RESUMEN
CONTEXT: The cause of cybercrime phishing threats in Malaysia is a lack of knowledge and awareness of phishing. OBJECTIVE: The effects of self-efficacy (the ability to gain anti-phishing knowledge) and protection motivation (attitude toward sharing personal information online) on the risk of instant messaging phishing attacks (phishing susceptibility) are investigated in this study. The protection motivation theory (PMT) was tested in the context of attitudes toward sharing personal information online with a view to improving interventions to reduce the risk of phishing victimisation. METHODS: Data were collected using non-probability purposive sampling. An online survey of 328 Malaysian active instant messaging users was collected and analysed in SmartPLS version 4.0.8.6 using partial least squares structural equation modelling. RESULTS: The results showed that a person's cognitive factor (either high or low self-efficacy) affected their chance of being a victim of instant message phishing. A higher level of self-efficacy and a negative attitude towards sharing personal information online were significant predictors of phishing susceptibility. A negative attitude towards sharing personal information online mediated the relationship between high levels of self-efficacy and phishing susceptibility. A higher level of self-efficacy led to the formation of negative attitudes among internet users. Attitudes toward the sharing of personal information online are critical because they allow phishing attempts to exist and succeed. CONCLUSIONS: The findings give government agencies more information on how to organise anti-phishing campaigns and awareness programmes; awareness and education can improve one's ability to acquire anti-phishing knowledge (self-efficacy).
Asunto(s)
Acoso Escolar , Víctimas de Crimen , Humanos , Autoeficacia , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Pueblo AsiaticoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: There have been few studies on public trust in doctors and healthcare systems and this is the first in Singapore. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was carried out in Redhill in January 2005. Citizens or Permanent Residents aged > or =18 years were randomly selected, one per household to avoid cluster bias, and 361 participated (response rate 68.7%). An interview administered questionnaire included 3 questionnaires measuring public trust: "Interpersonal Trust in Physicians Scale" for primary care doctors; "Trust in Physicians Generally Scale" for the medical profession; and "Trust in Healthcare System Scale" for the Healthcare System. Questions were answered on a Likert scale: 1. Strongly Disagree, 2. Disagree, 3. Neutral, 4. Agree, 5. Strongly Agree. Individual transformed scores of trust (range, 0 to 100) were equally divided into 5 categories with their average being the transformed mean. RESULTS: Trust in primary care doctors (mean 59.7) had proportions (prevalence rates) of: very low 0.3%, low 2.5%, neutral 40.4%, high 54.0%, and very high 2.8%. Trust in the medical profession (mean 61.8) had proportions of: very low 1.0%, low 7.7%, neutral 33.7%, high 47.0%, and very high 10.5%. Trust in the healthcare system (mean 61.5) had proportions of: very low 0.5%, low 4.1%, neutral 40.0%, high 48.7%, and very high 6.7%. For areas of the healthcare system, proportions of high/very high trust were: "Healthcare Providers' Expertise" (70.8%), "Quality of Care" (61.5%), "Patient Focus of Providers" (58.7%), "Information Supply and Communication by Care Providers" (52.3%), "Quality of Cooperation" (43.3%), and Policies of the Healthcare System" (24.6%). CONCLUSIONS: While low proportions had low/very low trust, the high proportions with neutral trust and the rather low level of trust in "Policies of the Healthcare System" are causes for concern.