([SORULQJ,QGLYLGXDO,QWHQW7RZDUGV%ORFNFKDLQ7HFKQRORJ\LQ5HVSRQVHWR7KUHDWVWR3HUVRQDO

'DWDDQG3ULYDF\




'LVVHUWDWLRQ0DQXVFULSW



6XEPLWWHGWR1RUWKFHQWUDO8QLYHUVLW\

6FKRRORI%XVLQHVVDQG7HFKQRORJ\0DQDJHPHQW

LQ3DUWLDO)XOILOOPHQWRIWKH

5HTXLUHPHQWVIRUWKH'HJUHHRI

'2&7252)3+,/2623+<



E\

&+,',(=80$1*:8









6DQ'LHJR&DOLIRUQLD

-XQH




ProQuest Number: 22616186




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 22616186

Published by ProQuest LLC (2019 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
DocuSign Envelope ID: 93A7A588-A81F-44D8-8662-CD2C56B3514B

Approval Page
Exploring Individual Intent Towards Blockchain Technology in Response to Threats to Personal Data and Privacy

By
CHIDI EZUMA-NGWU

Approved by the Doctoral Committee:

DBA 08/06/2019 | 21:41:45 MST

Brian M. NAME
Dissertation Chair: INSERT Allen Degree Held Date

PhD 08/07/2019 | 08:09:01 MST

Committee Member: Robert

INSERT Davis
NAME Degree Held Date

08/07/2019 | 07:59:29 MST

DBA, MBA

INSERT
Committee Member: Marie NAME Degree Held
Bakari Date
 Abstract

The purpose of this quantitative cross-sectional exploratory study was to analyze factors that

influence attitude towards blockchain applications when an individual perceives threats to their

privacy. Individual concerns about threats to personal privacy have increased due to breaches at

various organizations as well as the prevalence of spy software, location tracking, insecure

applications, viruses, trojans, and malware. The ascent of blockchain technology as a foundation

for cryptocurrencies presents opportunities for new applications that feature anonymity and data

integrity. This study is intended to fill a gap in research on individual behavior and attitude

towards blockchain technology, in response to privacy threats. Researchers have shown that a

person's perception of insecurity can evoke a protective response, although such realization did

not always predict actual behavior because salient factors also play important roles. Exploratory

factor analysis was used to determine factors influencing intent towards privacy-enhancing

technologies such as blockchain. Relying on constructs derived from published studies and a

model based on the protection motivation theory and the theory of planned behavior, participants

(n = 187) drawn from a blockchain forum on Facebook were surveyed on responses towards

perceived severity of threats, perceived vulnerability to threats, technology facilitation,

autonomy, self-efficacy and behavioral intent towards blockchain applications. The researcher

collected responses using a pre-validated questionnaire on Qualtrics with appropriate disclosures

and constraints. Results show that six factors were influential; these include threat appraisal,

technology affection, autonomy, self-efficacy, and feelings towards privacy. The data also

indicates that intent towards adopting blockchain applications for personal privacy is multi-

faceted and differs by gender in relation to threat perception and technology. These results

provide information for further confirmatory analysis and practice.

ii
 Acknowledgments

I wish to thank God, my family, and the faculty at Northcentral University for making

this academic journey possible. I appreciate the loving support of my wife, Bessie, and our four

children, Chioma, Chidi Jr, Ikechi, and Akachi, who endured my mental and physical absences

during this period. I am grateful for the support and dedication provided by my dissertation

committee chair, Dr. Brian McKay Allen, as well as the encouragement and thoughtful

contributions from my dissertation committee members; Dr. Robert Davis, and Dr. Marie Bakari.

I will dedicate my overall effort to the memory of my late father, Mazi Ezuma Ngwu, and the

exceptional sacrifices of my loving mother, Florence Ngwu, who both affectionately named me

“Chidiebube.” I also acknowledge the patience and encouragement of my brothers and sister;

especially my older brothers, Nnanna and Ezuma who made impactful contributions to this

worthy aspiration. Finally, it is a blessing to complete this journey with confidence in my Lord

Jesus Christ, and the assurance that anything is possible.

iii
 Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................................ 6
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 7
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 8
Nature of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 11
Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 14
Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................... 16
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................................. 16
Definitions of Key Terms ............................................................................................................. 18
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 25
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................. 26
Research and Documentation ....................................................................................................... 28
Technology Adoption in Reaction to Privacy Threats.................................................................. 29
Exploratory Factor Analysis ......................................................................................................... 31
Privacy Threat and Response ........................................................................................................ 35
Individual Intent ............................................................................................................................ 41
Individual Relatedness .................................................................................................................. 41
Threats to Privacy ......................................................................................................................... 44
Individual Autonomy .................................................................................................................... 48
Organizational Privacy Practices .................................................................................................. 51
Ethics of Data Breaches ................................................................................................................ 53
Blockchain Technologies .............................................................................................................. 54
Cloud Technology......................................................................................................................... 61
Encryption and Obfuscation ......................................................................................................... 64
Mobile Technology Considerations .............................................................................................. 65
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 65
Chapter 3: Research Method ......................................................................................................... 69
Research Methodology and Design .............................................................................................. 69
Population and Sample ................................................................................................................. 71
Materials/Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 73
Operational Definitions of Variables ............................................................................................ 77
Privacy construct (PVA). ...................................................................................................... 77
Behavioral intention (BHI). .................................................................................................. 78
Autonomy (AUT).................................................................................................................. 78
Technology facilitation (TFC). ............................................................................................. 79
Self-efficacy (SEF). .............................................................................................................. 79
Perceived severity (PSE)....................................................................................................... 80
Perceived vulnerability (PSV). ............................................................................................. 80
Study Procedures .......................................................................................................................... 80
Data Collection and Analysis ....................................................................................................... 82

iv
Assumptions.................................................................................................................................. 83
Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 84
Delimitations ................................................................................................................................. 84
Ethical Assurances ........................................................................................................................ 85
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 90
Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 93
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 95
Validity and Reliability of the Data ............................................................................................ 105
Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................................. 107
Evaluation of the Findings .......................................................................................................... 111
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 116
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions .................................................. 118
Implications ................................................................................................................................ 120
Recommendations for Practice ................................................................................................... 122
Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................................................... 124
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 124
References ................................................................................................................................... 126

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 144

Appendix A: Informed consent................................................................................................... 144
Appendix B: Forum Posting for General Study.......................................................................... 146
Appendix C: Forum Posting Used to Recruit Pilot Reviewers ................................................... 147
Appendix D: Email to Forum Administrators for Permission to Post on Forum ....................... 148
Appendix E: Survey and Constructs ........................................................................................... 149
Appendix F: Citi completion report – student ............................................................................ 154
Appendix G: Parallel Analysis Results ....................................................................................... 155
Appendix H: SPSS Information .................................................................................................. 157
Appendix I: Factor Extraction .................................................................................................... 166
Appendix J: Communalities........................................................................................................ 167
Appendix K: Rotated Factor Matrix Using Varimax.................................................................. 168
Appendix L: Initial Eigenvalues ................................................................................................. 169
Appendix M: Rotated Factor Matrix With Suppression ............................................................. 170
Appendix N: Descriptive Statistics from Pilot Study ................................................................. 171
Appendix O: Sample Characteristics of Final Study .................................................................. 173
Appendix P: Descriptive Statistics of Final Study...................................................................... 175

v
 List of Tables

Table 1 Parallel Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 97

Table 2 Relating Items to Questions and Labels .......................................................................... 98
Table 3 KMO and Bartlett’s Test from Final Study .................................................................... 99
Table 4 Participant Employment Status ..................................................................................... 102
Table 5 Education Demographics of Participants ...................................................................... 103
Table 6 Reliability Statistics of Individual Scales ..................................................................... 103
Table 7 Factors Identified Using Male Participants Only .......................................................... 104
Table 8 Factors Identified Using Female Participants Only ....................................................... 104
Table 9 KMO By Gender ............................................................................................................ 105
Table 10 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity ......................................................................................... 107

vi
 List of Figures

Figure 1: Conceptual Model ......................................................................................................... 76

Figure 2 Scree Plot ..................................................................................................................... 100

vii
 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

The focus of this research was to analyze factors influencing individual attitude towards

blockchain applications when there is a perception of threats to privacy. The researcher assessed

behavior in the context of intent towards blockchain applications, in reaction to threats to privacy

and autonomy. Blockchain emphasizes anonymity; in contrast, other technologies require

authentication and authorization to establish identity (Woodside, Augustine, & Gilberson, 2017;

Zyskind, Nathan, & Pentland, 2015). Although individuals prefer to conduct online transactions

in relative privacy, many platforms and solutions cannot guarantee such security (Hughes et al.,

2019; Lupton & Pedersen, 2016). For example, a majority of pregnant women use pregnancy

monitoring applications; however, those applications were found to store such sensitive data

insecurely (Hughes et al., 2019; Lupton & Pedersen, 2016). Insecurity may also arise from lapses

in infrastructure investment, poor security practices, and sales of private data (Kim, Park, &

Baskerville, 2016). Unfortunately, exposure to the internet presents many organizations with

persistent security challenges arising from sophisticated cyber-attackers which often

compromises confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA) of resources and assets (Chatterjee,

Sarker, & Valacich, 2015). Further evidence of this problem comes from the 2018 Data Breach

Investigations Report, which listed over 53,000 incidents and 2,216 confirmed data breaches at

organizations around the world (Verizon Inc., 2018).

As corporate, organizational, and social network data breaches continue to escalate,

individual attitude to insecurity and anonymity warrants further research (Stavova et al. 2017).

Unauthorized exposure of sensitive private information (Zimmerle, 2018) could compel

individuals to seek the comfort of an anonymity-preserving technology such as blockchain. The

use of internet technologies and smartphones often expose individuals to events that may
 2

compromise private information within their devices. In extreme cases, significant concessions

can be obtained through blackmail using sensitive records such as private texts or private

pictures stolen from personal devices (Marwick, 2017). Individuals often suffer emotional

trauma or shame due to the release of private media or text messages (Citron, 2019). Threats

exist in other areas as well. Some organizations collect data from individuals or clients and

sometimes use such information for profit, often without the knowledge of the sources

(Shoshana, 2015). Data collected in this manner may be analyzed and combined with location

information to supply extraordinary perspective into an individual’s behavior and preferences

(Al-Saggaf, 2015). Information retrieved for profit may sometimes include personal confidential

data (PCD).

PCD refers to any non-public personal information an individual may consider

confidential, which may include protected health information (PHI) or personally identifiable

information (PII). NIST publication SP 800-122, defines PII as information about an individual

stored or kept by an entity which can be used to identify an individual’s race, name, social

security number, location or date of birth (McCallister, Grance & Scarfone, 2010). PII includes

biometric, financial, educational, and employment information that linked to the individual. PCD

used without authorization or accessed for malicious intent may cause victims social and

economic harm (Gressin, 2017; Primoff & Kess, 2017). While the unauthorized collection of

PCD is unethical, it also increases the possibility that collected data could fall into malicious

hands, and then used for identity fraud or discrimination (Joly, Feze, & Simard, 2013; Favaretto,

De Clercq, & Elger, 2019).

Symantec reported in its "Internet Security Threat Report" (Price, 2016) that more than

500 million individuals were victims of online crime in 2015. The data used in this report came
 3

from sensors located in over 157 countries (Price, 2016). The Symantec report also showed that

552 million individuals were affected by breaches in 2013. Similarly, in 2014, 348 million

individuals were victims of successful data breaches. Malicious data breaches often lead to other

insecurity events such as malware incursions, phishing, viruses, and trojans (Edwards, Hofmeyr,

& Forrest, 2016; Richardson, & North, 2017). For many organizations, unauthorized disclosure

of confidential data may lead to lawsuits, financial challenges, and threats to the viability of the

organization (Gressin, 2017; Primoff & Kess, 2017). Unfortunately, individuals

disproportionately suffer from the consequence of data breaches (Solove & Citron, 2018).

However, personal perception and response to privacy events vary by ability, sensitivity to data

and the ease in securing personal information (Menard, Gatlin, & Warkentin, 2014; Stavova,

Matyas, Just, & Ukrop, 2017). Researchers also found that adverse privacy events compel

individuals to adopt a more secure technology (Mamonov & Benbunan-Fich, 2018). Similarly,

when confronted with privacy threats, individuals have been shown to actively engage in

protecting their assets (Stavova et al. 2017).

This researcher focused on factors that affected a user’s intent towards blockchain

applications. The ascent of Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies based on blockchain signified a

trend towards greater individual privacy; although the popularity of these applications among

criminals is also of great concern (Kshetri, 2017). According to Tang and Liu (2015), when users

perceive strong security in an underlying technology such as blockchain, they respond positively

to it. With the emergence of blockchain, the researcher engaged in an effort to identify factors

that affect behavioral intent towards this technology. Bringula et al. (2018) found that security

and trust are significant motivators for the adoption of new technology, a view this is supported

by other researchers and industry experts (Cisco, 2016; Chaoqun, Xiaolin, Qiujun, & Zhongding,
 4

2019). Since autonomy, anonymity, and trust are the highlights of technologies such as

blockchain, it is necessary to evaluate individual intent within that context (Hughes et al., 2019).

On the other hand, anonymity is associated with malfeasance and unethical behavior (Yam &

Reynolds, 2016). Autonomous and anonymous transactions provide a compelling and trust-free

alternative to reliance on identity and authentication without PCD (Yang, Lo, Xia, Wan, & Sun,

2016). With blockchain, identity is a random string which minimizes concern for PCD. If data is

lost, it is technologically and physically more difficult to exploit it on blockchain applications

(Gino & Staats, 2015; Feng, Wang, & Li, 2014). However, blockchain is a poorly understood

emerging technology, and little is known about its adoption for personal use even though there is

a significant public interest in Bitcoin (Hughes et al., 2019).

Blockchain technology is a peer-to-peer cloud network with a public ledger that stores an

irreversible copy of every transaction in the transaction block, secured with cryptographic hashes

(Woodside, Augustine, & Gilberson, 2017). Data threats such as ransomware, malware, or data

theft are rarely of concern; however, digital keys may be vulnerable, as well as attacks on entire

digital communities (Hughes et al., 2019). A foundation on integrity makes Blockchain

technology attractive to individuals who value data reliability and control (Beck, Czepluch,

Lollike, & Malone, 2016). Transactions using immutable cryptographic keys are impossible to

corrupt and are also trust-free and anonymous (Yang et al., 2016). Unfortunately, there are

drawbacks to anonymity because it enables criminal activity especially when it is coupled with

proxy networks such as Tor (The Onion Router) to facilitate money laundering and extortion

(Syverson, Tsudik, Reed, & Landwehr, 2009).

Many research publications in information security have relied on protection motivation

theory (PMT) to analyze behavior towards security policies and threat response (Ifinedo, 2012;
 5

Sommestad et al., 2015). In some of those studies, threat severity and perceived threat

susceptibility have been shown to have a significant impact on protective behavior (Sommestad

et al., 2015). Derived from the cognitive-processing theories and expectancy-value theories,

PMT was developed to clarify fear appeals and is a reliable explanatory theory often used in

predicting an individual’s behavioral intention towards protective responses such as the use of

anti-virus software (Anderson & Agarwal, 2010). Using PMT, researchers have shown that

individual perception of a risk to privacy will evoke a corresponding protective response

(Menard et al., 2014). The foundational principle of PMT as proposed by Rogers (1975) explores

three dimensions (strength of a threatening event, the chance it might occur, and the ability of the

individual to mitigate its effect).

The focus of this study is to explore factors that may influence an individual’s attitude

towards blockchain technology when they perceive a threat to their privacy or anonymity

(O'Leary, 2017). Common factor model studies such as exploratory factor analysis provide

internal validity through the use of random assignment as well as external validity through

population sampling (Weinberg, Freese, & McElhattan, 2014). Using an exploratory factor

analysis, individual perceptions of anonymity, privacy, intent, and threats were used to explore

factors that influence intention towards blockchain applications. Findings from this study

enriched existing literature on individual technology choices, and the impact of privacy,

anonymity, and threats in shaping those choices. This research effort also answers a call for

studies on emerging technology using multiple theories (Oliveira, Thomas, & Espadanal, 2014;

Wang, Chen, & Xu, 2016; Zyskind et al., 2015). Relevant factors analyzed in this study were

privacy concerns, anonymity concerns, technological concerns, susceptibility to threats, the

severity of threatening events, and self-efficacy.

