IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v28y2008i1p81-93.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Psychometric Study of Information Technology Risks in the Workplace

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Coles
  • Gerard P. Hodgkinson

Abstract

As organizations become increasingly reliant on information technology (IT) they are exposed to a growing number of risks. Surprisingly, however, very few studies to date have investigated the psychometric representation of IT risks, and none have been undertaken in the workplace. Accordingly, the present study was designed to map the judgments of a representative group of workplace IT users. Fifty‐seven participants evaluated 18 IT risk scenarios by means of 13 bipolar attribute‐rating scales. Profile proximities derived from the raw data were submitted to a weighted multidimensional scaling analysis. The results indicated that a six‐dimensional solution was required on both statistical and conceptual grounds to represent adequately the participants' judgments. The dimensions reflected the extent to which the various risk scenarios were perceived as: (1) serious or minor in nature; (2) having a high or low probability of occurrence; (3) causing a high or low degree of stress; (4) deliberate or accidental; (5) having an impact on the organization or on individuals; and (6) the product of human or technological causes. The data were also submitted to a series of hierarchical cluster analyses, using a variety of agglomeration techniques. This second approach revealed a robust structure in which the risk scenarios were grouped into two broad categories, based on whether the events depicted would be likely to have a major or minor impact. The major impact category broke down further, into two subcategories, based on whether the scenarios were seen to arise from deliberate causes or through negligence. In conclusion, we consider the implications of our findings for future research, the refinement of IT risk assessment frameworks and tools, and the training of risk management professionals.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Coles & Gerard P. Hodgkinson, 2008. "A Psychometric Study of Information Technology Risks in the Workplace," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 81-93, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:81-93
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00963.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00963.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00963.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Henk A. L. Kiers, 2005. "A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 211-222, February.
    2. James Corter & Amos Tversky, 1986. "Extended similarity trees," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 51(3), pages 429-451, September.
    3. Paul Slovic & Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1982. "Why Study Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 83-93, June.
    4. Lennart Sjöberg & Jana Fromm, 2001. "Information Technology Risks as Seen by the Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 427-442, June.
    5. J. Carroll & Jih-Jie Chang, 1970. "Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 35(3), pages 283-319, September.
    6. Gerard P. Hodgkinson, 1997. "Cognitive Inertia in a Turbulent Market: the Case of UK Residential Estate Agents," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(6), pages 921-945, November.
    7. Moshe Farjoun & Linda Lai, 1997. "Similarity Judgments In Strategy Formulation: Role, Process And Implications," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(4), pages 255-273, April.
    8. Arabie, Phipps & Maschmeyer, Carman, 1988. "Some current models for the perception and judgment of risk," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 300-329, June.
    9. Paul Slovic & Sarah Lichtenstein & Baruch Fischhoff, 1984. "Modeling the Societal Impact of Fatal Accidents," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 464-474, April.
    10. Shmuel Sattath & Amos Tversky, 1977. "Additive similarity trees," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 42(3), pages 319-345, September.
    11. Gerard P. Hodgkinson, 2005. "Images of Competitive Space," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-51072-2.
    12. Nancy Nighswonger Kraus & Paul Slovic, 1988. "Taxonomic Analysis of Perceived Risk: Modeling Individual and Group Perceptions Within Homogeneous Hazard Domains," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 435-455, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    2. Yanbo Zhang & Yibao Wang & Ahmad Bayiz Ahmad & Ashfaq Ahmad Shah & Wen Qing, 2021. "How Do Individual-Level Characteristics Influence Cross-Domain Risk Perceptions Among Chinese Urban Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    3. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    4. Olga Fajarda & Cristina Requejo, 2022. "MIP model-based heuristics for the minimum weighted tree reconstruction problem," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2305-2342, July.
    5. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    6. Fortz, Bernard & Oliveira, Olga & Requejo, Cristina, 2017. "Compact mixed integer linear programming models to the minimum weighted tree reconstruction problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(1), pages 242-251.
    7. J. Carroll & James Corter, 1995. "A graph-theoretic method for organizing overlapping clusters into trees, multiple trees, or extended trees," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 12(2), pages 283-313, September.
    8. Sara Jonsson & Inga-Lill Söderberg, 2018. "Investigating explanatory theories on laypeople’s risk perception of personal economic collapse in a bank crisis – the Cyprus case," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 763-779, June.
    9. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    10. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.
    11. J. Carroll & Linda Clark & Wayne DeSarbo, 1984. "The representation of three-way proximity data by single and multiple tree structure models," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 1(1), pages 25-74, December.
    12. repec:dgr:rugsom:96b34 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. J. Hutchinson & Amitabh Mungale, 1997. "Pairwise partitioning: A nonmetric algorithm for identifying feature-based similarity structures," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 62(1), pages 85-117, March.
    14. Lant, Theresa & Shapira, Zur, 2008. "Managerial reasoning about aspirations and expectations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 60-73, April.
    15. Paul Sparks & Richard Shepherd, 1994. "Public Perceptions of the Potential Hazards Associated with Food Production and Food Consumption: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 799-806, October.
    16. Michael Siegrist & Bernadette Sütterlin, 2014. "Human and Nature‐Caused Hazards: The Affect Heuristic Causes Biased Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1482-1494, August.
    17. A. Balduck & A. Van Rossem & M. Buelens, 2009. "Identifying Competencies Of Volunteer Board Members Of Community Sports Clubs," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 09/559, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    18. Varone, Sacha C., 2006. "A constructive algorithm for realizing a distance matrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(1), pages 102-111, October.
    19. Manika, Danae & Dickert, Stephan & Golden, Linda L., 2021. "Check (it) yourself before you wreck yourself: The benefits of online health information exposure on risk perception and intentions to protect oneself," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    20. Wedel, Michel & DeSarbo, Wayne S., 1996. "Semiparametric estimation of (constrained) ultrametric trees," Research Report 96B34, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    21. Vikas Anand & Mahendra Joshi & Anne M. O'Leary-Kelly, 2013. "An Organizational Identity Approach to Strategic Groups," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 571-590, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:81-93. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.