Summary: Literature Behavioural
Change Approaches to Cybersecurity
MSc Cybersecurity Governance - Crisis and Security Management,
Leiden University 2020-2021.
Week Literature Page number in summary
1 Buunk & van Vugt (2013) Chapter 1+2 2
Cialdini & Goldstein (2002), Milgram (1963)
2 Buunk & van Vugt (2013) Chapter 3 5
Handlington (2018), Pfleeger & Caputo
(2012), Van Schaik et al. (2017)
3 Buunk & van Vugt (2013) Chapter 4 15
Ajzen (1991), Rogers (1975), Venkatesh &
Bala (2008)
4 Buunk & van Vugt (2013) Chapter 5 29
Gollwitzer (1999), Holland et al. (2005),
Tverksy & Kahneman (1974)
5 Krosnick (2018) For reference only: Field 35
(2013)
6 Mittal (2016), Thompson et al. (2018) 38
7 No readings. -
In this summary:
- All readings are included, except for: Buunk, A.P., & van Vugt, M. (2013). Applying
Social Psychology: From Problems to Solutions. 2nd edition. Sage Publications Ltd.
and Field (2013), the latter being only part of the literature for reference, not part of the
exam.
- The main argument of each paper is highlighted in yellow.
- Summary is often based on quotations and the main arguments of each paper, by
mostly focussing on the concluding sections, abstract and relevant parts of the content
of each article.
- Concepts and important names are made green (main concepts), or blue (secondary
concepts) for purposes of clarity.
1
,WEEK 1
Cialdini & Goldstein (2002): The Science and Practice of
Persuasion
→ Reference: Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. The Science and Practice of Persuasion. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. 2002;43(2):40-50. doi:10.1177/001088040204300204
● Ability to harness the power of persuasion is often an essential component of success
in the hospitality industry.
● Six basic principles on how someone can influence someone else:
(1) Liking
(2) Reciprocation
(3) Consistency
(4) Scarcity
(5) Social validation
(6) Authority
● In general: people are inclined to comply with the people they like
1. LIKING
Research has identified 4 primary determinants of our fondness of another person:
(1) Physical attractiveness / looking good → example: a good looking political
candidate gets more votes. Looking good is also associated with other attributes, such as
talent, kindness, honesty and intelligence.
(2) Similarity → creates an instant bond between people. However, similarities should
not be overtly brought into the conversation to obtain something from the other person. →
werkt averechts.
(3) Cooperation / allies → causes feelings of liking. Example: working on a mutual goal
together causes you to like the other participants more. But: the feelings of indebtedness
caused by the power of the reciprocity manipulation are capable of trumping the effects of the
liking principle.
(4) Extent to which the other person likes us back
2. RECIPROCATION
● People feel obliged to do something in return. Also: the positive results from using a
variety of persuasion techniques are not necessarily additive.
● Tip tips → offering something extra (preferably two things extra, but not at the same
time) leads to higher tips in the American service industry. This is because of the
reciprocity principle.
● Bargaining → rule of reciprocity often takes the form of favors or gifts, a specific
application of the principle is frequently used in the negotiation process, which involves
2
, reciprocal concessions. ⇒ This also applies to business negotiations. Beiden doe je
water bij de wijn.
3. CONSISTENCY
● Humans tend to be and to appear consistent with one’s actions, statements, and
beliefs.
● Dessert first → a server in a restaurant can ask their guest at arrival “Who here is
having the cheesecake tonight?”. Each person at the table gives an affirmative
response, after which the server goes through all the standard procedures. When the
customers are at the end of their main course the server comes back and reminds them
of their earlier commitment in a non-threatening manner and begins to make dessert
suggestions. Many people feel obliged to say yes.
4. SCARCITY
● In general, “items and opportunities that are in short supply or unavailable tend to be
more desirable to consumers than those items that are plentiful and more accessible.”
● This is because we learn from an early age that things in limited quantities are hard to
get, and those things are typically better than things that are easier to obtain.
● Act now → a nightclub owner has a door policy which only allows an X amount of
people to go inside, despite there being plenty of room inside the building. This creates
more desirability of the establishment. Research has shown that information that is
presented as exclusive is seen as more persuasive and valuable. Be mindful of
deception in these kinds of situations.
● Scarcity principle → mental shortcut it provides between something’s availability and
its quality. There’s another factor to this: the fear of losing freedom when opportunities
become less available.
● Psychological reactance (Brehm) = “whenever our freedoms are threatened or
restricted, we vigorously attempt to reassert our free choice, with a specific focus on
retaining or regaining exactly what was being limited in the first place.”
● Sign ‘Don’t litter’ is less effective than a ‘Keeping the pool clean depends on you’ sign.
5. SOCIAL VALIDATION
● Principle of social validation → “humans frequently look to others for cues on how to
think, feel and behave, particularly in a state of uncertainty.”
● Showing people a list of their neighbours who have already donated when asking for
donations increases the chance of people donating.
● Supplying individuals with specific “descriptive norms - essentially information about
what other people are doing - to elicit comparable behavior has proven to be
successful in a number of different domains, including neighborhood household
recycling.”
6. AUTHORITY
3
, ● Principle of authority → we tend to “defer to the counsel of authority figures and
experts to help us decide how to behave, especially when we are feeling ambivalent
about a decision or when we are in an ambiguous situation.” Experts also have a
helping hand in us deciding what we should think.
● In an “increasingly complex world, deferring to individuals with highly specialized
knowledge in their fields is often an essential part of smart decision making.”
● Some research shows that we are more “swayed by experts who seem impartial than
those who have something to gain by convincing us.”
● Food experts → a server recommends a slightly less expensive dish to a customer
because what the customer chose is ‘not that fresh tonight’. The server places himself
as an authority on the quality of the food AND recommends something ‘against’ the
restaurant, because the bill and tip could be smaller (trust). In actuality, the tip will be
larger. The customer will also be more likely to trust the server on other
recommendations. ⇒ impartiality and trust.
● How you dress can also cause a perception of authority (e.g. wearing a formal suit).
Final considerations
● The 6 principles often work together with one another to produce a more potent
persuasive effect.
Milgram (1963): Behavioral Study of obedience
→ Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of abnormal and social
psychology, 67(4), 371.
Summary
In the study by Milgram on obedience, participants were asked to administer shocks to people
if they did not repeat a set of words correctly. The voltage of the shocks increased per wrong
answer given. Milgram and his researchers found that many participants obeyed the authority
of the scientist when they wanted to stop because the person on the other side was hurting. In
fact, this was an actor pretending to get hurt by the shocks administered. The scientist said the
participants ought to continue.
The study found: “Of the 40 subjects, 26 obeyed the orders of the experimenter to the end,
proceeding to punish the victim until they reached the most potent shock available on the
shock generator. At that point, the experimenter called a halt to the session. (The maximum
shock is labeled 450 volts, and is two steps beyond the designation: Danger: Severe Shock.)
Although obedient subjects continued to administer shocks, they often did so under extreme
stress. Some expressed reluctance to administer shocks beyond the 300-volt level, and
displayed fears similar to those who defied the experimenter; yet they obeyed.”
4
