Do Personality Traits Really Impact Susceptibility to Persuasion in Social Engineering? A Study Among UK and Arab Samples

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4902235/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Do Personality Traits Really Impact Susceptibility to Persuasion in Social Engineering? A Study Among UK and Arab Samples

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4902235/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

This study investigates whether personality traits can predict and impact susceptibility to persuasion in potential social engineering scenarios. It also explores cultural differences in such susceptibility. Data was collected through an online survey with 651 participants (329 from the Arab Gulf countries and 322 from the United Kingdom). Personality traits were measured using a validated 10-item scale based on the Big-5 model. Cialdini’s six persuasion principles were employed as a conceptual framework. Participants were presented with 12 scenarios: six featuring the principles and six where the principles were neutralized. They were asked questions about their level of trust in the potential social engineer and their willingness to take risks. We analysed the data to identify differences in susceptibility between the two groups, and regression analyses evaluated the impact of personality traits on susceptibility. The findings reveal no significant difference in susceptibility to persuasion tactics between Arab and UK participants. Additionally, personality traits are weak predictors of susceptibility to persuasion in social engineering scenarios in both samples. Unlike existing studies, our method isolated personality traits and did not mix them with other predictors like age, gender, or competency. This approach allowed us to scrutinize their pure impact. Scenarios were carefully designed, and face validated to be around the same situation but present each principle alone while neutralizing other variables. Previous literature used heterogeneous scenarios, making it hard to pinpoint specific causes. Additionally, this study includes a cross-cultural component with participants from the Arab Gulf countries, a segment often neglected in research.

Social Engineering

Personality Traits

Persuasion Tactics

Susceptibility

Cialdini’s Principles

Risk-taking

Social Engineering (SE) is a method employed by cyber attackers to exploit human psychology [1], aiming to influence individuals' decision-making to reveal sensitive information or perform actions that breach the security of their systems [2]. While traditional cyber-attacks target technical flaws, such as software defects, social engineering exploits human vulnerabilities to achieve malicious goals [3]. It relies on techniques such as persuasion to convince individuals to disclose personal information, ultimately relying on the victim's decision-making process to succeed [2]. The persuasion techniques commonly used, specifically drawing from the six principles of influence identified by Robert Cialdini [4] are employed by social engineers to manipulate victims. These principles encompass authority, commitment/consistency, social proof, likeability, reciprocity, and scarcity. Authority involves individuals' inclination to heed figures of authority, while commitment and consistency pertain to honouring verbal or written commitments. Social proof reflects individuals seeking guidance from others in uncertain circumstances, and likeability indicates a person’s tendency to comply with requests from individuals they admire. Reciprocity involves the urge to reciprocate favours, and scarcity underscores the appeal of rare or limited items. These principles elucidate fundamental aspects of human behaviour that social engineers exploit to manipulate targets into compliance.

Cialdini’s persuasion principles are utilized across various domains. Naruoei et al. [5] investigated the effectiveness of these six principles in digital marketing for the furniture industry, finding that they significantly influence consumer decisions. They suggested that a strategic and appropriate application of these principles can improve sales for online marketers. Some principles were also found to influence hospital visitors' hygiene practices positively [6]. These studies revealed how persuasion can be used with positive intentions, but it can also be used for more malicious practices. Abraham et.al [7] developed a video game measuring the effectiveness of authority, scarcity, and likeability principles in phishing attacks among university students, a type of SE attack that often uses persuasion for malicious purposes. The study revealed high susceptibility to these persuasion principles. The persuasion principles were also used by online romance scammers to persuade victims to carry out requests [8]. Another survey has also demonstrated the effectiveness of the six principles in potential SE scenarios, even when users were informed of potential risks when complying [9]. While the principles can be utilized for both positive and negative purposes, protective measures need to be taken to safeguard individuals from their malicious use, especially in online environments where they can be used to carry out identity theft and other attacks.

Several studies showed that susceptibility to persuasion can be predicted by personality [10]. For example, highly conscientious individuals are more susceptible to the commitment persuasion principle, whereas agreeable individuals tend to be influenced by social proof [11]. However, individuals can vary in their personality traits and have various combinations, such as low agreeableness and high consciousness [10]. The Big Five [12] represent a set of widely recognized traits extensively employed to explain patterns of characteristics exhibited among individuals. These five personality traits are openness (individuals who are more creative, imaginative, curious, adventurous, and open to new experiences), conscientiousness (individuals who are well-organized, self-disciplined, and goal-oriented who follow norms, rules, and prioritize their tasks), extraversion (individuals who are more social, warm, assertive, and seek positive emotions), agreeableness (individuals who are kind to others, very compassionate, modest, friendly, less competitive and outspoken), and neuroticism (individuals who are more anxious, emotionally unstable, unconfident, and insecure).

Several studies have investigated the impact of personality traits on susceptibility to persuasion. Alslaity and Tran [14] investigate how Cialdini's six principles of persuasion affect users of Recommender Systems (RS) (e.g. software systems that help users find products) and explore the role of personality traits in this context. Their findings indicate significant variations in susceptibility to persuasion based on personality traits and the application domain. Similarly, Gkika et al. [15] explored the susceptibility to persuasion within a movie RS, finding that motivating messages can enhance users' acceptance of recommendations, but this effect was moderated by personality traits. The study found various personality trait combinations that led to high acceptance of each principle, but their study lacked a representative sample of the general population. Uebelacker and Quiel [16] proposed a framework that links personality traits with vulnerability to the six persuasion tactics and revealed that individuals with high levels of extraversion are more susceptible to likeability, scarcity, and social proof due to their sociable nature. The study presented interesting propositions; however, it employed a theoretical research approach and thus lacked empirical validation.

There are various ways to measure susceptibility to persuasion; some studies use scales such as the one by Alkış et al [11] who found that conscientious individuals are more susceptible to authority, commitment/consistency, and reciprocity because of their rule-following tendencies, while those high in agreeableness tend to be more trusting and are particularly influenced by social proof, authority, and likeability. Neurotic individuals, when compared to other personality profiles, seemed to be most influenced by scarcity [15]. In the context of phishing attacks, a kind of SE attack, associations between personality traits and susceptibility were found. Neuroticism, openness, and consciousness indirectly affect susceptibility to phishing attacks by influencing how individuals process a potential phishing attempt [17]. Personality traits were also found to influence heuristic processing, which can increase the likelihood of susceptibility to phishing attacks [18]. Halevi et al. [19] found a strong correlation between neuroticism and susceptibility to phishing attacks in women. The aforementioned studies revealed interesting insights; however, they either lacked empirical validation [16], focused on fields other than SE scenarios [14, 15], excluded Cialdini’s principles [19], or did not study a broader population [8, 15]. In our study, we hope to address all these concerns.

