Changes

Identifiability, expectation of evaluation, awareness of monitoring, social presence

Identifiability, expectation of evaluation, awareness of monitoring, social presence

== Concise description of theory ==

== Concise description of theory ==

As explained by Vance, Lowry and Eggett (2015), accountability theory explains how the perceived need to justify one’s behaviors to another party causes one to consider and feel accountable for the process by which decisions and judgments have been reached. In turn, this perceived need to account for a decision-making process and outcome increases the likelihood that one will think deeply and systematically about one’s procedural behaviors. This theory was originally developed by Tetlock, Lerner, and colleagues and has been effectively applied in organizational research.

As explained by Vance, Lowry and Eggett (2015), accountability theory explains how the perceived need to justify one’s behaviors to another party causes one to consider and feel accountable for the process by which decisions and judgments have been reached. In turn, this perceived need to account for a decision-making process and outcome increases the likelihood that one will think deeply and systematically about one’s procedural behaviors. This theory was originally developed by Tetlock, Lerner, and colleagues and has been effectively applied in organizational research.

Vance, Lowry, and Eggett (2015; 2013) uniquely contextualized accountability theory to the context of organizational security—namely for dealing with access policy violations. Access-policy violations are a growing problem with substantial costs for organizations. Although training programs and sanctions have been suggested as a means of reducing these violations, evidence shows these persist. It is thus imperative to identify additional ways to reduce access-policy violations, especially for systems providing broad access to data. They used accountability theory to develop four user-interface (UI) design artifacts that raise users’ accountability perceptions within systems and in turn decrease access-policy violations. To test their new accountability model, they uniquely applied the scenario-based factorial survey method to various graphical manipulations of a records system containing sensitive information at a large organization with over 300 end-users who use the system daily. They showed that the UI design artifacts corresponding to four submanipulations of accountability can raise accountability and reduce access policy violation intentions. Importantly, this approach increases accountability without harsh policies (e.g., threats through sanctions) or disruption intervention (e.g., training).

Vance, Lowry, and Eggett (2015; 2013) uniquely contextualized accountability theory to the context of organizational security—namely for dealing with access policy violations. Access-policy violations are a growing problem with substantial costs for organizations. Although training programs and sanctions have been suggested as a means of reducing these violations, evidence shows these persist. It is thus imperative to identify additional ways to reduce access-policy violations, especially for systems providing broad access to data. They used accountability theory to develop four user-interface (UI) design artifacts that raise users’ accountability perceptions within systems and in turn decrease access-policy violations. To test their new accountability model, they uniquely applied the scenario-based factorial survey method to various graphical manipulations of a records system containing sensitive information at a large organization with over 300 end-users who use the system daily. They showed that the UI design artifacts corresponding to four submanipulations of accountability can raise accountability and reduce access policy violation intentions. Importantly, this approach increases accountability without harsh policies (e.g., threats through sanctions) or disruption intervention (e.g., training).

== IS articles that use the theory ==

== IS articles that use the theory ==

David Eargle, Anthony Vance, and Paul Benjamin Lowry (2013). “[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2529609 How moral Intensity and impulsivity moderate the influence of accountability on access policy violations in information systems],” Seventh Workshop on Information Security and Privacy 2013 (WISP 2013) at the 2013 International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2013), Milan, Italy, December 14 (doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3754.4644).   

David Eargle, Anthony Vance, and Paul Benjamin Lowry (2013). “[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2529609 How moral Intensity and impulsivity moderate the influence of accountability on access policy violations in information systems],” Seventh Workshop on Information Security and Privacy 2013 (WISP 2013) at the 2013 International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2013), Milan, Italy, December 14 (doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3754.4644).