Restoring Trust after an Insider Breach: Both the Genders Matter—CEOs and Users

References

• ITRC. 2017 annual data breach year-end review; 2018. https://www.idtheftcenter.org/2017-data-breaches/.
   Google Scholar
• Choi BC, Kim SS, Jiang Z. Influence of firm’s recovery endeavors upon privacy breach on online customer behavior. J Manage Inf Syst. 2016;33(3):904–33. doi:10.1080/07421222.2015.1138375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansal G, Zahedi FM. Trust violation and repair: the information privacy perspective. Decis Support Syst. 2015;71:62–77. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2015.01.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies G, Olmedo-Cifuentes I. Corporate misconduct and the loss of trust. Eur J Mark. 2016;50(7/8):1426–47. doi:10.1108/EJM-11-2014-0729.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang S, Huff LC. Explaining buyers’ responses to sellers’ violation of trust. Eur J Mark. 2007;41(9/10):1033–52. doi:10.1108/03090560710773336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi B, La S. The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and customer trust on the restoration of loyalty after service failure and recovery. J Serv Mark. 2013;27(3):223–33. doi:10.1108/08876041311330717.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Acker J. Anthem denies that massive data breach did harm; 2016. https://www.law360.com/articles/748558/anthem-denies-that-massive-data-breach-did-harm.
   Google Scholar
• Smith C. Apple denied the massive iCloud hack, in Fox News; 2017. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/03/23/apple-denied-massive-icloud-hack-but-should-still-change-your-password.html.
   Google Scholar
• Allan D. TeamViewer outage sparks hacking claims which the company denies, in TechRadar Pro; 2016. https://www.techradar.com/news/software/teamviewer-outage-sparks-hacking-claims-which-the-company-denies-1322642.
   Google Scholar
• Cava M. Zuckerberg takes out ads to apologize as Facebook data misuse crisis intensifies, in USA Today; 2018. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/03/25/zuckerberg-takes-out-ads-apologize-facebook-data-misuse-crisis-intensifies/456953002/.
   Google Scholar
• Winchel B. British Airways apologizes as data breach hits 380,000+ customers in PR Daily; 2018. https://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/British_Airways_apologizes_as_data_breach_hits_380_24995.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Wingfield N. Sony CEO apologizes for data breach. Wall Street Journal; 2011. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703992704576305863003341644.
   Google Scholar
• Javers E. Alliance data apologizes for massive security breach, in CNBC; 2011. https://www.cnbc.com/id/42460188.
   Google Scholar
• Kerber R, Wahba P, Finkle J. Target apologizes for data breach, retailers embrace security upgrade, in Reuters; 2014. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-target-databreach-retailers/target-apologizes-for-data-breach-retailers-embrace-security-upgrade-idUSBREA0B01720140113.
   Google Scholar
• Schweitzer ME, Brooks AW, Galinsky AD. The organizational apology. Harv Bus Rev. 2015;94:44–52.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs-Burnett T. Mass public corporate apology. Dispute Resol J. 2002;57:26.
   Google Scholar
• Buckalew E, Konstantinopoulos A, Russell J, El-Sherbini S. The future of female CEOs and their glass ceiling. J Bus Stud Q. 2012;3:145–53.
   Google Scholar
• Dwivedi P, Joshi A, Misangyi VF. Gender-inclusive gatekeeping: how (mostly male) predecessors influence the success of female CEOs. Acad Manage J. 2018;61(2):379–404. doi:10.5465/amj.2015.1238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarya V. The share of female CEOs in the fortune 500 dropped by 25% in 2018, in Fortune.com; 2018. http://fortune.com/2018/05/21/women-fortune-500-2018/.
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. Women CEOs in Fortune 500 companies, 1995-2018; 2018. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/chart/women-ceos-in-fortune-500-companies-1995-2014/.
   Google Scholar
• Lee PM, James EH. She’-e-os: gender effects and investor reactions to the announcements of top executive appointments. Strategic Manage J. 2007;28(3):227–41. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen TD, French KA, Barnett C. Marissa Mayer: an analysis of media reaction to a pregnant CEO. In: C Spitzmueller, RA Matthews, editors. Research perspectives on work and the transition to motherhood. Springer; 2016. p. 57–77.
   Google Scholar
• Adams SM, Gupta A, Haughton DM, Leeth JD. Gender differences in CEO compensation: evidence from the USA. Women Manage Rev. 2007;22(3):208–24. doi:10.1108/09649420710743662.
