谁会陷入谎言之网?了解对网络钓鱼电子邮件、虚假新闻标题和诈骗短信的易感性。

IF 2.9 3区 心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Human Factors Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1177/00187208231173263
Dawn M Sarno, Jeffrey Black
{"title":"谁会陷入谎言之网?了解对网络钓鱼电子邮件、虚假新闻标题和诈骗短信的易感性。","authors":"Dawn M Sarno, Jeffrey Black","doi":"10.1177/00187208231173263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The present study investigated if the same users are vulnerable to phishing emails, scam text messages, and fake news headlines and if there are universal predictors of susceptibility for all three tasks.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Theoretical research provides support for the notion that the same users likely fall for multiple forms of online deception. However, no research has directly compared susceptibility for various online deceptions (eg phishing, disinformation, scam text messages) within the same group of users.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants completed an online survey consisting of demographic questions, the Cognitive Reflection Test (ie impulsivity), and the Digital Literacy Scale, and classified 90 legitimate and deceptive emails, text messages, and news headlines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results suggest that individuals who struggle to discriminate between deceptive and legitimate stimuli on one task experience similar difficulties on the other two tasks. Additionally, while lower levels of digital literacy and cognitive reflectiveness predicted poorer discrimination abilities across all three tasks, age did not predict performance. Interestingly, participants appeared to be the most susceptible to phishing emails.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, individuals who fall for one form of online deception appear to be more likely to fall for other forms of deception, and digital literacy and cognitive reflectiveness can predict widespread vulnerability to online deception.</p><p><strong>Application: </strong>Organizations may be able to identify potential vulnerabilities for a variety of online attacks by measuring digital literacy, cognitive reflectiveness, and performance in one online deception task. Additionally, training interventions may be the most needed for phishing emails.</p>","PeriodicalId":56333,"journal":{"name":"Human Factors","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who Gets Caught in the Web of Lies?: Understanding Susceptibility to Phishing Emails, Fake News Headlines, and Scam Text Messages.\",\"authors\":\"Dawn M Sarno, Jeffrey Black\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00187208231173263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The present study investigated if the same users are vulnerable to phishing emails, scam text messages, and fake news headlines and if there are universal predictors of susceptibility for all three tasks.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Theoretical research provides support for the notion that the same users likely fall for multiple forms of online deception. However, no research has directly compared susceptibility for various online deceptions (eg phishing, disinformation, scam text messages) within the same group of users.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants completed an online survey consisting of demographic questions, the Cognitive Reflection Test (ie impulsivity), and the Digital Literacy Scale, and classified 90 legitimate and deceptive emails, text messages, and news headlines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results suggest that individuals who struggle to discriminate between deceptive and legitimate stimuli on one task experience similar difficulties on the other two tasks. Additionally, while lower levels of digital literacy and cognitive reflectiveness predicted poorer discrimination abilities across all three tasks, age did not predict performance. Interestingly, participants appeared to be the most susceptible to phishing emails.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, individuals who fall for one form of online deception appear to be more likely to fall for other forms of deception, and digital literacy and cognitive reflectiveness can predict widespread vulnerability to online deception.</p><p><strong>Application: </strong>Organizations may be able to identify potential vulnerabilities for a variety of online attacks by measuring digital literacy, cognitive reflectiveness, and performance in one online deception task. Additionally, training interventions may be the most needed for phishing emails.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Factors\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Factors\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208231173263\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Factors","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208231173263","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的: 本研究调查了同一用户是否容易受到钓鱼邮件、诈骗短信和虚假新闻标题的影响,以及这三种任务的普遍易感性预测因素:本研究调查了同样的用户是否容易受到钓鱼邮件、诈骗短信和虚假新闻标题的影响,以及这三种任务的易感性是否存在普遍的预测因素:背景:理论研究支持同一用户可能会受到多种形式的网络欺骗这一观点。然而,还没有研究直接比较过同一组用户对各种网络欺骗(如网络钓鱼、虚假信息、诈骗短信)的易感性:参与者完成了一项在线调查,其中包括人口统计学问题、认知反思测试(即冲动性)和数字素养量表,并对 90 封合法和欺骗性电子邮件、短信和新闻标题进行了分类:结果表明,在一项任务中难以区分欺骗性刺激和合法刺激的人,在另外两项任务中也会遇到类似的困难。此外,虽然较低的数字素养和认知反思能力预示着他们在所有三个任务中的辨别能力较差,但年龄并不能预示他们的表现。有趣的是,参与者似乎最容易受到网络钓鱼电子邮件的影响:总的来说,上当受骗的人似乎更容易上当受骗,而数字素养和认知反思能力可以预测对网络欺骗的普遍脆弱性:应用:通过测量数字素养、认知反思能力和在一项在线欺骗任务中的表现,组织机构或许能够识别各种在线攻击的潜在弱点。此外,网络钓鱼电子邮件可能最需要培训干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Who Gets Caught in the Web of Lies?: Understanding Susceptibility to Phishing Emails, Fake News Headlines, and Scam Text Messages.

Objective: The present study investigated if the same users are vulnerable to phishing emails, scam text messages, and fake news headlines and if there are universal predictors of susceptibility for all three tasks.

Background: Theoretical research provides support for the notion that the same users likely fall for multiple forms of online deception. However, no research has directly compared susceptibility for various online deceptions (eg phishing, disinformation, scam text messages) within the same group of users.

Method: Participants completed an online survey consisting of demographic questions, the Cognitive Reflection Test (ie impulsivity), and the Digital Literacy Scale, and classified 90 legitimate and deceptive emails, text messages, and news headlines.

Results: Results suggest that individuals who struggle to discriminate between deceptive and legitimate stimuli on one task experience similar difficulties on the other two tasks. Additionally, while lower levels of digital literacy and cognitive reflectiveness predicted poorer discrimination abilities across all three tasks, age did not predict performance. Interestingly, participants appeared to be the most susceptible to phishing emails.

Conclusion: Overall, individuals who fall for one form of online deception appear to be more likely to fall for other forms of deception, and digital literacy and cognitive reflectiveness can predict widespread vulnerability to online deception.

Application: Organizations may be able to identify potential vulnerabilities for a variety of online attacks by measuring digital literacy, cognitive reflectiveness, and performance in one online deception task. Additionally, training interventions may be the most needed for phishing emails.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Human Factors
Human Factors 管理科学-行为科学
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society publishes peer-reviewed scientific studies in human factors/ergonomics that present theoretical and practical advances concerning the relationship between people and technologies, tools, environments, and systems. Papers published in Human Factors leverage fundamental knowledge of human capabilities and limitations – and the basic understanding of cognitive, physical, behavioral, physiological, social, developmental, affective, and motivational aspects of human performance – to yield design principles; enhance training, selection, and communication; and ultimately improve human-system interfaces and sociotechnical systems that lead to safer and more effective outcomes.
期刊最新文献
Attentional Tunneling in Pilots During a Visual Tracking Task With a Head Mounted Display. Examining Patterns and Predictors of ADHD Teens' Skill-Learning Trajectories During Enhanced FOrward Concentration and Attention Learning (FOCAL+) Training. Is Less Sometimes More? An Experimental Comparison of Four Measures of Perceived Usability. An Automobile's Tail Lights: Sacrificing Safety for Playful Design? Virtual Reality Adaptive Training for Personalized Stress Inoculation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1