Research / Methodology
Methodology
How studies get into the database, how we summarize and rate them, and how we keep a vendor-maintained database honest.
Scope
The database covers research on how people recognize, resist, and report manipulation such as phishing and social engineering, and how organizations shape those behaviors through training, measurement, and culture. It also includes foundational psychology that PsySec builds on, such as work on habits, intuition, motivation, and psychological safety.
What gets included
- Peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers.
- Government and standards-body research, such as NIST publications.
- Landmark books and theory papers from psychology and organizational science, marked Foundational.
- Preprints only when clearly labeled as not yet peer reviewed.
Every entry must have verifiable metadata: a DOI or a publisher, proceedings, or government page. Vendor white papers and marketing reports, including Hook Security's own, are excluded unless they have been peer reviewed.
How the initial set was built
The first release (September 2026) was compiled by Hook Security editors from landmark studies and targeted searches of major venues: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, USENIX Security and SOUPS, ACM CCS, CHI and CSCW, MIS Quarterly, Computers & Security, Journal of Cybersecurity, and the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. Search and first-draft summaries were AI-assisted. Every record's title, authors, year, venue, and DOI were then checked against Crossref or the publisher's page. 48 of 48 records are currently verified.
This is a curated database, not a systematic review. It will have gaps, and we want to hear about them.
Summaries
Each key finding is a plain-English paraphrase of the study's reported results, usually from its abstract and results section. Summaries simplify. Always read the original before citing a specific number.
Stance
| Stance | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Supports | Findings are consistent with at least one PsySec claim. |
| Mixed | Findings support some PsySec claims and cut against others, or depend strongly on conditions. |
| Challenges | Findings contradict or limit a PsySec claim, for example evidence that sanctions deter misuse. |
| Foundational | Theory, method, or basic science that PsySec builds on, rather than a direct test. |
Stance is an editorial judgment about relevance to PsySec, not a judgment of study quality.
Behavior evidence levels
Each behavior links to studies marked as supporting, challenging, or providing context. Its overall rating is Strong (two or more field studies or trials agree), Moderate (consistent support from mixed methods), Emerging (early or indirect support), or Contested (credible studies disagree).
Conflict of interest
This database is maintained by Hook Security, a company that sells security awareness training and developed the PsySec approach. We have a stake in the answer. To limit that bias we:
- include studies that challenge PsySec, and show them next to supporting evidence on every behavior page;
- exclude our own unreviewed marketing material;
- publish the full dataset so anyone can check our tagging;
- accept corrections from authors and readers through the submission form.
Updates and corrections
Submissions are reviewed by the editors. Accepted changes appear in the next update; the dataset was last updated 2026-09-27. Authors who believe their work is mischaracterized can request a correction, and we will fix factual errors promptly.