihood of getting attacked by malicious IT as well as the negative outcomes if the attack becomes successful. Besides, TTAT provides some prescriptive guidelines for IT practice.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
[[File:Figure 1- The Process of IT Threat Avoidance.jpg|thumb|Figure 1: The Process of IT Threat Avoidance]]<br />
[[File:Figure 2- The Variance Theory View of TTAT.jpg|thumb|Figure 2: The Variance Theory View of TTAT]]<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
* Liang and Xue (2009)<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
* Individual<br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Arachchilage, N. A., & Love, S. (2014, September). Security awareness of computer users: A phishing threat avoidance perspective. ''Computers in Human Behavior, 38'', 304-312.<br />
<br />
Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., Banjara, K., Wilbur, J., & Rao, H. R. (2014, January). Security services as coping mechanisms: an investigation into user intention to adopt an email authentication service. ''Information Systems Journal, 24''(1), 61-84<br />
<br />
Lai, F., Li, D., & Hsieh, C.-T. (2012, January). Fighting Identity Theft: The Coping Perspective. ''Decision Support Systems, 52''(2), 353-363.<br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2010, July). Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. ''Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11''(7), 394-413.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
* Anupriya Khan<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=File:Figure_2-_The_Variance_Theory_View_of_TTAT.jpg&diff=1026File:Figure 2- The Variance Theory View of TTAT.jpg2017-02-28T07:20:09Z<p>Anupriya Khan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The variance theory view of TTAT</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=File:Figure_1-_The_Process_of_IT_Threat_Avoidance.jpg&diff=1025File:Figure 1- The Process of IT Threat Avoidance.jpg2017-02-28T07:16:49Z<p>Anupriya Khan: </p>
<hr />
<div>A process theory view of TTAT</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Influence_Theory&diff=1024Social Influence Theory2017-02-27T20:48:53Z<p>Anupriya Khan: /* Concise description of theory */</p>
<hr />
<div>= Kelman's Social Influence Theory =<br />
<br />
== Acronym ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
Kelman's three process theory<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
The central theme of social influence theory, as proposed by Kelman (1958), is that an individual’s attitudes, beliefs, and subsequent actions or behaviors are influenced by referent others through three processes: compliance, identification, and internalization. Kelman (1958) posited that social influence brings about changes in attitude and actions, and that changes may occur at different “levels.” This difference in the level of changes can be attributed by the differences in the processes through which individuals accept influence. Kelman (1958) delineated three primary processes of influence as described below:<br />
* ''Compliance'' is assumed to occur when individuals accept influence and adopt the induced behavior to gain rewards (or, approval) and avoid punishments (or, disapproval). Hence, “the satisfaction derived from compliance is due to the ''social effect'' of accepting influence.” (p. 53)<br />
* ''Identification'' is said to happen when individuals adopt the induced behavior in order to create or maintain a desired and beneficial relationship to another person or a group. Hence, the satisfaction occurs due to “the ''act'' of conforming.” (p. 53)<br />
* ''Internalization'' is assumed to occur when individuals accept influence after perceiving the content of the induced behavior is rewarding in which the content indicates the opinions and actions of others. It is also stated that individuals adopt the induced behavior realizing that it is congruent with their value system. In this case, therefore, the satisfaction occurs due to “the ''content'' of the new behavior.” (p. 53)<br />
Since social influence can shape an individual’s attitudes, beliefs and actions, the impact of social influence on information systems (IS) acceptance and usage has been studied extensively. However, the initial theorizing on IS adoption and use (Lewis et al. 2003; Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003) is contended to consider the perspective of social normative ''compliance'', thereby overlooking the ''identification'' and ''internalization'' processes of social influence (Malhotra and Galletta 2005). It is argued that the ''subjective norm'' is the dominant conceptualization of social influence and mostly emphasizes compliance (Wang et al. 2013). Subjective norm is theorized in several behavioral models such as the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen 1991; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Technology-related subjective norm appears in different IS-specific models, including TAM2 and UTAUT (Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003).<br />
<br />
Realizing that only one aspect of social influence i.e., ''compliance'' may not predict the true relationship between the system users’ belief and behavior, and IS use, other researchers attempt to bring the perspectives of all three processes of social influence to provide the integrated impact of them (Malhotra and Galletta 2005; Wang et al. 2013). They believe that the effect of compliance-based social influence may reduce over time, whereas the effects of identification and internalization would persist over longer periods. Therefore, studies that theorize all three processes of social influence indicate that social influence may differ significantly across groups in organizations (Wang et al. 2013). Such conceptualization helps us to understand how the system users’ ''own'' beliefs and judgments also influence their commitment to adopt and use technology, complementing the understanding of previous studies that focus on how the system users ''comply'' and ''conform'' to the beliefs of salient others.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
* Kelman (1958)<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” ''Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes'' (50:2), pp. 179-211.<br />
<br />
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. 1975. ''Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research'', Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.<br />
<br />
Kelman, H. C. 1958. “Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change,” ''Journal of Conflict Resolution'' (2:1), pp. 51-60.<br />
<br />
Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., and Sambamurthy, V. 2003. “Sources of Influence on Beliefs about Information Technology Use: An Empirical Study of Knowledge Workers,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (27:4), pp. 657-678.<br />
<br />
Malhotra, Y., and Galletta, D. 2005. “A Multidimensional Commitment Model of Volitional Systems Adoption and Usage Behavior,” ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' (22:1), pp. 117-151.<br />
<br />
Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. 2000. “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies,” ''Management Science'' (46:2), pp. 186-204.<br />
<br />
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. 2003. “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View,” ''MIS Quarterly'' (27:3), pp. 425-478.<br />
<br />
Wang, Y., Meister, D. B., and Gray, P. H. 2013. “Social Influence and Knowledge Management Systems Use: Evidence from Panel Data,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (37:1), pp. 299-313.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
* Psychology<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
* Individual <br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_influence<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Malhotra, Y., and Galletta, D. 2005. “A Multidimensional Commitment Model of Volitional Systems Adoption and Usage Behavior,” ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' (22:1), pp. 117-151.<br />
<br />
Wang, Y., Meister, D. B., and Gray, P. H. 2013. “Social Influence and Knowledge Management Systems Use: Evidence from Panel Data,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (37:1), pp. 299-313.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
* Anupriya Khan<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=1023Main Page2017-02-27T20:44:12Z<p>Anupriya Khan: /* Theories */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Sponsor Thumbs}}<br />
<br />
<div id="mainpage_topbox"><br />
<div id="mainpage_pagetitle">'''Welcome to the <span id="mainpage_mwtitle">Theories Used in IS Research Wiki</span>'''</div><br />
<div class="mainpage_boxcontents"><br />
{{Introduction}}<br />
<br />
{{Citing}}<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="mainpage_sitelinks"><br />
'''[[IS_Theory:About|About this site]]''' &nbsp; | &nbsp; <br />
'''[[IS_Theory:Acknowledgements|Acknowledgements]]''' &nbsp; | &nbsp;<br />
'''[[IS_Theory:Contributing|How to Contribute]]'''<br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="mainpage_newscell"><br />
<div class="mainpage_boxtitle"><br />
<div><b>Highlights</b></div><br />
</div><br />
* '''IS Theories Wiki is now part of the TheorizeIt.org portal.'''<br />
*: For construct discovery, try out the internomological network at [http://INN.TheorizeIt.org INN.TheorizeIt.org].<br />
* '''New wiki usage report available'''<br />
*: A report analyzing the top-visited wiki pages of 2014 has been compiled. Find it here: [[Top 10 IS Theories 2014 | Top 10 IS Theories of 2014]].<br />
</div><br />
<br />
== Theories ==<br />
<br />
*[[Absorptive capacity theory]]<br />
*[[Actor network theory]]<br />
*[[Accountability theory]]<br />
*[[Adaptive structuration theory]]<br />
*[[Administrative behavior, theory of]]<br />
*[[Agency theory]] <br />
*[[Argumentation theory]]<br />
*[[Behavioral decision theory]]<br />
*[[Belief Action Outcome Model|Belief Action Outcome Framework]]<br />
*[[Boundary object theory]]<br />
*[[Chaos theory]]<br />
*[[Cognitive dissonance theory]]<br />
*[[Cognitive fit theory]]<br />
*[[Cognitive load theory]]<br />
*[[Competitive strategy (Porter)]]<br />
*[[Complexity theory]]<br />
*[[Contingency theory]]<br />
*[[Critical realism theory]]<br />
*[[Critical social theory]] <br />
*[[Critical success factors, theory of]]<br />
*[[Customer based Discrepancy Theory]]<br />
*[[Customer Focus Theory]]<br />