 6

Statement of the Problem

The problem the researcher addressed is the prevalence of data breaches and its impact on

individual technology choices. When individuals perceive a significant threat to sensitive

personal records arising from their dependence on the internet, software, and applications; they

may explore alternative technologies that feature greater anonymity such as blockchain-based

applications (Assadulah, & Onyefolahan, 2015; Zhao, Detlor, & Connelly, 2016). Threats to

personal data is a global problem. Recently, five hundred million individual accounts were

exposed after a data breach at Yahoo (Verizon, 2018; Experian, 2018). Other large organizations

such as Facebook, Grindr, Equifax, TJX also suffered significant data events (Gressin, 2017). A

Facebook data breach gave malicious actors complete control over 50 million personal accounts,

while the Grindr breach exposed subscriber records to third parties which included the HIV

status of individuals (Lomas, 2018). Willful collection and misuse of confidential personal data

also occur at popular payment sites and e-commerce establishments (Preibusch, Peetz, Acar, &

Berendt, 2016).

Researchers have shown that individual perception of a risk to privacy will evoke a

corresponding protective response (Goldberg, 2013; Hart, 2016; Van Schaik, Jansen, Onibokun,

Camp & Kusev, 2018). Unfortunately, there is little research on individual attitude towards

specific privacy-enhancing technologies such as blockchain. The trend towards blockchain is

evident in the financial services industry, where users emboldened by the availability of

blockchain technology have shown a preference for cryptocurrencies (Beck et al., 2016). As a

result, an inquiry into factors that motivate individuals towards greater participation in personal

security through the adoption of blockchain-type technology illuminates privacy and security

research. Findings from this study provide additional data to researchers evaluating technology
 7

adoption behavior and the potential consequences of insufficient organizational privacy

practices.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative non-experimental cross-sectional study is to assess

factors influencing individual attitude towards blockchain applications when individuals perceive

threats to their privacy. As concern for privacy increases, the determinants that influence intent

towards secure technologies are likely to provide practitioners, businesses, and researchers with

improved visibility into individual choice (Kraus, Wechsung & Möller, 2017; Acquisti,

Brandimarte, & Loewenstein, 2015). While researchers have shown that the perception of

insecurity can evoke a protective response (Van Schaik et al., 2018), such insight does not

accurately predict protective behavior because salient psychological and privacy factors play a

role (Kraus et al., 2017). While there is scarce research on intent towards autonomous peer-to-

peer cloud technology; cloud technology adoption studies are abundant although those rarely

differentiate between organizational and personal attitudes, or the underlying factors unique to a

specific technology (Chen et al., 2016; Menard et al., 2014; Oliveira et al., 2014).

Empirical tests show that there is a significant connection between behavior and intent to

adopt technological initiatives (Ifinedo, 2014; King & Thatcher, 2014) but there is disagreement

on the influence of insecurity on protective response (Acquisti et al., 2015; Kraus et al., 2017;

Van Schaik et al., 2018). Hence, response to privacy threats may not follow established coping

responses resulting in a phenomenon known as the privacy paradox (Dienlin & Trepte, 2015). To

further illuminate this area of inquiry, the researcher evaluated subsets of measures that

influenced threat response, such as the need for privacy, need for autonomy and the influence of

technology and anonymity, on intention towards blockchain technology.

 8

The researcher explored individual behavior towards secure peer-to-peer technology such

as blockchain, in the context of personal autonomy and threats to privacy with theoretical

foundations pertinent to cloud technology (Senyo, Addae, & Boateng, 2018). Exploratory factor

analysis (EFA) is a reliable methodology used to explore relationships between various variables

and to formulate theories (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2017). The researcher leveraged theoretical

foundations such as PMT and TPB. PMT and TPB, in combination, have explained 70% of the

variance related to behavioral intention, in contrast with 45% and 60% of the variance, when

evaluated individually (Ifinedo, 2012). The researcher surveyed participants who were members

of a Facebook forum dedicated to Blockchain technology. Using published guidance on EFA, the

final sample size (n = 189) was considered sufficient for this study (Field, 2013; Tabachnick &

Fidell, 2014; Stevens, 2002).

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

Researchers exploring variables that influence technology and cloud adoption such as

convenience, perceived usefulness, and threat protection, do not agree on the relative

significance of the underlying decedent and antecedent variables (Chatterjee et al., 2015; Menard

et al. 2014; Sommestad et al., 2015). This inconsistency compels further exploration to uncover

the influence of variations in individual knowledge, trust, perception, and efficacy (Lai, 2017).

Inconsistent results arise when researchers explore variables that are antecedents of

organizational insecurity (Oliveira et al., 2014; Posey et al., 2015). Inconsistent results are also

evident in research on the insecure behavior of individuals within the organization (Huigang &

Yajiong, 2009; Zyskind et al., 2015). On the other hand, scarce research exists on individual

reaction to privacy threats caused by third parties and the influence of autonomy in adopting
 9

technology solutions. To further enhance available research, the researcher evaluated factors that

influence individual intention towards blockchain applications in response to threats to privacy.

The blockchain is a type of distributed ledger technology where data is continuously

encrypted and distributed across many participating nodes without personally identifiable

information. Much of the research on distributed ledger systems focused on Bitcoin (Zhong,

Clark, Hou, Zang, & Fitzgerald, 2014). Several qualities made blockchain a suitable underlying

technology for the cryptocurrency market, which has seen explosive growth (Coinbase, 2017).

The qualities of distributed ledger systems such as blockchain include anonymity, trust-free,

peer-to-peer, self-verifying, encrypted, and spread across participating nodes without the need to

identify participants using PCD (Kshetri, 2017; O'Leary, 2017).

Blockchain has gained worldwide attention and is currently perceived to be an

evolutionary step towards distributed, self-managing anonymous, and secure networks (Yli-

Huumo, Ko, Choi, Park, & Smolander, 2016). This adoption of blockchain is prevalent in

financial services, healthcare, supply chain, and some public agencies (Sullivan & Burger, 2017).

Researchers have advanced many theories to assess individual and organizational security

behavior including (a) the general deterrence theory, (b) rational choice theory, (c) accountability

theory, and (d) justice theories (Boss, Galletta, Lowry, Moody, & Polak, 2015). Recent models

commonly used by researchers in information security increasingly involved protection

motivation theory (Crossler & Belanger, 2014). In this study, the researcher explored the

behavioral response to privacy threats using PMT as a theoretical model because PMT is a

reliable model for threat appraisal and protective behaviors (Rogers, 1975). The researcher

incorporated factors derived from studies in information systems security research on technology
 10

adoption and personal security (Boss et al., 2015; Crossler & Bélanger, 2014; Menard et al.,

2014).

The threat appraisal and coping response constructs of PMT were particularly well suited

to inquiries on factors influencing individual behavior where there is a threat. The researcher

examined factors influencing attitude towards blockchain using variables for coping, threat

perception, autonomy, and technology appraisal. The theory of planned behavior (TPB)

constructs include attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms (Ajzen, 2011).

This study did not fully utilize the constructs of TPB for parsimony. Other theories are

applicable, as well. Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis (2003) integrated attributes from eight

technology adoption theories (TAM: Marangunić, & Granić, 2015) into a unified model known

as the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). The UTAUT model has

shown explanatory power in assessing performance expectancy, social influence, effort

expectancy and various facilitation conditions regarding behavioral intention towards technology

as well as the role of age, gender, and experience in moderating adoption (Venkatesh et al.,

2003). Anonymity also depends on autonomy (McBride, 2014) hence, autonomy is boosted

when one’s identity is replaced with cryptographic keys, such as those used as identifiers and

signers in blockchain transactions, although that requires substantial personal involvement and

skill (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016). Studies in cloud technology indicate user preference for

convenience and control over technology choices (Menard et al., 2014; Oliveira et al., 2014).

Exploring individual behavior towards a secure technology using a factor model

improves overall knowledge of security-risk behavior and technology adoption when the threat-

response pairs (PMT) are used as a template for behavior towards privacy threats (Menard et al.,
 11

2014). This study’s finding added to the body of knowledge on behavioral psychology and

adoption of secure peer-to-peer cloud technologies.

Nature of the Study

The use of empirical statistical methods to analyze survey data derived from real-world

organizations is a common methodology used in information systems and behavioral psychology

research (Sommestad et al., 2015). It often follows a conceptualization process involving a

theory, theoretical gaps, or a combination of theoretical models (Anderson et al., 2017; Shepherd

& Suddaby, 2017). This quantitative, non-experimental, cross-sectional research study sought to

identify key factors using data collection and analysis of observed effects if any, and

relationships between outcome variables where applicable. With factor analysis, mathematical

methods are used to simplify underlying relationships using observed patterns of correlation

among variables (Child, 1976). Research methods have their strengths and weakness. Hence, it is

often difficult to choose one method of analysis over another (Çokluk & Koçak, 2016). In

general, studies using open-ended questions and non-numeric data are qualitative, while

quantitative research follows a deductive approach, numeric scales, and close-ended questions.

In this study, the researcher empirically evaluated factors influencing individual behavioral intent

towards blockchain applications in the context of privacy, autonomy, technology, and threat

response.

This research follows findings by Menard, Gatlin, and Warkentin (2014), which assessed

individual preference towards cloud backup when there is a threat of data loss. Menard et al.

evaluated individual response to the fear of data loss using a factorial survey of college students

in the United States and found that threat severity, automaticity, and concurrency all had a

significant effect on intent to adopt cloud backup (Menard et al., 2014). Automaticity and
 12

concurrency had the most substantial effect on behavioral intent, although that could be

attributed to the fact that the participants were students whose preferences may be aligned by

their common challenges, such as the need to complete a project on time or study for an

examination. In addtion, a participant sample featuring a narrow age and experience gap may

impact the generalizability of the result. Also, the fact that college students may have a higher

exposure to cloud technology than the general population may contribute to the results. Other

weaknesses in the Menard et al. study included a lack of control for the differences between

cloud technologies and cloud security, as well as insufficient contrast between dissimilar cloud

technologies.

The researcher combined components of PMT and TPB to explore human behavior in the

context of threat response. Researchers have also combined PMT and TPB to improve the clarity

of analysis on the response towards security threats (Ifinedo, 2012). For example, a survey of

124 information systems professionals and managers in Canada using a combination of TPB and

PMT, found that attitude toward compliance, self-efficacy, subjective norms, response efficacy

and perceived vulnerability were significant indicators of compliance intentions while response

cost and perceived severity were not significant (Ifinedo, 2012). The lesser significance of

response cost and perceived severity (Ifinedo, 2012) was also associated with an individuals’

perceptions of the enabling role of technology in providing facilitating attributes (Chatterjee et

al., 2015). This study supported this finding. Researchers also found that unethical use of

information technology such as non-compliance with security directives is a complex

phenomenon characterized by peculiar non-linear relationships guided by beliefs, economic,

social and technological considerations (Chatterjee et al., 2015).

 13

Using technology adoption models (TAM) convenience and ease of use was found to be

significant determinants of technology adoption (Venkatesh et al., 2003). According to Alsaleh,

Alomar, and Alarifi (2017), threat appraisal is also very influential in technology choices. These

studies support earlier research findings based on PMT, showing that response efficacy, self-

efficacy, and social influence affect intention to adopt secure practices (Johnston & Warkentin,

2010). Hence there is an established relationship between fear response and technology adoption

(Alsaleh, Alomar & Alarifi, 2017; Menard et al., 2014; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Also, attitude

towards security compliance strongly correlates with intent to comply with directives (Bulgurcu,

Cavusoglu & Benbasat, 2010). The user’s attitude and self-control provide the underlying

mechanism for threat appraisal, even with neutralization (Siponen, Mahmood, & Pahnila, 2014).

Hence it was necessary to evaluate privacy concerns in the context of a reliably secure and easy-

to-use cloud technology alternative such as blockchain. Given the prevalence of data breaches

and the public disclosure of unauthorized confidential personal records, individuals are likely to

seek solutions with a stronger likelihood of maintaining privacy and anonymity such as

blockchain (Kendall et al., 2005).

The researcher assessed factors affecting intent towards blockchain technology using a

survey. Nominal behavioral intent was assessed using a multi-item scale (Ifinedo, 2012; Woon &

Kakanhalli, 2007). For the other constructs, the scales for autonomy were derived from a study

by Weinsten et al. (2012). The researcher adapted privacy scales from research by Smith,

Milberg, and Burke (1996). The technology facilitation constructs originated from a study by

Chatterjee et al. (2015). The scales for perceived severity, perceived vulnerability, and self-

efficacy were derived from a study by Ifinedo (2012) as well as from a study by Woon and

Kakanhalli (2007). The researcher used a 5-point Likert scale anchored from “strongly agree”
 14

with a score of 5 to “strongly disagree” with a score of 1 to measure these items. The researcher

implemented guidelines for minimizing common method variance (CMV), order effect, and

social desirability bias. In analyzing the general factors, the researcher used a cross-sectional

design which is common in social studies research (Bruch & Feinberg, 2017). A cross-sectional

study is a measure of attributes recorded at a point in time using inputs and outputs at the

individual level without retrospection (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). This design is applicable

because it captures an individual’s attitude towards emerging technology at a point in time.

Although participants were ungrouped, they were expected to have a knowledge of blockchain

and to participate in the “Blockchain Enthusiasts” forum on Facebook.

This research is in response to calls for research on technology adoption using multiple

theories on emerging technology (Oliveira et al., 2014). The researcher adapted methods from

previous research based on exploratory factor analysis (Chatterjee et al., 2015). The researcher

summarized survey data to reveal patterns and relationships that can be used to regroup variables

into limited clusters based on variance. The process of regrouping or factoring variables reveals

unique relationships and provides clarity on factors that influence individual attitude towards

blockchain applications. The common factor model also refers to causal and linear effects on

measured variables as effects indicator models. The rationale for using exploratory factor

analysis is explained in greater detail in the methodology section of this study. Understanding

common factors that influence the use of blockchain may improve knowledge of end-user

behavior towards privacy and autonomy and how it influences technology choices.

Research Questions

The generalized question for this study is: “What factors influence intent to adopt a peer-

to-peer cloud technology such as blockchain when there is a threat to privacy?” Individuals
 15

concerned about recent reports of data breaches at Facebook, Grindr, Yahoo, Equifax, Amazon,

and other cloud providers may be concerned about their privacy and providing personal data to

third parties (Chickowski, 2016). Unfortunately, sensitivities to threats and its relationship to

specific technology choices have not received much research attention. Hence, this quantitative

exploration evaluates factors affecting user adoption of blockchain technology when the risk to

privacy is significant. A quantitative study is necessary because correlations between variables

are measured (Osborne, 2015). Using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the researcher evaluated

intent towards blockchain-based data protection in the context of the following general

questions: privacy questions, technology questions, anonymity questions, self-efficacy questions,

perceived severity questions and perceived vulnerability questions (Osborne, 2015).

RQ1. To what extent does privacy concerns influence intent to place threatened data in a

blockchain application?

RQ2. To what extent does concern for technological factors influence intent to place

personal data in a blockchain application?

RQ3. To what extent does self-efficacy influence intent to place personal data in a

blockchain application?

RQ4. To what extent does perceived severity influence intent to place personal data in a

blockchain application?

RQ5. To what extent does perceived vulnerability influence intent to place personal data

in a blockchain application?

RQ6. To what extent does autonomy influence intent to place personal data in a

blockchain application?
 16

RQ7. To what extent does latent behavioral intent influence intent towards blockchain

application?

The researcher tested these research questions using the following eight hypotheses to

determine if these subsets of questions accounted for a large percentage of the variance on the

intention to use a blockchain application.

Hypotheses

H01. k=0 factors are needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications.

H02. k=1 factor is needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications.

H03. k=2 factors are needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications.

H04. k=3 factors are needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications.

H05. k=4 factors are needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications.

H06. k=5 factors are needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications.

H07. k=6 factors are needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications.