   Google Scholar
• Jost JT, Banaji MR. The role of stereotyping in system‐justification and the production of false consciousness. Br J Soc Psychol. 1994;33(1):1–27. doi:10.1111/bjso.1994.33.issue-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudman LA, Glick P. Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: the hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;77(5):1004. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansbridge J, Shames SL. Toward a theory of backlash: dynamic resistance and the central role of power. Politics Gender. 2008;4(4):623–34. doi:10.1017/S1743923X08000500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akinola M, Martin AE, Phillips KW. To delegate or not to delegate: gender differences in affective associations and behavioral responses to delegation. Acad Manage J. 2018;61(4):1467. doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0662.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Correll SJ, Ridgeway CL. Expectation states theory. In: Delamater J, editor. Handbook of social psychology. Boston (MA): Springer; 2006. p. 29–51.
   Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Karau SJ. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol Rev. 2002;109(3):573. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel H, Turner JC. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Worchel S, Austin WG, editors. Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago (IL): Nelson-Hall; 1986. p. 7–24.
   Google Scholar
• Eagly AH. Sex differences in social behavior: comparing social role theory and evolutionary psychology. Am Psychol. 1997;52:1380–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haselhuhn M, Kennedy J, Kray L, Van Zant A, Schweitzer M. Gender differences in trust dynamics: women trust more than men following a trust violation. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2015;56:104–09. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.09.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steele CM, Aronson J. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;69:797–811.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spencer SJ, Steele CM, Quinn DM. Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1999;35(1):4–28. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown P, Levinson SC. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Bansal G. Insider privacy breach and trust restoration: is the CEO’s gender as important as the CEO’s response? The proceedings of Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems; 2014, Savannah.
   Google Scholar
• Sidanius J, Pratto F. Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Mullen B, Brown R, Smith C. Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: an integration. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1992;22(2):103–22. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0992.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol. 2001;27(1):415–44. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saparito P, Elam A, Brush C. Bank–firm relationships: do perceptions vary by gender? Entrepreneurship Theory Practice. 2013;37(4):837–58. doi:10.1111/etap.2013.37.issue-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao N, Zhang J. Gender differences in trusting strangers: role of the target’s gender. Psych J. 2016;5(2):83–91. doi:10.1002/pchj.120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron-Cohen S, Knickmeyer RC, Belmonte MK. Sex differences in the brain: implications for explaining autism. Science. 2005;310(5749):819–23. doi:10.1126/science.1115455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riedl R, Hubert M, Kenning P. Are there neural gender differences in online trust? An fMRI study on the perceived trustworthiness of eBay offers. MIS Q. 2010;34(2):397–428. doi:10.2307/20721434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson GS, Ho M-W, Kauffman RJ. How are C-suite executives different? A comparative empirical study of the survival of American chief information officers. Decis Support Syst. 2015;74:88–101. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2015.03.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carli LL. Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. J Soc Issues. 1999;55(1):81–99. doi:10.1111/josi.1999.55.issue-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumann K, Ross M. Why women apologize more than men: gender differences in thresholds for perceiving offensive behavior. Psychol Sci. 2010;21(11):1649–55. doi:10.1177/0956797610384150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan MK, Haslam SA. The glass cliff: exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Acad Manage Rev. 2007;32(2):549–72. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.24351856.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walfisch T, Dijk DV, Kark R. Do you really expect me to apologize? The impact of status and gender on the effectiveness of an apology in the workplace. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2013;43:1446–58. doi:10.1111/jasp.2013.43.issue-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colquitt JA, Scott BA, Rodell JB, Long DM, Zapata CP, Conlon DE, Wesson MJ. Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. J Appl Psychol. 2013;98(2):199–236. doi:10.1037/a0031757.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi S. Organizational justice and employee work attitudes: the federal case. Am Rev Public Administration. 2011;41(2):185–204. doi:10.1177/0275074010373275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsutsui K, Zizzo DJ. Group status, minorities and trust. Exp Econ. 2014;17(2):215–44. doi:10.1007/s10683-013-9364-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepherd S, Kay AC. On the perpetuation of ignorance: system dependence, system justification, and the motivated avoidance of sociopolitical information. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012;102(2):264. doi:10.1037/a0026272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loch KD, Carr HH, Warkentin ME. Threats to information systems: today’s reality, yesterday’s understanding. MIS Q. 1992;16(2):173–86. doi:10.2307/249574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warkentin M, Willison R. Behavioral and policy issues in information systems security: the insider threat. Eur J Inf Syst. 2009;18(2):101–05. doi:10.1057/ejis.2009.12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansal G. Got phished! Role of top management support in creating phishing safe organizations. In the proceedings of Midwest Association for Information Systems Conference; 2018, St. Louis.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen ML, Dinger M, Wright RT, Thatcher JB. Training to mitigate phishing attacks using mindfulness techniques. J Manage Inf Syst. 2017;34(2):597–626. doi:10.1080/07421222.2017.1334499.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bankinfosecurity.com. The danger within: responding to unintentional and intentional insider threats; 2014. http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/webinars/danger-within-responding-to-unintentional-intentional-insider-threats-w-406.