*[[Deferred action, theory of]] <br />
*[[Delone and McLean IS success model]]<br />
*[[Design Theory]]<br />
*[[Diffusion of innovations theory]]<br />
*[[Dynamic capabilities]]<br />
*[[Elaboration likelihood model]]<br />
*[[Embodied social presence theory]]<br />
*[[Equity theory]] <br />
*[[Evolutionary theory]]<br />
*[[Expectation confirmation theory]] <br />
*[[Feminism theory]]<br />
*[[Fit-Viability theory]]<br />
*[[Flow theory]]<br />
*[[Game theory]]<br />
*[[Garbage can theory]] <br />
*[[General systems theory]]<br />
*[[General deterrence theory]]<br />
*[[Hedonic-motivation system adoption model (HMSAM)]]<br />
*[[Hermeneutics]]<br />
*[[Illusion of control]]<br />
*[[Impression management, theory of]]<br />
*[[Information processing theory]]<br />
*[[Institutional theory]]<br />
*[[International information systems theory]]<br />
*[[Kellers Motivational Model |Keller's Motivational Model]]<br />
*[[Knowledge-based theory of the firm]]<br />
*[[Language action perspective]] <br />
*[[Lemon Market Theory|Information asymmetry theory (lemon market)]]<br />
*[[Management fashion theory]]<br />
*[[Media richness theory]]<br />
*[[Media synchronicity theory]]<br />
*[[Modal aspects, theory of]]<br />
*[[Multi-attribute utility theory]] <br />
*[[Multi-motive information systems continuance model (MISC)]]<br />
*[[Organizational culture theory]] <br />
*[[Organizational information processing theory]]<br />
*[[Organizational knowledge creation]]<br />
*[[Organizational learning theory]]<br />
*[[Portfolio theory]] <br />
*[[Process virtualization theory]]<br />
*[[Prospect theory]] <br />
*[[Protection motivation theory (NEW entry!)|Protection motivation theory]]<br />
*[[Punctuated equilibrium theory]]<br />
*[[Real options theory]]<br />
*[[Resource-based view of the firm]]<br />
*[[Resource dependency theory]]<br />
*[[Selective organizational information privacy and security violations model (SOIPSVM)]]<br />
*[[Self-efficacy theory]]<br />
*[[SERVQUAL]]<br />
*[[Signaling|Signaling theory]]<br />
*[[Social capital theory]]<br />
*[[Social cognitive theory]]<br />
*[[Social exchange theory]]<br />
*[[Social Influence Theory]] (of Kelman)<br />
*[[Social learning theory]]<br />
*[[Social network theory]]<br />
*[[Social shaping of technology]]<br />
*[[Socio-technical theory]]<br />
*[[Soft systems theory]]<br />
*[[Stakeholder theory]] <br />
*[[Structuration theory]]<br />
*[[Structured process modeling theory (SPMT)]]<br />
*[[Task closure theory]] <br />
*[[Task-technology fit]]<br />
*[[Technological frames of reference]]<br />
*[[Technology acceptance model]] <br />
*[[Technology dominance, theory of]] <br />
*[[Technology-organization-environment framework]]<br />
*[[Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT)|Technology Threat Avoidance Theory]]<br />
*[[Theory of collective action]]<br />
*[[Theory of planned behavior]]<br />
*[[Theory of reasoned action]]<br />
*[[Theory of slack resources (TSR)|Theory of slack resources]]<br />
*[[Transaction cost economics]] <br />
*[[Transactive memory theory]] <br />
*[[Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology]]<br />
*[[Usage control model]]<br />
*[[Work systems theory]]<br />
*[[Yield shift theory of satisfaction]]</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=1022Main Page2017-02-27T20:39:42Z<p>Anupriya Khan: /* Theories */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Sponsor Thumbs}}<br />
<br />
<div id="mainpage_topbox"><br />
<div id="mainpage_pagetitle">'''Welcome to the <span id="mainpage_mwtitle">Theories Used in IS Research Wiki</span>'''</div><br />
<div class="mainpage_boxcontents"><br />
{{Introduction}}<br />
<br />
{{Citing}}<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="mainpage_sitelinks"><br />
'''[[IS_Theory:About|About this site]]''' &nbsp; | &nbsp; <br />
'''[[IS_Theory:Acknowledgements|Acknowledgements]]''' &nbsp; | &nbsp;<br />
'''[[IS_Theory:Contributing|How to Contribute]]'''<br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="mainpage_newscell"><br />
<div class="mainpage_boxtitle"><br />
<div><b>Highlights</b></div><br />
</div><br />
* '''IS Theories Wiki is now part of the TheorizeIt.org portal.'''<br />
*: For construct discovery, try out the internomological network at [http://INN.TheorizeIt.org INN.TheorizeIt.org].<br />
* '''New wiki usage report available'''<br />
*: A report analyzing the top-visited wiki pages of 2014 has been compiled. Find it here: [[Top 10 IS Theories 2014 | Top 10 IS Theories of 2014]].<br />
</div><br />
<br />
== Theories ==<br />
<br />
*[[Absorptive capacity theory]]<br />
*[[Actor network theory]]<br />
*[[Accountability theory]]<br />
*[[Adaptive structuration theory]]<br />
*[[Administrative behavior, theory of]]<br />
*[[Agency theory]] <br />
*[[Argumentation theory]]<br />
*[[Behavioral decision theory]]<br />
*[[Belief Action Outcome Model|Belief Action Outcome Framework]]<br />
*[[Boundary object theory]]<br />
*[[Chaos theory]]<br />
*[[Cognitive dissonance theory]]<br />
*[[Cognitive fit theory]]<br />
*[[Cognitive load theory]]<br />
*[[Competitive strategy (Porter)]]<br />
*[[Complexity theory]]<br />
*[[Contingency theory]]<br />
*[[Critical realism theory]]<br />
*[[Critical social theory]] <br />
*[[Critical success factors, theory of]]<br />
*[[Customer based Discrepancy Theory]]<br />
*[[Customer Focus Theory]]<br />
*[[Deferred action, theory of]] <br />
*[[Delone and McLean IS success model]]<br />
*[[Design Theory]]<br />
*[[Diffusion of innovations theory]]<br />
*[[Dynamic capabilities]]<br />
*[[Elaboration likelihood model]]<br />
*[[Embodied social presence theory]]<br />
*[[Equity theory]] <br />
*[[Evolutionary theory]]<br />
*[[Expectation confirmation theory]] <br />
*[[Feminism theory]]<br />
*[[Fit-Viability theory]]<br />
*[[Flow theory]]<br />
*[[Game theory]]<br />
*[[Garbage can theory]] <br />
*[[General systems theory]]<br />
*[[General deterrence theory]]<br />
*[[Hedonic-motivation system adoption model (HMSAM)]]<br />
*[[Hermeneutics]]<br />
*[[Illusion of control]]<br />
*[[Impression management, theory of]]<br />
*[[Information processing theory]]<br />
*[[Institutional theory]]<br />
*[[International information systems theory]]<br />
*[[Kellers Motivational Model |Keller's Motivational Model]]<br />
*[[Knowledge-based theory of the firm]]<br />
*[[Language action perspective]] <br />
*[[Lemon Market Theory|Information asymmetry theory (lemon market)]]<br />
*[[Management fashion theory]]<br />
*[[Media richness theory]]<br />
*[[Media synchronicity theory]]<br />
*[[Modal aspects, theory of]]<br />
*[[Multi-attribute utility theory]] <br />
*[[Multi-motive information systems continuance model (MISC)]]<br />
*[[Organizational culture theory]] <br />
*[[Organizational information processing theory]]<br />
*[[Organizational knowledge creation]]<br />
*[[Organizational learning theory]]<br />
*[[Portfolio theory]] <br />
*[[Process virtualization theory]]<br />
*[[Prospect theory]] <br />
*[[Protection motivation theory (NEW entry!)|Protection motivation theory]]<br />
*[[Punctuated equilibrium theory]]<br />
*[[Real options theory]]<br />
*[[Resource-based view of the firm]]<br />
*[[Resource dependency theory]]<br />
*[[Selective organizational information privacy and security violations model (SOIPSVM)]]<br />
*[[Self-efficacy theory]]<br />
*[[SERVQUAL]]<br />
*[[Signaling|Signaling theory]]<br />
*[[Social capital theory]]<br />
*[[Social cognitive theory]]<br />
*[[Social exchange theory]]<br />
*[[Social Influence Theory]]<br />
*[[Social learning theory]]<br />
*[[Social network theory]]<br />
*[[Social shaping of technology]]<br />
*[[Socio-technical theory]]<br />
*[[Soft systems theory]]<br />
*[[Stakeholder theory]] <br />
*[[Structuration theory]]<br />
*[[Structured process modeling theory (SPMT)]]<br />
*[[Task closure theory]] <br />
*[[Task-technology fit]]<br />
*[[Technological frames of reference]]<br />
*[[Technology acceptance model]] <br />
*[[Technology dominance, theory of]] <br />
*[[Technology-organization-environment framework]]<br />
*[[Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT)|Technology Threat Avoidance Theory]]<br />
*[[Theory of collective action]]<br />
*[[Theory of planned behavior]]<br />
*[[Theory of reasoned action]]<br />
*[[Theory of slack resources (TSR)|Theory of slack resources]]<br />
*[[Transaction cost economics]] <br />
*[[Transactive memory theory]] <br />
*[[Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology]]<br />
*[[Usage control model]]<br />
*[[Work systems theory]]<br />
*[[Yield shift theory of satisfaction]]</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Influence_Theory&diff=1021Social Influence Theory2017-02-27T20:39:04Z<p>Anupriya Khan: /* Concise description of theory */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
Kelman's three process theory<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
The central theme of Social influence theory, as proposed by Kelman (1958), is that an individual’s attitudes, beliefs, and subsequent actions or behaviors are influenced by referent others through three processes: compliance, identification, and internalization. Kelman (1958) posited that social influence brings about changes in attitude and actions, and that changes may occur at different “levels.” This difference in the level of changes can be attributed by the differences in the processes through which individuals accept influence. Kelman (1958) delineated three primary processes of influence as described below:<br />
* ''Compliance'' is assumed to occur when individuals accept influence and adopt the induced behavior to gain rewards (or, approval) and avoid punishments (or, disapproval). Hence, “the satisfaction derived from compliance is due to the ''social effect'' of accepting influence.” (p. 53)<br />
* ''Identification'' is said to happen when individuals adopt the induced behavior in order to create or maintain a desired and beneficial relationship to another person or a group. Hence, the satisfaction occurs due to “the ''act'' of conforming.” (p. 53)<br />
* ''Internalization'' is assumed to occur when individuals accept influence after perceiving the content of the induced behavior is rewarding in which the content indicates the opinions and actions of others. It is also stated that individuals adopt the induced behavior realizing that it is congruent with their value system. In this case, therefore, the satisfaction occurs due to “the ''content'' of the new behavior.” (p. 53)<br />