H08. k=7 factors are needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications.

Significance of the Study

Individuals often contend with the reality that personal records stored by various

organizations occasionally get stolen, released, or shared inappropriately. Unfortunately, for

many individuals, loss of privacy is a major concern and can lead to significant economic or

social harm (Young & Yung, 2017). The consequences of misappropriated personal data, such as

immigration information or sensitive health information, could be socially or economically

disastrous. For example, when an immigrant without valid residency authorization discloses their

location or place of work, they may be exposed to forcible deportation or loss of employment.

Individuals who have HIV may prefer to keep their health data private to avoid unpleasant social
 17

interactions or loss of health insurance. When organizations or other actors distribute sensitive

personal information without an individual’s consent, those events can lead to significant

personal harm (Parlapiano, 2018). As reports of data compromises continues unabated,

researchers in information systems have focused on various factors and processes required to

improve organizational resilience to data breaches and minimize wanton actions of non-

malicious actors, malicious activity, and ethical lapses (Liang & Xue, 2010; McAlynn, 2017;

Posey et al., 2015; Scott, 2015).

The healthcare sector has attracted a significant amount of attention from ransomware

hackers because it caters towards vulnerable clientele with sensitive data, and there is a tendency

towards operational silos and inconsistent security policies (Green, Albanese, Cafri, & Aarons,

2014). Unfortunately, healthcare administration requires centralized storage of sensitive data

about patients, which creates a rich trove of sensitive data for criminals. In the second quarter of

2017, ransomware criminals successfully attacked healthcare organizations in over 142 countries

(Hammill, 2017). Unsurprisingly, successful compromise of many healthcare organizations

created a bounty of stolen records that is widely available for sale on the Dark Web (Zetter,

2016). Hence, individuals sensitive to organizational insecurity are likely to avoid contact with

certain organizations. Therefore, it is important for organizations to understand the importance of

safeguarding sensitive data such as PCD (Feng et al., 2014; Tsai et al., 2016). The researcher

posits that fear of privacy and anonymity concerns may influence personal technology choices

towards blockchain applications. The emergence of powerful personal phones featuring

applications with encrypted peer-to-peer autonomous technology may hasten the arrival of

secure cloud computing. Data gathered from this research is useful to practitioners and

researchers interested in blockchain technology adoption.

 18

Definitions of Key Terms

Autonomy. Autonomy refers to the ability to function as autonomous persons capable of

deliberation regarding personal goals and having the mental capacity to self-direct. Autonomous

individuals have considered opinions and choices. McBride (2014) stated that threats to

individual autonomy undermine the social contract binding people together in the information

age and that it is a threat to human dignity. McBride conceptualized the autonomy, community,

transparency, identity, value, and emotion (ACTIVE) model to describe the autonomy of the

individual and the ethical ramifications of privacy and value to the customer or individual.

Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a digital currency based on blockchain technology. Bitcoin was

developed in 2009 by a programmer or a group of programmers known as Satoshi Nakamoto

(Nakamoto, 2009). While Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency, there are many other

cryptocurrencies in common use. These digital currencies often utilize peer-to-peer, encrypted,

and validated transactional systems. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have grown

exponentially in value, with a significant and rapidly increasing market value (Sontakke &

Ghaisas, 2017; Zyskind et al., 2015).

Blockchain. Bitcoin relies heavily on the blockchain, a public “ledger” of every

transaction that has ever taken place on that distributed network. With blockchain, there are no

third-party, centralized, or trusted authority. What is acceptable or what is not acceptable,

depends on the consensus of multiple distributed parties. User identities are often anonymous

with the unfortunate side-effect that online cyber-criminals often request illicit payment in

Bitcoin. Blockchain is known as a distributed ledger technology or a decentralized transaction-

based data management technology initially developed for the Bitcoin cryptocurrency. This

technology came into use in 2008 and has become popular because of attributes such as security,
 19

anonymity, robust data integrity, and decentralized transactions. It is immutable, transparent, and

redefines trust through trustworthy and transparent transactions (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016).

Distributed ledger systems such as blockchain are anonymous, trust-free, peer-to-peer, self-

verifying, encrypted, and share data among all participating nodes (Kshetri, 2017).

Cryptocurrency. A cryptocurrency is a digital currency based on blockchain technology.

An example of this type of currency is Bitcoin, which was developed in 2009 by a programmer

or programmers known as Satoshi Nakamoto (Nakamoto, 2009). There are many

cryptocurrencies in use, and they are primarily used as a peer-to-peer, encrypted and validated

worldwide digital currency, with a significant and rapidly increasing market value (Sontakke &

Ghaisas, 2017; Zyskind et al., 2015).

Digital Wallets. Digital wallets are the electronic applications used to safeguard

blockchain data, and private/public keys used as unique identifiers of digital assets. These

wallets are essential assets in public key infrastructure because an acquired private key can be

used to unlock and take ownership of all assets secured by that key (Neeraj, Iqbal, Misra, &

Rodrigues, 2015).

Internet of things (IoT). Internet of things refers to a myriad of technologies that are

used to perform communications on devices and appliances in common use. They mini or

embedded computers on household or commercial devices used to communicate through the

internet and local networks to other devices. IoT devices are present in transaction-based systems

in many industries and applications. Researchers are focused on exploring creative ways to

enhance their security and utility using blockchain (Beck et al., 2016).

Medrec. A notable application of the smart contract using Ethereum is the Medrec, a

blockchain based electronic health record platform developed at Massachusetts Institute of

 20

Technology (MIT: Azaria, Ekblaw, Vieira, & Lippman, 2016). Medrec utilizes the smart

contract facilities in the Ethereum blockchain to create a system that prioritizes patient agency

through a transparent and accessible view of medical history which replaces centralized

intermediaries with a distributed access and validation system using the blockchain (Azaria et al.,

2016).

Nodes. Blockchain technology relies on a community of public or private nodes

participating in a peer-to-peer network which features greater individual participation in the

security, access, and transfer of protected information (Schaub, Bazin, Hasan, & Brunie, 2016).

Phishing. Phishing is the standard method used by criminals to infiltrate an organization

using social engineering. Phishing is the collective term for various methods used to compel an

insider to unwittingly download and activate malicious code hidden on a website or email links.

The attacker uses social engineering, which relies on misinformation fake urgency or authority to

convince an insider to click on a malicious link or open a file that is used to launch malware. In

such cases, the attacker may disguise their identity in such a way that the user is led to believe

that they are required to engage in a particular action. Phishing is widespread and has increased

exponentially over the past few years (Wright & Marett, 2014).

Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). Blockchain’s distinguishing features are that

anonymous encrypted transactions occur between two parties without intermediaries. Private and

public keys, as well as cryptographic signatures, secure PKI transactions. Private keys are used

to cryptographically secure and identify the originators or owners of a transaction while public

keys are used to decrypt contents provided by an originator (Neeraj, Iqbal, Misra, & Rodrigues,

2015). Public key encryption is an underlying technology which has been a topic of considerable

interest among technologists.

 21

Personal Privacy. Personal privacy is a belief that information has personal and public

boundaries. As a result, individuals expect to have control over the processing and transferring of

personal information, interactions involving their personal information, and the availability of

such data (Dienlin & Trepte, 2015). Hence privacy concerns are multidimensional with incidents

that are not always dramatic and may not always receive widespread press coverage. In many

cases, unsuspecting actions fuel privacy threats such as social engineering, benign or non-

suspicious requests for access, surveys, and usual online association with friends and family.

Person-to-Person (P2P). Person-to-Person refers to a type of technology or cloud

application that connect individuals one-to-one without intermediaries or organizational control.

The first popular P2P application was Napster. Napster was used to share music among friends

and peers. Napster relied on a P2P platform, but it eventually collapsed because of violations of

copyright and becoming a target for regulators and litigation. Truer P2P platforms such as Tor

and Bitcoin are more resistant to disruption because individual participants are autonomous and

there is no centralized authority to disrupt (Emekter, Tu & Jirasakuldech, 2015, Guzman &

Jones, 2014).

Ransomware. A type of malware that digitally encrypts vital operational data in a

computer system and then demands a ransom payment, often in Bitcoins, for the decryption key

(Allen, 2017). Ransomware will be challenging to propagate on a decentralized blockchain

network.

Smart Contract. A smart contract turns a transaction between two or more people into a

running contract. Such contracts are intermediaries that facilitate the performance of a contract

between two parties without a trusted third party. With Ethereum, a specially designed virtual
 22

machine is used to run smart contracts on the blockchain, which often requires payment for

transactions that change the blockchain (Anoica & Levard, 2018).

Social Engineering. Social engineering refers to the use of deceptive techniques to

induce individuals into performing specific actions or disclosing confidential or personal

information often used for fraudulent purposes (Wright & Marett, 2014).

Tor. Tor stands for The Onion Router (Tor), an open-source web program designed to

protect an individual’s privacy and security by obfuscating internet traffic origins and foiling

surveillance or tracking. Originally developed for the U.S. Navy to protect government

communications, Tor is widely used to preserve online anonymity and is the preferred browser

for individuals with privacy sensitivity, including online criminals. Tor operates by encrypting

and bouncing communications randomly through multiple relay networks across the globe often

used by Web browsers, Internet relay chat (IRC) and instant messaging (Syverson, Tsudik, Reed,

& Landwehr, 2001).

Summary

Improving the security, management, and distribution of private data is an important

objective in research (Anderson et al., 2017). In this empirical study grounded in theory, the

researcher explored the threat to private data and coping behavior using protection motivation

theory (Rogers, 1975) and aspects of the TPB. The researcher utilized the exploratory factor

analysis (EFA) to uncover patterns through data exploration and prediction testing (Child, 1976).

Exploratory factor analysis involves a methodical discovery of the common factors and their

variables, which is necessary to uncover latent relationships within variables (Chatterjee et al.,

2015). Although physical and technological assets are essential in safeguarding vital data (Posey,

Roberts, Lowry, Bennett, & Courtney, 2013) the attitude and behavior of the end-user is also
 23

essential in understanding the challenges and opportunities in information systems security

(Bulgurcu et al., 2010; Siponen et al., 2014). Insecure insider behavior can threaten any

organization when individuals neutralize or ignore safeguards by assuming that responsibility

towards security is someone else’s task (Siponen et al., 2014).

Data breach events provide customers and end-users an incentive to contemplate other

options. In Gartner’s survey of enterprise cloud backup customers, they found that a majority of

users are uncomfortable with existing choices and are eager to explore alternatives (Russell,

Rinnen, & Rhame, 2017). When individuals are unhappy with data protection, they also seek a

secure option as is the case in the financial service industry where blockchain-based

cryptocurrencies are already transforming financial services (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016). The

miniaturization and personalization of computer technology is accelerating the adoption of

mobile devices, wearable computing, and internet-of-things (IoT: Parise, Guinan, & Kafka,

2016). With the advent of mobile computing, individuals are more familiar with personalized

technology and personalized applications which propel the boom in messaging applications and

social networks, but few studies have explored end-user attitude towards secure cloud

technology in response to organizational privacy failures.

Although much of the research on distributed ledger systems such as blockchain has been

focused on Bitcoin (Zhong et al., 2014) a trend that indicates the appeal of personalized and

anonymous transactions. The need for autonomy may popularize new types of cloud

applications. Hence, it is vital to understand the factors that motivate the trend towards

autonomy, anonymity, and privacy from a technical perspective. Much of the current research on

the blockchain is focused on enhancing the utility, flexibility, and security of platform with little

attention to the individual behavior associated with blockchain technology adoption (Giancaspro,
 24

2017; Xia et al., 2017). This research is an attempt to fill that gap in the social aspects of

blockchain adoption.
 25

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The security of cloud technology is often dependent on robust and secure platform

technology, although the platform is also susceptible to malice, negligence, or willful misconduct

by responsible parties (Oliveira et a., 2014). Cloud technologies are attractive as a hedge against

data loss with convenience and automaticity playing an important role (Menard et al., 2014).

Data protection is a necessary aspect of cloud technology adoption; the unique features of the

underlying platform rarely attract equal research attention. Often not explored is the availability

of secure options such as encrypted peer-to-peer cloud technology in the context of behavioral

psychology and cloud technology adoption. Blockchain technology, in this case, is an application

that features anonymity, encryption, verification, and reliability without reliance on third parties

or organizations. The blockchain is a type of distributed ledger technology where data is

continuously encrypted and distributed across many participating nodes without personally

identifiable information. Bitcoin is the primary focus of much research on distributed ledger

systems (Zhong, Clark, Hou, Zang, & Fitzgerald, 2014).

The problem the researcher addressed is the prevalence of data breaches and its impact on

individual technology choices. Studies have shown that there is a significant connection between

behavior and intent to adopt technological initiatives (Ifinedo, 2014; King & Thatcher, 2014) but

there are inconsistent findings on the influence of insecurity on protective response (Acquisti et

al., 2015; Kraus et al., 2017; Van Schaik et al., 2018). As a result, individual response to privacy

threats may not always mirror expected behavior, a phenomenon known as the privacy paradox

(Dienlin & Trepte, 2015). In exploring the relationship between threats to privacy and the

individual intent towards non-organizational alternatives such as blockchain, this study follows

earlier research which shows that individuals will take advantage of secure alternatives and will
 26

seek their self-interest when necessary (Kelley et al., 1989; Oliveira et al., 2014; Menard et al.,

2014). The researcher posits that an individual who believes that a blockchain application will be

trusted, autonomous, and have transactional integrity will react positively to a blockchain based

solution for insecurity. The researcher focused on factors that affect an individual’s intent

towards blockchain applications. With the emergence of technology such as blockchain, the

researcher sought unique patterns in behavior that underlie the decision to avoid traditional

methods and seek blockchain-based solutions. Blockchain can become a template for privacy-

enhancing applications and security (Cisco, 2016).

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

In introducing the protection motivation theory (PMT), Rogers (1975) emphasized the

importance of assessing the validity of fear response in the context of a clearly defined threat and

coping responses. This observation was supported by a review conducted by Sommestad et al.

(2015) which found that many studies in information technology did not utilize substantive

threats or sufficient coping responses in their analysis potentially leading to inconsistent results.

The complexity of research scenarios may also account for inconsistent results obtained from

studies that evaluate protective instincts (Chatterjee et al., 2015). In a survey of 124 information

systems professionals using relevant hypothesis and data analysis, researchers found that attitude

toward compliance, self-efficacy, subjective norms, response efficacy and perceived

vulnerability were significant indicators of compliance intentions, but response cost and

perceived severity were found to be less significant (Ifinedo, 2012). The reduced impact of

response cost and perceived severity (Ifinedo, 2012) is associated with an individuals’

perceptions of the enabling role of technology in providing facilitating attributes and has been

shown to affect behavioral control towards the use of technology (Chatterjee et al., 2015).
 27

Researchers also found that unethical use of information technology such as non-

compliance with security directives is a complex phenomenon characterized by non-linear

relationships which include beliefs, economic, social and technological considerations

(Chatterjee et al., 2015). Also, researchers have explored various variables that influence

technology and cloud adoption such as convenience, usefulness and threat protection but found

contrasting results on the level of significance between convenience variables and threat

appraisal variables (Chatterjee et al., 2015; Menard et al. 2014). In a study, researchers using 152

participants from a large University in the US and a vignette-based factorial study assessed

individual perceptions on the availability and convenience of a cloud backup solution and how

that plays a role in user’s preference for cloud backup. They found that the threat of data loss and

the convenience of cloud-based backup solutions affect a user’s intention to adopt the cloud as a

requisite backup utility (Menard et al., 2014). The study methods involved manipulating survey

responses using realistic vignettes to relate the independent variables, to gain experimental

control orthogonally. With EFA, all variables are independent until latent relationships prove

otherwise. The independent variable, behavioral intent, was measured on a multi-item scale

using constructs drawn from PMT to evaluate threat appraisal and coping responses. Menard et

al. found that users who experience the convenience of using a cloud-based backup, especially

when they perceive that threat of data loss is possible and potentially catastrophic, are more

willing to adopt cloud backup solutions (Menard et al., 2014).