Cultural factors are also known to affect the degree of influence of persuasion principles. Oyibo et al. [20] explored the susceptibility of individuals from Nigeria and Canada to Cialdini's principles of persuasion using a scale. The study revealed that Nigerians generally exhibit higher susceptibility to persuasive principles such as authority and scarcity, while Canadians were more susceptible to persuasion principles such as reciprocity, likeability, and social proof. In contrast, Orji [21] found that Asians, also a collectivist culture, were more susceptible to social proof, likeability and reciprocity than North Americans, an individualistic culture. While the aforementioned studies measured general susceptibility to persuasion, they lacked the risk factor often found in SE attempts. Alneami et al. [22] focused on employees' personality traits and other factors, such as cultural background, revealing that cultural dimensions affect an individual’s approach to attacks. For example, individuals from countries with higher Power Distance Index (PDI) are more likely to provide personally identifiable information in phishing emails than those with lower PDI [23]. Orji and Moffatt [24] conducted a systematic review, including 85 papers over 16 years, focusing on the role of persuasive technology in promoting health and wellness. Although the study focused on health and wellness, the review underscored potential research gaps, particularly in Arab regions. Furthermore, existing research on the persuasive power of Cialdini's tactics mainly focused on the presence of the persuasion principles by employing a neutral point, i.e., compliance was based on whether the response was above the neutral point.

We made our study unique by designing twelve scenarios, six representing the presence and six the absence of each principle. This allowed us to compare the impact of each principle individually. Unlike other studies, our analysis focuses exclusively on the Big Five personality dimensions without introducing other factors that could influence the results. All scenarios were designed on a similar storyline to ensure consistency and control biases. We also conducted a comprehensive face validation to exclude any other variables that could potentially affect the results. These are common limitations in previous literature due to different scenarios, such as different storylines for each SE attempt, which can introduce biases. Furthermore, we focused on a single persuasion principle in each scenario, unlike other studies that used a combination of principles, making it difficult to attribute persuasion to one. We also controlled for participants' technical competency and knowledge by informing them explicitly of the risks associated with complying with potential SE attempts, a factor often neglected in previous research. Additionally, to address the lack of exploration of the Arab cultural segment, we included Arab Gulf Corporation Countries (GCC) participants alongside participants from the United Kingdom (UK) in our study. This study aims to answer the following two research questions:

RQ1

Within the context of a potential social engineering attempt are there differences in susceptibility to persuasion tactics between the UK and Arab populations?

RQ2

Within the context of a potential social engineering attempt, do personality traits influence susceptibility to Cialdini’s persuasion tactics? If so, to what extent?

The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 details the methodology used to answer the research questions. Section 3 presents the research results, and Section 4 provides a discussion of the results, implications, and limitations of the research. The conclusion is presented in Section 5.

This section focuses on the methodology used in our study. It begins with an explanation of the recruitment process and how we collected our data. Then, we describe the creation of the scenarios measuring the susceptibility to Cialdini’s principles and the face-validation process. Lastly, we discuss the different statistical analyses used.

Recruitment and Data Collection

Participants for this study were recruited from the Arab GCC and the UK through the services of TGM Research (https://tgmresearch.com), a company specializing in data collection for research studies. The selection of these two distinct cultural backgrounds aimed to provide a diverse spectrum for comparative analysis, considering their variations in morals and values. This diversity was evident from examining cultural dimensions using Hofstede's country comparison chart, which revealed noteworthy variations in Power Distance and Individualism between the UK and GCC countries [25]. The survey was created using SurveyMonkey (https://www.surveymonkey.com), and it included scenarios focused on Cialdini’s principles and questions to assess personality traits.

To participate in the study, participants underwent an eligibility assessment. Participants had to be above 18 years old and be born or residing in the Arab GCC (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates) or the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland). Participants confirmed their identification as Arab GCC or UK regarding norms and culture. Additionally, participants were required to be active social media users. All participants provided informed consent and the option to withdraw from the survey at any time. Attention checks were integrated into the survey to ensure the data's quality. Participants who failed attention checks or completed the survey speedily (less than 50% of the median duration) were excluded from the survey analysis. On completion of the survey, the participants were compensated. This study received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board at the second last author’s organization. Additionally, individuals aged above 60 were excluded from the dataset due to an uneven distribution of this age group across the two groups. The final dataset comprised 651 participants, with 329 participants from the Arab GCC and 322 from the UK.

Dataset and Study Design

The participants were presented with scenarios in a social media group where a member requested volunteers to install a mobile app. This mobile app collects personal data such as age, location, and user preferences to provide a customized experience, such as offers at local shops. Participants were cautioned about potential risks associated with sharing personal information and installing content from unfamiliar sources. We informed participants that the request could be legitimate or malicious without implying a specific level of risk. For our study, we developed 12 distinct scenarios to investigate the impact of all six of Cialdini’s principles on individuals’ willingness to install a mobile app. Each scenario was designed to focus on one of the six principles without incorporating additional persuasive elements. Participants encountered six scenarios illustrating the presence of these principles and six depicting their absence.

The member making the request was a software designer named Oliver for the UK participants and Majid for the Arab participants. Names were selected for each culture to mitigate biases. The name also had no specific religious connotations. Furthermore, the scenarios and survey questions were translated from English to Arabic through a rigorous back-translation process [26]. To mitigate potential order effects, the presentation order of scenarios was randomized for the participants to reduce the biases stemming from learning effects. Participants were provided with visual representations and short explanations to aid their understanding of the scenarios. An example of the visual presentation is shown in Fig. 1 which displays social proof and likeability. As shown, the presence of social proof is indicated by higher downloads and likes compared to the scenario where social proof was absent. As for likeability, its presence was represented by Oliver's optimistic and likable communication manner in the comments compared to the cold and dislikable attitude shown by Oliver, representing the absence of likeability. All other scenarios and the survey design are available on the open science framework and can be retrieved through the link provided in the supplementary materials section. The Arabic version of the social proof and likability scenarios is available in Appendix 3.

A face-validation process was conducted to ensure that each scenario accurately represents the principles of persuasion. This method ensures that a test accurately measures what is intended. We tested the scenarios with six individuals, three Arabs and three Europeans. These individuals represented different ages and genders, providing a variety of demographics. They were inducted about the persuasion principles and were then asked to identify which principle was represented in each scenario and whether a scenario presented more than one principle. This process was also applied to scenarios lacking the persuasion principles, as depicted in Fig. 1. In that case, the expectation was that they would not map the scenario to any of the persuasion principles nor violate it, i.e., the scenario must be seen as neutral. Additionally, the test involved examining the profile of the potential social engineer character to prevent undesired effects. The individuals were asked "Yes" or "No" questions about whether the character appeared to show any financial, religious, or personal remarks that could signal bias or unwanted reaction. Individuals were invited to share additional observations to enhance the scenarios as part of the validation process. Based on the feedback, we refined all the scenarios till we reached a consensus. For example, the absence of the social proof scenario initially showed zero downloads; however, as this seemed negative, we updated the illustration to indicate five downloads instead of zero. We have also made some adjustments to the absence of the likeability scenario. In the first draft, the potential social engineer's response to Veronica's comment (another member of the social media group) was harsh, while we only wanted to show the absence of likability, not a demonstration of hostility. To reduce the intensity, we changed it from "I am not free now" to "Thanks, Veronica. I'll get back to you later. I'm currently busy”. Further amendments were made to the translation into Arabic to reflect what Arab participants understood of the scenarios and to match the scenarios made in English.