Since social influence can shape an individual’s attitudes, beliefs and actions, the impact of social influence on information systems (IS) acceptance and usage has been studied extensively. However, the initial theorizing on IS adoption and use (Lewis et al. 2003; Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003) is contended to consider the perspective of social normative ''compliance'', thereby overlooking the ''identification'' and ''internalization'' processes of social influence (Malhotra and Galletta 2005). It is argued that the ''subjective norm'' is the dominant conceptualization of social influence and mostly emphasizes compliance (Wang et al. 2013). Subjective norm is theorized in several behavioral models such as the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen 1991; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Technology-related subjective norm appears in different IS-specific models, including TAM2 and UTAUT (Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003).<br />
<br />
Realizing that only one aspect of social influence i.e., ''compliance'' may not predict the true relationship between the system users’ belief and behavior, and IS use, other researchers attempt to bring the perspectives of all three processes of social influence to provide the integrated impact of them (Malhotra and Galletta 2005; Wang et al. 2013). They believe that the effect of compliance-based social influence may reduce over time, whereas the effects of identification and internalization would persist over longer periods. Therefore, studies that theorize all three processes of social influence indicate that social influence may differ significantly across groups in organizations (Wang et al. 2013). Such conceptualization helps us to understand how the system users’ ''own'' beliefs and judgments also influence their commitment to adopt and use technology, complementing the understanding of previous studies that focus on how the system users ''comply'' and ''conform'' to the beliefs of salient others.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
* Kelman (1958)<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” ''Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes'' (50:2), pp. 179-211.<br />
<br />
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. 1975. ''Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research'', Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.<br />
<br />
Kelman, H. C. 1958. “Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change,” ''Journal of Conflict Resolution'' (2:1), pp. 51-60.<br />
<br />
Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., and Sambamurthy, V. 2003. “Sources of Influence on Beliefs about Information Technology Use: An Empirical Study of Knowledge Workers,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (27:4), pp. 657-678.<br />
<br />
Malhotra, Y., and Galletta, D. 2005. “A Multidimensional Commitment Model of Volitional Systems Adoption and Usage Behavior,” ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' (22:1), pp. 117-151.<br />
<br />
Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. 2000. “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies,” ''Management Science'' (46:2), pp. 186-204.<br />
<br />
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. 2003. “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View,” ''MIS Quarterly'' (27:3), pp. 425-478.<br />
<br />
Wang, Y., Meister, D. B., and Gray, P. H. 2013. “Social Influence and Knowledge Management Systems Use: Evidence from Panel Data,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (37:1), pp. 299-313.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
* Psychology<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
* Individual <br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_influence<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Malhotra, Y., and Galletta, D. 2005. “A Multidimensional Commitment Model of Volitional Systems Adoption and Usage Behavior,” ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' (22:1), pp. 117-151.<br />
<br />
Wang, Y., Meister, D. B., and Gray, P. H. 2013. “Social Influence and Knowledge Management Systems Use: Evidence from Panel Data,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (37:1), pp. 299-313.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
* Anupriya Khan<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Influence_Theory&diff=1020Social Influence Theory2017-02-27T20:37:42Z<p>Anupriya Khan: Created page with "== Acronym == * == Alternate name(s) == Kelman's three process theory == Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) == * == Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) == * == Con..."</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
Kelman's three process theory<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
The central theme of Social influence theory, as proposed by Kelman (1958), is that an individual’s attitudes, beliefs, and subsequent actions or behaviors are influenced by referent others through three processes: compliance, identification, and internalization. Kelman (1958) posited that social influence brings about changes in attitude and actions, and that changes may occur at different “levels.” This difference in the level of changes can be attributed by the differences in the processes through which individuals accept influence. Kelman (1958) delineated three primary processes of influence as described below:<br />
** ''Compliance'' is assumed to occur when individuals accept influence and adopt the induced behavior to gain rewards (or, approval) and avoid punishments (or, disapproval). Hence, “the satisfaction derived from compliance is due to the ''social effect'' of accepting influence.” (p. 53)<br />
** ''Identification'' is said to happen when individuals adopt the induced behavior in order to create or maintain a desired and beneficial relationship to another person or a group. Hence, the satisfaction occurs due to “the ''act'' of conforming.” (p. 53)<br />
** ''Internalization'' is assumed to occur when individuals accept influence after perceiving the content of the induced behavior is rewarding in which the content indicates the opinions and actions of others. It is also stated that individuals adopt the induced behavior realizing that it is congruent with their value system. In this case, therefore, the satisfaction occurs due to “the ''content'' of the new behavior.” (p. 53)<br />
Since social influence can shape an individual’s attitudes, beliefs and actions, the impact of social influence on information systems (IS) acceptance and usage has been studied extensively. However, the initial theorizing on IS adoption and use (Lewis et al. 2003; Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003) is contended to consider the perspective of social normative ''compliance'', thereby overlooking the ''identification'' and ''internalization'' processes of social influence (Malhotra and Galletta 2005). It is argued that the ''subjective norm'' is the dominant conceptualization of social influence and mostly emphasizes compliance (Wang et al. 2013). Subjective norm is theorized in several behavioral models such as the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen 1991; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Technology-related subjective norm appears in different IS-specific models, including TAM2 and UTAUT (Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003).<br />
<br />
Realizing that only one aspect of social influence i.e., ''compliance'' may not predict the true relationship between the system users’ belief and behavior, and IS use, other researchers attempt to bring the perspectives of all three processes of social influence to provide the integrated impact of them (Malhotra and Galletta 2005; Wang et al. 2013). They believe that the effect of compliance-based social influence may reduce over time, whereas the effects of identification and internalization would persist over longer periods. Therefore, studies that theorize all three processes of social influence indicate that social influence may differ significantly across groups in organizations (Wang et al. 2013). Such conceptualization helps us to understand how the system users’ ''own'' beliefs and judgments also influence their commitment to adopt and use technology, complementing the understanding of previous studies that focus on how the system users ''comply'' and ''conform'' to the beliefs of salient others.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
* Kelman (1958)<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” ''Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes'' (50:2), pp. 179-211.<br />
<br />
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. 1975. ''Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research'', Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.<br />
<br />
Kelman, H. C. 1958. “Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change,” ''Journal of Conflict Resolution'' (2:1), pp. 51-60.<br />
<br />
Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., and Sambamurthy, V. 2003. “Sources of Influence on Beliefs about Information Technology Use: An Empirical Study of Knowledge Workers,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (27:4), pp. 657-678.<br />
<br />
Malhotra, Y., and Galletta, D. 2005. “A Multidimensional Commitment Model of Volitional Systems Adoption and Usage Behavior,” ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' (22:1), pp. 117-151.<br />
<br />
Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. 2000. “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies,” ''Management Science'' (46:2), pp. 186-204.<br />
<br />
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. 2003. “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View,” ''MIS Quarterly'' (27:3), pp. 425-478.<br />
<br />
Wang, Y., Meister, D. B., and Gray, P. H. 2013. “Social Influence and Knowledge Management Systems Use: Evidence from Panel Data,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (37:1), pp. 299-313.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
* Psychology<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
* Individual <br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_influence<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Malhotra, Y., and Galletta, D. 2005. “A Multidimensional Commitment Model of Volitional Systems Adoption and Usage Behavior,” ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' (22:1), pp. 117-151.<br />
<br />