Inconsistencies in the effect of PMT variables in related research is possibly due to

variations in the level of perceived technology efficacy, exclusion of significant variables,

differences in threat perception and individual preference (Chatterjee et al., 2015; Lai, 2017).

Authors have hinted that future studies will further improve the clarity of important questions by
 28

incorporating palpable threats and specific threat responses (Sommestad et al., 2015). In the

information technology research context, a threat response pair is evident when the response to

the threat of identity theft is to change and maintain strong passwords. When there is a threat of

data loss, the response is to perform backups more frequently. Similarly, when there is a threat of

malware, an acceptable response is to block network ports, deploy intrusion prevention tools, and

scan with anti-virus and anti-malware tools. The threat-response pair analogy with PMT is a

common model used by researchers to show a connection between threats and the associated

response in individual and organizational contexts (Menard et al. 2014; Johnston & Warkentin,

2010).

Adapting the threat response pair associated with PMT to analyze threats to privacy and

the need to protect personal data through technology based on blockchain technology is a

reasonable approach. Blockchain technology enables peer-to-peer data exchange without third-

party control, which provides individualized management of privacy without reliance on third

parties (Khan et al., 2016; Young & Yung, 2017). Under the threat of loss of privacy, previous

research shows that individuals will take advantage of secure alternatives and will seek their self-

interest (Kelley et al., 1989; Oliveira et al., 2014). In response to calls for studies on technology

adoption using specific technologies and multiple theoretical foundations (Oliveira et al., 2014;

Sommestad et al., 2015) the findings from this study adds to the literature on information

technology, behavioral psychology and technology adoption (Wang et al., 2016; Zyskind et al.,

2015).

Research and Documentation

Sources for this literature review included peer-reviewed scholarly journals, books,

dissertations retrieved through ProQuest, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, and Roadrunner, with a
 29

publication date no later than the past five years. The researcher performed searches using the

following terms; web data, cloud data, blockchain, blockchain and privacy, privacy, ransomware,

protection motivation theory, and technology adoption. Various combinations of these search

terms were also used on NCU’s Roadrunner to refine searches. Other sources of documents

include trade journals, news sites, and professional organizations. Roadrunner search for

scholarly full-text documents on cloud data published between 2013 and 2018 returned 602,689

articles, but when the search term included “blockchain,” the yield went down to 476 records

comprising 398 academic journals, 71 conference materials, six reviews, and two trade

publications. An NCU Roadrunner search on cloud data and healthcare yielded 49,385 records,

but when that search included the term “blockchain” it yielded 132 records. The literature review

below begins with an explanation of the chosen research methodology, followed by the

importance of threat appraisal and coping responses.

Technology Adoption in Reaction to Privacy Threats

The emergence of the internet accelerated local and global commerce, but it has also

created unexpected challenges to privacy and data security (Assadulah, & Onyefolahan, 2015).

The emergence of portable computing and interconnected networks have made it easier to walk

around with a computer in the pocket that can download authorized and unauthorized software,

access legitimate and illegitimate data, or be used to facilitate attacks on online entities using

various methods including viruses and malware (Andres & Asongu, 2013). Individuals have

different capabilities with computing technology; however, the enabling role of technology in

providing facilitating attributes for data exploitation is known to be associated with increased

behavioral control towards the use of technology (Chatterjee et al., 2015). Technology use and

individual behavior is an essential area in information systems research (Sommestad et al.,

 30

2015). Using technology adoption models (TAM), researchers have shown that convenience and

ease of use are determinants of technology adoption (Menard et al., 2014). Researchers have also

shown that threat appraisal is influential in technology adoption choices (Alsaleh et al., 2017;

Menard et al. 2014). Johnston and Warkentin (2010) found that response efficacy, self-efficacy,

and social influence affects individual adoption of secure technology practices. Other studies

corroborate these findings by suggesting that an individual’s self-control and motivation is the

underlying mechanism for threat appraisal as well as indifference or neutralization (Menard et

al., 2017, Siponen et al., 2014).

Venkatesh et al. (2003) integrated attributes from eight technology adoption theories

(TAM: Marangunić, & Granić, 2015) into a unified model known as the unified theory of

acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). The UTAUT model shows reliable explanatory

power in assessing performance expectancy, social influence, effort expectancy and various

facilitation conditions regarding behavioral intention towards technology adoption, as well as the

vital role of age, gender, and experience in moderating attitude towards technology adoption

(Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003). Unfortunately, few studies have explored individual

intent regarding secure technology in the context of autonomy and peer-to-peer cloud technology

(Menard et al., 2014). Researchers agree that the paucity of research in cloud technology

adoption is due to the technology’s infancy (Oliveira et al., 2014); this is even more applicable to

blockchain technology because it is less mature (Woodside et al., 2017).

Using transaction cost economics theory (TCE), researchers analyzed individual behavior

towards technology and found that opportunity and individual self-interest also affect attitude

towards technology (Chickowski, 2016; Kelley et al., 1989; Rindfleisch & Heide, 1997). Self-

interest was found to play a significant role in behavioral models incorporating TPB constructs.
 31

TPB is a theoretical foundation used to analyze attitude and intentions and how it correlates with

behavior, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms (Ajzen, 2011). Researchers found

that attitude is a good indicator of intent, especially in the context of compliance with security

policies or mandates (Ifinedo, 2012). When people are afraid, they exhibit a complex appraisal

and coping behavior, which has been widely modeled using PMT and TPB. Drawing from these

findings, individuals that have a positive response to a variety of threat appraisal and coping

constructs also respond affirmatively to antecedents constructs such as habit, automaticity,

convenience and social norms (Ifinedo, 2014, Menard et al., 2014; Vance, Siponen, & Pahnila,

2012). As a result, the researcher posits that when an individual perceives significant threats to

privacy or sensitive personal records due to data breaches or other unexpected events they will

be receptive towards new technology that provides personal security and autonomy (Zyskind et

al., 2015).

Exploratory Factor Analysis

To understand latent factors influencing individual attitude and perception towards secure

peer-to-peer technology it is important to acknowledge the prevalence of public announcements

regarding data breaches and privacy violations at many organizations and the surging popularity

of blockchain technology or cryptocurrency (Marmonov & Benbunan-Fich, 2018). The question

arising from the exploration of these perceptions is whether there are different subsets of

measures that represent individual attitude towards blockchain or if there are no distinct

constructs. EFA can be used to gain better insight into these relationships by exploring

correlations among various measures, often referred to as common factors using shared variance

(Fabrigar & Wegener, 2017). Originating from the pioneering work of Spearman in the early

1900s, through his study on human ability and the Two-Factor Theory (Fabrigar & Wegener,
 32

2017) EFA is now one of the most commonly used quantitative methods applied in the social

sciences to develop theories and mathematical models (Fuller, Simmering, Atinc, Atinc, Babin,

2016).

EFA is often used to summarize the relationships and patterns in research data to isolate

constructs and concepts so that they can be grouped based on shared variance (Fuller et al.,

2016). EFA may also involve the use of simulated data using known answers to test concepts and

factors (Child, 1976). The two primary techniques of factor analysis are EFA and confirmatory

factor analysis (CFA). CFA is used to confirm hypotheses with variables and factors represented

using path analysis and diagrams. On the other hand, EFA is often used to discover patterns or to

develop a theory by exploring the data and testing predictions (Child, 1976). A core purpose of

EFA is the development of a new theory (Stebbins, 2001).

An exploratory design, often a deductive approach is necessary when a researcher intends

to generate new ideas and to create or refine a model (Auspurg & Hinz, 2015; Stebbins, 2001). In

this study, the researcher chose a post-positivist worldview, often known as the scientific method

or traditional form of research (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Worldviews, also known as

paradigms, are often used to define what is possible or impossible, and the accepted beliefs and

agreements shared by researchers (Rogoff, 2016; Lub, 2015). A paradigm shift is a significant

change in approach to a scientific or social issue (Kuhn, 2012). Paradigms can also refer to the

distinction between research models such as positivist, experimental and traditional or

constructivist, naturalistic, interpretive and post-positivist which are widely shared by many

researchers (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Paradigms can be used to represent a shared belief or

approach, or a change in a belief, based on a framework intended to guide research. In this

research, the post-positivist method is necessary since the researcher is exploring effects and
 33

outcomes. For example, the loss of privacy due to organizational ethics may likely to lead to

individual motivation to assume personal responsibility for private transactions.

In this study, the researcher contributes to knowledge through the advancement and

constant development of existing ideas using theory development. Theory development is key to

the advancement of science. It is a process used to address the “how, where, what, why” of

events and phenomena which allows us to make sense out of chaos (Van Lange, 2013). In

information systems (IS) studies, theory development often occurs through the extension or

reformulation of existing theories, some of which come from criminology and psychology

(Chatterjee & Valacich, 2015; Siponen & Vance, 2010). For example, in an analysis of 143

articles published in Information Systems Research and MIS Quarterly, researchers found that 70

percent of publications used theories adapted from other disciplines (Grover & Lyytinen, 2015).

The use of empirical statistical methods to analyze survey data derived from real-world

organizations is a common method in information systems security research (Sommestad et al.,

2015). The empirical statistical method starts with a conceptualization stage where researchers

evaluate a theory, theoretical gaps, or a combination of theoretical models (Creswell & Creswell,

2017; Shepherd & Suddaby, 2017). Information systems researchers also use case studies;

however, some of the benefits of case studies can be realized using simulations and vignettes

(Jasso, 2006). A pragmatist worldview was not appropriate for this study because it is

traditionally more suitable for a mixed-methods study where a qualitative step often precedes a

confirmatory quantitative step (Çokluk & Koçak, 2016). Pragmatists create opportunities for

triangulation of data and provide a template for multiple base theories (Shepherd & Suddaby,

2017). Unfortunately, a pragmatist approach will require considerably more time to complete the

study because of the rigor consistent with a confirmatory quantitative research stage (Creswell &
 34

Creswell, 2017). The use of empirical statistical methods to analyze survey data derived from

employees of real organizations is a standard method used in ISS research studies (Ifinedo, 2014,

Siponen et al., 2014). The empirical analysis follows a conceptualization stage where researchers

evaluate a theory, theoretical gaps, or a combination of theoretical models (Creswell & Creswell,

2017; Shepherd & Suddaby, 2017).

Vignettes and simulation are particularly common in information systems security

research because workers are often hesitant to reveal sensitive company information in surveys

thereby compelling researchers to pose questions in a hypothetical sense, which approximates

responses from real-world scenarios (Stebbins, 2001; Jasso, 2006). Many studies that explore

sensitive behavior use simulations of actual conditions or vignettes (Ifinedo, 2012; Chatterjee et

al., 2015; Menard et al., 2014). With vignettes, it is possible to manipulate some of the variables

during the survey (Menard et al., 2014). A weakness of stimulations or vignettes is that

participants must be familiar with the subject, which is not always guaranteed and often

compromises internal validity (Auspurg & Hinz, 2015).

Exploring variables that influence technology, security and adoption often require using

participants that can understand the questions in the survey (Chatterjee et al., 2015; Menard et al.

2014; Sommestad et al., 2015). When participants are unable to comprehend the technology,

their responses may not be valid. For example, researchers exploring the relative significance of

variables related to convenience, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and threat

protection found significant contrasts with earlier studies (Chatterjee et al., 2015; Menard et al.

2014; Sommestad et al., 2015). This inconsistency may arise from variations in knowledge, trust,

efficacy, errors of exclusion of influential variables (Lai, 2017). Such inconsistency is also

evident in research focused on antecedents of organizational insecurity (Oliveira et al., 2014,

 35

Posey et al., 2015) and the behavior of the individuals within the organization (Huigang &

Yajiong, 2009, Zyskind et al., 2015). To further improve the clarity of results, it is necessary to

confirm existing findings and to explore unknown relationships. In this study, the researcher

explored variables that affect individual attitude towards blockchain technologies.

Privacy Threat and Response

NIST publication SP 800-122, defines PII as information about an individual stored or

maintained by an entity which can be used to identify an individual’s race, name, social security

number, location or date of birth. PII includes biometric, financial, educational, and employment

information that pertains to an individual (McCallister, Grance, & Scarfone, 2010). Health

records such as patient identification information, laboratory results and diagnostic information

are known as protected health information (PHI) under Section 1171, Part C Subtitle F of the

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA; Boyce, 2017). The

acquisition and storage of PII and PHI usually motivate organizational investments in perimeter

defenses, intrusion detection, patching, virus removal, malware removal, security education,

security training, and security awareness (SETA) programs, although commitments vary

(Joskow, 2002). Individual perception of a risk to an individual’s PHI or PII will evoke a

corresponding protective response (van Schaik et al., 2018). The foundational principle of PMT

as proposed by Rogers (1975) relies on three dimensions; the strength of a threatening event, the

chance it might occur and the ability of the individual to mitigate its effect.

Derived from the cognitive-processing theories and expectancy-value theories, PMT was

developed to clarify fear appeals and is a reliable explanatory theory for predicting an

individual’s behavioral intention towards protective responses (Anderson & Agarwal, 2010). The

theory originated from expectancy-value theories and their relation to fear response and
 36

protective behavior, especially the influence of risk factors on risk-adaptive behavior. In Rogers

(1975) model, fear response incorporates the effect of fear appeals and attitude change and how

those relate to the perception of a noxious event and a potential course of action. In support of

these assertions, researchers found that individuals concerned about threats to personal data will

seek cloud technology alternatives (Menard et al. 2014). Of course, this assumes an individual in

control of their assets, which is not always the case. In many instances, an individual’s private

data is under the control of an organization, and there is little they can do to enforce ethical use

of their data beyond legal action or agitation. Recent technologies such as blockchain introduce a

cloud technology option based on anonymity and reliability with little dependence on laws and

regulations such as the GDPR (2016). Although PMT was developed to model individual

protective behavior under some threat (Rogers, 1975), it was later extended into the healthcare

domain to incorporate threats from serious ailments such as cancer (Maddux & Rogers, 1983).

Researchers have demonstrated that PMT could explain a variety of intentions related to

behavior in the information security domain (Crossler et al., 2014; Ifinedo, 2012; Teodor et al.,

2015). However, several inconsistencies have shown that the accuracy of the theory often

depends on the type of behavior under analysis. Initially developed to assess how fear appeals

influence voluntary behavioral related to the health threats, PMT is now used in the information

security domain where several studies have investigated variables related to security policy

compliance and other mandatory behaviors (Boss et al., 2015; Chatterjee et al., 2015). Although

PMT was developed to explore cognitive behavior related to specific threats and coping

methods, in information security it is often applied to behaviors that are relatively abstract such

as conformance to information security policies (Ifinedo, 2012).

 37

Ifinedo (2012) surveyed security professionals in Canada using constructs derived from

the protection motivation theory and theory of planned behavior and found substantial support

for the influence of most of the PMT variables except response cost. Menard et al. (2014)

surveyed 152 participants drawn from a large southeastern University in the US to assess how

the threat of data loss and the convenience of a cloud-based backup solution affect’s a user’s

intention to adopt the cloud for backup and found support for several PMT constructs although

those were less influential than convenience variables. Menard et al. used a factorial survey with

vignettes to collect data from participants, and orthogonally manipulated the independent

variable for greater experimental control. In their study, the dependent variable was behavioral

intent measured on a reflective scale, in contrast with the binary choices that characterize the

vignette. Menard et al. evaluated the influence of availability and convenience of a cloud backup

on a user’s preference for cloud backup using PMT.

The PMT variables were particularly useful in analyzing the selection of a cloud backup

due to the potential loss of precious data (Menard et al., 2014). The instinct to preserve what we

value is a foundational principle of PMT, and it translates very well to an instinct to preserve

vital records threatened by inadequate backup or inadequate privacy; using threat susceptibility

as the degree to which individuals feel vulnerable to a threatening event (Johnston & Warkentin,

2010). Threat susceptibility is the level of fear an individual may experience when they learn

about a terrible diagnosis or have a sensitive personal matter exposed on the internet. For

example, exposing the workplace of an undocumented immigrant may lead to deportation

proceedings. The fear of deportation or fear of social stigma caused by unwanted public

knowledge of embarrassing health information may compel individuals to adopt blockchain-type

applications for personal use.

