Weapons of Influence Misused: A Social Influence Analysis of Why People Fall Prey to Internet Scams

Abstract

Internet crime, including fraud and spread of malicious software, is a pervasive and costly global issue. Many of these crimes occur not because of technology failure but because of the human element. People can easily be manipulated through social engineeringthe use of psychological tactics to influence individuals to assist in their own victimization. We employ a social influence framework, drawing upon ideas from Robert Cialdini, to understand the nature of social engineering techniques and why they are successful in exploiting unsuspecting individuals. Specifically, we discuss how social engineers misuse six pervasive weapons of influence -Liking, Authority, Scarcity, Social Proof, Reciprocity, and Commitment and Consistencyin order to effectively influence individuals to take the initial steps toward their exploitation. We conclude with a discussion of the precautions individuals can take to resist malicious influence attempts online.

On the anatomy of social engineering attacks—A literature‐based dissection of successful attacks

“…Behavioural countermeasures relate to adjusting the human: (a) by making employees aware that there are social engineers that use social influences to make people comply with their requests and they should realise that they are vulnerable (Muscanell, Guadagno, & Murphy, ), (b) by training people to spot a social engineering attack, (c) by making employees aware of why this is dangerous and what the implications are for the individual and the organisation, and (d) by distributing guidelines about what to do or not to if they are under a social engineering attack.…”

“…Muscanell et al () describe the best practices to resist social influences (i.e., persuasion principles). Best practices result in six questions to counteract the individual persuasion principles: (a) Authority: When approached by an authority, “Is this person truly whom he claims to be?” (b) Conformity: The fact that many others do something does not guarantee that it is a correct behaviour, hence “Would I do the same if I was alone in this situation?” (c) Reciprocity: “Why did I get this favour?…”

“…Behavioural countermeasures relate to adjusting the human: (a) by making employees aware that there are social engineers that use social influences to make people comply with their requests and they should realise that they are vulnerable (Muscanell, Guadagno, & Murphy, 2014) The short-term effects of informing employees has been demonstrated by a group of students using social engineering to obtain office keys from university personnel. Those who received an information campaign complied significantly less frequently than those who were not informed (Bullée, Montoya, Pieters, Junger, & Hartel, 2015).…”

The Effect of Online Social Proof Regarding Organic Food: Comments and Likes on Facebook

“…Consumers may view these subtle cues as endorsements: Likes indicate that there is a lot of interest and support and are thus likely to influence consumers' behavior (Muscanell et al, 2014). In support of this reasoning, likes on Facebook have been found to positively influence sales rates of products .…”

Persuasion at Diff erent Levels of Elaboration: Experimental Effects of Strength, Valence and Ego Depletion

“…For example, an ill-intentioned individual, armed with only a layman's knowledge of these characteristics of human thinking, can exploit Type 1 and 2 processing vulnerabilities in order to persuade and deceive a victim (Boush et al, 2015;Pratkanis & Farquhar, 1992). In fact, literature reviews (Muscanell, Guadagno, & Murphy, 2014;Pratkanis & Shadel, 2005) of the tactics used by scammers indicate that they frequently try to take advantage of people's quick decision making and lack of self-control (Langenderfer & Shimp, 2001).…”