Wang, Y., Meister, D. B., and Gray, P. H. 2013. “Social Influence and Knowledge Management Systems Use: Evidence from Panel Data,” ''MIS Quarterly,'' (37:1), pp. 299-313.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
* Anupriya Khan<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Technology_Threat_Avoidance_Theory_(TTAT)&diff=1016Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT)2017-02-23T10:54:41Z<p>Anupriya Khan: /* Concise description of theory */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
* TTAT<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Avoidance behavior<br />
<br />
Emotion-focused coping<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Risk tolerance, Social influence<br />
<br />
Users’ perceived susceptibility and severity of malicious IT<br />
<br />
A safeguarding measure's effectiveness, costs, and users' self-efficacy toward it<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT) explains why and how individual IT users are engaged in threat avoidance behavior in voluntary setting. Against most studies that have examined IT security at the organizational level, TTAT provides a framework at the individual user level. The theory has been developed by Liang and Xue<ref name=":0"><small>Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.</small></ref> by synthesizing the literature from diverse areas including psychology, health care, risk analysis, and information systems. The basic premise of TTAT is that when users perceive that an IT threat exists, they will be motivated to ''actively'' avoid an IT threat by taking a safeguarding measure if they believe that the threat can be avoidable by the safeguarding measure, or they will passively avoid the threat through emotion-focused coping if they perceive the threat not to be avoidable by any safeguarding measure available to them<ref name=":0" />.<br />
<br />
TTAT describes the processes and factors influencing individual users’ IT threat avoidance behavior. Drawing on cybernetic theory<ref><small>Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality-Social, Clinical, and Health Psychology. ''Psychological Bulletin, 92''(1), 111-135.</small></ref><ref><small>Edwards, J. (1992). A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Weil-Being in Organizations. ''Academy of Management Review, 17''(2), 238-274.</small></ref>, TTAT posits that IT threat avoidance behavior can be represented by a cybernetic process in which users intend to enlarge the distance between their current security state and the undesired (unsafe) end state. With the help of coping theory<ref><small>Lazarus, R. (1966). ''Psychological Stress and the Coping Process.'' New York: McGraw-Hill.</small></ref><ref><small>Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). ''Stress, Coping, and Adaptation.'' New York: Springer-Verlag.</small></ref>, TTAT submits that users experience two cognitive processes, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. First, users appraise or assess the situation whether the IT threat exists and to what degree it exists. Then they decide what action they will take to avoid it—problem-focused coping and/or emotion-focused coping. TTAT identifies some key factors that explain user perception and motivation in this process. Integrating the literature of risk analysis<ref><small>Baskerville, R. (1991a). "Risk Analysis: An Interpretive Feasibility Tool in Justifying Information Systems Security". ''European Journal of Information Systems, 1''(2), 121-130.</small></ref><ref><small>Baskerville, R. (1991b). "Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge". ''Computer & Security, 10''(8), 749-764.</small></ref> and health psychology<ref name=":1"><small>Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. ''Health Education Quarterly, 11''(1), 1-45.</small></ref><ref><small>Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and Physiological Process in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In R. Petty, ''Social Psychophysiology: A Source Book'' (pp. 153-176). New York: Guilford Press.</small></ref><ref><small>Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived Probability, Perceived Severity, and Health-Protective Behavior. ''Health Psychology, 19''(1), 65-74.</small></ref>, TTAT suggests that users’ threat perception is determined by the perceived probability of the threat's occurrence and the perceived severity of the threat's negative consequences. Based on prior research on health protective behavior<ref name=":1" /><ref><small>Maddus, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy : A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19'', 469-479.</small></ref> and self-efficacy<ref><small>Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. ''American Psychologist, 37'', 122-147.</small></ref><ref><small>Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of A Measure and Initial Test. ''MIS Quarterly, 19''(2), 189-211.</small></ref>, TTAT proposes that users conceive three factors to assess to what extent the threat can be made avoidable by taking a safeguarding measure—the effectiveness of the safeguarding measure, the costs of the measure, and users' self-efficacy of applying the measure.<br />
<br />
'''References''':<br />
<br />
<small>Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. ''American Psychologist, 37'', 122-147.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Baskerville, R. (1991a). "Risk Analysis: An Interpretive Feasibility Tool in Justifying Information Systems Security". ''European Journal of Information Systems, 1''(2), 121-130.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Baskerville, R. (1991b). "Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge". ''Computer & Security, 10''(8), 749-764.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality-Social, Clinical, and Health Psychology. ''Psychological Bulletin, 92''(1), 111-135.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of A Measure and Initial Test. ''MIS Quarterly, 19''(2), 189-211.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Edwards, J. (1992). A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Weil-Being in Organizations. ''Academy of Management Review, 17''(2), 238-274.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. ''Health Education Quarterly, 11''(1), 1-45.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Lazarus, R. (1966). ''Psychological Stress and the Coping Process.'' New York: McGraw-Hill.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). ''Stress, Coping, and Adaptation.'' New York: Springer-Verlag.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Maddus, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy : A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19'', 469-479.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and Physiological Process in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In R. Petty, ''Social Psychophysiology: A Source Book'' (pp. 153-176). New York: Guilford Press.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived Probability, Perceived Severity, and Health-Protective Behavior. ''Health Psychology, 19''(1), 65-74.</small><br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
* Liang and Xue (2009)<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
* Individual<br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Arachchilage, N. A., & Love, S. (2014, September). Security awareness of computer users: A phishing threat avoidance perspective. ''Computers in Human Behavior, 38'', 304-312.<br />
<br />
Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., Banjara, K., Wilbur, J., & Rao, H. R. (2014, January). Security services as coping mechanisms: an investigation into user intention to adopt an email authentication service. ''Information Systems Journal, 24''(1), 61-84<br />
<br />
Lai, F., Li, D., & Hsieh, C.-T. (2012, January). Fighting Identity Theft: The Coping Perspective. ''Decision Support Systems, 52''(2), 353-363.<br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2010, July). Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. ''Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11''(7), 394-413.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
* Anupriya Khan<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Technology_Threat_Avoidance_Theory_(TTAT)&diff=1015Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT)2017-02-23T10:46:37Z<p>Anupriya Khan: /* Seminal articles */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
* TTAT<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Avoidance behavior<br />
<br />
Emotion-focused coping<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Risk tolerance, Social influence<br />
<br />
Users’ perceived susceptibility and severity of malicious IT<br />
<br />
A safeguarding measure's effectiveness, costs, and users' self-efficacy toward it<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT) explains why and how individual IT users are engaged in threat avoidance behavior in voluntary setting. Against most studies that have examined IT security at the organizational level, TTAT provides a framework at the individual user level. The theory has been developed by Liang and Xue (2009) by synthesizing the literature from diverse areas including psychology, health care, risk analysis, and information systems. The basic premise of TTAT is that when users perceive that an IT threat exists, they will be motivated to ''actively'' avoid an IT threat by taking a safeguarding measure if they believe that the threat can be avoidable by the safeguarding measure, or they will passively avoid the threat through emotion-focused coping if they perceive the threat not to be avoidable by any safeguarding measure available to them (Liang & Xue, 2009).<br />
<br />
