Search

The adoption of new Information Technology (IT) innovations has led to increased uncertainty among employees, a greater demand for security measures, and more entry points for cyber-attacks, which all increase the risk of data breaches for firms. Despite the prevalence of discussions around this issue, there has been a lack of empirical research examining the data breach risk associated with IT innovations. To address this gap, we have developed arguments based on an organizational learning theoretical framework that explains how IT innovativeness can exacerbate data breach risk. Through our analysis of a sample of data breaches that occurred between 2013 and 2021, we have discovered that there is a positive association between firm IT innovativeness and the risk of data breaches. We also find that the effects of IT innovativeness can vary under certain conditions. For example, we find that the positive relationship between IT innovativeness and data breach risk is mitigated when managers possess IT expertise or when firms have established extensive board connections with cybersecurity managers. Moreover, we find that the relationship between IT innovativeness and data breach risk is amplified in complex environments but not in dynamic or munificent ones. This study takes the lead in advancing the theoretical understanding and empirical validation of security-related risks associated with IT innovations. Moreover, our findings serve as a timely reminder for research and practice to carefully consider the implications of introducing novel technologies into firms and the potential dark side consequences that may arise. Additionally, this study underscores the importance of understanding organizational learning in risk assessment and change management, as well as the critical role of contextual factors in moderating the unintended security-related consequences linked to IT innovations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Information security (ISec) is a pervasive concern of individuals, organizations, and governments. To encourage individuals to engage in and learn about secure behaviors, ISec research has turned to fear appeals, which are short messages that communicate threats and efficacy to elicit protection motivation among recipients. ISec research has reported contradictory findings on what makes fear appeals effective in ISec contexts, and this lack of clarity is problematic, because it may lead to incorrect conclusions. For example, some studies have argued that the mixed findings arise from differences between personal and organizational contexts and that fear appeals do not work well among organizational users. However, this argument has not been empirically tested, and differences in message design provide an equally plausible explanation, which has also not been tested. To reconcile the mixed findings across these studies, we test the effects of context (i.e., personal users vs. organizational users) and degree of message abstractness (i.e., abstract vs. concrete) on fear-appeal outcomes. We draw from construal-level theory to conceptualize the differences between abstract and concrete fear appeals. Across three experiments, we find evidence that concrete fear appeals are more effective than abstract fear appeals for the purpose of stimulating fear-appeal outcomes. Furthermore, by comparing two identical experiments—one conducted with personal users and another conducted with organizational users—we find differences in participants' responses to fear appeals. However, contrary to our expectations, our findings suggest that organizational users report higher levels of fear and protection motivation than personal users. This finding is not a theoretical contradiction: the theoretical crux of an effective fear appeal is that it must be personally relevant to stimulate fear; correspondingly, we show that concrete fear appeals help stimulate fear and the desired protective response. Moreover, concrete fear appeals increase actual compliance behaviors, not just intentions. Thus, our findings suggest that the mixed findings in the literature may be a product of message abstractness and differences among audiences. This has pivotal implications for how to construct fear appeals in research and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]