Enhancing users’ security engagement through cultivating commitment: the role of psychological needs fulfilment

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model.

Table 1. Respondents’ profiles.

Variable	Range	Frequency	%
Age	18 to 24 years	61	6.14
	25 to 34 years	354	35.65
	35 to 44 years	309	31.12
	45 to 54 years	185	18.63
	55 to 64 years	70	7.05
	65 Years or older	14	1.41
Highest Education Level	Less than high school	4	0.40
	High school graduate	95	9.57
	Some college	227	22.86
	2-year degree	104	10.47
	4-year degree	343	34.54
	Professional degree	196	19.74
	Doctorate	24	2.42
Gender	Male	219	22.05
	Female	774	77.95
Size of the organisation (Number of employees)	100–249 employees	108	10.88
	250–499 employees	175	17.62
	500–999 employees	177	17.82
	1000–4999 employees	206	20.75
	5000+ employees	327	32.93
Industry	Manufacturing	91	9.16
	Retail/wholesale	133	13.39
	Telecommunication	28	2.82
	Finance/insurance	108	10.88
	Healthcare	230	23.16
	Education	152	15.31
	Government	102	10.27
	Transportation	32	3.22
	Other	117	11.78

Table 2. Reliability analysis of reflective measures.

Construct	Mean	Std. Dev.	# of items	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability	AVE
PBC	6.10	0.94	3	0.85	0.91	0.77
User-IS Exchange	5.07	1.16	6	0.86	0.90	0.60
InfoSec Commitment	5.88	1.07	4	0.89	0.93	0.76
In-role Compliance Intention	6.46	1.14	3	0.96	0.98	0.93
Extra-role Volunteering Intention	5.61	1.39	3	0.91	0.94	0.85
Perceived Benefits	5.27	1.26	4	0.87	0.91	0.73
InfoSec Awareness	5.99	1.02	3	0.86	0.91	0.78

Table 3. Validity analysis of reflective measures.

	Construct	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	PBC	0.88
2	User-IS Exchange	0.42	0.77
3	InfoSec Commitment	0.63	0.43	0.87
4	In-role Compliance	0.37	0.27	0.33	0.97
5	Extra-role Volunteering	0.35	0.49	0.51	0.55	0.92
6	Perceived Benefits	0.34	0.36	0.37	0.20	0.35	0.85
7	InfoSec Awareness	0.55	0.37	0.54	0.30	0.34	0.42	0.88

Numbers on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance extracted. Off-diagonal elements are correlations among constructs.

Table 4. Reliability and validity analysis for formative measures.

Construct	Indicator	Weights	t-value	p-Values		VIF
IT Competence	ITCOMP1	0.50	8.11	<.001	2.11
	ITCOMP2	0.03	0.38	.702	2.14
	ITCOMP3	0.17	2.39	.019	2.75
	ITCOMP4	0.10	1.43	.154	2.49
	ITCOMP5	0.43	8.50	<.001	1.57
InfoSec Engagement Intention	In-role comp. int.	0.57	59.7	<.001	1.48
	Extra-role vol. int.	0.57	50.59	<.001	1.87

Table 5. Hypothesis testing results.

Hypothesis		t-Value	p-Value
H1	InfoSec commitment is positively associated with InfoSec engagement intention.	7.22	<.001
H2	Perceived behavioural control is positively associated with InfoSec commitment.	13.31	<.001
H3	IT competence is positively associated with InfoSec commitment.	4.37	<.001
H4	User-IS exchange is positively associated with InfoSec commitment.	3.53	<.001
H5	IT competence is positively associated with Perceived behavioural control.	12.60	<.001
H6	IT competence is positively associated with User-IS exchange.	22.44	<.001

Figure 2. Structural model results.

Notes: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001