What drives employees to ensure security when handling information assets in organizations? There is growing interest from the security behavior community in how autonomous motivators shape employees’ security-related behaviors. To reconcile the scattered viewpoints on autonomous motivation and synthesize findings from studies utilizing various theoretical frameworks, we systematically reviewed relevant publications. We present a preregistered literature review that investigated (a) what forms of autonomous motivation have been examined in organizational security contexts, (b) which behaviors/behavioral intentions are related to autonomous motivators, and (c) how autonomous motivation affects employees’ security behaviors. Based on an initial set of 432 papers, filtered down to 45 studies, we identified 17 unique autonomous motivators and three types of related security behaviors. This review not only develops a refined taxonomy of autonomous motivation related to security behaviors but also charts a path forward for future research on autonomous motivation in human-centered security.

Effective training is essential for enhancing users’ ability to detect phishing attempts. Personalised training offers huge potential to more closely align training content with individuals’ needs and skill levels. In an online study, we assigned N=342 participants to personalised training or a random training variant to compare their effectiveness. The personalisation was based on a phishing proficiency score calculated from factors such as detection ability, knowledge, and security attitude. After training, the participants demonstrated greater proficiency, with an increased ability to detect phishing emails and higher security attitudes. These effects were most pronounced in the personalised condition, demonstrating the potential of personalisation to improve training outcomes. Overall, personalised training levelled the playing field, efficiently bringing all groups, regardless of their initial proficiency, to a comparable and desired post-training phishing proficiency level. Finally, we derived recommendations for designing personalised phishing training content and assigning users to suitable training programmes.

In the modern web, users are confronted with a plethora of complex privacy-related decisions about cookies and consent, often com- pounded by misleading policies and deceptive patterns. Past efforts to enhance online privacy have failed due to their dependence on website compliance. A solution to this lies in privacy-enhancing tools that are directly controlled by the user. However, challenges related to the usability and flawed understanding of the tools’ func- tionality hinder their widespread adoption. To address this problem, we evaluated the browser extension CookieBlock as an example of a current tool, which supports users by blocking tracking cookies independent of website compliance. We used a complementary approach consisting of an expert eval- uation of CookieBlock and the related tools NoScript and Ghostery, and a laboratory user study focusing on the unique details of how users interact with CookieBlock specifically. The laboratory study with 42 participants investigated usage, mental models, and us- ability of CookieBlock based on eye tracking, interaction, and self- report data. While CookieBlock received good usability ratings, 18 participants were unable to solve a website breakage caused by cookie misclassification on their own. Overall, the results revealed flawed mental models of CookieBlock’s functionality and resulting challenges in making the connection between website breakage and cookie misclassification. Implications for CookieBlock and related applications include interface design recommendations supporting accurate mental models and the proposal of improved heuristics to better guide users and warn them about potential identified website breakage.

In the aftermath of cybersecurity incidents within organizations, explanations of their causes often revolve around isolated technical or human events such as an Advanced Persistent Threat or a “bad click by an employee.” These explanations serve to identify the responsible parties and inform efforts to improve security measures. However, safety science researchers have long been aware that explaining incidents in socio-technical systems and determining the role of humans and technology in incidents is not an objective procedure but rather an act of social constructivism: what you look for is what you find, and what you find is what you fix. For example, the search for a technical “root cause” of an incident might likely result in a technical fix, while from a sociological perspective, cultural issues might be blamed for the same incident and subsequently lead to the improvement of the security culture. Starting from the insights of safety science, this paper aims to extract lessons on what general explanations for cybersecurity incidents can be identified and what methods can be used to study causes of cybersecurity incidents in organizations. We provide a framework that allows researchers and practitioners to proactively select models and methods for the investigation of cybersecurity incidents.