Measures

Data collection for this study involved presenting participants with scenarios depicting both the presence and absence of persuasion principles and recording their responses for each condition. After each scenario, participants were asked specific questions to understand their reactions and decisions about these persuasion principles. Participants were recruited based on their perception of at least minimal risk in installing and testing the app, and they were informed about the potential security implications to ensure informed decision-making. We confirmed this by including an attention check to ensure the participants' awareness of potential risks. Likert scales were utilized to record participants' reactions to these scenarios. Participants were asked two questions in each scenario to assess their trust and risk-taking. The first question: “In a similar scenario, how likely are you to install the app and give it a try?”, participants could reply from a range of 6 (very likely) to 1 (very unlikely). As for the second question, participants were requested to answer, “In a similar scenario, how much do you trust Oliver’s transparency and intentions?” from a range of 6 (complete trust) to 1 (complete distrust).

To measure personality, the 44-item inventory is often used to assess the five personality dimensions, also known as the Big Five Inventory [13]. This model has been widely used in research as it is suitable for various disciplines. Due to the need for shorter assessment times, we used another version consisting of 10 items [27]. Although this is a shorter version, it explains 70% of the variance of the original model [27]. This inventory measures five personality traits: Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Openness. An example item for Agreeableness: “How well do the following statements describe your personality? … is generally trusting”. Participants responded to items related to each personality trait on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Arabic version of the 10-item scale can be accessed through the link in the supplementary materials section.

Data Analysis

The data was analysed using JASP (https://jasp-stats.org/). Firstly, we analysed the descriptive statistics of the dataset to understand the distribution of data across various demographics. To address the first research question, which focused on differences in susceptibility to persuasion tactics between the UK and Arab populations, multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were performed. This analysis would allow us to investigate the differences between the two groups in the mean for multiple dependent variables, which are the delta scores for each of the six principles. For the second research question, regression analyses were conducted to examine the influence of personality traits on susceptibility to different persuasion tactics in the context of SE attacks.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of demographic variables among participants from Arab and UK backgrounds. In terms of gender distribution, a higher percentage of males was observed among Arab participants (56.23%) compared to their UK counterparts (41.62%), while a higher percentage of females was reported among UK participants (58.38%) compared to Arab participants (43.77%). Regarding education level, a higher proportion of Arab participants reported having higher education (81.46%) compared to those from the UK (68.32%). Regarding employment status, a larger percentage of Arab participants were employed or self-employed (79.64%) compared to UK participants (73.59%). However, a higher percentage of UK participants reported being students and unemployed compared to Arab participants. These findings provide insights into the demographic composition of the study sample, highlighting variations between participants from Arab and UK backgrounds in terms of gender, age, education level, and employment status.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of Participants
Variables	Participants (N = 651)
Variables	Arab (N = 329)	UK (N = 322)
Gender (%) Male Female	185 (56.23%) 144 (43.77%)	134 (41.62%) 188(58.38%)
Age M (SD) Range	35.67 (10.15) 18–60	38.47 (12.51) 18–60
Education (%) Basic Education Higher Education	61 (18.54%) 268 (81.46%)	102 (31.68%) 220 (68.32%)
Employment (%) Student Employed/Self-Employed Unemployed	14 (4.26%) 262 (79.64%) 53 (16.12%)	19 (5.90%) 236 (73.29%) 67 (20.81%)

RQ1 Within the context of a potential social engineering attempt are there differences in susceptibility to persuasion tactics between the UK and Arab populations?

To address the first research question, MANOVA was conducted to examine the differences in susceptibility to persuasion tactics between the UK and Arab populations. The six dependent variables, representing risk-taking in each of the scenarios for the persuasion tactics were analysed in three cases: the presence of the persuasion tactics, the absence of the persuasion tactics, and our newly introduced variable, delta, which represents the difference between the presence and absence scenarios. The independent variable for this analysis is the participants' population group (UK vs. Arab).

Mahalanobis distances were computed to detect multivariate outliers and were removed using the criterion of a Mahalanobis distance of p < .001 in addition to univariate outliers detected using Boxplot graphs. The normality of the data was confirmed by the large sample size, as the central limit theorem suggests normality [28]. The absence of multicollinearity for the dependent variable was checked using a correlation analysis. The Box's M-test, which confirms the multivariate homogeneity of variances, was violated for the delta and absence MANOVA analysis. However, since our two groups have almost equal sample sizes after the removal of the outliers, Pillai's trace was used as it is the most robust to violations of the assumptions [29].

The results of the MANOVA analysis under the delta variable (F (1, 629) = 1.42, p = 0.21, Pillai's Trace = 0.01) indicated no significant difference between the two groups, answering RQ1. This shows that there is no difference between individuals from the Arab GCC and the UK in their susceptibility to persuasion tactics in potential SE attacks. This contradicts the literature, which showed differences mainly by relying on the presence of principles—a methodological limitation we consider significant. We now demonstrate that this is also the case in our study.

The results of the MANOVA test using Pillai’s Trace under only the presence of Cialdini’s principles (F (1, 637) = 16.20, p < .001, Pillai's Trace = 0.13) showed significant differences between the two groups. To further analyse these differences, we conducted individual ANOVA tests for each persuasion principle as shown in Table 2. The population group acted as the independent variable. All ANOVA tests indicated that Arab participants were higher risk-takers than UK participants in the presence scenarios. When Levene’s test was significant due to unequal variances, we reported the robust Welch’s t-test [30]. The effect of the population group on risk-taking in the presence of scarcity was small since the eta-squared was 0.05 [31]. As for the other scenarios, the eta-squared ranged between 0.06 and 0.11, meaning the effect of culture on risk-taking in the presence scenarios was medium [31].

Table 2

ANOVA Results to Evaluate Differences in Risk-Taking under the Presence of Each Cialdini Principle Between Arabs and UK
Principle	ANOVA Arab vs UK
Principle	df2	F	η²	Arab Risk-Taking Mean	UK Risk-Taking Mean
Social Proof	637.00	68.72^***	0.10	4.77	3.98
Likeability	624.78	75.45^***	0.11	4.45	3.57
Authority	619.90	57.74^***	0.08	4.56	3.75
Commitment/C.	625.90	72.95^***	0.10	4.23	3.40
Reciprocity	626.64	50.36^***	0.07	4.35	3.65
Scarcity	630.13	34.16^***	0.05	4.31	3.65
* p < .05, p < .01, * p < .001

Evaluating only the absence scenarios, the MANOVA showed significant differences between the UK and Arab populations, F (1, 649) = 14.00, p < .001, Pillai's Trace = 0.12). We conducted individual ANOVA tests for each absence scenario as shown in Table 3 to further analyse the difference in risk-taking for each scenario alone. All ANOVA tests indicated that Arab participants were higher risk-takers compared to UK participants in the scenarios where Cialdini’s principles were absent. The eta-squared for likeability and commitment/consistency was above 0.06, indicating that the impact of culture on risk-taking in the absence scenarios was medium. As for the other absence scenarios, the eta-squared was below 0.06, indicating that the effect of culture was little.