   Google Scholar
• Srite M, Karahanna E. The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. MIS Q. 2006;30(3):679–704. doi:10.2307/25148745.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstede G. Culture’s Consequences. Newbury Park (CA): Sage Publications; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkbride PS, Tang SF, Westwood RI. Chinese conflict preferences and negotiating behaviour: cultural and psychological influences. Organiz Stud. 1991;12(3):365–86. doi:10.1177/017084069101200302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Ramamurthy K, Wen K-W. Organizations’ information security policy compliance: stick or carrot approach? J Manage Inf Syst. 2012;29(3):157–88. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222290305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Ramamurthy K, Wen K-W. Impacts of comprehensive information security programs on information security culture. J Comput Inf Syst. 2015;55(3):11–19. doi:10.1080/08874417.2015.11645767.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muzatko S, Bansal G. Timing of data breach announcement and E-commerce trust. The proceedings of Midwest Association for Information Systems Conference; 2018, St Louis.
   Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Thong JY, Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012:157–78. doi:10.2307/41410412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Morris MG. Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Q. 2000:115–39. doi:10.2307/3250981.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midha V. Impact of consumer empowerment on online trust: an examination across genders. Decis Support Syst. 2012;54:198–205. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Awad NF, Ragowsky A. Establishing trust in electronic commerce through online word of mouth: an examination across genders. J Manage Inf Syst. 2008;24(4):101–21. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222240404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansal G. Trust drops when insiders drop the ball: The role of age, gender, and privacy concern in insider data breaches. In the proceedings of Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems; 2017, Boston.
   Google Scholar
• Zafar H, Ko MS, Osei-Bryson K-M. The value of the CIO in the top management team on performance in the case of information security breaches. Inform Syst Front. 2016;18(6):1205–15. doi:10.1007/s10796-015-9562-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Utz S, Matzat U, Snijders C. On-line reputation systems: the effects of feed-back comments and reactions on building and rebuilding trust in on-line auctions. Int J Electron Commer. 2009;13(3):95–118. doi:10.2753/JEC1086-4415130304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koohang A, Hatch M. Leadership effectiveness in IT-centered organizations: gender and levels of management. J Comput Inf Syst. 2017;57(4):385–91. doi:10.1080/08874417.2017.1330128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinto JK, Patanakul P, Pinto MB. Gender biases in hiring project managers: perceptions of trust and likeability. IEEE Trans Eng Manag. 2015;62(3):325–34. doi:10.1109/TEM.2015.2415251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayman R, Korabik K. Leadership: why gender and culture matter. Am Psychol. 2010;65:157–70. doi:10.1037/a0018806.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colquitt JA, Conlon DE, Wesson MJ, Porter C, Ng KY. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86:425–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim PH, Ferrin DL, Cooper CD, Dirks KT. Removing the shadow of suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity- based trust violations. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89(1):104–18. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taft L. Apology subverted: the commodification of apology. Yale Law J. 2000;109(5):1135–60. doi:10.2307/797485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takaku S. The effects of apology and perspective taking on interpersonal forgiveness: A dissonance-attribution model of interpersonal forgiveness. J Soc Psychol. 2001;141(4):494–508. doi:10.1080/00224540109600567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidanius J, Liu JH, Shaw JS, Pratto F. Social dominance orientation, hierarchy attenuators and hierarchy enhancers: social dominance theory and the criminal justice system. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1994;24(4):338–66. doi:10.1111/jasp.1994.24.issue-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jost J, Banaji M, Nosek B. A decade of system justification theory: accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Polit Psychol. 2004;25(6):881–919. doi:10.1111/pops.2004.25.issue-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oldmeadow J, Fiske S. System-justifying ideologies moderate status = competence stereotypes: roles for belief in a just world and social dominance orientation. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2007;37(6):1135–48. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0992.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trauth EM, Quesenberry JL, Morgan AJ. Understanding the under representation of women in IT: toward a theory of individual differences. The proceedings of SIGMIS Conference on Computer Personnel Research: Careers, Culture, and Ethics in A Networked Environment,Bönningstedt, (Germany); 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Bian L, Leslie S-J, Cimpian A. Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science. 2017;355(6323):389–931. doi:10.1126/science.aah6524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jost J, Hunyady O. The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2002;13:111–53. doi:10.1080/10463280240000046.