 38

Menard et al. (2014) found that users who experience the convenience of a cloud-based

backup, especially when they perceive that data loss is potentially catastrophic, are more willing

to adopt a cloud backup solution. Similarly, the researcher theorizes that when users perceive a

threat to their privacy, they are likely to seek solutions that provide greater security and

autonomy, such as blockchain technology. PMT has also been used to analyze individual

behavior related to personal protection, even in the context of complex behaviors required to

secure a computing asset. Crossler and Belanger (2014) developed a unified security practices

instrument based on PMT using literature reviews, pilot tests, focus groups, and field interviews

involving undergraduate students and doctoral students. Crossler and Belanger (2014) found that

inconsistencies in the results obtained from PMT studies may be related to measurement error,

for example, PMT variables are appropriately influential during threat appraisal and coping

appraisal, however, the relevance of these constructs become less meaningful after individuals

conceive an appropriate response and begin to change their behavior.

Also, PMT-based studies often focus on mandatory adherence to security policies and

various challenges organizations face in ensuring end-user compliance with established policies,

even though more consistent results arise from voluntary scenarios (Abraham, 2012; Chen,

Ramamurthy, & Wen, 2012; Pfleeger, Sasse, & Furnham, 2014; Vance, Lowry, & Eggett, 2013).

PMT has been found to have better explanatory power for individual voluntary actions when

applied to various scenarios, but most studies in ISS use PMT to assess behavior in mandatory

circumstances (Teodor et al., 2015). In order to improve PMT-based studies, it is necessary to

evaluate individual attitude towards personal security, when the behavior is voluntary (Teodor et

al., 2015). Blockchain technology benefits from voluntary and autonomous individual action,

and researchers have shown that autonomy improves the tendency to engage in voluntary actions
 39

(Nunez & Leon, 2015). PMT is a valid theory for this research study because it is effective for

voluntary rather than mandatory choices (Sommestad et al., 2015). A common conclusion in

information security behavioral studies is that individual attitude is a good indicator of intent

(Vance et al., 2013; Ifinedo, 2012; Ifinedo, 2014). Hence, behavioral intent is often used to

assess the intent towards asset-protection in the context of inclination to conform with

organizational security mandates (Ifinedo, 2014; Nguyen, Yunshi, Ping-Fu, & Sheng-Hung,

2014).

Other theories are commonly used to explore individual behavior, they are (a) the general

deterrence theory, (b) rational choice theory, (c) accountability theory, and (d) justice theories

(Boss et al., 2015). Recently, researchers in ISS have increasingly made the shift towards

behavior models such as PMT (Crossler & Belanger, 2014). Using PMT as the theoretical basis

for a fear response study is a logical choice. In concert with other studies in ISS, the researcher

assessed intent along with autonomy and privacy concerns with constructs derived from PMT

(Boss et al., 2015; Crossler & Bélanger, 2014; Menard et al., 2014).

The coping appraisal constructs of PMT include self-efficacy, response efficacy, and

response cost. Self-efficacy (SE) is also an essential construct in social cognitive theory and TPB

(Bandura, 1991). SE is known as a positive self-evaluation construct used to assess self-

confidence and belief in one’ ability to engage, perform, and discharge a duty satisfactorily (Ozer

& Bandura, 1990). Individuals with a high level of self-efficacy form stronger convictions about

their ability to engage successfully in an action (Harun, 2017). Self-efficacy provides the

underlying motivation to persist in an effort required to cope with a challenge (Bandura, 1991).

Response efficacy construct represents an individual’s perception of the effectiveness of the

coping response, while the response cost construct refers to the perceived cost or benefit
 40

obtained from performing the coping response. Response cost is evident when a situation

involves tradeoffs with time, money, and effort. In IS security research, PMT is valuable due to

its explicit threat and response pairs which may have contributed to its extensive application in

IS research

Other theories are often used in ISS studies to evaluate technology adoption intention.

The technology threat avoidance theory (TTAT) seeks to fill a gap in the technology adoption

theories by incorporating threat and emotional response (Huigang & Yajiong, 2009). The TTAT

proposes that threat avoidance and threat adoption are qualitatively different and contends that

threat avoidance theories are a necessary complement to the robust but arguably incomplete

technology adoption theories (Huigang & Yajiong, 2009). The technology threat avoidance

theory (TTAT) is meant to fill a gap in the technology adoption theories by adding threat and

emotional response (Huigang & Yajiong, 2009). The TTAT welds PMT and cybernetic theory

into a model that includes emotional and environmental cues to protection motivation. Emotion

is a valid concern in protection motivation, especially when there is palpable threat such as

cancer. However, many IS studies using PMT do not incorporate substantial personal threats

(Ifindedo, 2012; Sommestad et al., 2015).

Information security researchers often explore adherence to security policies, and the

various challenges organizations face in ensuring end-user compliance with mandates (Ifinedo,

2014; Pfleeger, Sasse, & Furnham, 2014; Vance, Lowry, & Eggett, 2013). These studies analyze

organizational initiatives that influence behavior (Chen et al., 2012) or emphasize the importance

of exploring the secure behavior of individuals (Menard et al., 2014). In both cases, individual

attitude to personal security is often reflected in attitude towards asset protection in the
 41

workplace (Nguyen et al., 2014). Hence, intention towards an activity is often a good indicator of

likelihood to perform the activity (Ifinedo, 2014).

Individual Intent

Researchers often rely on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) which originated from

the theory of reasoned action (TRA) to model actual behavior involving attitude and intention to

carry out an objective (Ajzen, 2011; Leonard, Cronan, & Kreie, 2004). Ifinedo (2012) found a

consistent correlation between attitude towards information security compliance and intent to

adopt mandated policies. Ajzen (2011) also found that the degree of favorableness felt about an

event influences attitude towards it. TPB has been widely studied and found to be reasonably

sound in various settings and domains (Armitage & Conner, 2001). Hence, TPB is a dependable

theoretical framework for predicting human intentions and behavior. TPB is not a normative or

judgmental theory; it only explains why an individual engages in behavior such as intent to adopt

new technology. In the context of this study, behavioral intent is an indicator of interest in

blockchain technology. In general, theories used in ISS research fall into three categories: (a)

conceptual principles with no underlying theory or empirical evidence, (b) theoretical models

with no empirical evidence; and (c) empirical work grounded in theory (Siponen et al., 2014). In

this empirical study grounded in theory, the researcher assessed threat appraisal and coping

behavior in relation to intent (Rogers, 1975), using attributes drawn from TPB (Ajzen, 2011;

Kelley et al., 1989).

Individual Relatedness

Relatedness refers to an individual’s perception of the legitimacy of a threatening event

(Zhao, Detlor, & Connelly, 2016). In order to cope appropriately with a threatening event,

individuals have to feel sufficiently vulnerable or perceive the threat to be sufficiently

 42

threatening to evoke an incentive to counteract the threat (Crossler et al., 2014). Relatedness, in

term of self-determination theory, refers to an individual’s emotional connection or perceived

vulnerability to threats such as loss of sensitive, confidential data (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Relatedness expressed as threat vulnerability and threat susceptibility is an important concept in

protection motivation theory (Rogers, 1975). Although protection motivation theory is a good

fear response model, researchers in information systems security and information technology

(IT) who used the PMT theoretical model often produce inconsistent and contradictory results

possibly due to threats in IT varying quite widely (Sommestad et al., 2014). Relatedness, as a

measure of an individual’s perception of privacy risk, is directly related to the level of concern

shown by the individual as well (Assadulah, & Onyefolahan, 2015). To clarify observations and

enhance understanding of underlying relationships, researchers exploring individual behavior

integrate the protection motivation theory with other behavioral theories to clarify results

(Ifinedo, 2012; Menard, Bott & Crossler, 2017).

Using PMT, in this case, is logical because the motivation to engage in a protective

activity is related to self-determination. The self-determination theory (SDT) is used to assess

individual extrinsic and intrinsic motivation or a lack of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In

intrinsic motivation, an individual acts for the personal pleasure and rewards derived from that

activity (Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT conceptualizes that intrinsic satisfaction arises from

achieving privacy objective, although extrinsic factors influence the incentive to protect. Ryan

and Deci (2000) introduced SDT by identifying discrete types of extrinsic motivation, featuring

levels of self-determination and autonomy and categorizing extrinsic motivation by the degree to

which an individual’s motivation is under control of an external entity or concern (Zhao, Detlor,

& Connelly, 2016).

 43

SDT theorizes that perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness influences

motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In the context of SDT, autonomy refers to an individual’s

perception of their willingness to engage in an activity while competence refers to an

individual’s perception of how he or she can interact with their surroundings in order to produce

the desired outcome or prevent undesirable outcomes. Relatedness refers to an individual’s

perception of connectedness with various circumstances (Zhao, Detlor, & Connelly, 2016). For

example, an individual may perceive a high level of autonomy, competence, and relatedness

when they have the freedom to conduct their daily affairs confident in their ability to achieve

their personal goals without compromising their privacy.

Researchers have also explored how autonomy influences intrinsic motivation,

internalization, attachment, and emotional integration, as well as the conditions in the social

context that support motivational and emotional bases of behavior (Ryan, Deci, Grolnick, & La

Guardia, 2015). Menard et al. (2017) evaluated PMT within the domain of information security

using fear appeals by applying a novel adaptation of SDT with self-determined appeals. Menard

et al. (2017) developed an alternate form of security appeals through language that incorporates

end users’ autonomy, competence, and relatedness with the desire to protect information and

intention to perform a remediation action. Menard et al. also demonstrated that using individual-

focused appeals and appropriate choices, individuals have an elevated intention to engage in a

secure behavior. From a technological perspective, individuals have been shown to seek

technologies that empower their autonomy and minimizes the consequences of mistakes such as

those that may expose criminal action (Woodside, Augustine, & Gilberson, 2017). Hence, it is

not surprising that a proportion of early adopters of blockchain-based Bitcoin cryptocurrency

 44

were unsavory characters with a significant sensitivity to privacy who seek proceeds from

malware and ransomware incidents (Woodside et al., 2017).

Threats to Privacy

Personal privacy is an assumption that information has personal and public boundaries.

The definition of privacy as non-intrusion or “being left alone” is based on a non-spatial

approach to privacy (Tavani, 2007). Individuals could view privacy threats as amorphous and

pervasive. Such indignance may leave individuals susceptible to manipulation because of the

uncertainty about individual control and the consequences of privacy-related behaviors, and lack

of understanding of the degree to which privacy concerns is abused by commercial and

governmental interests (Acquisti, Brandimarte, & Loewenstein, 2015). Researchers found that

the abuse opportunity structure of the organization also facilitates abuse of privacy (Kim, Park,

& Baskerville, 2016). When an organization is successful in manipulating user attitudes, then

they are more likely to take advantage of such manipulation. Using survey data obtained from

205 working professionals, Kim, Park, and Baskerville (2016) found that organizational and

individual factors (emotions and morality) affect computer abuse intention. Kim et al. used the

emotion process model as a building block in understanding computer abuse intentions in

organizational settings and found that both cognitive (goal-conduciveness) and emotional (abuse-

positive affect) factors are involved in activating the abuse intent of potential abusers and that an

organizational context also influences this intent.

Privacy has evolved from the spatial to information security in the internet age, although

both bear similarities (Preibusch, Peetz, Acar, & Berendt, 2016). The similarities include an

emphasis on access control and the regulation of privacy events at the individual or group level.

Tavani (2007) distinguished between descriptive and normative theories of privacy and
 45

evaluated the differences related to the restrictiveness and limits of privacy theories. While

normative theories are rights-based, stressing the importance of exclusive zones, descriptive

privacy theories incorporate the inherent adaptability of privacy and how privacy can be

diminished or lost (Tavani, 2007). While both approaches to privacy are related, they may be

difficult to unify as a common approach to privacy. Researchers have subsequently integrated

various aspects of privacy concerns and developed several instruments to measure individual

privacy concerns (Buchanan, Paine, Joinson, & Reips, 2007; Smith et al. 1996).

In the internet age, privacy concern is often related to an individual’s expectation of

control over the processing and transferring of personal information as well as interactions

involving their personal information and the availability of data (Dienlin & Trepte, 2015).

Private records are confidential records which may be protected by existing legal statutes

(Dienlin & Trepte, 2015). Health, civic, and financial data are also considered confidential data

in this study. Health data include documented data on individual illnesses, medical prescription,

medical history, sexual orientation, and genetic information. Civic data includes voting records,

citizenship data, tax data, religious, employment, and cultural affiliation data. Financial data

often refers to bank records, transfers, investments, and other financial obligations or assets.

Privacy concerns regarding confidential records are multidimensional and should be analyzed

comprehensively (Dienlin & Trepte, 2015). Confidential data also include any non-public

personal information that when accessed, stolen or acquired by a criminal, may subject the owner

to some harm. While privacy and data breach incidents are not always publicly known and may

not always receive widespread press coverage, they facilitate further criminal activity such as

phishing and ransomware attacks (Richardson, & North, 2017). Other threats to confidential data

may arise from unethical actions originating as benign or non-suspicious requests for surveys
 46

and research or through discreet monitoring (Chatterjee et al., 2015). Stolen data may not come

from one source; it may be consolidated from multiple sources. When disparate data are

integrated into a collection, it can be analyzed and mined to reveal intimate details about a

subject, such as their political preference, social preferences or even latent emotion (Acquisti,

Brandimarte, & Loewenstein, 2015).

An unscrupulous actor may also use sensitive private information to manipulate emotions

through creative and targeted messaging designed to inflame passions. According to public

reports, Cambridge Analytica used emotion analysis data to place a manipulative advertisement

on Facebook to influence elections in various countries. Later, unfavorable news coverage forced

Facebook to expel Cambridge Analytica from their platform (Meredith, 2018). Facebook is not

alone in this practice; other organizations use personal records to improve their bottom line and

often engage in analytics to increase the monetary value of such data (Acquisti, Brandimarte, &

Loewenstein, 2015). When data is consolidated and stored in an optimized manner, advanced

analytics can enhance the value of the data and make it attractive to buyers and criminals

(Goldberg, 2013). Unfortunately, excessive data accumulation and storage is an attractive target

for criminals who thrive on the commercial value of such information and how much the owners

are willing to pay to keep it safe. The presence of valuable personal data may also provide

business opportunities for unscrupulous executives and partners who may wantonly monetize or

misuse such data (Goldberg, 2013). For example, excessive data collection allowed Facebook to

provide data subscription services to third parties such as Cambridge Analytica which led to

embarrassing revelations. Facebook was only forced to act due to the reports from The New

York Times and The Guardian newspapers initiated by Christopher Wylie, a whistle-blower,

who previously worked at Cambridge Analytica (Meredith, 2018). According to these reports,
 47

data obtained from Facebook was used to perform modeling involving analysis of social

connections and preferences which was then used to create a rich map of political leanings and

individual susceptibility to emotional cues delivered through targeted advertisements. The result

of this analysis was to manipulate intent and social norms in order to alter behavior. In another

report, a Norwegian research team discovered that the Grindr secretly shared subscriber records

that included sensitive records such as the HIV status of individuals with an external marketing

firm for profit (Lomas, 2018).

When organizations misuse personal data and threaten individual privacy, they expose

victims to potential harm including phishing attacks, a stolen identity, unsavory social

consequences, or financial ruin (Ludwig, vanLaer, Ruyter, & Friedman, 2016). Improving the

security, management, and distribution of private data is an important objective in research

(Anderson, Baskerville, & Kaul, 2017). According to Mason (1986), the threat to privacy can be

insidious and may spread over time while also being hard to comprehend. Privacy lost through

incremental exposure, collection of attributes with logical links is useful in developing detailed

personality profiles (Meredith, 2018). As individuals endure persistent threats to private and

personal data, the determinants that influence individual behavior towards adopting technologies

that minimize exposure to insecure organizational practices may help researchers evaluate the

potential ramifications of persistent breaches and misuse of data. Understanding individual

preferences for personal security is necessary because individual behavior is related to attitude

towards security, and also has a significant effect on privacy, insecurity, data loss and cyber-

attacks (Chatterjee et al., 2015).