Table 3

ANOVA Results to Evaluate Differences in Risk-Taking under the Absence of Each Cialdini Principle Between Arabs and UK
Principle	ANOVA Arab vs UK
Principle	df2	F	η²	Arab Risk-Taking Mean	UK Risk-Taking Mean
Social Proof	629.37	27.67^***	0.04	2.73	2.21
Likeability	649.00	54.04^***	0.08	3.20	2.48
Authority	630.37	31.04^***	0.05	2.77	2.22
Commitment/C.	649.00	74.47^***	0.10	3.79	2.94
Reciprocity	632.38	22.76^***	0.03	2.79	2.32
Scarcity	635.35	37.64^***	0.06	4.14	3.46
* p < .05, p < .01, * p < .001

To provide further insight into the differences between the UK and Arab populations, descriptive statistics for each scenario were examined. Figure 2 presents the mean score of the likelihood of installing the app for each tactic in both presence and absence scenarios, which is an indicator of risk-taking. The higher the number the greater the risk-taking. The graphs allowed us to compare the average responses to each persuasion tactic in the presence and absence scenarios between the two groups. The delta graph represents the differences in susceptibility to Cialdini’s principles between the two groups, which were not significant.

RQ2 Within the context of a potential social engineering attempt, do personality traits influence susceptibility to Cialdini’s persuasion tactics? If so, to what extent?

Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the influence of personality traits on susceptibility to Cialdini's principles among Arab and UK individuals. These analyses aimed to investigate the relationships between personality traits and susceptibility to persuasion tactics within SE attempts.

Before performing the regression analysis, assumption checks were conducted to ensure the validity of the regression analysis. The dependent variables are the delta values for the scenarios representing social proof, likeability, authority, commitment/consistency, reciprocity, and scarcity. The skewness and kurtosis values for these variables were between − 2 and + 2, confirming normality for our sample [32]. Records with standardized residuals surpassing ± 3 standard deviations were identified as outliers and removed. The collinearity statistics showed no multicollinearity among the variables with Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values less than 2 for all predictors and tolerance values greater than 0.2 [33]. Durbin–Watson values were between 1 and 3, indicating the independence of predictors [33]. The normality and homoskedasticity of the residuals were satisfied as the residual's histograms were roughly normally distributed, and the data points were close to the line on the Q-Q plot for residuals. After verifying the assumptions, regression analyses using the enter method were performed to measure the influence of personality traits on susceptibility to persuasion.

Impact of Personality on Susceptibility to Cialdini's Principles among Arab Participants

The regression analyses are conducted to assess the impact of personality traits on susceptibility to Cialdini's principles among Arab individuals. The delta values, representing the difference in response to risk-taking (installing the app) between scenarios where persuasion tactics were present and absent, are used to measure susceptibility to persuasion. The predictors are the scores of the five personality dimensions of the participants. While we primarily focused on the delta, detailed regression tables for each persuasion principle, including presence and absence variables, are provided in Appendix 1. Each model focused on the relationship between the five personality traits and susceptibility to a specific persuasion principle. The models were not significant for social proof (p = .11), likeability (p = .06), and commitment/consistency (p = .99), while authority (p = .01), reciprocity (p = .01), and scarcity (p = .002) were statistically significant.

The regression model for the Authority principle shown in Table 4 was statistically significant, F (5, 321) = 3.14, p = .01, and indicated that the predictors accounted for 4.7% (R² = 0.047, adjusted R² = 0.027) of the variance in the dependent variable. Among the Big Five personality traits, only Conscientiousness (β = 0.18, p = .003) and Neuroticism (β = 0.13, p = .03) were significant predictors, indicating that the stronger these personality traits are, the higher the risk-taking among Arab participants.

Table 4

Linear Regression Model for the Impact of Personality Traits on Susceptibility to Authority (Arab)
Predictor	Standardized β (SE)	t	p	95% CI		Collinearity Statistics
Predictor	Standardized β (SE)	t	p	Lower	Upper	Tolerance	VIF
Constant		-0.47	.64	-2.00	1.23
Extraversion	0.09 (0.07)	1.51	.13	-0.03	0.23	0.92	1.09
Agreeableness	-0.09 (0.06)	-1.55	.12	-0.19	0.02	0.89	1.13
Conscientiousness	0.18 (0.06)	3.04	.003	0.06	0.28	0.84	1.19
Neuroticism	0.13 (0.05)	2.18	.03	0.01	0.19	0.85	1.18
Openness	0.04 (0.06)	0.72	.46	-0.07	0.16	0.97	1.03
R² = 0.047, Adjusted R² = 0.027, F (5, 321) = 3.14

The regression analysis for the Reciprocity principle shown in Table 5 reached statistical significance, F (5, 323) = 3.13, p = .01, and about 4.6% (R² = 0.046, adjusted R² = 0.031) of the variance in susceptibility was explained by personality traits. Among the Big Five personality traits, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness were not significant predictors while Conscientiousness (β = 0.18, p = .003) and Agreeableness (β = -0.11, p = .049) were significant predictors. This means that higher conscientiousness and lower agreeableness traits are associated with higher risk-taking among Arab participants.

Table 5

Linear Regression Model for the Impact of Personality Traits on Susceptibility to Reciprocity (Arab)
Predictor	Standardized β (SE)	t	p	95% CI		Collinearity Statistics
Predictor	Standardized β (SE)	t	p	Lower	Upper	Tolerance	VIF
Constant		1.26	.21	-0.56	2.55
Extraversion	-0.04 (0.06)	-0.74	.46	-0.17	0.08	0.92	1.09
Agreeableness	-0.11 (0.05)	-1.98	.049	-0.21	-4.36×10^− 4	0.89	1.13
Conscientiousness	0.18 (0.06)	2.99	.003	0.06	0.27	0.84	1.19
Neuroticism	-0.05 (0.05)	-0.81	.42	-0.12	0.05	0.85	1.18
Openness	0.06 (0.06)	1.03	.30	-0.05	0.17	0.97	1.03
R² = 0.046, Adjusted R² = 0.031, F (5, 323) = 3.31

The regression analysis for the Scarcity principle shown in Table 6 was statistically significant, F (5, 318 = 3.81, p = .002, indicating that the predictors collectively accounted for a portion of the variance in the dependent variable (R² = 0.056, adjusted R² = 0.042). Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness were not significant predictors of susceptibility to Scarcity, while Neuroticism (β = 0.18, p = .003) and Openness (β = 0.16, p = .003) were significant predictors. The coefficients are positive, meaning the higher neuroticism and openness traits are, the greater the risk-taking among Arab participants.