   Google Scholar
• Czopp AM, Kay AC, Cheryan S. Positive stereotypes are pervasive and powerful. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(4):451–63. doi:10.1177/1745691615588091.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Steele CM. Whistling Vivaldi: how stereotypes affect us and what we can do (issues of our time). New York (NY): W. W. Norton & Company; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Keshet S, Kark R, Pomerantz-Zorin L, Koslowsky M, Schwarzwald J. Gender, status and the use of power strategies. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2006;36(1):105–17. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0992.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Brion S, Moore DA, Kennedy JA. A status-enhancement account of overconfidence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012;103(4):718. doi:10.1037/a0029395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song J, Zahedi FM. Trust in health infomediaries. Decis Support Syst. 2007;43(2):390–407. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2006.11.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansal G, Zahedi F, Gefen D. The role of privacy assurance mechanisms in building trust and the moderating role of privacy concern. Eur J Inf Syst. 2015;24(6):624–44. doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansal G, Zahedi FM, Gefen D. The moderating influence of privacy concern on the efficacy of privacy assurance mechanisms for building trust: A multiple-context investigation. The proceedings of Twenty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems; 2008, Paris, France.
   Google Scholar
• Ahuja MK, Thatcher JB. Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of trying: effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use. MIS Q. 2005;29(3):427–59. doi:10.2307/25148691.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massetti B. An empirical examination of the value of creativity support systems on idea generation. MIS Q. 1996;20(1):83. doi:10.2307/249543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL. Gender, status, and leadership. J Soc Issues. 2001;57:637–55. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s Guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles (CA): Muthén & Muthén; 1998-2012.
   Google Scholar
• Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker J. SmartPLS 3. Mānoa: Ph.D. Dissertation Thesis from University of Hawaiʻi; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Lindell MK, Whitney DJ. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86:114–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malhotra NK, Kim SS, Patil A. Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Manage Sci. 2006;52(12):1865–83. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez G. PLS path modeling with R. Berkeley (CA): Trowchez Editions; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Bansal G, Zahedi FM, Gefen D. Do context and personality matter? Trust and privacy concerns in disclosing private information online. Inform Manage. 2016;53(1):1–21. doi:10.1016/j.im.2015.08.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oswald DL. Gender stereotypes and women’s reports of liking and ability in traditionally masculine and feminine occupations. Psychol Women Q. 2008;32(2):196–203. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00424.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegner SM, Beldad AD, Kraesgenberg A-L. The impact of crisis response strategy, crisis type, and corporate social responsibility on post-crisis consumer trust and purchase intention. Corporate Reputation Rev. 2016;19(4):357–70. doi:10.1057/s41299-016-0007-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen S, Bulte E, Gneezy U, List JA. Do women supply more public goods than men? Preliminary experimental evidence from matrilineal and patriarchal societies. Am Econ Rev. 2008;98:376–81. doi:10.1257/aer.98.2.376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coombs WT, Holladay SJ. Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Manage Commun Q. 2002;16(2):165–86. doi:10.1177/089331802237233.
   Google Scholar
• Hitosugi CI. Effects of culture on online initial trust: Individual level analysis. Tucson (Arizona): University of Hawaiʻi; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Javidan M, Bemmels B, Devine KS, Dastmalchian A. Superior and subordinate gender and the acceptance of superiors as role models. Hum Relat. 1995;48(11):1271–84. doi:10.1177/001872679504801102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mims C. Privacy is dead. Here’s what comes next, in WSJ; 2018. https://www.wsj.com/articles/privacy-is-dead-heres-what-comes-next-1525608001.
   Google Scholar
• Kellerman B. When should a leader apologize and when not? Harv Bus Rev. 2006;84:72–81; 148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar