The Importance of Context in Organizational Information Security Research: Resolving Inconsistencies in Protection Motivation Research and Practice

The increasing prevalence of cybersecurity threats in organizational settings has made understanding users’ protective motivations an urgent concern. Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) has been a leading theoretical framework in explaining such motivations, yet its application has led to divergent and often conflicting models. Two dominant discourses exist in the literature: one elevates experiential fear as a central component of PMT, advocating for the “original” PMT model, whereas the other discourse diminishes the role of fear, opting for a “modified” PMT model. The inconsistency in this theoretical foundation risks fragmenting the field, thereby impairing its scientific development and practical applicability. We adopt an empirical approach to resolve this conflict, rigorously testing both positions by conducting two comprehensive studies. Our research design ensures that the results are not contingent on isolated contexts, providing a robust inference foundation. Remarkably, we find that neither discourse is universally applicable. The legitimacy of both perspectives varies depending on specific empirical settings, negating the perceived incompatibility between them. Based on our findings, we propose a context-sensitive, unified theoretical framework that reconciles these diverging discourses. This new model acknowledges the situational relevance of fear and other motivational factors, offering an integrated pathway for future PMT research in organizational security. We recommend that future research employ our unified approach as a flexible tool for hypothesis testing and theory development, adapting it according to the particularities of the context under investigation. Such an approach consolidates the theoretical landscape and enhances the operational effectiveness of interventions that foster users’ motivations to enact cybersecurity measures.