Gender Distribution in Participant Sample

Descriptive Statistics

As per the descriptive analysis, out of 83 participants, 37.3% (n = 31) participants were males whereas 61.4% (n = 51) participants were females, one participant preferred not to reveal the gender. The graph below shows the graphical representation of gender distribution. Thus, it can be said that the majority of the participants were female.

Descriptive analysis shows that out of 83 participants, 13.3% (n = 11) participants were light internet users, 39.8% (n = 33) participants were moderate internet users and 47% (n = 39) participants were heavy internet users. The chart below shows the graphical representation of internet usage by participants. Thus, it can be said that the majority of the participants were heavy internet users.

Above table highlights the Mean and standard deviation scores of participants’ computer usage along with the scores for the individual differences. Results indicate relatively moderate levels of Internet usage (M = 2.33, SD= .70) amongst participants. Whilst experiences online seemed relatively positive for participants (M= 2.24, SD= .18). Further, the minimum and maximum age of the participants was coming out to be 18 years and 60 years, respectively, with a mean age of 26.39 years (SD = 9.49). This shows that majority of the participants were young aged below 27 years. Results further indicated higher scores of agreeableness (M= 6.84, SD= .86) amongst participants. On the other end of the spectrum, neuroticism had the lowest scores (M= 3.42, SD= 1.26), which are to be expected. Participants reported average scores of Conscientiousness (M=6.02, SD= 1.16), Extraversion (M=5.43, SD= 1.18) and Openness (M= 5.90, SD= .70). Results also show over half of this sample to be risk-takers (M=3.05, SD= 1.09), however not an alarming amount. Cronbach’s alphas for the 45-item information security awareness scale and 8 item risk propensity scale were .929 and .89 respectively, showing high reliability. Reliability analysis was also carried out for the Big Five scale. The extraversion subscale consisted of 8 items (α= .76), the agreeableness subscale consisted of 8 items (α= .81), conscientiousness consisted of 8 items (α= .85), neuroticism contained 8 items (α= .80) and openness also 8 items (α= .53). Overall the subscales of the Big Five had adequate reliability. However, it is important to note that a brief version of the Big Five-Mini Markers was used for this study. According to Nunnally, (1978), small numbers of items in a scale (fewer than 10) can result in smaller Cronbach alpha values as shown by the openness subscale.

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1: There will be an association between gender and Information Security Awareness.

The mean for security for male comes out to be 2.22 (SD = 0.20), and that of the female is coming out to be 2.25 (SD = 0.23). This shows that there is not much difference regarding security awareness between genders. However, to test the significance, let’s consider the independent t-test analysis:

As per independent t-test, t(80) = -0.548; p = .585. As the p-value or the significance value is coming out to be more than the critical alpha value of 0.05, it shows that there is no statistically significant difference in security awareness between genders. Thus, hypothesis 1 is rejected; that is, there is no statistically significant association between gender and information security awareness. Both males and females have equal information regarding security awareness.

Hypothesis 2: Younger students have less Information Security Awareness

As per Pearson’s correlation, the correlation coefficient (r) = .0249; p = .023. This shows that there is a significant positive association between age and information security awareness as the p-value or the significance value is coming out to be less than the critical alpha value of 0.05. Thus, hypothesis 2 gets accepted that younger students have less information security awareness.

Hypothesis 3: Individuals with heavier internet usage will have more Information Security Awareness

As per above table, the mean security awareness for light users is 2.23 (SD = 0.18), for moderate users is 2.25 (SD = 0.27) and for heavy users is 2.23 (SD = 0.18). This shows that there are not much difference in information security awareness between light, moderate and heavy internet users. However, significance can be seen from the ANOVA analysis below:

As per ANOVA analysis, F(2, 80) = 0.084; p = 0.919. As the p-value or the significance value is coming out to be .919, which is more than the critical alpha value of 0.05. This shows that there are no statistically significant difference in information security awareness between light, moderate and heavy internet users. Thus, hypothesis 3 gets rejected that individuals with heavier internet usage will have more Information Security Awareness. On an average, each group of internet users have similar information security awareness.

Hypothesis 4: Individuals who have had negative past experiences with cybercrime will have higher Information Security Awareness

As per Spearman’s rho, the correlation coefficient (ρ) = -.182; p = .100. Since the p-value is coming out to be more than the critical alpha value of 0.05, it can be said that there is a negative but not statistically significant association between the online experience and information security awareness. Thus, hypothesis 4 is rejected. That is, Individuals who have had negative past experiences with cybercrime will have lower Information Security Awareness

Hypothesis 5: Individuals who are more conscientious, neurotic and agreeable will have more information security awareness:

As per Spearman’s rho, the correlation coefficient (ρ) = -.133; p = .231. Since the p-value is coming out to be more than the critical alpha value of 0.05, it can be said that there is a negative but not statistically significant association between Conscientious, Neurotic and Agreeable and information security awareness. Thus, hypothesis 5 is rejected. That is, Individuals who are more conscientious, neurotic and agreeable will have less information security awareness.

Hypothesis 6: Individuals who are more extraverted and open will have less Information Security awareness

As per Spearman’s rho, the correlation coefficient (ρ) = -.095; p = .395. Since the p-value is coming out to be more than the critical alpha value of 0.05, it can be said that there is a negative but not statistically significant association between Extraverted and Open and information security awareness. Thus, hypothesis 6 is rejected. However, Individuals who are more extraverted and open will have less Information Security awareness, but it is not significant.

Hypothesis 7: Individuals who generally take more risks will have less information security awareness

As per Spearman’s rho, the correlation coefficient (ρ) = .131; p = .240. Since the p-value is coming out to be more than the critical alpha value of 0.05, it can be said that there is a positive but not statistically significant association between Risk and information security awareness. Thus, hypothesis 7 is rejected. That is, Individuals who generally take more risks will have more information security awareness, but it is not significant.