TTAT describes the processes and factors influencing individual users’ IT threat avoidance behavior. Drawing on cybernetic theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982; Edwards, 1992), TTAT posits that IT threat avoidance behavior can be represented by a cybernetic process in which users intend to enlarge the distance between their current security state and the undesired (unsafe) end state. With the help of coping theory (Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), TTAT submits that users experience two cognitive processes, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. First, users appraise or assess the situation whether the IT threat exists and to what degree it exists. Then they decide what action they will take to avoid it—problem-focused coping and/or emotion-focused coping. TTAT identifies some key factors that explain user perception and motivation in this process. Integrating the literature of risk analysis (Baskerville, 1991a; Baskerville, 1991b) and health psychology (Janz & Becker, 1984; Rogers, 1983; Weinstein, 2000), TTAT suggests that users’ threat perception is determined by the perceived probability of the threat's occurrence and the perceived severity of the threat's negative consequences. Based on prior research on health protective behavior (Janz & Becker, 1984; Maddus & Rogers, 1983) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; Compeau & Higgins, 1995), TTAT proposes that users conceive three factors to assess to what extent the threat can be made avoidable by taking a safeguarding measure—the effectiveness of the safeguarding measure, the costs of the measure, and users' self-efficacy of applying the measure.<br />
<br />
'''References''':<br />
<br />
<small>Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. ''American Psychologist, 37'', 122-147.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Baskerville, R. (1991a). "Risk Analysis: An Interpretive Feasibility Tool in Justifying Information Systems Security". ''European Journal of Information Systems, 1''(2), 121-130.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Baskerville, R. (1991b). "Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge". ''Computer & Security, 10''(8), 749-764.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality-Social, Clinical, and Health Psychology. ''Psychological Bulletin, 92''(1), 111-135.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of A Measure and Initial Test. ''MIS Quarterly, 19''(2), 189-211.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Edwards, J. (1992). A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Weil-Being in Organizations. ''Academy of Management Review, 17''(2), 238-274.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. ''Health Education Quarterly, 11''(1), 1-45.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Lazarus, R. (1966). ''Psychological Stress and the Coping Process.'' New York: McGraw-Hill.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). ''Stress, Coping, and Adaptation.'' New York: Springer-Verlag.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Maddus, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy : A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19'', 469-479.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and Physiological Process in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In R. Petty, ''Social Psychophysiology: A Source Book'' (pp. 153-176). New York: Guilford Press.</small><br />
<br />
<small>Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived Probability, Perceived Severity, and Health-Protective Behavior. ''Health Psychology, 19''(1), 65-74.</small><br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
* Liang and Xue (2009)<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
* Individual<br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Arachchilage, N. A., & Love, S. (2014, September). Security awareness of computer users: A phishing threat avoidance perspective. ''Computers in Human Behavior, 38'', 304-312.<br />
<br />
Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., Banjara, K., Wilbur, J., & Rao, H. R. (2014, January). Security services as coping mechanisms: an investigation into user intention to adopt an email authentication service. ''Information Systems Journal, 24''(1), 61-84<br />
<br />
Lai, F., Li, D., & Hsieh, C.-T. (2012, January). Fighting Identity Theft: The Coping Perspective. ''Decision Support Systems, 52''(2), 353-363.<br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2010, July). Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. ''Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11''(7), 394-413.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
* Anupriya Khan<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Technology_Threat_Avoidance_Theory_(TTAT)&diff=1014Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT)2017-02-23T10:34:35Z<p>Anupriya Khan: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
* TTAT<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s) ==<br />
<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Avoidance behavior<br />
<br />
Emotion-focused coping<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Risk tolerance, Social influence<br />
<br />
Users’ perceived susceptibility and severity of malicious IT<br />
<br />
A safeguarding measure's effectiveness, costs, and users' self-efficacy toward it<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT) explains why and how individual IT users are engaged in threat avoidance behavior in voluntary setting. Against most studies that have examined IT security at the organizational level, TTAT provides a framework at the individual user level. The theory has been developed by Liang and Xue (2009) by synthesizing the literature from diverse areas including psychology, health care, risk analysis, and information systems. The basic premise of TTAT is that when users perceive that an IT threat exists, they will be motivated to ''actively'' avoid an IT threat by taking a safeguarding measure if they believe that the threat can be avoidable by the safeguarding measure, or they will passively avoid the threat through emotion-focused coping if they perceive the threat not to be avoidable by any safeguarding measure available to them (Liang & Xue, 2009).<br />
<br />
TTAT describes the processes and factors influencing individual users’ IT threat avoidance behavior. Drawing on cybernetic theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982; Edwards, 1992), TTAT posits that IT threat avoidance behavior can be represented by a cybernetic process in which users intend to enlarge the distance between their current security state and the undesired (unsafe) end state. With the help of coping theory (Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), TTAT submits that users experience two cognitive processes, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. First, users appraise or assess the situation whether the IT threat exists and to what degree it exists. Then they decide what action they will take to avoid it—problem-focused coping and/or emotion-focused coping. TTAT identifies some key factors that explain user perception and motivation in this process. Integrating the literature of risk analysis (Baskerville, 1991a; Baskerville, 1991b) and health psychology (Janz & Becker, 1984; Rogers, 1983; Weinstein, 2000), TTAT suggests that users’ threat perception is determined by the perceived probability of the threat's occurrence and the perceived severity of the threat's negative consequences. Based on prior research on health protective behavior (Janz & Becker, 1984; Maddus & Rogers, 1983) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; Compeau & Higgins, 1995), TTAT proposes that users conceive three factors to assess to what extent the threat can be made avoidable by taking a safeguarding measure—the effectiveness of the safeguarding measure, the costs of the measure, and users' self-efficacy of applying the measure.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
* Liang and Xue (2009)<br />
<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. ''American Psychologist, 37'', 122-147.<br />
<br />
Baskerville, R. (1991a). "Risk Analysis: An Interpretive Feasibility Tool in Justifying Information Systems Security". ''European Journal of Information Systems, 1''(2), 121-130.<br />
<br />
Baskerville, R. (1991b). "Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge". ''Computer & Security, 10''(8), 749-764.<br />
<br />
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality-Social, Clinical, and Health Psychology. ''Psychological Bulletin, 92''(1), 111-135.<br />
<br />
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of A Measure and Initial Test. ''MIS Quarterly, 19''(2), 189-211.<br />
<br />
Edwards, J. (1992). A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Weil-Being in Organizations. ''Academy of Management Review, 17''(2), 238-274.<br />
<br />
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. ''Health Education Quarterly, 11''(1), 1-45.<br />
<br />
Lazarus, R. (1966). ''Psychological Stress and the Coping Process.'' New York: McGraw-Hill.<br />
<br />
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). ''Stress, Coping, and Adaptation.'' New York: Springer-Verlag.<br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.<br />
<br />
Maddus, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy : A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19'', 469-479.<br />
<br />
Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and Physiological Process in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In R. Petty, ''Social Psychophysiology: A Source Book'' (pp. 153-176). New York: Guilford Press.<br />
<br />
Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived Probability, Perceived Severity, and Health-Protective Behavior. ''Health Psychology, 19''(1), 65-74.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
* Individual<br />
<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Arachchilage, N. A., & Love, S. (2014, September). Security awareness of computer users: A phishing threat avoidance perspective. ''Computers in Human Behavior, 38'', 304-312.<br />
<br />
Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., Banjara, K., Wilbur, J., & Rao, H. R. (2014, January). Security services as coping mechanisms: an investigation into user intention to adopt an email authentication service. ''Information Systems Journal, 24''(1), 61-84<br />
<br />
Lai, F., Li, D., & Hsieh, C.-T. (2012, January). Fighting Identity Theft: The Coping Perspective. ''Decision Support Systems, 52''(2), 353-363.<br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2010, July). Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. ''Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11''(7), 394-413.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
* Anupriya Khan<br />
<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=1013Main Page2017-02-23T10:28:14Z<p>Anupriya Khan: /* Theories */ TTAT</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Sponsor Thumbs}}<br />
<br />
<div id="mainpage_topbox"><br />
<div id="mainpage_pagetitle">'''Welcome to the <span id="mainpage_mwtitle">Theories Used in IS Research Wiki</span>'''</div><br />
<div class="mainpage_boxcontents"><br />