Table 6

Linear Regression Model for the Impact of Personality Traits on Susceptibility to Scarcity (Arab)
Predictor	Standardized β (SE)	t	p	95% CI		Collinearity Statistics
Predictor	Standardized β (SE)	t	p	Lower	Upper	Tolerance	VIF
Constant		-2.84	.01	-2.61	-0.47
Extraversion	0.002 (0.04)	-0.03	.98	-0.08	0.08	0.92	1.09
Agreeableness	-0.01 (0.04)	-0.17	.87	-0.08	0.06	0.88	1.13
Conscientiousness	0.09 (0.04)	1.52	.13	-0.02	0.13	0.84	1.18
Neuroticism	0.18 (0.03)	3.04	.003	0.03	0.15	0.84	1.19
Openness	0.16 (0.04)	2.97	.003	0.04	0.19	0.97	1.03
R² = 0.056, Adjusted R² = 0.042, F (5, 318) = 3.81

Table 7

Summary of the Linear Regression Models for the Impact of Personality Traits on Susceptibility to Cialdini's Persuasion Principles (Arab) Using the Delta Variable
Persuasion Tactic	Model (F, p), R²	Significant Personality Traits Predictors
Social Proof	Not significant (1.84, .11)
Likability	Not significant (2.17, .06)
Commitment/C.	Not significant (0.13, .99)
Reciprocity	Significant (3.13, .01), 0.05	A: (β = -0.11, p = .049), C: (β = 0.18, p = .003)
Scarcity	Significant (3.81, .002), 0.06	N: (β = 0.18, p = .003), O: (β = 0.16, p = .003)
Authority	Significant (3.14, .01), 0.04	C: (β = 0.18, p = .003), N: (β = 0.13, p = .03)
Note: O = Openness, C = Conscientiousness, E = Extraversion, A = Agreeableness, N = Neuroticism

Impact of Personality on Susceptibility to Cialdini's Principles among UK Participants

Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to investigate the influence of personality traits on susceptibility to Cialdini's persuasion tactics within the UK population. These analyses encompassed variables representing the delta which represents the difference between the likelihood of installing the app when a principle is present and when it is absent. The regression models for the presence and absence variables can be found in Appendix 2. The regression models were not significant for social proof (p = .11), commitment/consistency (p = .46), scarcity (p = 0.18), and authority (p = .47), however, were for likeability (p < .001), and reciprocity (p = .02).

The regression analysis for the Likeability principle shown in Table 8 was statistically significant, F (5, 315) = 5.16, p < .001, indicating that the predictors accounted for a proportion of the variance in the dependent variable, (R² = 0.076 adjusted R² = 0.061). Three of the Big Five personality traits were not statistically significant predictors, except Agreeableness (β = 0.20, p = < .001) and Openness (β = 0.15, p = .01). The coefficients show that as these two traits increase, the tendency to take risks also increases.

Table 8

Linear Regression Model for the Impact of Personality Traits on Susceptibility to Likeability (UK)
Predictor	Standardized β (SE)	t	p	95% CI		Collinearity Statistics
Predictor	Standardized β (SE)	t	p	Lower	Upper	Tolerance	VIF
Constant		-1.38	.17	-1.90	0.33
Extraversion	-0.02 (0.04)	-0.36	.72	-0.09	0.06	0.80	1.24
Agreeableness	0.20 (0.04)	3.48	< .001	0.06	0.21	0.88	1.14
Conscientiousness	0.05 (0.04)	0.86	.39	-0.05	0.12	0.85	1.18
Neuroticism	0.002 (0.04)	0.04	.97	-0.07	0.08	0.77	1.30
Openness	0.15 (0.04)	2.68	.01	0.03	0.18	0.92	1.09
R² = 0.076, Adjusted R² = 0.061, F (5, 315) = 5.16

In the regression analysis examining the Reciprocity persuasion tactic shown in Table 9, the model's overall significance was established, F (5, 313) = 2.80, p = .02, indicating that the predictors collectively accounted for about 4.3% of the variance in the dependent variable (R² = 0.043 adjusted R² = 0.028). From the Big Five, only Openness (β = 0.14, p = .02) was a significant predictor. Showing that the stronger the trait, the greater the risk-taking among UK participants

Table 9

Linear Regression Model for the Impact of Personality Traits on Susceptibility to Reciprocity (UK)
Predictor	Standardized β (SE)	t	p	95% CI		Collinearity Statistics
Predictor	Standardized β (SE)	t	p	Lower	Upper	Tolerance	VIF
Constant		-0.06	.96	-1.11	1.05
Extraversion	0.03 (0.04)	0.44	.66	-0.06	0.09	0.81	1.23
Agreeableness	0.09 (0.04)	1.46	.15	-0.02	0.13	0.88	1.14
Conscientiousness	0.06 (0.04)	0.97	.33	-0.04	0.12	0.84	1.19
Neuroticism	-0.02 (0.04)	-0.33	.75	-0.08	0.06	0.77	1.29
Openness	0.14 (0.04)	2.33	.02	0.01	0.16	0.92	1.09
R² = 0.043, Adjusted R² = 0.028, F (5, 313) = 2.80

Table 10

Summary of the Linear Regression Models for the Impact of Personality Traits on Susceptibility to Cialdini's Persuasion Principles (UK) Using the Delta Variable
Persuasion Tactic	Model (F, p) R²	Significant Personality Traits
Social Proof	Not Significant (1.83, .11)
Likability	Significant (5.16, < .001), 0.08	A: (β = 0.20, p = < .001), O: (β = 0.15, p = 0.01)
Commitment/C.	Not significant (0.94, 0.47)
Reciprocity	Significant (2.80, .02), 0.04	O: (β = 0.14, p = 0.02)
Scarcity	Not significant (1.52, 0.18)
Authority	Not significant (0.91, .47)
Note: O = Openness, C = Conscientiousness, E = Extraversion, A = Agreeableness, N = Neuroticism

Our first research question investigated the differences in susceptibility to persuasion tactics between the UK and Arab populations. It is expected that individuals from collectivist cultures, such as Arab societies, are likely to be influenced by their peers and, therefore, more susceptible to social proof [34]. Collectivists are also more likely to respect authority figures and, hence, more vulnerable to authority than individualists [20]. In contrast, individuals from individualistic countries, such as the UK, are more willing to be unique and, therefore, more susceptible to scarcity [21].

