Comparing three models to explain precautionary online behavioural intentions. (12th June 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jansen, Jurjen; van Schaik, Paul
• Is Part Of: Information and computer security. Volume 25:Number 2(2017)
• Page Start: 165
• Page End: 180
• Publication Date: 2017-06-12
• Subjects: Online banking -- Protection motivation theory -- Human aspects -- Information security behaviour -- Reasoned action approach; Computer security -- Management -- Periodicals; Computer networks -- Security measures -- Periodicals; Data protection -- Management -- Periodicals; 658.47
• DOI: 10.1108/ICS-03-2017-0018
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2056-4961

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to compare three social cognitive models in their ability to explain intentions of precautionary online behaviour. The models are: protection motivation theory (PMT), the reasoned action approach (RAA) and an integrated model comprising variables of these models. Design/methodology/approach: Data were collected from 1, 200 Dutch users of online banking by means of an online survey and analysed using partial least squares path modelling method. Findings: The two models equally explain about much of the variance in precautionary online behaviour; in the integrated model, the significant predictors of the two models remained significant. Precautionary online behaviour is largely driven by response efficacy, attitude towards behaviour and self-efficacy. Research limitations/implications: One limitation is that the predictor variables – "self-efficacy" and "attitude" – are represented by one item only in the path-analysis because of high cross-loadings of the other items with the dependent variable. Practical implications: The results give practitioners a potentially wider range of options to design preventative measures. Originality/value: The three models are successfully applied to online banking. This paper concludes that both PMT and RAA make a unique contribution in explaining variance for precautionary online behaviour. This paper is a re-publication of a previous conference paper (Jansen and van Schaik, 2016).