IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20250052.html

The Ransomware Pricing Paradox: An Empirical Study of the Six Stages of Ransomware Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Tom Meurs

    (Dutch Police)

  • Anna Cartwright

    (Independent researcher)

  • Edward Cartwright

    (De Montfort University)

  • Harold Houba

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Tinbergen Institute)

  • Daniel Woods

    (University of Edinburgh)

Abstract

Ransomware has become the most common cyber risk for businesses. The rise is not driven by attackers using innovative attacks, but instead by deteriorating negotiation outcomes. The average payment grew by almost 20,000% since 2018. However, it remains unclear why attackers can demand ever higher ransoms. Our study explores potential explanations: lack of backups, cyber insurance, access to incident response (IR) firms, data exfiltration, and negotiating style. We model negotiation as a six-stage model: attacker intent, victim engagement, discount offer, discount magnitude, payment decision, and re-extortion. We test hypothetical explanations for ransom outcomes using two datasets: (1) 481 police-reported incidents (2019–2023); and (2) 237 negotiation transcripts from 23 ransomware groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Tom Meurs & Anna Cartwright & Edward Cartwright & Harold Houba & Daniel Woods, 2025. "The Ransomware Pricing Paradox: An Empirical Study of the Six Stages of Ransomware Negotiations," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 25-052/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20250052
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/25052.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mischa Hansel & Jantje Silomon, 2024. "Ransomware as a threat to peace and security: understanding and avoiding political worst-case scenarios," Journal of Cyber Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 159-178, May.
    2. Jonathan Lusthaus, 2012. "Trust in the world of cybercrime," Global Crime, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 71-94, May.
    3. Anna Cartwright & Edward Cartwright, 2019. "Ransomware and Reputation," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, June.
    4. Anna Cartwright & Edward Cartwright & Jamie MacColl & Gareth Mott & Sarah Turner & James Sullivan & Jason R. C. Nurse, 2023. "How cyber insurance influences the ransomware payment decision: theory and evidence," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 48(2), pages 300-331, April.
    5. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    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. Lauren Skinner Beitelspacher & Thomas L. Baker & Adam Rapp & Dhruv Grewal, 2018. "Understanding the long-term implications of retailer returns in business-to-business relationships," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 252-272, March.
    2. Mengyuan Zhou, 2022. "Does the Source of Inheritance Matter in Bequest Attitudes? Evidence from Japan," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 867-887, December.
    3. Bożena Baczewska & Bogusław Block & Mariola Janiszewska & Krzysztof Leśniewski & Agnieszka Zwolak, 2022. "Assessment of Mood and Hope in Critically-Ill Patients as a Basis for the Improvement for the Palliative and Hospice Care," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-10, August.
    4. David R. Bell & Jeongwen Chiang & V. Padmanabhan, 1999. "The Decomposition of Promotional Response: An Empirical Generalization," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 504-526.
    5. Martín Egozcue & Sébastien Massoni & Wing-Keung Wong & Ričardas Zitikis, 2012. "Integration-segregation decisions under general value functions : "Create your own bundle -- choose 1, 2, or all 3 !"," Post-Print halshs-00747008, HAL.
    6. Matthew G. Nagler, 2016. "Equilibrium with Consumer Adjustment to Choice," Working Papers 10, City University of New York Graduate Center, Ph.D. Program in Economics.
    7. Liu, Zhiqiang & Yan, Miao & Fan, Youqing & Chen, Liling, 2021. "Ascribed or achieved? The role of birth order on innovative behaviour in the workplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 480-492.
    8. Kim, Joonkyung & Zhao, Min & Soman, Dilip, 2023. "Converging vs diverging: The effect of visual representation of goal structure on financial decisions," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 362-377.
    9. Kristien Werck & Bruno Heyndels & Benny Geys, 2008. "The impact of ‘central places’ on spatial spending patterns: evidence from Flemish local government cultural expenditures," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 32(1), pages 35-58, March.
    10. Johannes Abeler & Felix Marklein, 2017. "Fungibility, Labels, and Consumption," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 99-127.
    11. Mengyuan Zhou, 2019. "The Effect of the Source of Inheritance on Bequest Attitudes: Evidence from Japan," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2019-018, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    12. Ek, Claes, 2017. "Some causes are more equal than others? The effect of similarity on substitution in charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 45-62.
    13. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    14. Justin S. Skillman & Michael J. Vernarelli, 2016. "Framing effects on bidding behavior in experimental first-price sealed-bid money auctions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(4), pages 391-400, July.
    15. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    16. Miguel Godinho de Matos & Pedro Ferreira, 2020. "The Effect of Binge-Watching on the Subscription of Video on Demand: Results from Randomized Experiments," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1337-1360, December.
    17. Duncan Luce, R., 1997. "Associative joint receipts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 51-74, August.
    18. Yizhao Jiang, 2022. "The Influence of Payment Method: Do Consumers Pay More with Mobile Payment?," Papers 2210.14631, arXiv.org.
    19. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    20. Cristiano Codagnone & Giuseppe Alessandro Veltri & Francesco Bogliacino & Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva & George Gaskell & Andriy Ivchenko & Pietro Ortoleva & Francesco Mureddu, 2016. "Labels as nudges? An experimental study of car eco-labels," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(3), pages 403-432, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • D9 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics
    • D22 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis

    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:tin:wpaper:20250052. 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.html .

    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.