Comparing the scores for the presence and absence scenarios separately is a questionable method that has been used in previous literature (i.e. only the presence) which does not allow proper evaluation of whether the risk-taking or increased trust was due to Cialdini’s principles. When we looked at the presence and absence separately, Arabs showed higher susceptibility to the presence and the absence of Cialdini principles. However, when considering the delta variable, the difference between the two populations was not pronounced. This suggests that the significant difference was not mainly due to the presence of Cialdini principles, but potentially because Arabs may be higher risk-takers or more trusting compared to UK participants, regardless of whether or not the persuasion principles are present. This aligns with a survey revealing that, on average, GCC countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates demonstrate a higher inclination for risk-taking when compared to the UK. Another possible explanation is the willingness of collectivist individuals to assist others. A different study discovered that collectivists are more prone to agree with requests and are more willing to help a stranger [35]. Participants from the Arab GCC, a group of collectivist countries, might have been more inclined to take greater risks because they felt obliged to help a stranger online.

Although Arab participants generally scored higher when dealing with presence and absence scenarios separately, which is again a questionable method, this was not generally the case when we measured the difference between the presence and the absence of the Cialdini principle, i.e. what we called the delta variable. This indicates that persuasion principles are not the main reason why Arabs are more likely to take risks in a cybersecurity context that requires trusting others. The MANOVA analysis for the delta variable revealed that no group is significantly more susceptible to persuasion in an SE attempt than the other. This finding contrasts with previous studies, such as that by Oyibo et al. [20], which identified differences in susceptibility to persuasion strategies between Nigerians and Canadians. Our study design differs from that of Oyibo et al. by using scenarios in which the principles are both present and absent, ensuring a robust approach to measuring the sole impact of the persuasion principles in potential SE attempts.

Some cross-cultural studies have acknowledged the need to employ various intensity levels of persuasion principles as we did in our study. Using a similar approach, Cialdini et al. [34] measured the effectiveness of three intensities of social proof and commitment/consistency on compliance among Polish and American participants. They concluded that the two cultures' varying levels of individualism and collectivism resulted in differences in compliance between the groups. Our scenarios were in online environments, while Cialdini et al.’s [34] scenarios were set as face-to-face scenarios, where the different communication mediums can result in different responses [36]. Another study revealed that collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation, which are cultural dimensions, positively correlate with susceptibility to persuasion in daily deal offers [37]. According to Hofstede [25], the cultural dimensions of the Arab GCC and the UK differ in these aspects, yet we observed no significant difference in susceptibility to persuasion tactics between them. Our research shows that although Arab and UK cultures have different inclinations toward risk-taking or trusting others, this variance should not be attributed to Cialdini's principles. In other words, neither cultural group is different from the other regarding being susceptible to Cialdini's principles in potential SE attempts. We investigated other factors in our second research question, such as individual differences in personality traits, to gain a deeper understanding of which individuals are more susceptible to persuasion in SE attempts.

Previous studies have suggested a connection between susceptibility to persuasion and personality traits. However, our research suggests that personality traits do not significantly impact or fully explain the variance in susceptibility to persuasion tactics in SE attempts, answering our second research question. Some of the personality traits had only a very small effect in the regression models for susceptibility to reciprocity (R² = 0.05), scarcity (R² = 0.06), and authority (R² = 0.02) among Arab participants. The Arab participants displayed increased risk-taking or trusting behaviour when exhibiting higher levels of openness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness, along with lower levels of agreeableness. Since the impact of personality traits on susceptibility to persuasion is weak, it appears that the small effect of the traits is due to the inclination to take risks. In previous studies, higher openness and lower agreeableness were also linked to increased risk-taking [38–40]. However, our findings concerning neuroticism and conscientiousness diverge from the outcomes of those studies. It is possible that higher conscientiousness was associated with greater risk-taking because participants believed in their ability to handle the situation. They might have had high computer self-efficacy, which according to Saleem et al. [41], positively correlates with conscientiousness. Additionally, trust influences the approach to calculating risks, as increased trust in something or someone can increase risk-taking behaviour [42]. It is possible that Arab participants had higher trust in the group member, leading to risk-taking behaviour.

In the case of UK participants, we found openness and agreeableness to explain some of the variance in the likeability regression model (R² = 0.08) and openness part of the variance in the reciprocity model (R² = 0.04). A separate study discovered that individuals who were more agreeable and open were more likely to trust a stranger to return a lost wallet [43]. Moreover, agreeable individuals generally think well of others and therefore are more likely to trust people [44]. Since one of the items in the 10-item personality scale questions participants about their general trust, high scores on agreeableness may be associated with a greater tendency to trust strangers. To summarize, our results revealed that the impact of personality traits on susceptibility to Cialdini’s principles is smaller than indicated in prior research. Our method of measuring susceptibility, which involved examining scenarios with and without persuasion, allowed for a more precise assessment of susceptibility to persuasion.

Our results showed that personality has a weak relationship to susceptibility to persuasion compared to previous literature. Previous studies examining the link between personality and persuasion often relied on scenarios with Cialdini’s principles present [15]. This leads to the question of how accurately the effect of personality on susceptibility to Cialdini’s principles was measured. To address this concern, we introduced the delta variable to measure the difference between scenarios with and without the persuasion principles, allowing us to focus on their sole effect. In addition to the delta variable, which allows us to measure the effect of personality accurately on susceptibility to Cialdini’s principles, previous studies [45] have not utilized a consistent set of scenarios as in our study (i.e. all scenarios have the same storyline), which allowed us to control for variables other than the persuasion principles.

Several studies on personality and persuasion have been conducted in low-risk contexts. For example, some studies [10, 11, 46] used the susceptibility to persuasive strategies scale developed by Kaptein et al. [47]. Their scale was shown to be effective when tailoring messages to users according to their profile; the messages, however, were aimed at reducing snacking behaviour, a persuasive message with much fewer risks involved [47]. The results obtained using this scale are likely not applicable to measure susceptibility to persuasion in SE attempts, a context where users are more cautious and respond differently. While some studies have explored the relationship between personality and susceptibility to SE attacks, such as the one by Lawson et al. [48], have not investigated the susceptibility to all persuasion principles often used by social engineers.

In our examination, we found that studies that link personality to persuasion have used various approaches to create personality profiles. Wall et al. [10] identified specific personality profiles that are more susceptible to specific persuasion principles, drawing from the Big Five, Dark Triad, and Type D personality traits. Similarly, other researchers have integrated additional personality traits, such as impulse control, when connecting personality with phishing susceptibility [48]. In our analysis, we concentrated on the Big Five personality traits in our regression models, allowing us to measure their impact on susceptibility to persuasion in SE. Furthermore, our study was based on a large sample, which allowed us to substantiate our findings empirically. In contrast, the SE personality framework that established a link between personality traits and SE lacked empirical validation [16].

