Testing the dominant mediator in EPPM: An empirical study on household anti-malware software users

Yitian Xie*, Mikko Siponen, Gabriella Laatikainen , Gregory Moody, Xiaosong Zheng

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
80 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

A key research area in information systems security (ISec) is explaining or improving users’ IS security outcomes via the extended parallel process model (EPPM) lens. While the theoretical construct in emotional valence (e.g., fear) and cognitive valence (e.g., perceived efficacy) were deemed as mediators in previous EPPM-related ISec studies, existing research has ignored the value of testing and reporting the dominant mediator between the emotional valence and the cognitive valence. In this paper, we reintroduce the theoretical origins of the dominant mediator assumption in EPPM and highlight its merits using the multiple mediation method. Theoretically, we illustrate how testing and reporting the dominant mediator can help identify the dominant mechanism triggering specific behavioral outcomes. Further, this paper questions the dominant mediating role of fear on the behavioral outcome in ISec context. Methodologically, this study proposes to assess the dominant mediator via a multiple mediation model instead of using the discriminant value equation introduced by Witte (1995), Witte et al. (1996) and enhanced by Chen et al. (2021) when testing the EPPM theory in the ISec context.

Original languageEnglish
Article number103776
JournalComputers and Security
Volume140
Early online date17 Feb 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2024

Keywords

  • Contrast hypothesis
  • Danger control process
  • Dominant mediator
  • Fear control process
  • Multiple mediation analysis
  • The extended parallel process model (EPPM)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Testing the dominant mediator in EPPM: An empirical study on household anti-malware software users'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this