{{Introduction}}<br />
<br />
{{Citing}}<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="mainpage_sitelinks"><br />
'''[[IS_Theory:About|About this site]]''' &nbsp; | &nbsp; <br />
'''[[IS_Theory:Acknowledgements|Acknowledgements]]''' &nbsp; | &nbsp;<br />
'''[[IS_Theory:Contributing|How to Contribute]]'''<br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="mainpage_newscell"><br />
<div class="mainpage_boxtitle"><br />
<div><b>Highlights</b></div><br />
</div><br />
* '''IS Theories Wiki is now part of the TheorizeIt.org portal.'''<br />
*: For construct discovery, try out the internomological network at [http://INN.TheorizeIt.org INN.TheorizeIt.org].<br />
* '''New wiki usage report available'''<br />
*: A report analyzing the top-visited wiki pages of 2014 has been compiled. Find it here: [[Top 10 IS Theories 2014 | Top 10 IS Theories of 2014]].<br />
</div><br />
<br />
== Theories ==<br />
<br />
*[[Absorptive capacity theory]]<br />
*[[Actor network theory]]<br />
*[[Accountability theory]]<br />
*[[Adaptive structuration theory]]<br />
*[[Administrative behavior, theory of]]<br />
*[[Agency theory]] <br />
*[[Argumentation theory]]<br />
*[[Behavioral decision theory]]<br />
*[[Belief Action Outcome Model|Belief Action Outcome Framework]]<br />
*[[Boundary object theory]]<br />
*[[Chaos theory]]<br />
*[[Cognitive dissonance theory]]<br />
*[[Cognitive fit theory]]<br />
*[[Cognitive load theory]]<br />
*[[Competitive strategy (Porter)]]<br />
*[[Complexity theory]]<br />
*[[Contingency theory]]<br />
*[[Critical realism theory]]<br />
*[[Critical social theory]] <br />
*[[Critical success factors, theory of]]<br />
*[[Customer based Discrepancy Theory]]<br />
*[[Customer Focus Theory]]<br />
*[[Deferred action, theory of]] <br />
*[[Delone and McLean IS success model]]<br />
*[[Design Theory]]<br />
*[[Diffusion of innovations theory]]<br />
*[[Dynamic capabilities]]<br />
*[[Elaboration likelihood model]]<br />
*[[Embodied social presence theory]]<br />
*[[Equity theory]] <br />
*[[Evolutionary theory]]<br />
*[[Expectation confirmation theory]] <br />
*[[Feminism theory]]<br />
*[[Fit-Viability theory]]<br />
*[[Flow theory]]<br />
*[[Game theory]]<br />
*[[Garbage can theory]] <br />
*[[General systems theory]]<br />
*[[General deterrence theory]]<br />
*[[Hedonic-motivation system adoption model (HMSAM)]]<br />
*[[Hermeneutics]]<br />
*[[Illusion of control]]<br />
*[[Impression management, theory of]]<br />
*[[Information processing theory]]<br />
*[[Institutional theory]]<br />
*[[International information systems theory]]<br />
*[[Kellers Motivational Model |Keller's Motivational Model]]<br />
*[[Knowledge-based theory of the firm]]<br />
*[[Language action perspective]] <br />
*[[Lemon Market Theory|Information asymmetry theory (lemon market)]]<br />
*[[Management fashion theory]]<br />
*[[Media richness theory]]<br />
*[[Media synchronicity theory]]<br />
*[[Modal aspects, theory of]]<br />
*[[Multi-attribute utility theory]] <br />
*[[Multi-motive information systems continuance model (MISC)]]<br />
*[[Organizational culture theory]] <br />
*[[Organizational information processing theory]]<br />
*[[Organizational knowledge creation]]<br />
*[[Organizational learning theory]]<br />
*[[Portfolio theory]] <br />
*[[Process virtualization theory]]<br />
*[[Prospect theory]] <br />
*[[Protection motivation theory (NEW entry!)|Protection motivation theory]]<br />
*[[Punctuated equilibrium theory]]<br />
*[[Real options theory]]<br />
*[[Resource-based view of the firm]]<br />
*[[Resource dependency theory]]<br />
*[[Selective organizational information privacy and security violations model (SOIPSVM)]]<br />
*[[Self-efficacy theory]]<br />
*[[SERVQUAL]]<br />
*[[Signaling|Signaling theory]]<br />
*[[Social capital theory]]<br />
*[[Social cognitive theory]]<br />
*[[Social exchange theory]]<br />
*[[Social learning theory]]<br />
*[[Social network theory]]<br />
*[[Social shaping of technology]]<br />
*[[Socio-technical theory]]<br />
*[[Soft systems theory]]<br />
*[[Stakeholder theory]] <br />
*[[Structuration theory]]<br />
*[[Structured process modeling theory (SPMT)]]<br />
*[[Task closure theory]] <br />
*[[Task-technology fit]]<br />
*[[Technological frames of reference]]<br />
*[[Technology acceptance model]] <br />
*[[Technology dominance, theory of]] <br />
*[[Technology-organization-environment framework]]<br />
*[[Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT)|Technology Threat Avoidance Theory]]<br />
*[[Theory of collective action]]<br />
*[[Theory of planned behavior]]<br />
*[[Theory of reasoned action]]<br />
*[[Theory of slack resources (TSR)|Theory of slack resources]]<br />
*[[Transaction cost economics]] <br />
*[[Transactive memory theory]] <br />
*[[Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology]]<br />
*[[Usage control model]]<br />
*[[Work systems theory]]<br />
*[[Yield shift theory of satisfaction]]</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Technology_Threat_Avoidance_Theory_(TTAT)&diff=1012Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT)2017-02-23T10:27:33Z<p>Anupriya Khan: new theory</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
* TTAT</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_Template&diff=1011Theory Template2017-02-23T10:11:18Z<p>Anupriya Khan: /* Acronym */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
* <br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s)==<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)==<br />
* <br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
* <br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
* <br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
*<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
* <br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
*<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
* <br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
*<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*<br />
Please feel free to make modifications to this site. In order to do so, you must register.__FORCETOC__</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Technology_Threat_Avoidance_Theory&diff=1010Technology Threat Avoidance Theory2017-02-23T10:09:57Z<p>Anupriya Khan: Anupriya Khan moved page Technology Threat Avoidance Theory to Theory Template</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Theory Template]]</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_Template&diff=1009Theory Template2017-02-23T10:09:57Z<p>Anupriya Khan: Anupriya Khan moved page Technology Threat Avoidance Theory to Theory Template</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
TTAT<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s)==<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)==<br />
Avoidance behavior <br />
<br />
Emotion-focused coping<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Risk tolerance, Social influence <br />
<br />
Users’ perceived susceptibility and severity of malicious IT <br />
<br />
A safeguarding measure's effectiveness, costs, and users' self-efficacy toward it<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT) explains why and how individual IT users are engaged in threat avoidance behavior in voluntary setting. Against most studies that have examined IT security at the organizational level, TTAT provides a framework at the individual user level. The theory has been developed by Liang and Xue (2009) by synthesizing the literature from diverse areas including psychology, health care, risk analysis, and information systems. The basic premise of TTAT is that when users perceive that an IT threat exists, they will be motivated to ''actively'' avoid an IT threat by taking a safeguarding measure if they believe that the threat can be avoidable by the safeguarding measure, or they will passively avoid the threat through emotion-focused coping if they perceive the threat not to be avoidable by any safeguarding measure available to them (Liang & Xue, 2009). <br />
<br />
TTAT describes the processes and factors influencing individual users’ IT threat avoidance behavior. Drawing on cybernetic theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982; Edwards, 1992), TTAT posits that IT threat avoidance behavior can be represented by a cybernetic process in which users intend to enlarge the distance between their current security state and the undesired (unsafe) end state. With the help of coping theory (Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), TTAT submits that users experience two cognitive processes, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. First, users appraise or assess the situation whether the IT threat exists and to what degree it exists. Then they decide what action they will take to avoid it—problem-focused coping and/or emotion-focused coping. TTAT identifies some key factors that explain user perception and motivation in this process. Integrating the literature of risk analysis (Baskerville, 1991a; Baskerville, 1991b) and health psychology (Janz & Becker, 1984; Rogers, 1983; Weinstein, 2000), TTAT suggests that users’ threat perception is determined by the perceived probability of the threat's occurrence and the perceived severity of the threat's negative consequences. Based on prior research on health protective behavior (Janz & Becker, 1984; Maddus & Rogers, 1983) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; Compeau & Higgins, 1995), TTAT proposes that users conceive three factors to assess to what extent the threat can be made avoidable by taking a safeguarding measure—the effectiveness of the safeguarding measure, the costs of the measure, and users' self-efficacy of applying the measure.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
*Liang and Xue (2009)<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. ''American Psychologist, 37'', 122-147. <br />
<br />
Baskerville, R. (1991a). "Risk Analysis: An Interpretive Feasibility Tool in Justifying Information Systems Security". ''European Journal of Information Systems, 1''(2), 121-130. <br />
<br />
Baskerville, R. (1991b). "Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge". ''Computer & Security, 10''(8), 749-764. <br />
<br />
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality-Social, Clinical, and Health Psychology. ''Psychological Bulletin, 92''(1), 111-135. <br />
<br />
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of A Measure and Initial Test. ''MIS Quarterly, 19''(2), 189-211. <br />
<br />
Edwards, J. (1992). A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Weil-Being in Organizations. ''Academy of Management Review, 17''(2), 238-274. <br />