Our results showed that, unlike what the literature demonstrates, personality has a weak impact on susceptibility to persuasion in SE attempts, it is plausible to look for other factors that could be more effective indicators. Bright et al. [49] suggested that a person’s cyber security knowledge and experience can signify vulnerability to phishing attacks. While phishing attacks represent a specific SE attack, the implications could extend to a broader range of SE attacks. It is also worth considering that individuals may be influenced by past experiences when making future decisions. Previous experiences, such as past victimization and detection successes, could impact phishing susceptibility [50]. Furthermore, current events surrounding an individual might play a role in the effectiveness of an SE attempt [18]. For example, if a victim has an acquaintance who has won a prize online, that individual might be more vulnerable to an SE attempt that falsely promises similar rewards. Additionally, a person’s own beliefs, such as having a high optimism bias and being gullible could lead them to exhibit overconfidence in their online behaviour [51]. Exploring these factors might offer a more nuanced understanding of the variance in susceptibility to persuasion in SE attempts.

Comparing Arabs to the UK participants in each of the scenarios under the presence and absence of persuasion principles separately, i.e. MANOVA, an approach we questioned despite being used in the literature which also only considered the presence of the principle, showed that participants from the Arab GCC were more willing to take risks compared to UK participants in both the presence and absence scenarios. When we conducted our analysis for the delta, we found that despite Arabs being higher risk-takers in both scenarios, the difference between the presence and absence i.e. the delta, was similar for both cultural groups. Previous literature that found cultural differences in susceptibility had analysed results using only scenarios where the principles are present, which does not accurately measure susceptibility. In conclusion, our results proved no significant difference in susceptibility to Cialdini’s principles between the two cultural groups, therefore, this increased risk-taking was not due to Cialdini’s principles.

While we aimed to represent two broad cultural segments, future studies should explore a wider range of cultures to confirm whether cultural factors truly do not impact susceptibility to persuasion in SE attempts. Regarding the second research question, although the 10-item personality scale demonstrated 85% retest reliability and explained 70% of the variance of the original longer version, it may not comprehensively capture personality traits like the original inventory [27]. We selected a concise yet reliable measurement scale, but future research on similar topics should consider using longer personality measurement scales to validate results further. Ecological validity was also a concern, which occurs if participants are not able to relate to the scenarios. We handled this limitation by choosing a realistic scenario (i.e. someone asking for help on social media), that regular social media users (i.e. an eligibility criterion to participate) could face. Additionally, previous studies often did not consider digital literacy, which can affect the decisions of participants. A participant with high digital literacy is aware of the security risks associated with installing software from strangers online. Therefore, we made sure to inform every participant of potential risks when complying with requests from strangers online (e.g. installing their applications). We did not want to impose a specific risk level but simply made participants aware that the request could be legitimate or malicious. An attention check was used to ensure that only participants who at least saw minimal risk in installing the app in our scenarios were included. Moreover, our survey results are based on self-reported measures and may not fully represent participants' actual behaviour. To mitigate this, we encouraged participants to answer accurately and ensured the confidentiality of their responses to encourage more candid answers.

Our study revealed that personality traits weakly account for the variance in susceptibility to different persuasion tactics in SE attempts. Therefore, previous efforts to train individuals to resist persuasion and customize cyber security material based on their personality traits may not be the most effective approach. These findings suggest that there may be other factors that better explain susceptibility to persuasion in SE attempts. Future studies should explore alternative factors, such as previous victimization and their impact on susceptibility to persuasion. Additionally, our study found no significant difference in susceptibility to persuasion in SE attempts between participants from the Arab GCC and the UK when comparing results from scenarios with persuasion to scenarios without persuasion. Most literature has not utilized an approach that allows this benchmarking, as many studies only focus on scenarios with the presence of persuasion. This suggests that cultural factors may not be the primary explanation for why some individuals are more susceptible to persuasion than others in online environments. Further research should be conducted on different cultural segments to confirm these findings. The globalization of cyber security awareness may have reduced the need to customize security measures against SE attacks for different cultures. We recommend that cyber security specialists focus on strategies that help online users from all cultures identify and respond to SE attempts appropriately.

Our research aimed to understand how cultural differences affect susceptibility to persuasion tactics in potential SE attempts and how personality traits might play a role. We designed scenarios to test the impact of six persuasion principles and compared responses from individuals in the UK and Arab GCC regions. In total, we created 12 scenarios; six where the persuasion tactics were present and six where they were neutralized, which allowed us to measure the sole impact of each principle using the delta variable. When we compared the delta values, we did not observe significant differences in susceptibility to persuasion tactics between Arab GCC and UK participants. We also conducted regression analyses to understand whether personality traits can explain susceptibility to persuasion tactics in potential SE attempts, using the delta variable. Contrary to previous literature, we found that personality traits explained only to a very limited extent susceptibility to persuasion in potential SE attempts. In conclusion, our findings suggest that cultural factors and personality traits do not explain differences in susceptibility to persuasion in SE attempts. Therefore, we recommend that future research focuses on other factors such as individuals' previous experiences with SE.

Supplementary Materials

The dataset associated with this work is uploaded alongside the supplementary material for this article at: https://osf.io/ms6re/?view_only=707e2b17f4984b17bc8d2553cb3e13a6

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author Contribution

The study was designed and supervised by RA, MB, and KK, who also conceptualized the research. IA and RA prepared the study materials, collected, cleaned and scored the data. Statistical analysis was performed by AM and RH. The initial draft of the manuscript was prepared by RH, and then substantially revised and extended by AM. IA, MB, KK and RA reviewed the manuscripts and provided feedback.