Privacy scholars acknowledge a privacy-paradox; a phenomenon where online security

concerns do not necessarily equate to secure behavior. Researchers have shown that privacy-
 48

paradox is less significant when privacy intentions and privacy attitudes mediate secure behavior

(Dienlin & Trepte, 2015). While individuals may not always utilize the security features in every

product, they are still likely to react negatively to lapses in organizational security when it

impacts them (Dienlin & Trepte, 2015). Similarly, individuals impacted adversely by an event

will engage in an appraisal and coping response that can be modeled with PMT (Rogers, 1975).

Exploring individual attitude towards emerging peer-to-peer cloud technology, when used as a

coping response to data threats, can add to the body of knowledge in ISS on cloud security, peer-

to-peer computing and technology adoption (Schaub, Bazin, Hasan, & Brunie, 2016; Zyskind,

Nathan, & Pentland, 2015). Thus, it is necessary to explore the attitude and perception of

individuals towards privacy in the context of a secure peer-to-peer (P2P) technology such as

blockchain and how it affects individual decisions. The question arising from the exploration of

these perceptions is whether there are different subsets of measures that represent individual

threat response and how this relates to a coping response based on the adoption of P2P

technology or if there are no distinct constructs. EFA can also be used to gain insight into

complex relationships by evaluating correlations among various measures, often referred to as

common factors (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2017).

Individual Autonomy

Peer-to-peer technology assumes some element of self-control which relies on autonomy.

To understand autonomy, it is necessary to evaluate the philosophical theories of ethics, broadly

classified into consequentialist, utilitarian, and deontological school views (Mason, 1986).

McBride (2014) proposed another view known as virtue ethics. In the information systems

domain, virtue ethics is an extension of the privacy, accuracy, property, and accessibility (PAPA)

model (initially proposed by Mason in 1986). Mason used PAPA to illustrate the ethical issues
 49

that plague individuals in the modern technology age such as the concern for intellectual capital

especially when there may be loss of confidential information without compensation (McBride,

2014). PAPA also refers to circumstances where individuals are unable to access vital

information or when private information is unexpectedly revealed; as well as when sensitive

personal information is misused or corrupted (McBride, 2014). McBride (2014) observed that

personal privacy threats undermine the social contract binding people together in the information

age and that it is a threat to human dignity. McBride also conceptualized the autonomy,

community, transparency, identity, value, and emotion (ACTIVE) model used to describe the

autonomy of the individual and the ethical ramifications of privacy to the customer or individual.

Smith et al. (1996) developed and validated an instrument which measures the

dimensions of user concerns regarding organizational information privacy practices, using data

gathered from employees in banking, insurance, and credit card processing. Using a 15-item

instrument with four sub-scales which includes concerns about the collection of personal

information, errors in personal information, internal unauthorized secondary use of private

information and improper access to private information; they enumerated the depth of concern

for these privacy concerns and then evaluated the dimension of individual concerns regarding

these scenarios. Using multiple stages of analysis, Smith et al. (1996) validated survey responses

while improving the accuracy and appropriateness of survey content and incorporating a

preliminary assessment for refinement using exploratory methods. Smith et al. (1996) noted the

multi-dimensional nature of the constructs used in their study but did not address the influence of

emotions.

The theoretical basis of the Smith et al. study is based on models of information flow as

well as physical and social work structures derived from the expectancy theory. Smith et al.
 50

(1996) also used previously published models on consumer attitudes toward direct marketing

practices, and corporate approaches to information privacy policy-making and revealed several

dimensions of user concerns with privacy including reduced judgment situations and data

corruption. Autonomy can be measured with a validated and reliable scale of dispositional

autonomy known as the Index of Autonomous Function (IAF: Weinstein, Przybylski, & Ryan,

2012). Weinstein et al. found that the subscale of authorship or self-congruence, with an

eigenvalue of 5.18, accounted for 34.54% of the unique variance in trait autonomy while the

subscales “susceptibility to control’ had an eigenvalue of 2.97 representing 19.79% of unique

variance and “interest-taking” had an eigenvalue of 1.81 representing 12.08% of the variance.

When data is stolen or denied, it could be used to cause harm. A ransomware attack in a

hospital can disrupt the delivery of care (Richardson & North, 2017). When executives in

organizations willfully or unwilfully misuse private data, they may cause harm to individuals,

which could potentially lead to loss of livelihood. Embarrassing revelations on social networks

are equally troubling. While preventive methods anchor solutions to past experience (using

proven procedures), attackers continually evolve exploits which diminishes the effectiveness of

deterrence and end-user assurances (Baskerville et al., 2014). Reliable methods use counter

exploitation techniques to mitigate ongoing threats and exploration to search for new

opportunities and capabilities (Baskerville et al., 2014). In a conference paper, Strozer, Collins,

and Cassidy (2014) reported that creative social engineering is the preferred model used by

attackers to commit the majority of cyber-crimes. As a result, an organization must strike a

balance between the nexus of exploitation of private records and reliability, as well as the

validity of operations and exploration (Strozer et al., 2014). A balanced mix of exploitative

control, concern for privacy, and innovation will likely provide the correct balance. While
 51

innovation is a significant factor in organizational performance, data analytics, and market

competition, it can co-exist with privacy to improve organizational success (Youndt & Snell,

2004). Organizational innovation also benefits from effective organizational knowledge

management and other leadership initiatives (Donate & Guadamillas, 2011).

Organizational Privacy Practices

As businesses rely on modern techniques such as data consolidation and data analysis in

order to create a competitive advantage in the online marketplace, customers may fall victim to

poor privacy practices. Research has shown that privacy problems are accelerating, and

businesses are exacerbating the issue in their haste for a competitive edge (Al-Saggaf, 2015;

Malheiros, Preibusch, & Sasse, 2013). Large and small businesses are engaged in data

exchanges, making it virtually impossible for individuals to influence the flow of data or stop the

data collection and sharing (Malheiros, Preibusch, & Sasse, 2013). Hence, criminals and

unscrupulous executives may view this treasure trove of data as an opportunity for profit-

making. The Equifax/Harris Consumer Privacy Survey (1996) was completed around the same

period, the 104th Congress of the U.S. was putting the finishing touches on the Consumer Credit

Reporting Reform Act of 1996. This act reformed various provisions of the Federal Fair Credit

Reporting Act of 1970. The Equifax/Harris survey evaluated consumer attitudes regarding

information in credit reports, insurance prescreening, credit scoring, medical data, and online

transactions, which provided additional context for these legislations. The survey findings show

that a well-earned reputation for privacy protection is a competitive edge. The Equifax/Harris

survey also shows that a majority of the respondents (65%) believe that personal information

security is very important to them. Also, the survey noted that personal experience with privacy-

related events as well as media reports of privacy issues affect attitude. The survey also found
 52

that more than half of the public were not strongly opposed to performing routine data analytics

for service improvements.

For an overzealous executive, a data warehouse is a convenient profit center which could

be tapped to extract value from analytics gained from real-time events. Unfortunately, the quest

for data analytics as a competitive advantage is prevalent, which compromises effort to maintain

individual privacy (Malheiros, Preibusch, & Sasse, 2013). Preventing fraud, money laundering,

and violations of government bans also impede effort to maintain privacy. To enforce laws, it is

often necessary to accurately identify customers and to use such identification in future

transactions. The collection and misuse of private data is enhanced when individuals are eager to

complete transactions on the web, such as purchasing the perfect mountain bike or hard-to-find

items. Also, individuals may forgo the use of privacy-enhancing features when applying for

employment, credit cards, or access to popular web sites (Dienlin & Trepte, 2015). Researchers

found that users willingly provide their confidential data into a web form even when it was

optional (Malheiros, Preibusch, & Sasse, 2013). Despite these events, many online network users

expressed grave concerns about the fear of having their privacy violated online (European

Commission, 2011). In recent studies, researchers found that the individual’s psychological

needs, such as autonomy and competence, also play important roles in motivating secure actions

and privacy on smartphones (Kraus et al., 2017). Factors such as attitude towards sharing of

private data on social platforms, the fear or dread of such exposures and the perceived

catastrophic potential of privacy loss on the internet also motivate protective behavior (van

Schaik et al., 2018).

 53

Ethics of Data Breaches

Unethical actions include the unauthorized collection and distribution of PCD as was

found to occur at some e-commerce establishments (Preibusch, Peetz, Acar, & Berendt, 2016).

Misuse or misappropriation of confidential data occurs when an organization collects personal

information and then distributes it without the consent of all parties. Facebook was found

complicit in the unauthorized sharing of personal subscriber data with various firms, including

those that used the information to manipulate elections across the globe (Gressin, 2017). In

another case, a Norwegian research team found that the Grindr dating service shared private

subscriber records with external parties without authorization, including the HIV status of

individuals (Lomas, 2018). These practices, driven by the economic benefits inherent in

predicting, analyzing, and selling the private information of individuals, is reprehensible (Al-

Saggaf, 2015).

Unfortunately, the economic value of collecting and selling personal records may hinder

efforts to rein in privacy. Also, the persistent collection of private records generates repositories

of sensitive data that can be targeted and stolen. Unauthorized disclosure of confidential

information, while troubling to affected individuals, can also damage the reputation of affected

organizations. When corporations conceal data breach events, they are likely to exacerbate the

privacy threat by funding perpetrators (Cohen, Hoffman, & Adashi, 2017; Wong, 2017). For

example, UBER took many steps to conceal an egregious data breach by making payments to

attackers (Cohen, Hoffman, & Adashi, 2017; Wong, 2017). The Federal Bureau of Investigations

(FBI:2016) also warned that concealing data breaches encourages future attacks and that

assenting to ransoms demands fuel criminal networks.

 54

The security of confidential data is an organizational imperative because failures threaten

end-user confidence and may encourage customer flight. While regulations are likely to impact

organizational practices, individual preferences drive the adoption of technologies that improve

personal privacy (Menard et al.). In 2016, the European Union (EU) passed sweeping privacy

regulations that significantly impacted the management of records for European citizens

(General Data Protection Regulation, 2018) and increased individual control over sensitive

records. These regulations force modifications to organizational security, especially when

remedies incorporate lessons learned from recent research (McAlynn, 2017; Posey, Roberts, &

Lowry, 2015). Another area of inquiry is policy compliance, training and infrastructure

investments as well as individual adaptation to security challenges (Ifinedo, 2014, Liang & Xue,

2010; McAlynn, 2017; Posey, Roberts, & Lowry, 2015; Scott, 2015).

Blockchain Technologies

The origins of Bitcoin and blockchain has been shrouded in mystery since 2008, shortly

after a consortium or pseudonym known as Satoshi Nakamoto published a nine-page paper on

Bitcoin, titled "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" (Nakamoto, 2009; Zohar, 2015). A few

months after the initial publication, Nakamoto released the first blockchain software and began

collaborating with developers worldwide on improvements to Bitcoin's underlying technology

(Beck et al., 2016). This collaboration persisted until 2011 when Nakamoto abruptly vanished

although not before securing 1 million Bitcoins with a relative market value of $20 Billion. In his

report, Nakamoto (2009) stated that Bitcoin has five key concepts, which are (a) digital wallet,

(b) transactions, (c) proof of work, (d) mining, and (e) bitcoins.

Blockchain technology involves the use of personal keys stored in the digital wallet and

chain hashing to validate records as well as to assure the accuracy and validity of records through
 55

the participation of peers. Bitcoin cryptocurrency relies heavily on the blockchain, a public

“ledger” of every transaction that has ever taken place on that distributed network. With

blockchain, there is no centralized, or trusted authority. What is true, or what is false, depends on

the consensus of multiple distributed parties. User identities are anonymous; consequently, many

online criminals require payment in Bitcoin. Participating parties can access data in the ledger at

any time. However, it is nearly impossible for a participant to modify the ledger or history of

transactions without extraordinarily powerful computers. Blockchain transactions are contents of

a distributed ledger that is kept uniform across the nodes in the network through consensus

calculations. The networks are nearly identical nodes that are widely distributed but independent.

The network of nodes is used to validate the transactions within blocks in a chain. Blockchain

miners compete and earn digital currency by computing blocks. In most public blockchains, the

earliest miner who computes a hash that is within a certain parameter will receive a

cryptocurrency reward (Woodside, Augustine, & Gilberson, 2017). Since participating nodes

verify each block or entry in the digital ledger before it is updated, transaction reliability is thus

maintained using a community instead of relying on a third party.

Blockchain’s distinguishing feature is that anonymous hashed transactions occur between

two parties without intermediaries and that transactions cannot be altered without the

participation of the member nodes. While blockchains are inherently public, the integrity of each

transaction is cryptographically validated, and the identity of the originators or owners is often

unknown. Public key infrastructure (PKI), also used in blockchains, has attracted considerable

interest among technologists (Yang, Lo, Xia, Wan & Sun, 2016). PKI is integrated within a wide

variety of technology, including network security, internet of things, web, storage, and

transactional security (Bala, Maity & Jena, 2017). PKI is often present when individuals require
 56

some assurance of transaction security. In an analysis of messages on the online message forum

StackOverflow, researchers found that web security, mobile security, cryptography, software

security, and system security were the leading topics of concern among technologists (Yang et

al., 2016).

Bitcoin and the underlying blockchain technology have grown quite remarkably and

earned the nickname “the trust machine” (The Economist, 2015). As blockchain applications

gain acceptance, the most common applications are in cryptocurrencies, supply chain

management, internet of things (IOT) and other transaction-based systems (Woodside et al.,

2017). Open source development communities are also coalescing to produce blockchain

applications for individuals and businesses. For example, the Hyperledger Fabric is an

enterprise-grade distributed ledger platform with over 300 developers involved in developing the

technology for “permissioned” nodes (communities that require permission to join) and privacy.

Hyperledger is composed of many tools including Burrow, Fabric, Grid, Indy, Iroha, Sawtooth,

Caliper, Cello, Composer, Explorer, Quilt and Ursa. The popularity of blockchain technologies is

also motivating researchers to explore various applications of blockchain and to enhance its

utility in existing applications (Bala et al., 2017; Beck et al., 2016; Maity et al., 2017). An

attraction of blockchain is that a complex transaction can be completed between two parties

using immutable ledgers or blockchains with complete anonymity and without a third party

(Beck et al., 2016).

The researcher posits that an individual who believes that a blockchain application will

be trusted, autonomous, and have transactional integrity will react positively to a blockchain

based solution to insecurity. This study focuses on factors that may affect a user’s positive or

negative attitude towards blockchain applications. Specifically, factors that affect individual
 57

preference for an identity-preserving system, which also allows for the free exchange of

information and transactions. The researcher sought unique patterns that compel individuals to

prefer blockchain technology over traditional technology. Hence, blockchain can become a

template for privacy-enhancing applications and security (Cisco, 2016). Blockchain is also

referred to as a cryptographic economic system (CEC) due to its default encryption and

compelling use case on financial networks (Beck et al., 2016). Blockchain’s CEC is driving the

emergence of distributed autonomous organizations (DAO). DAO refers to entities, individuals,

or devices that can exchange services automatically without compromising privacy (McBride,

2014).

An NCU RoadRunner search of peer-reviewed and scholarly articles featuring the

keyword blockchain, published between 2013 and 2018 returned 4698 results (NCU, 2018).

From the search results, there were 3933 articles from academic journals, 532 from conference

papers, 63 reviews, eight trade publications, and eight magazines (NCU, 2018). However, only

126 articles originated from business technology and opinion journals. The sample shows that a

significant majority of blockchain publications are focused on new technology and

improvements to blockchain technology. The blockchain technology features greater individual

participation in the security, access, and transfer of protected information because personally

identifiable information is rarely required to trust a transaction (Schaub et al., 2016).

Unfortunately, there is little research in ISS focused on individual behavior and motivation

towards the adoption of secure peer-to-peer technology in response to threats to personal data.

Various studies that assess cloud technology choices based on fear response do not differentiate

between the types and capabilities of the underlying cloud technology (Menard et al. 2014). In

this study, the researcher explored factors that influence individual preference for blockchain
 58

technology due to its enhanced security and autonomy within a peer-to-peer cloud framework.

Blockchain, in this case, is used in a personal capacity to engage in a reliable self-directed

transaction in the cloud, leveraging improved security, encryption, verification and availability

without reliance on third parties or personally identifiable information (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016).