<br />
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. ''Health Education Quarterly, 11''(1), 1-45. <br />
<br />
Lazarus, R. (1966). ''Psychological Stress and the Coping Process.'' New York: McGraw-Hill. <br />
<br />
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). ''Stress, Coping, and Adaptation.'' New York: Springer-Verlag. <br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.<br />
<br />
Maddus, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy : A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19'', 469-479.<br />
<br />
Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and Physiological Process in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In R. Petty, ''Social Psychophysiology: A Source Book'' (pp. 153-176). New York: Guilford Press.<br />
<br />
Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived Probability, Perceived Severity, and Health-Protective Behavior. ''Health Psychology, 19''(1), 65-74.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
*Individual<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Arachchilage, N. A., & Love, S. (2014, September). Security awareness of computer users: A phishing threat avoidance perspective. ''Computers in Human Behavior, 38'', 304-312. <br />
<br />
Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., Banjara, K., Wilbur, J., & Rao, H. R. (2014, January). Security services as coping mechanisms: an investigation into user intention to adopt an email authentication service. ''Information Systems Journal, 24''(1), 61-84. <br />
<br />
Lai, F., Li, D., & Hsieh, C.-T. (2012, January). Fighting Identity Theft: The Coping Perspective. ''Decision Support Systems, 52''(2), 353-363. <br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2010, July). Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. ''Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11''(7), 394-413.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
*Anupriya Khan<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*<br />
Please feel free to make modifications to this site. In order to do so, you must register.__FORCETOC__</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_template&diff=1008Theory template2017-02-23T10:05:55Z<p>Anupriya Khan: Anupriya Khan moved page Theory template to Technology Threat Avoidance Theory</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Technology Threat Avoidance Theory]]</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_Template&diff=1007Theory Template2017-02-23T10:05:55Z<p>Anupriya Khan: Anupriya Khan moved page Theory template to Technology Threat Avoidance Theory</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
TTAT<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s)==<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)==<br />
Avoidance behavior <br />
<br />
Emotion-focused coping<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Risk tolerance, Social influence <br />
<br />
Users’ perceived susceptibility and severity of malicious IT <br />
<br />
A safeguarding measure's effectiveness, costs, and users' self-efficacy toward it<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT) explains why and how individual IT users are engaged in threat avoidance behavior in voluntary setting. Against most studies that have examined IT security at the organizational level, TTAT provides a framework at the individual user level. The theory has been developed by Liang and Xue (2009) by synthesizing the literature from diverse areas including psychology, health care, risk analysis, and information systems. The basic premise of TTAT is that when users perceive that an IT threat exists, they will be motivated to ''actively'' avoid an IT threat by taking a safeguarding measure if they believe that the threat can be avoidable by the safeguarding measure, or they will passively avoid the threat through emotion-focused coping if they perceive the threat not to be avoidable by any safeguarding measure available to them (Liang & Xue, 2009). <br />
<br />
TTAT describes the processes and factors influencing individual users’ IT threat avoidance behavior. Drawing on cybernetic theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982; Edwards, 1992), TTAT posits that IT threat avoidance behavior can be represented by a cybernetic process in which users intend to enlarge the distance between their current security state and the undesired (unsafe) end state. With the help of coping theory (Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), TTAT submits that users experience two cognitive processes, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. First, users appraise or assess the situation whether the IT threat exists and to what degree it exists. Then they decide what action they will take to avoid it—problem-focused coping and/or emotion-focused coping. TTAT identifies some key factors that explain user perception and motivation in this process. Integrating the literature of risk analysis (Baskerville, 1991a; Baskerville, 1991b) and health psychology (Janz & Becker, 1984; Rogers, 1983; Weinstein, 2000), TTAT suggests that users’ threat perception is determined by the perceived probability of the threat's occurrence and the perceived severity of the threat's negative consequences. Based on prior research on health protective behavior (Janz & Becker, 1984; Maddus & Rogers, 1983) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; Compeau & Higgins, 1995), TTAT proposes that users conceive three factors to assess to what extent the threat can be made avoidable by taking a safeguarding measure—the effectiveness of the safeguarding measure, the costs of the measure, and users' self-efficacy of applying the measure.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
*Liang and Xue (2009)<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. ''American Psychologist, 37'', 122-147. <br />
<br />
Baskerville, R. (1991a). "Risk Analysis: An Interpretive Feasibility Tool in Justifying Information Systems Security". ''European Journal of Information Systems, 1''(2), 121-130. <br />
<br />
Baskerville, R. (1991b). "Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge". ''Computer & Security, 10''(8), 749-764. <br />
<br />
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality-Social, Clinical, and Health Psychology. ''Psychological Bulletin, 92''(1), 111-135. <br />
<br />
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of A Measure and Initial Test. ''MIS Quarterly, 19''(2), 189-211. <br />
<br />
Edwards, J. (1992). A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Weil-Being in Organizations. ''Academy of Management Review, 17''(2), 238-274. <br />
<br />
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. ''Health Education Quarterly, 11''(1), 1-45. <br />
<br />
Lazarus, R. (1966). ''Psychological Stress and the Coping Process.'' New York: McGraw-Hill. <br />
<br />
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). ''Stress, Coping, and Adaptation.'' New York: Springer-Verlag. <br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.<br />
<br />
Maddus, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy : A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19'', 469-479.<br />
<br />
Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and Physiological Process in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In R. Petty, ''Social Psychophysiology: A Source Book'' (pp. 153-176). New York: Guilford Press.<br />
<br />
Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived Probability, Perceived Severity, and Health-Protective Behavior. ''Health Psychology, 19''(1), 65-74.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
*Individual<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Arachchilage, N. A., & Love, S. (2014, September). Security awareness of computer users: A phishing threat avoidance perspective. ''Computers in Human Behavior, 38'', 304-312. <br />
<br />
Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., Banjara, K., Wilbur, J., & Rao, H. R. (2014, January). Security services as coping mechanisms: an investigation into user intention to adopt an email authentication service. ''Information Systems Journal, 24''(1), 61-84. <br />
<br />
Lai, F., Li, D., & Hsieh, C.-T. (2012, January). Fighting Identity Theft: The Coping Perspective. ''Decision Support Systems, 52''(2), 353-363. <br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2010, July). Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. ''Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11''(7), 394-413.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
*Anupriya Khan<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*<br />
Please feel free to make modifications to this site. In order to do so, you must register.__FORCETOC__</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_Template&diff=1006Theory Template2017-02-23T10:04:52Z<p>Anupriya Khan: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
TTAT<br />
<br />
== Alternate name(s)==<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)==<br />
Avoidance behavior <br />
<br />
Emotion-focused coping<br />
<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
Risk tolerance, Social influence <br />
<br />
Users’ perceived susceptibility and severity of malicious IT <br />
<br />
A safeguarding measure's effectiveness, costs, and users' self-efficacy toward it<br />
<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT) explains why and how individual IT users are engaged in threat avoidance behavior in voluntary setting. Against most studies that have examined IT security at the organizational level, TTAT provides a framework at the individual user level. The theory has been developed by Liang and Xue (2009) by synthesizing the literature from diverse areas including psychology, health care, risk analysis, and information systems. The basic premise of TTAT is that when users perceive that an IT threat exists, they will be motivated to ''actively'' avoid an IT threat by taking a safeguarding measure if they believe that the threat can be avoidable by the safeguarding measure, or they will passively avoid the threat through emotion-focused coping if they perceive the threat not to be avoidable by any safeguarding measure available to them (Liang & Xue, 2009). <br />
<br />
