IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bpubpo/v10y2026i3p527-539_4.html

Phishing feedback: just-in-time intervention improves online security

Author

Listed:
  • Bender, Svetlana
  • Horn, Samantha
  • Loewenstein, George
  • Roberts, Olivia

Abstract

Phishing emails cost companies millions. In the absence of technology to perfectly block phishing emails, the responsibility falls on employees to identify and appropriately respond to phishing attempts and on employers to train them to do so. We report results from an experiment with around 11,000 employees of a large U.S. corporation, testing the efficacy of just-in-time feedback delivered at a teachable moment – immediately after succumbing to a phishing email – to reduce susceptibility to phishing emails. Employees in the study were sent an initial pseudo-phishing email, and those who either ignored or fell victim to the phishing email were randomized to receive or not receive feedback about their response. Just-in-time feedback for employees who fell victim to or ignored the initial pseudo-phishing email reduced susceptibility to a second pseudo-phishing email sent by the research team. Additionally, for employees who ignored the initial email, feedback also increased reporting rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Bender, Svetlana & Horn, Samantha & Loewenstein, George & Roberts, Olivia, 2026. "Phishing feedback: just-in-time intervention improves online security," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 527-539, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:10:y:2026:i:3:p:527-539_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398063X24000198/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:cup:bpubpo:v:10:y:2026:i:3:p:527-539_4. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bpp .

    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.