Blockchain technology, as a foundation of global cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, has been

widely adopted by global institutions and is favored by privacy sensitive individuals (Yli-Huumo

et al., 2016). Blockchain technology is also different from prevailing cloud technology because it

allows the individual to control the accuracy and safety of their private data (McGreevy, 2017).

The Blockchain technology applies to many use cases including supply chain management

(O'Leary, 2017), healthcare (Gordon, Wright, & Landman, 2017; Skiba, 2017), and financial

services (Kshetri, 2017).

The first popular P2P application was an application called Napster, which provides

individuals the opportunity to share privately purchased music with friends and peers (Guzman

& Jones, 2014). While Napster was a P2P platform, it eventually collapsed under litigation since

detractors were able to target the element of centralized control - the platform itself. License

holders sued Napster and prevailed (Patel, 2015). A P2P application such as Tor and Bitcoin is

resistant to litigation and control since individual participants are autonomous, distributed and

there is no centralized authority to sue (Emekter, Tu & Jirasakuldech, 2015; Guzman & Jones,

2014).

Bitcoin, the most popular Blockchain application, works as a digital asset with a value,

which, when transferred between parties, represents loss or accumulation which is recorded in a

digital journal. Before transfer, the journal’s contents are verified using a cryptographic hash and

validated against an attestation of the hash. In principle, a blockchain is a series of cryptographic

 59

blocks chained together with computational algorithms where a block is composed of a block

header, the hash of the previous block header and the Merkle root (Woodside et al. 2017). To

start a new block, data contained in the data portion of the block is copied into a hash, paired

with another hash, re-hashed and re-paired a few more times resulting in a single hash called the

Merkle root. Since each new block incorporates information from the previous block on the

chain, the blocks are chained together in a forward mechanism that computational fit in only one

way (Woodside et al., 2017). A valid transfer is entered into the journal after the validation

checks are successful. Once the digital journal is updated, it is then rehashed and presented to the

public or private participants with the new hash value, for distribution and availability for future

transactions. While payments and value transfer predominate among blockchain applications,

other use cases are also applicable, such as supply chain management, contracts, approvals, and

other trust sensitive transactions where a journal is reconciled with another. The Ethereum

blockchain provides additional diversity to these use cases, and the increasing interest in smart

contracts may lead to the further evolution of distributed cloud computing, where smart contracts

play a significant role.

Since Ethereum is known to be ‘Turing-complete,’ developers can use other

programming languages such as JavaScript, Python, or C to create reliable programs. This

adaptability places Ethereum on the cutting edge of public blockchain smart contract technology

(Anoica & Levard, 2018). Ethereum can be used to build a decentralized, trustless computing

platform using a virtual machine on top of the blockchain, commonly called the Ethereum virtual

machine (EVM). Ethereum differs from Bitcoin in this respect because Bitcoin only implements

the transfer of digital currency (Anoica & Levard, 2018). A smart contract turns a transaction

between two or more people into a running contract. Such contracts are intermediaries that
 60

facilitate the connection between two parties without a trusted third party. With Ethereum, a

specially designed virtual machine is used to run smart contracts on their blockchain which often

requires payment for transactions that change the blockchain.

A notable application of the smart contract using Ethereum is the Medrec, a blockchain

based electronic health record platform developed at MIT (Azaria et al., 2016). Medrec utilizes

the smart contract facilities in the Ethereum blockchain to create a system that prioritizes patient

agency through a transparent and accessible view of medical history which replaces centralize

intermediaries with a distributed access and validation system using the blockchain (Azaria et al.,

2016). Unfortunately, when smart contracts become a repository of sensitive data, they may

become lucrative targets for compromise as well (McGreevy, 2017). The security of smart

contracts and digital wallets used to provide access to blockchain vaults are valid areas of

concern due to their value to attackers (Azaria et al. 2016). Information system security experts

may become increasingly concerned about digital wallets and keys, including the need for

multiple keys or multiple signatures attached to critical digital assets involved in sensitive

transactions (McGreevy, 2017). Network and data vulnerabilities are threats to blockchain

applications as well. For example, a network attack may prolong or disrupt processing queues,

thereby given an attacker sufficient time to initiate a man-in-the-middle attack and divert

transaction proceeds.

Kirkman and Newman (2018) proposed an approach to cloud trust that provides

individuals more control and autonomy on how they want their data managed and processed

without a trusted third party. Using the Ethereum blockchain for storage and smart contracts as

the vehicle, policies are authoritatively stored outside the cloud to improve trust through

decentralization and to provide a data movement policy model. Kirkman and Newman (2018)
 61

conceptualized their implementation on the Ethereum blockchain because Ethereum enables the

use of smart contracts. Zykind et al. (2015) proposed using a blockchain to store pointers to

blockchain encrypted data. They assert that blockchain, including Bitcoin, can be leveraged to

support transactional access management by utilizing the memory locations in transactions to

store data. In such a system, the blockchain is primarily used for access control, while data is

encrypted in external storage. Zyskind et al. introduced several protocols for this implementation

but did not discuss the routines in sufficient detail.

Cloud Technology

There are many definitions of cloud computing, but there is no universally agreed

standard definition (Oliveira et al., 2014). The National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) defines cloud computing as a model for providing on-demand, convenient, and accessible

access to a configurable pool of computer resources (Kiraz, 2016). Although many organizations

perceive the cloud as convenient and easily accessible, with a lower barrier to entry and lower

costs, the consolidation of assets in cloud providers can increase their value as a potential target

for hackers as well (Kiraz, 2016). Hence, a persistent concern for cloud users is the security of

cloud assets, and hence, security is often viewed as an obstacle to cloud adoption (Zyskind et al.,

2015). The three main types of cloud computing services are infrastructure-as-a-service (IAAS),

software-as-a-service (SAAS) and platform-as-a-service (Freet, Agrawal, John, & Walker,

2015). Often left out is P2P cloud communications. Using an IAAS provisioning model, a cloud

organization provides distinct physical or virtual servers over the internet.

On the other hand, vendors who provide services using the SAAS model, host and

maintain an application which customers access directly over the internet without an on-premise

footprint. For vendors who provide services using the PAAS model, customers can build and
 62

maintain web-based applications on hardware hosted at the cloud vendor (Freet et al., 2015). The

PAAS model provides a platform for running a customer’s custom application suite, however, it

differs from IAAS because the customer is not responsible for the hardware, the hypervisor or

the operating system footprint but is simply billed for fractions of memory and computing used

by the customer’s application (Freet et al., 2015). PAAS applications can run across multiple

computing hardware outside the direct control of the customer. Cloud applications can be

delivered on an individual basis over peer-to-peer network connections.

In cloud technology, multi-tenancy is the norm which brings the potential for data

leakage (Zyskind et al., 2015). Also, the ease of access to the cloud through the internet

facilitates access for online criminals as well. Cloud computing technology has evolved through

many advancements in network optimization, network speed, hardware, virtualization

technology, and service delivery over the Internet (Velazquez, 2014). As a result, the cloud

usually refers to accessing information technology (IT) solutions as a service over the internet or

from a co-located computing hardware within corporate firewalls (Senyo, Addae & Boateng,

2018). The cloud is becoming more popular with a value projected to exceed $1 Trillion by the

year 2020 (Gartner, 2016). This valuation provides a considerable competitive incentive for

established enterprise cloud vendors such as Amazon, Microsoft, Salesforce, Dropbox, and

Google to accelerate further investment in infrastructure. While cloud computing solutions

provide businesses and users convenient access to massive computing power at reduced costs

(Velazquez, 2014), moving traditional functions such as storage, applications, and business

services to the cloud affects agility and priorities as well (Velazquez, 2014). Emerging trends in

computing provide a template to evaluate individual behavior and technology adoption

 63

challenges as well as to illuminate aspects of behavioral psychology (Menard et al., 2014;

Schaub et al., 2016; Zyskind et al., 2015).

With P2P cloud services, the user is in total control of the data, and it does not require

intermediaries since there is no shared infrastructure, in contrast with non-P2P applications that

always require a centralized authority that delivers the service. P2P cloud technology may also

feature central control or a moderating application suite; however, the most secure applications

feature full autonomy, total privacy, and non-third-party data storage. P2P data transmission can

be encrypted and secured using a private key, thereby providing security for end-to-end

transactions without intervention by a central authority. Hence, blockchain applications are

increasingly being seen as a modern version of Napster but with built-in security and anonymity

(Yli-Huumo et al., 2016).

Applications based on blockchain are often used to provide a basis for two individuals

who do not trust each other, to conduct a mutually sensitive transaction (McGreevy, 2017).

Using encryption and key validation blockchain provide a secure cloud foundation where

individuals engage in direct exchange of transactions within a public or private network of nodes

using digital identities and digital currency. Blockchain uses public key cryptography to provide

an immutable chain of content, supported by a decentralized network of participating nodes, not

a central authority; where individual nodes work to solve a series of hashing exercises thereby

contributing to the formation and validation of the chain through an operation known as ‘mining’

(Schaub et al., 2016).

Cloud computing research often emphasizes technological applications with insufficient

emphasis on behavioral research. In an analytical review, Senyo, Addae, and Boateng (2018)

found that many studies on cloud computing published over the past seven years were not based
 64

on established theoretical foundations and often emphasized experimental simulation methods

over exploratory methods. Therefore, there is a need for more cloud computing research from a

behavioral perspective. As the demands for personalized computing and security push secure

mobile applications towards the apex of software development, the use of P2P applications on

mobile devices is increasing (Parise, Guinan, & Kafka, 2016). As a result, mobile applications

are becoming a compelling template to deploy blockchain technology.

Encryption and Obfuscation

Encryption and obfuscation of data and networks have been widely deployed to mitigate

threats to privacy. Released in 2002, Tor stands for The Onion Router (Tor), an open-source

program designed to protect an individual’s privacy and security by preventing internet traffic

monitoring, surveillance and analysis (Degabriele, & Stam, 2018). Developed for the U.S. Navy

to protect government communications, Tor is widely used to preserve online anonymity and is

the preferred browser for individuals with privacy sensitivity, which unfortunately includes

online criminals. Tor operates by encrypting and bouncing communications randomly through

multiple relay networks across the globe and is often used for applications such as Web

browsers, internet relay chat (IRC) and instant messaging (Syverson, Tsudik, Reed, & Landwehr,

2001). Tor is used to protect the personal privacy and autonomy of network users on the internet

and can also be used to protect P2P transactions; however, Tor has known vulnerabilities as well

(Degabriele, & Stam, 2018). P2P applications improve autonomy by facilitating anonymous

person-to-person encrypted communications and can benefit from Tor for cloud security (Al-

Muhtadi, Qiang, Saleem, AlMusallam, & Rodrigues, 2018).

 65

Mobile Technology Considerations

The demand for personalized computing and security has pushed secure mobile

applications towards the apex of software development (Parise, Guinan, & Kafka, 2016). Hence

mobile applications provide a template to analyze individual attitude towards peer-to-peer

computing. By definition, peer-to-peer computing involves a connection between two individuals

or objects within two or more organizations. It features a direct connection over an

interconnecting network between the parties. Emphasis on secure person-to-person

communication without reliance on sensitive identifying information may reduce the opportunity

and cost of data breaches. When individuals communicate securely and anonymously, it

diminishes the value and incentive to steal data. Aggressive centralized data collection creates an

attractive asset for data criminals. Data repositories need to be protected and secured. As

smartphone adoption increases, individuals will increasingly perform computing from their

hand-held mobile in a person-to-person framework which improves transparency and integrity.

Improving knowledge of an individual’s attitude towards secure and personalized technology in

response to threats to privacy is an area of inquiry that is currently attracting research interest

(Crossler & Bélanger, 2014; Menard et al., 2014). Research on the individual attitude to a

blockchain application is in response to calls for additional studies on new technology adoption

and the use of multiple theoretical foundations (Feng et al., 2014; Goldberg, 2013; Sommestad et

al., 2015).

Summary

Individuals often manage adversity by engaging in coping responses. As various types of

malware and ransomware continue to ravage organizations, individuals affected by these

breaches will seek safer alternatives (Ablon, Heaton, Lavery, & Romanosky, 2016). Ablon et al.
 66

found that a majority of individuals will use credit monitoring to alleviate identity theft and

privacy concerns, which indicates an active interest in personal security, especially when the fear

is palpable. On the other hand, the inability to visualize the threat or to understand the efficacy of

defense can give way to a feeling of indifference and lack of control (Siponen et al., 2014).

Blockchain applications operate on the concept of a peer-to-peer cloud network with a securely

encrypted public ledger that stores an immutable copy of every transaction in the transaction

block, accessed with a private key. With blockchain technology, integrity and anonymity are

often assured, which provides individuals with some control over privacy. A potential benefit of

blockchain is that ransomware attacks are substantially ineffective if the network is spread out

widely, and each participant has a copy of the data. In a healthcare setting, storing data in a

distributed peer-to-peer web network may give individuals access to their data regardless of

threats to their care providers. With blockchain, data can spread over participating nodes, which

could number in the thousands or millions of hosts.

Researchers found that individuals perceive organizational data breaches or incursion

events as a failure in organizational ethics (McBride, 2014). Hence, the availability of a

technology that features greater individual participation in the security, access, and transfer of

protected information is a positive development (Schaub et al., 2016). According to the social

cognitive theory, when workers are unable to control a situation, they are likely to avoid it

(Bandura, 1991). Hence, a comprehensive analysis of security and threat behavior can benefit

from an understanding of the significance of unknown threats and their relationship to current

threats and coping behavior. The connection between past and future threats become evident

when future threats become current threats (Baskerville et al., 2014). Blockchain technology

involves assurances of anonymity and the integrity of data. The popularity of crypto-currencies
 67

indicates potential acceptance of blockchain applications beyond financial services, although

little research on the factors that might influence such behavior.

Improving the security, management, and distribution of private data is a necessary

objective in research (Anderson et al., 2017). In this empirical study grounded in theory, the

threat to an individual’s confidential data is explored using aspects of PMT (Rogers, 1975), the

TPB (Ajzen, 2011) and concepts from the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology

(UTAUT; Venkatesh et al., 2003). The researcher performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

to uncover patterns of factors through data exploration and prediction testing (Child, 1976).

Exploratory factor analysis involves a methodical discovery of the common factors and their

variables in order to explore the associations between the variables (Chatterjee et al., 2015).

This inquiry is vital because researchers have found that when individuals are dissatisfied

with the security of personal assets, they often consider more secure alternatives or better options

(Ablon et al., 2016, Menard et al. 2014). Since customers and business clients sometimes entrust

organizations with sensitive data such as PCD; securing such assets is a necessity (Feng et al.,

2014; Tsai et al., 2016). Hence, there is a need to find better ways to maintain privacy since

organizations periodically fall victim to data breaches and the loss of personal records (Ablon et

al., 2016; Goldberg, 2013; Hart, 2016). For example, Symantec reported in its internet security

threat report (ISTR; 2016) that more than 500 million records were compromised in 2015 (Price,

2016).

Cloud technologies with built-in security often improve end-user confidence and reassure

clients and customers that embarrassing leaks of personal records, identity theft, and possible

personal harm is less likely to happen (Sen & Borle, 2015; Price, 2016). The cryptocurrency

revolution currently being driven by the underlying anonymity, reliability, and security of
 68

blockchain technology indicates that there is a demand for a secure and anonymous network with

peer-to-peer features. Unfortunately, factors that influence such choices are relatively

unexplored. Assessing the attitude of individuals to blockchain provides a template for this

inquiry because blockchain is the foundation of the Bitcoin currency. Blockchain has gained

worldwide attention and is currently perceived to be a necessary evolution in the security of

connected networks (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016). Some countries have evolved entire public

infrastructure to run on blockchain-type applications with additional initiatives under

development (Sullivan & Burger, 2017).

Researchers focused on new technological foundations may uncover data that will

introduce new ideas necessary to improve technology choices and security from a personal

perspective. ISS scholars suggest that additional studies can improve the clarity of vital

questions, especially when palpable threats and specific technologies are used in the analysis

(Sommestad et al., 2015). Blockchain is a reliably secure type of cloud technology that does not

require centralized control and is designed to be difficult or impossible to corrupt. The efficacy

of secure cloud technology is important because it provides additional assurance to the user

(Menard et al., 2014; Zyskind et al., 2015).