Funding

This research was made possible by an NPRP-14-Cluster Grant # NPRP 14C-0916-210015 from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation). The findings herein reflect the work and are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Boshmaf Y, Muslukhov I, Beznosov K, Ripeanu M (2011) The socialbot network: when bots socialize for fame and money. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. ACM, Orlando Florida USA, pp 93–102
Wang Z, Zhu H, Sun L (2021) Social Engineering in Cybersecurity: Effect Mechanisms, Human Vulnerabilities and Attack Methods. IEEE Access 9:11895–11910. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3051633
Wang Z, Sun L, Zhu H (2020) Defining Social Engineering in Cybersecurity. IEEE Access 8:85094–85115. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2992807
Cialdini RB (2001) The Science of Persuasion. Sci Am 284:76–81
Naruoei B, Hakimpour H, Mahmoodzadeh Vashshan M, Mohammadi M (2024) The effectiveness of Cialdini’s principles on persuasion in digital marketing (A case study of Iran’s furniture industry). Int J Nonlinear Anal Appl 15:135–148. https://doi.org/10.22075/ijnaa.2023.30051.4322
Gaube S, Fischer P, Windl V, Lermer E (2020) The effect of persuasive messages on hospital visitors’ hand hygiene behavior. Health Psychol 39:471–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000854
Abrahamzon Garcia V, Parra RD (2021) Phishing video game to validate the principles of persuasion in university students. AMCIS 2021 Proc
Archer AK (2017) “I Made a Choice”: Exploring the Persuasion Tactics Used by Online Romance Scammers in Light of Cialdini’s Compliance Principles. EPublications Regis Univ
Mollazehi A, Abuelezz I, Barhamgi M, et al (2024) Do Cialdini’s Persuasion Principles Still Influence Trust and Risk-Taking When Social Engineering is Knowingly Possible? In: Araújo J, de la Vara JL, Santos MY, Assar S (eds) Research Challenges in Information Science. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp 273–288
Wall HJ, Campbell CC, Kaye LK, et al (2019) Personality profiles and persuasion: An exploratory study investigating the role of the Big-5, Type D personality and the Dark Triad on susceptibility to persuasion. Personal Individ Differ 139:69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.003
Alkış N, Taşkaya Temizel T (2015) The impact of individual differences on influence strategies. Personal Individ Differ 87:147–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.037
McCrae RR, John OP (1992) An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its Applications. J Pers 60:175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL (2012) Big Five Inventory
Alslaity A, Tran T The Effect of Personality Traits on Persuading Recommender System Users
Gkika S, Skiada M, Lekakos G, Kourouthanassis PE (2016) Investigating the Role of Personality Traits and Influence Strategies on the Persuasive Effect of Personalized Recommendations
Uebelacker S, Quiel S (2014) The Social Engineering Personality Framework. In: 2014 Workshop on Socio-Technical Aspects in Security and Trust. pp 24–30
Ge Y, Lu L, Cui X, et al (2021) How personal characteristics impact phishing susceptibility: The mediating role of mail processing. Appl Ergon 97:103526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103526
Frauenstein ED, Flowerday S (2020) Susceptibility to phishing on social network sites: A personality information processing model. Comput Secur 94:101862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.101862
Halevi T, Lewis J, Memon N (2013) A pilot study of cyber security and privacy related behavior and personality traits. pp 737–744
Oyibo K, Adaji I, Orji R, et al (2018) Susceptibility to Persuasive Strategies: A Comparative Analysis of Nigerians vs. Canadians. pp 229–238
Orji R Persuasion and Culture: Individualism–Collectivism and Susceptibility to Influence Strategies
Alneami HH A Framework to Detect the Susceptibility of Employees to Social Engineering Attacks
Bullee J-W, Montoya L, Junger M, Hartel P (2017) Spear phishing in organisations explained. Inf Comput Secur 25:593–613. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICS-03-2017-0009
Orji R, Moffatt K (2018) Persuasive technology for health and wellness: State-of-the-art and emerging trends. Health Informatics J 24:66–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458216650979
Country comparison graphs country comparison graphs. In: Geert Hofstede. https://geerthofstede.com/country-comparison-graphs/. Accessed 8 Jul 2024
Brislin RW (1970) Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. J Cross-Cult Psychol 1:185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
Rammstedt B, John OP (2007) Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. J Res Personal 41:203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001
Kwak SG, Kim JH (2017) Central limit theorem: the cornerstone of modern statistics. Korean J Anesthesiol 70:144–156. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2017.70.2.144
Bray J, Maxwell S (1985) Multivariate Analysis of Variance. SAGE Publications, Inc., 2455 Teller Road, Newbury Park California 91320 United States of America
Saglam F (2024) Understanding Welch’s T-Test: A Robust Approach for Unequal Variances. In: Medium. https://medium.com/@saglamfarukcan/understanding-welchs-t-test-a-robust-approach-for-unequal-variances-34dad43cbf41. Accessed 27 Jul 2024
Goss-Sampson M Statistical Analysis in JASP. A Guide for Students by Mark Goss-Sampson
Kim H-Y (2013) Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dent Endod 38:52–54. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52
Walker R, Moraine AA, Black KJ (2021) Running and Interpreting Multiple Regression in JASP. In: Exploring Diversity with Statistics Subtitle:Step-by-step JASP Guides. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Cialdini R, Wosinska W, Barrett D, et al (1999) Compliance with a Request in Two Cultures: The Differential Influence of Social Proof and Commitment/Consistency on Collectivists and Individualists. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25:1242–1253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299258006
Barrett DW, Wosinska W, Butner J, et al (2004) Individual differences in the motivation to comply across cultures: the impact of social obligation. Personal Individ Differ 37:19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.08.024
Guadagno R, Cialdini R (2002) Online Persuasion: An Examination of Gender Differences in Computer-Mediated Interpersonal Influence. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 6:38–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.38
Ditta-Apichai M, Kattiyapornpong U (2019) Assessing the link between cultural influences and persuasibility in online daily deals
Nicholson N, Soane E, Fenton‐O’Creevy M, Willman P (2005) Personality and domain‐specific risk taking. J Risk Res 8:157–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987032000123856
Joseph ED, Zhang DC (2021) Personality profile of risk-takers: An examination of the Big Five facets. J Individ Differ 42:194–203. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000346
Kipman U, WeiB M, Bartholdy S, et al (2021) Personality and Risk-Taking. Austin J Clin Case Rep 8:1233
Saleem H, Beaudry A, Croteau A-M (2011) Antecedents of computer self-efficacy: A study of the role of personality traits and gender. Comput Hum Behav 27:1922–1936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.017
Nickel PJ, Vaesen K (2012) Risk and Trust. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 857–876
Freitag M, Bauer PaulC (2016) Personality traits and the propensity to trust friends and strangers. Soc Sci J 53:467–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.12.002
Agnihotri N, Chawla S, Jain P (2015) Investigating relationship between trust and online communication. Indian J Health Wellbeing 6:1062–1069
Lawson P, Pearson CJ, Crowson A, Mayhorn CB (2020) Email phishing and signal detection: How persuasion principles and personality influence response patterns and accuracy. Appl Ergon 86:103084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103084
Oyibo K, Orji R, Vassileva J Investigation of the Influence of Personality Traits on Cialdini’s Persuasive Strategies
Kaptein M, Ruyter B, Markopoulos P, Aarts E (2012) Adaptive Persuasive Systems: A Study of Tailored Persuasive Text Messages to Reduce Snacking. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst TiiS 2:. https://doi.org/10.1145/2209310.2209313
Lawson P, Zielinska O, Pearson C, Mayhorn CB (2017) Interaction of Personality and Persuasion Tactics in Email Phishing Attacks. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 61:1331–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601815
Bright C, Wziatka M, Ngaruko W (2022) An Examination of The Role of Big Five Personality Traits, Cognitive Processes And Heuristics on Individuals’ Phishing Attack Susceptibility Levels
Chen R, Gaia J, Rao HR (2020) An examination of the effect of recent phishing encounters on phishing susceptibility. Decis Support Syst 133:113287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2020.113287
Bullée J-WH, Montoya L, Pieters W, et al (2015) The persuasion and security awareness experiment: reducing the success of social engineering attacks. J Exp Criminol 11:97–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9222-7

No competing interests reported.

Appendix.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Do Personality Traits Really Impact Susceptibility to Persuasion in Social Engineering? A Study Among UK and Arab Samples

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

3. Results

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1