The Behavioral Roots of Information Systems Security: Exploring Key Factors Related to Unethical IT Use

Using the Control Balance Theory to Explain Social Media Deviance

“…This is consistent with prior research, which views moral beliefs as playing a role on self-imposed punishment of deviant behavior (ibid), one that has been empirically supported in multiple studies that argue that higher moral beliefs tend to negatively influence deviant intention. Since moral beliefs are often formed during primary and secondary socialization [8], it may be difficult to modify them in adulthood. What is more feasible in an immediate context is to design IT artifacts that can dissipate CI, thereby leading to more conformist and less deviant behaviors.…”

“…Empirically, research has consistently demonstrated that moral beliefs have a negative and independent impact on deviance [2]. Thus, moral beliefs are significant deterrents to deviant acts [8], thereby justifying their inclusion in our model.…”

“…There is sufficient evidence that technology design and features can influence deviant behavior [8]. Thus, there is a need to understand which IT design features affect the key constructs of deindividuation and perceived accountability.…”

“…The emergence of new methods to investigate OSMD is crucial, as this area of research to date has mostly included self-reported surveys, which have their documented weaknesses [18]. Given the prior observations that technology ushers in moral issues that can perpetrate deviant behavior [8], it becomes imperative to explicitly factor in the role of technology in the theoretical and methodological investigations of OSMD to prevent OSMD.…”

The Effects of Media Capabilities on the Rationalization of Online Consumer Fraud

“…These schemes represent a growing concern because many of the same technology-mediated business practices that enable online commerce also enable online consumer fraud (Albrecht et al, 2006;Grazioli & Jarvenpaa, 2000). Although research has explored how computermediation affects deception detection (Carlson, George, Burgoon, Adkins, & White, 2004;Nunamaker, Dennis, Valacich, & Vogel, 1991;George, Carlson, & Valacich, capabilities that affect communication performance (Dennis et al, 2008); (2) during deceptive communications cues of deceit are leaked into conversation affecting the success of subsequent deception (Ekman, 1997;Buller & Burgoon, 1996;George et al, 2013); (3) a reduced sense of social presence can foster antisocial behaviors (Bente, Rüggenberg, Krämer, & Eschenburg, 2008;Chatterjee, Sarker, & Valacich, 2015); and (4) individuals rationalize fraudulent behaviors before enactment (Rest, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999;Murphy & Dacin, 2011). These theoretical perspectives support a position suggesting that prior to enactment, perpetrators deliberately consider whether or not a medium will support their efforts to successfully commit fraud.…”