PsySecPsychological Security

Research / Studies

SupportsSurvey · 2010

Neutralization: New Insights into the Problem of Employee Information Systems Security Policy Violations

Mikko Siponen, Anthony Vance · MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 487-502, 2010

Key finding

Employees' rationalizations for rule-breaking ('neutralization' techniques from criminology) explained intentions to violate security policy better than deterrence theory's sanctions. The authors argue policies should address these rationalizations.

Why it matters for PsySec

Suggests that threatening punishment does less than engaging with the reasons people give themselves for bending rules.

Stance: Supports. Evidence consistent with a PsySec claim. Summaries are written by the database editors; read the original for full results and limitations.

Tags

P2. Culture eats compliance for breakfastP6. Brains are not computers BeliefBehavior ComplianceInsider behaviorBlame and fearDecision making

Behaviors this study informs

Cite this study

APA

Siponen, M., & Vance, A. (2010). Neutralization: New Insights into the Problem of Employee Information Systems Security Policy Violations. MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 487-502. https://doi.org/10.2307/25750688

BibTeX

@article{siponen_2010_neutralization,
  title = {Neutralization: New Insights into the Problem of Employee Information Systems Security Policy Violations},
  author = {Mikko Siponen and Anthony Vance},
  year = {2010},
  journal = {MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 487-502},
  doi = {10.2307/25750688},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.2307/25750688}
}