IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/15391.html

Personal Values and Cyber Risk-Taking

Author

Listed:
  • Gandal, Neil
  • Weinstein, Zohar
  • Roccas, Sonia

Abstract

This research explores the relationship between personal values and the tendency to take cyber-risks. We first develop and add six cyber-risk items to the well-known Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale. Importantly, we show that like the other five domains examined by the scale (Health, Ethical, Financial, Recreational, and Social), these cyber items form a separate cluster. Separate clusters are essential in order to employ the DOSPERT scale. We then examine the association between values and cyber risk taking behavior. We find that “conservation (conservatism)†values are negatively correlated with the tendency to take cyber risks. Thus, individuals for whom this value is important are less likely to take cyber risks. We also find that “openness to change†values are positively associated with the tendency to take cyber-risks. Individuals with high scores for this value are more likely to take cyber risks. The findings point to possible “values based†interventions in order to increase cyber-security.

Suggested Citation

  • Gandal, Neil & Weinstein, Zohar & Roccas, Sonia, 2020. "Personal Values and Cyber Risk-Taking," CEPR Discussion Papers 15391, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:15391
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP15391
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 33-47, July.
    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. Eva M. Krockow & Masanori Takezawa & Briony D. Pulford & Andrew M. Colman & Samuel Smithers & Toshimasa Kita & Yo Nakawake, 2018. "Commitment-enhancing tools in Centipede games: Evidencing European–Japanese differences in trust and cooperation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 61-72, January.
    2. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    3. Bose, Neha & Sgroi, Daniel, 2019. "The Role of Theory of Mind and “Small Talk” Communication in Strategic Decision-Making," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 409, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    4. Jean Spinks & Son Nghiem & Joshua Byrnes, 2021. "Risky business, healthy lives: how risk perception, risk preferences and information influence consumer’s risky health choices," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 811-831, July.
    5. Volker Thoma & Elliott White & Asha Panigrahi & Vanessa Strowger & Irina Anderson, 2015. "Good Thinking or Gut Feeling? Cognitive Reflection and Intuition in Traders, Bankers and Financial Non-Experts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    6. Nicolao Bonini & Stefania Pighin & Enrico Rettore & Lucia Savadori & Federico Schena & Sara Tonini & Paolo Tosi, 2019. "Overconfident people are more exposed to “black swan” events: a case study of avalanche risk," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 1443-1467, October.
    7. Philippe Sterkens & Adelina Sharipova & Stijn Baert, 2024. "Disclosing the ‘Big C’: what does cancer survivorship signal to employers?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(4), pages 671-688, June.
    8. Arunachalam Narayanan & Brent B. Moritz, 2015. "Decision Making and Cognition in Multi-Echelon Supply Chains: An Experimental Study," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 24(8), pages 1216-1234, August.
    9. Alice Wieland & James Sundali & Markus Kemmelmeier & Rakesh Sarin, 2014. "Gender differences in the endowment effect: Women pay less, but won't accept less," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(6), pages 558-571, November.
    10. Matteo M. Marini, 2021. "20 years of emotions and risky choices in the lab: A meta-analysis," Working Papers 2021/04, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    11. Amanda Safford & James Sundali & Federico Guerrero, 2018. "Does Experiencing a Crash Make All the Difference? An Experiment on the Depression Babies Hypothesis," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(2), pages 21582440187, May.
    12. James Alm & Antoine Malézieux, 2021. "40 years of tax evasion games: a meta-analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 699-750, September.
    13. Humaira Mumtaz & Iqbal Javed & Allah Bakhsh, 2019. "Impact of Psychological Consequences on Poverty: An Evidence from Pakistan," Journal of Economic Impact, Science Impact Publishers, vol. 1(3), pages 70-79.
    14. Debapriya Jojo Paul & Julia Henker & Sian Owen, 2019. "The aggregate impacts of tournament incentives in experimental asset markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 441-476, June.
    15. Gürdal, Mehmet Y. & Kuzubaş, Tolga U. & Saltoğlu, Burak, 2017. "Measures of individual risk attitudes and portfolio choice: Evidence from pension participants," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 186-203.
    16. Deck, Cary & Lee, Jungmin & Reyes, Javier A. & Rosen, Christopher C., 2013. "A failed attempt to explain within subject variation in risk taking behavior using domain specific risk attitudes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-24.
    17. Christoph Buehren & Tim Meyer & Christian Pierdzioch, 2020. "Experimental Evidence on Forecaster (anti-) Herding in Sports Markets," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202038, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    18. Huynh, Luu Duc Toan & Stratmann, Philipp & Rilke, Rainer Michael, 2024. "No influence of simple moral awareness cues on cheating behaviour in an online experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    19. Ploner, Matteo & Saredi, Viola, 2020. "Exploration and delegation in risky choices," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    20. Abigail A Marsh & Monica Magalhaes & Matthew Peeler & Sophie M Rose & Thomas C Darton & Nir Eyal & Josh Morrison & Seema K Shah & Virginia Schmit, 2022. "Characterizing altruistic motivation in potential volunteers for SARS-CoV-2 challenge trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(11), pages 1-21, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:cpr:ceprdp:15391. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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.