↓ Skip to main content

Statistical Models for Predicting Threat Detection From Human Behavior

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Statistical Models for Predicting Threat Detection From Human Behavior
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00466
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy Kelley, Mary J. Amon, Bennett I. Bertenthal

Abstract

Users must regularly distinguish between secure and insecure cyber platforms in order to preserve their privacy and safety. Mouse tracking is an accessible, high-resolution measure that can be leveraged to understand the dynamics of perception, categorization, and decision-making in threat detection. Researchers have begun to utilize measures like mouse tracking in cyber security research, including in the study of risky online behavior. However, it remains an empirical question to what extent real-time information about user behavior is predictive of user outcomes and demonstrates added value compared to traditional self-report questionnaires. Participants navigated through six simulated websites, which resembled either secure "non-spoof" or insecure "spoof" versions of popular websites. Websites also varied in terms of authentication level (i.e., extended validation, standard validation, or partial encryption). Spoof websites had modified Uniform Resource Locator (URL) and authentication level. Participants chose to "login" to or "back" out of each website based on perceived website security. Mouse tracking information was recorded throughout the task, along with task performance. After completing the website identification task, participants completed a questionnaire assessing their security knowledge and degree of familiarity with the websites simulated during the experiment. Despite being primed to the possibility of website phishing attacks, participants generally showed a bias for logging in to websites versus backing out of potentially dangerous sites. Along these lines, participant ability to identify spoof websites was around the level of chance. Hierarchical Bayesian logistic models were used to compare the accuracy of two-factor (i.e., website security and encryption level), survey-based (i.e., security knowledge and website familiarity), and real-time measures (i.e., mouse tracking) in predicting risky online behavior during phishing attacks. Participant accuracy in identifying spoof and non-spoof websites was best captured using a model that included real-time indicators of decision-making behavior, as compared to two-factor and survey-based models. Findings validate three widely applicable measures of user behavior derived from mouse tracking recordings, which can be utilized in cyber security and user intervention research. Survey data alone are not as strong at predicting risky Internet behavior as models that incorporate real-time measures of user behavior, such as mouse tracking.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 23 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 14%
Computer Science 7 12%
Engineering 6 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 30 53%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,627,079
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,028
of 30,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,094
of 296,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#163
of 592 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,291 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 296,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 592 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.