TTAT describes the processes and factors influencing individual users’ IT threat avoidance behavior. Drawing on cybernetic theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982; Edwards, 1992), TTAT posits that IT threat avoidance behavior can be represented by a cybernetic process in which users intend to enlarge the distance between their current security state and the undesired (unsafe) end state. With the help of coping theory (Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), TTAT submits that users experience two cognitive processes, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. First, users appraise or assess the situation whether the IT threat exists and to what degree it exists. Then they decide what action they will take to avoid it—problem-focused coping and/or emotion-focused coping. TTAT identifies some key factors that explain user perception and motivation in this process. Integrating the literature of risk analysis (Baskerville, 1991a; Baskerville, 1991b) and health psychology (Janz & Becker, 1984; Rogers, 1983; Weinstein, 2000), TTAT suggests that users’ threat perception is determined by the perceived probability of the threat's occurrence and the perceived severity of the threat's negative consequences. Based on prior research on health protective behavior (Janz & Becker, 1984; Maddus & Rogers, 1983) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; Compeau & Higgins, 1995), TTAT proposes that users conceive three factors to assess to what extent the threat can be made avoidable by taking a safeguarding measure—the effectiveness of the safeguarding measure, the costs of the measure, and users' self-efficacy of applying the measure.<br />
<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
*Liang and Xue (2009)<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. ''American Psychologist, 37'', 122-147. <br />
<br />
Baskerville, R. (1991a). "Risk Analysis: An Interpretive Feasibility Tool in Justifying Information Systems Security". ''European Journal of Information Systems, 1''(2), 121-130. <br />
<br />
Baskerville, R. (1991b). "Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge". ''Computer & Security, 10''(8), 749-764. <br />
<br />
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality-Social, Clinical, and Health Psychology. ''Psychological Bulletin, 92''(1), 111-135. <br />
<br />
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of A Measure and Initial Test. ''MIS Quarterly, 19''(2), 189-211. <br />
<br />
Edwards, J. (1992). A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Weil-Being in Organizations. ''Academy of Management Review, 17''(2), 238-274. <br />
<br />
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. ''Health Education Quarterly, 11''(1), 1-45. <br />
<br />
Lazarus, R. (1966). ''Psychological Stress and the Coping Process.'' New York: McGraw-Hill. <br />
<br />
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). ''Stress, Coping, and Adaptation.'' New York: Springer-Verlag. <br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.<br />
<br />
Maddus, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy : A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19'', 469-479.<br />
<br />
Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and Physiological Process in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In R. Petty, ''Social Psychophysiology: A Source Book'' (pp. 153-176). New York: Guilford Press.<br />
<br />
Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived Probability, Perceived Severity, and Health-Protective Behavior. ''Health Psychology, 19''(1), 65-74.<br />
<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
*Individual<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
Arachchilage, N. A., & Love, S. (2014, September). Security awareness of computer users: A phishing threat avoidance perspective. ''Computers in Human Behavior, 38'', 304-312. <br />
<br />
Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., Banjara, K., Wilbur, J., & Rao, H. R. (2014, January). Security services as coping mechanisms: an investigation into user intention to adopt an email authentication service. ''Information Systems Journal, 24''(1), 61-84. <br />
<br />
Lai, F., Li, D., & Hsieh, C.-T. (2012, January). Fighting Identity Theft: The Coping Perspective. ''Decision Support Systems, 52''(2), 353-363. <br />
<br />
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2010, July). Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. ''Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11''(7), 394-413.<br />
<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
*Anupriya Khan<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*<br />
Please feel free to make modifications to this site. In order to do so, you must register.__FORCETOC__</div>Anupriya Khanhttps://is.theorizeit.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_Template&diff=1005Theory Template2017-02-23T09:53:32Z<p>Anupriya Khan: /* Acronym */ TTAT</p>
<hr />
<div>== Acronym ==<br />
* TTAT<br />
== Alternate name(s)==<br />
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)==<br />
*Avoidance behavior Emotion-focused coping<br />
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==<br />
*Risk tolerance, Social influence Users’ perceived susceptibility and severity of malicious IT A safeguarding measure's effectiveness, costs, and users' self-efficacy toward it<br />
== Concise description of theory ==<br />
*Technology Threat Avoidance Theory (TTAT) explains why and how individual IT users are engaged in threat avoidance behavior in voluntary setting. Against most studies that have examined IT security at the organizational level, TTAT provides a framework at the individual user level. The theory has been developed by Liang and Xue (2009) by synthesizing the literature from diverse areas including psychology, health care, risk analysis, and information systems. The basic premise of TTAT is that when users perceive that an IT threat exists, they will be motivated to ''actively'' avoid an IT threat by taking a safeguarding measure if they believe that the threat can be avoidable by the safeguarding measure, or they will passively avoid the threat through emotion-focused coping if they perceive the threat not to be avoidable by any safeguarding measure available to them (Liang & Xue, 2009). TTAT describes the processes and factors influencing individual users’ IT threat avoidance behavior. Drawing on cybernetic theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982; Edwards, 1992), TTAT posits that IT threat avoidance behavior can be represented by a cybernetic process in which users intend to enlarge the distance between their current security state and the undesired (unsafe) end state. With the help of coping theory (Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), TTAT submits that users experience two cognitive processes, threat appraisal and coping appraisal. First, users appraise or assess the situation whether the IT threat exists and to what degree it exists. Then they decide what action they will take to avoid it—problem-focused coping and/or emotion-focused coping. TTAT identifies some key factors that explain user perception and motivation in this process. Integrating the literature of risk analysis (Baskerville, 1991a; Baskerville, 1991b) and health psychology (Janz & Becker, 1984; Rogers, 1983; Weinstein, 2000), TTAT suggests that users’ threat perception is determined by the perceived probability of the threat's occurrence and the perceived severity of the threat's negative consequences. Based on prior research on health protective behavior (Janz & Becker, 1984; Maddus & Rogers, 1983) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; Compeau & Higgins, 1995), TTAT proposes that users conceive three factors to assess to what extent the threat can be made avoidable by taking a safeguarding measure—the effectiveness of the safeguarding measure, the costs of the measure, and users' self-efficacy of applying the measure.<br />
== Diagram/schematic of theory ==<br />
<br />
== Originating author(s) ==<br />
*Liang and Xue (2009)<br />
== Seminal articles ==<br />
*.Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. ''American Psychologist, 37'', 122-147. Baskerville, R. (1991a). "Risk Analysis: An Interpretive Feasibility Tool in Justifying Information Systems Security". ''European Journal of Information Systems, 1''(2), 121-130. Baskerville, R. (1991b). "Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge". ''Computer & Security, 10''(8), 749-764. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality-Social, Clinical, and Health Psychology. ''Psychological Bulletin, 92''(1), 111-135. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of A Measure and Initial Test. ''MIS Quarterly, 19''(2), 189-211. Edwards, J. (1992). A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Weil-Being in Organizations. ''Academy of Management Review, 17''(2), 238-274. Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. ''Health Education Quarterly, 11''(1), 1-45. Lazarus, R. (1966). ''Psychological Stress and the Coping Process.'' New York: McGraw-Hill. Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). ''Stress, Coping, and Adaptation.'' New York: Springer-Verlag. Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009, March). Avoidance of Information Technology Threats: A Theoretical Perspective. ''MIS Quarterly, 33''(1), 71-90.<br />
== Originating area ==<br />
*<br />
== Level of analysis ==<br />
*Individual<br />
== Links to WWW sites describing theory ==<br />
*<br />
== Links from this theory to other theories ==<br />
*<br />
== IS articles that use the theory ==<br />
*Arachchilage, N. A., & Love, S. (2014, September). Security awareness of computer users: A phishing threat avoidance perspective. ''Computers in Human Behavior, 38'', 304-312. Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., Banjara, K., Wilbur, J., & Rao, H. R. (2014, January). Security services as coping mechanisms: an investigation into user intention to adopt an email authentication service. ''Information Systems Journal, 24''(1), 61-84 Lai, F., Li, D., & Hsieh, C.-T. (2012, January). Fighting Identity Theft: The Coping Perspective. ''Decision Support Systems, 52''(2), 353-363. Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2010, July). Understanding Security Behaviors in Personal Computer Usage: A Threat Avoidance Perspective. ''Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11''(7), 394-413.<br />
== Contributor(s) ==<br />
*Anupriya Khan<br />
== Date last updated ==<br />
*<br />
Please feel free to make modifications to this site. In order to do so, you must register.__FORCETOC__</div>Anupriya Khan