IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v40y2020i3p476-493.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Behavioral Determinants of Target Shifting and Deterrence in an Analog Cyber‐Attack Game

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah A. Kusumastuti
  • Jim Blythe
  • Heather Rosoff
  • Richard S. John

Abstract

This study examines how exploiting biases in probability judgment can enhance deterrence using a fixed allocation of defensive resources. We investigate attacker anchoring heuristics for conjunctive events with missing information to distort attacker estimates of success for targets with equal defensive resources. We designed and conducted a behavioral experiment functioning as an analog cyber attack with multiple targets requiring three stages of attack to successfully acquire a target. Each stage is associated with a probability of successfully attacking a layer of defense, reflecting the allocation of resources for each layer. There are four types of targets that have nearly equal likelihood of being successfully attacked, including one type with equally distributed success probabilities over every layer and three types with success probabilities that are concentrated to be lowest in the first, second, or third layer. Players are incentivized by a payoff system that offers a reward for successfully attacked targets and a penalty for failed attacks. We collected data from a total of 1,600 separate target selections from 80 players and discovered that the target type with the lowest probability of success on the first layer was least preferred among attackers, providing the greatest deterrent. Targets with equally distributed success probabilities across layers were the next least preferred among attackers, indicating greater deterrence for uniform‐layered defenses compared to defenses that are concentrated at the inner (second or third) levels. This finding is consistent with both attacker anchoring and ambiguity biases and an interpretation of failed attacks as near misses.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah A. Kusumastuti & Jim Blythe & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2020. "Behavioral Determinants of Target Shifting and Deterrence in an Analog Cyber‐Attack Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 476-493, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:3:p:476-493
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13402
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13402?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. Jetter, Michael & Walker, Jay K., 2017. "Anchoring in financial decision-making: Evidence from Jeopardy!," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 164-176.
    2. Oksanen Ville & Välimäki Mikko, 2007. "Theory of Deterrence and Individual Behavior. Can Lawsuits Control File Sharing on the Internet?," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 693-714, December.
    3. Craig R. Fox & Robert T. Clemen, 2005. "Subjective Probability Assessment in Decision Analysis: Partition Dependence and Bias Toward the Ignorance Prior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1417-1432, September.
    4. Samrat Chatterjee & Stephen C. Hora & Heather Rosoff, 2015. "Portfolio Analysis of Layered Security Measures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 459-475, March.
    5. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Dylan M. Smith & Peter A. Ubel & Angela Fagerlin, 2007. "Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: Effects of Low Numeracy on Comprehension of Risk Communications and Utility Elicitations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 663-671, September.
    6. Furnham, Adrian & Boo, Hua Chu, 2011. "A literature review of the anchoring effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-42, February.
    7. Robin L. Dillon & Catherine H. Tinsley & Matthew Cronin, 2011. "Why Near‐Miss Events Can Decrease an Individual's Protective Response to Hurricanes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 440-449, March.
    8. Robin L. Dillon & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2008. "How Near-Misses Influence Decision Making Under Risk: A Missed Opportunity for Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1425-1440, August.
    9. Garret Ridinger & Richard S. John & Michael McBride & Nicholas Scurich, 2016. "Attacker Deterrence and Perceived Risk in a Stackelberg Security Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1666-1681, August.
    10. Colin F. Camerer & Howard Kunreuther, 1989. "Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 565-592.
    11. Peter Madsen & Robin L. Dillon & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2016. "Airline Safety Improvement Through Experience with Near‐Misses: A Cautionary Tale," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 1054-1066, May.
    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. Jetter, Michael & Walker, Jay K., 2020. "At what age does the anchoring heuristic emerge? Evidence from Jeopardy!," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 757-766.
    2. Zhipeng Zhou & Chaozhi Li & Chuanmin Mi & Lingfei Qian, 2019. "Exploring the Potential Use of Near-Miss Information to Improve Construction Safety Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, February.
    3. Alexa Tanner & Ryan Reynolds, 2020. "The near-miss of a tsunami and an emergency evacuation: the post-exposure effects on future emergency preparedness and evacuation intentions," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(2), pages 1679-1693, November.
    4. Heinrich, Timo & Seifert, Matthias & Then, Franziska, 2020. "Near-losses in insurance markets: An experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    5. Jetter, Michael & Walker, Jay K., 2017. "Gender Differences in Competitiveness and Risk-Taking among Children, Teenagers, and College Students: Evidence from Jeopardy!," IZA Discussion Papers 11201, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    7. Azadegan, Arash & Srinivasan, Ravi & Blome, Constantin & Tajeddini, Kayhan, 2019. "Learning from near-miss events: An organizational learning perspective on supply chain disruption response," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 215-226.
    8. Botzen, W.J.W. & van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2012. "Risk attitudes to low-probability climate change risks: WTP for flood insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 151-166.
    9. Ihnji Jon & Shih‐Kai Huang & Michael K. Lindell, 2019. "Perceptions and Expected Immediate Reactions to Severe Storm Displays," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 274-290, January.
    10. Ünveren, Burak & Baycar, Kazım, 2019. "Historical evidence for anchoring bias: The 1875 cadastral survey in Istanbul," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-14.
    11. Dahlin, Kristina & Chuang, You-Ta & Roulet, Thomas J, 2018. "Opportunity, Motivation, and Ability to Learn from Failures and Errors: Review, Synthesis, and Ways to Move Forward," SocArXiv 4qwzh, Center for Open Science.
    12. Robin L. Dillon & Catherine H. Tinsley & Matthew Cronin, 2011. "Why Near‐Miss Events Can Decrease an Individual's Protective Response to Hurricanes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 440-449, March.
    13. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    14. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    15. Siddiqi, Hammad, 2015. "Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic: A Unified Explanation for Equity Puzzles," MPRA Paper 68729, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Labro, Eva & Lang, Mark & Omartian, James D., 2023. "Predictive analytics and centralization of authority," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1).
    17. Christine Jolls, 2007. "Employment Law and the Labor Market," NBER Working Papers 13230, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Robert S. Chirinko & Edward P. Harper, 1993. "Buckle up or slow down? New estimates of offsetting behavior and their implications for automobile safety regulation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(2), pages 270-296.
    19. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Seres, Gyula, 2021. "Are strategies anchored?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    20. Yaniv Hanoch & Talya Miron-Shatz & Mary Himmelstein, 2010. "Genetic testing and risk interpretation: How do women understand lifetime risk results?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 116-123, 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:40:y:2020:i:3:p:476-493. 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.