 69

Chapter 3: Research Method

As the threats to personal privacy continue to increase, the determinants that influence

individual behavior towards secure autonomous technology can provide practitioners, businesses

and researchers improved visibility into consumer behavior and choice (Kraus, Wechsung &

Möller, 2017; Acquisti, Brandimarte & Loewenstein, 2015). The purpose of this quantitative

non-experimental cross-sectional study is to assess factors influencing individual attitude

towards blockchain applications when individuals perceive threats to their privacy. In this study,

the researcher assessed behavioral intention through a survey administered to participants of a

Facebook group specializing in Blockchain. A quantitative analysis using participants from a

social network provides an opportunity to engage a more diverse pool of participants, thereby

improving the generalizability of observations (Kosinski et al., 2015). The exogenous

(independent) variables are privacy, autonomy, technological facilitation, self-efficacy, perceived

severity, perceived vulnerability, and intent towards adopting a blockchain application. Since this

is exploratory factor analysis, a dependent variable is not defined (Field, 2013). Following

similar studies, the measures in this study utilize a 5-point Likert scale graduated from “strongly

disagree” with a score of 1, “somewhat disagree” with a score of 2, “neither agree nor disagree”

with a score of 3, “somewhat agree” with a score of 4, and “strongly agree” with a score of 5

(Ifinedo, 2014; Oliviera et al., 2014). The clarity and presentation of the survey were refined

using a pilot study.

Research Methodology and Design

Research methods have their strengths and weakness; hence, it is not unusual to

contemplate various methods that are suitable for a research study (Çokluk & Koçak, 2016).

Ultimately researchers have to decide on an appropriate method. Over the past ten years,
 70

quantitative research is performed more frequently online (Barnham, 2012). A potential

weakness of adopting a quantitative approach is that a type I or type 2 error may crop up

(Creswell & Creswell, 2017) although a researcher can test for the size of an effect or perform

further confirmatory analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used in this study because

it is effective in behavioral studies involving attitudes, opinions, and normative judgment

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). A quantitative method can be used to determine the size and

strength of relationships as well as to make predictions (Field, 2013). In choosing an exploratory

design rather than a deductive approach, a researcher seeks to generate new ideas or to refine

existing models (Stebbins, 2001). Exploratory factor analysis is often used to analyze latent

constructs necessary to determine a subset of relationship that forms the basis of correlation

among factors (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2017). A qualitative study is more exhaustive and may

yield a deeper perspective into a phenomenon, but it will not provide information on the size of

the effect or the strength of relationships. EFA involves measuring the variable, determining the

correlation matrix, extracting the factors, optionally rotating the factors for interpretability, and

then interpreting results (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). After interpretation, it is necessary to

establish the construct validity of the factors.

A post-positivist worldview provides an opportunity to develop ideas that increase social

occurrence using experiences, views, and perspectives of participants (Karatas-Ozkan, Anderson,

Fayolle, Howells & Candor, 2014). With factor analysis, mathematical methods are used to

simplify underlying relationships using observed patterns of correlation among observations or

variables (Child, 1976). Common factor model studies provide greater internal validity through

the use of random assignment as well as external validity through population sampling

(Weinberg, Freese, & McElhattan, 2014). Exploration may uncover salient factors that underpin
 71

individual attitude towards new technology. In exploring individual attitude towards misuse or

loss of personal data, it is necessary to incorporate an appropriate coping strategy such as

intention towards blockchain technology (Rogers, 1975). In earlier studies, researchers often

failed to explore relevant constructs related to technology, which may influence attitude towards

personal data security (Chatterjee et al., 2015; Menard et al., 2014).

Following similar studies in IS, the researcher assessed behavioral intention through a

survey. Blockchain is a new and emerging technology for a new class of applications undergoing

rapid development. Blockchain is a novel concept for personal data security in the cloud; hence,

the use of exploratory factor analysis to analyze factors that might influence behavior in response

to threats to data. In keeping with Tang and Liu’s (2015) findings, when users perceive strong

security in the underlying technology, attitude towards applications built on that technology will

be impacted.

Population and Sample

The researcher recruited adult participants of all genders between the ages of 18 and 65

from a blockchain forum with over 13,000 members. On Facebook, a forum post was used to

contact members of the forum “Blockchain Enthusiasts” who were invited to engage in an online

survey hosted at Qualtrics. The researcher sought key factors and relationships between outcome

variables where applicable, using the following general questions: privacy questions, technology

questions, anonymity questions, self-efficacy questions, perceived severity questions, and

perceived vulnerability questions. Similar research on new and emerging technology is often

conducted using techniques such as key informants or with members of professional institutions,

often to assure that participants have some familiarity with the subject matter (Ifinedo, 2014;

Oliviera et al., 2014). This study’s participants were simply members of a forum and must be
 72

over 18 years and resident in the United States. These participants were surveyed on their intent

to protect sensitive personal data using a blockchain application when there is a threat to

personal data. Researchers often conduct studies in information systems security (ISS) domain

using specific activity to increase the clarity of result (Anderson & Agarwal, 2010; Boss et al.,

2015).

The researcher had five expert participants for the pilot, and 189 participants for the full

study after following all NCU IRB approved research methods and guidelines for both the pilot

and general study (Yong & Pearce, 2013). Since EFA does not require a statistical hypothesis

like ANOVA or regression analysis; G*Power was of little use in determining appropriate

sample size. Field (2013) did provide some guidance on sample size for EFA when he stated that

“many ‘rules of thumb exist for the ratio of cases of variables; a common one is 10-15

participants per variable” (p. 683). Based on the inability to use power analysis, as well as

Field’s recommendation, it was necessary to expect a minimum of 10 participants for each

variable. Since there are six variables, (privacy, technology, anonymity, threat severity, threat

susceptibility, and self-efficacy), the researcher determined that a minimum sample size of 60

participants was necessary. This determination appears to be accurate since Macas et al. (2016)

found that smaller batch sizes provided sufficient resolution, and Fields (2013) elaborated that

the factor loadings are as important as sample size. Factor loadings greater than 0.6 is acceptably

reliable regardless of sample size (Fields, 2013).

The study participants also provided demographic data regarding age and length of

employment, country of residence, and level of education. The researcher’s preference for

experienced workers is driven in part by the increasing use of computer technology and

electronic systems in business and the need to address privacy concerns at the workplace (Allen,
 73

2017; Appari, Johnson & Anthony, 2013). The researcher’s objective was to explore factors

related to individual preference for a secure blockchain as a means towards greater personal

security autonomy.

Materials/Instrumentation

The researcher created a 5-point Likert-type survey which was validated during a pilot-

stage of this study to clarify existing survey questions, but not to develop new constructs

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). The study began with a review of the literature followed by data

analysis performed with SPSSv25 using an orthogonal (Varimax) rotation. EFA was used to

simplify the interrelations between variables in order to discover patterns and factors that

underlie the relationships. With factor analysis, the researcher regroups the variables into a

smaller set of clusters using shared variance (Yong & Pearce, 2013). It is important to ensure that

significant outliers are absent from univariate and multivariate (Beavers et al., 2013). It is also

assumed that a linear relationship exists between factors and variables for meaningful

correlations and that there should be at least three variables (Beavers et al., 2013).

The pilot was performed with seven information security professionals deeply

knowledgeable about Blockchain technology, although only five completed responses were

received. These individuals reviewed the survey for clarity and conciseness and provided

valuable feedback that was used to improve the wording in the survey. The final corrected survey

was sent to over 13000 active and inactive participants of the blockchain enthusiasts forum on

Facebook. Two hundred two responses were received, of which 13 responses were unusable. A

response rate of 202/13000 = 1.6% is not unusual for anonymous online surveys.

A review of literature on information systems research reveals quantitative research

methods are commonly used to assess the effect of antecedents, decedents, moderators, and
 74

mediators (Chatterjee et al., 2015; Menard et al., 2014; Sommestad et al., 2015). The researcher

also found that 5 or 7-point Likert-type scales were also commonly used in ISS research studies

(Sommestad et al., 2015). Cronbach alpha is commonly used to validate internal consistency and

obtain an estimate of reliability (Sommestad et al., 2015). As with all studies, validity is an ever-

present concern; conclusion validity is determined by comparing obtained results with findings

from similar studies. To improve internal validity, a previously validated instrument was used for

all constructs. Minor variations introduced in the survey was validated in the pilot study. To

increase generalizability, the survey participants were drawn from a social network with a large

user base. To minimize the incidence of a type II error, which refers to the likelihood of missing

significant events, the researcher used a sufficient sample size and appropriate parameters

(Creswell & Creswell, 2017). With exploratory factor analysis, the researchers also looked for

variables that may be significant only in combination with other variables since that possibility

exists naturally. However, an orthogonal rotation minimized those assumptions (Fabrigar &

Wegener, 2017).

The purpose of the pilot study was to validate the intent of the survey, clarify wording,

and refine the instrument in the context of this study. The final validated survey was published

on Qualtrics after NCU IRB approvals. The researcher used this survey to identify factors

influencing individual preference for peer-to-peer cloud technology such as blockchain when

privacy threats exist. The researcher used a non-experimental quantitative and cross-sectional

design based on EFA to explore individual choices. The detailed survey is in Appendix E.

Exploratory factor analysis is commonly used in studies where a phenomenon is relatively new,

such as blockchain, and when it is necessary to explore factors that influence user attitude to

emerging technology (Chatterjee et al., 2015).

 75

The researcher assessed behavioral intention through a survey as a construct with a multi-

item scale. The scales for behavioral intent was adapted from Ifinedo (2012), and Woon and

Kakanhalli (2007). Each item was measured with a five-point Likert-type scale anchored from

“strongly agree” equaling 5 to “strongly disagree” equaling 1. The researcher used a 5-point

Likert-type nominal scale with measures adapted from Smith et al. (1996), to obtain participant

data on privacy, using questions that address concerns about data collection, concerns about

errors in personal data, unauthorized use or misuse of personal data and improper access to

personal data. The researcher was interested in individuals’ perceptions of the enabling role of

technology in providing facilitating attributes for data exploitation which is likely associated

with increased behavioral control towards the use of technology (Chatterjee et al., 2015). In this

study, a 5-point Likert scale was used to assess the independent variable technology facilitation

(TFC) using measures adapted from Chatterjee et al., 2015. For the PMT constructs, the

measures for the independent variable self-efficacy (SEFI) were adapted from Woon and

Kakanhalli (2007). Self-efficacy refers to individual confidence in their ability to achieve

specific technological goals. For the independent variables, perceived severity (PSE), and

perceived vulnerability (PSV), those measures were adapted from Ifinedo (2012). The scales for

autonomy was derived from a subscale for authorship or self-congruence published by Weinstein

et al. (2012). These measures serve as predictors of an individual assessment of the threat to

privacy and susceptibility to such events as well as the individual’s ability to cope with an

alternative technology such as blockchain.

 76

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

Following established research norms for exploratory research, the researcher does not

explicitly state the nature of the relationships between the constructs, such as whether they are

linear or non-linear. Hence it is necessary to emphasize that the directional arrows in Figure 1

should not be seen as a causal or dependency prediction but instead as a possible direction of

relationships (Stebbins, 2001). The direction of the arrows does not necessarily mean that one
 77

construct determines another; instead, it should be inferred that each construct can be enabled in

the context of the other, and such may be contingent upon other factors (Stebbins, 2001). The use

of an exploratory model provides the freedom to explore both linear and nonlinear relationships,

and possibly gain a nuanced view of individual preference for privacy using blockchain

technology.

Operational Definitions of Variables

The researcher explored various factors that could influence individual attitude and intent

toward peer-to-peer blockchain applications. These factors are generally composed of the threat

to privacy, economic threat arising from those threats, and distrust of organizations as a result of

privacy violations. The exogenous (independent) variables are privacy, autonomy, technological

facilitation, self-efficacy, perceived severity, perceived vulnerability, and intent towards a

potential event. The measures in this study utilize a 5-point Likert scale graduated from “strongly

disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). The clarity and presentation of the survey were refined

using a pilot study.

Privacy construct (PVA).

Personal privacy is a belief that information has personal and public boundaries. As a

result, individuals expect to have control over the processing and transferring of personal

information as well as the interactions involving their personal information and the availability

of such data (Dienlin & Trepte, 2015). The researcher in this study assessed participant response

with a 5-point Likert scale calibrated from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). See

Appendix E. The survey questions were adapted from Smith et al. (1996) and were used to

measure privacy dimensions; namely concerns about data collection, concerns about errors in

personal data, unauthorized use or misuse of personal data and improper access to personal data.
 78

Participant responses were scored using a 5-point Likert scale graduated from “strongly

disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).

Behavioral intention (BHI).

Research evidence suggests that there is a correlation between latent attitude towards

action and intention to act (Ifinedo, 2012). The degree of favorableness about engaging in an

activity is related to the attitude towards that activity (Ajzen, 2011). A theory widely used to

model attitude and intent is TPB (Ajzen, 2011). Armitage and Conner (2001) reviewed 185

separate studies that used TPB as a theoretical framework and found TPB to be reasonably sound

across domains and categories. In this study, the researcher adopted the scales for behavioral

intention from Ifinedo (2012), which originated from the measures developed by Woon and

Kakanhalli (2007). The measures assessed an individual’s latent intention to select a Blockchain

application for personal privacy using a 5-point Likert scale graduated from “strongly disagree”

(1) to “strongly agree” (5). See Appendix E.

Autonomy (AUT).

Autonomy in this study refers to an individual’s ability to make reasoned choices that

affect their person, freely without coercion or external concern. McBride (2014) explained that

threats to autonomy undermine the social contract binding people together in the information age

and that this is a threat to human dignity. McBride conceptualized an autonomy, community,

transparency, identity, value, and emotion (ACTIVE) model to describes the autonomy of the

individual. A 5-point Likert scale was used to numerically assess survey responses. Weinstien,

Przybylski, and Ryan (2012) also developed and validated a scale of dispositional autonomy,

known as the Index of Autonomous Function (IAF) and found that authorship or self-

congruence, with an eigenvalue of 5.18, accounted for 34.54% of the unique variance in trait
 79

autonomy. In contrast, the subscales “susceptibility to control’ had an eigenvalue of 2.97,

representing 19.79% of the unique variance while “interest-taking” had an eigenvalue of 1.81,

representing 12.08% of the variance. Predictably autonomy is not dependent on external stimuli.

For parsimony, the researcher assessed autonomy using measures derived from the subscale of

authorship or self-congruence with a 5-point Likert scale graduated from “strongly disagree” (1)

to “strongly agree” (5). Please see Appendix E.

Technology facilitation (TFC).

Individuals’ perceptions of the enabling role of technology in providing facilitating

attributes for data exploitation is associated with increased behavioral control towards the use of

technology (Chatterjee et al., 2015). Hence, a 5-point Likert scale was used to assess the

independent variable for technology facilitation using measures adapted from Chatterjee et al.,

2015. Please see Appendix E.

Self-efficacy (SEF).

Self-efficacy is an important construct in many theoretical foundations (TPB: Ajzen,

2011; PMT: Rogers, 1975). It refers to an individual’s confidence in their ability to perform and

achieve specific technological goals. Self-efficacy emphasizes the individual’s judgment

regarding his or her ability to cope with or conduct a recommended action. In this study, it refers

to skills and measures needed to protect an individual’s personal information (Bandura, 1991).

The measures for the independent variable, self-efficacy (SEFI), was adapted from Woon and

Kakanhalli (2007) and measured using a 5-point Likert scale graduated from “strongly disagree”

(1) to “strongly agree” (5).

 80

Perceived severity (PSE).

For the independent variables, perceived severity (PSEV), the measures for perceived

severity (PSEV) was adapted from Ifinedo (2012). These measures serve as predictors of an

individual’s assessment of the severity of a threat. Perceived severity is an individual’s

assessment of the severity or consequence of a privacy event. In this study, perceived severity

refers to the individual’s perception of the impact of a privacy event. PSE was measured using a

5-point Likert scale graduated from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). See

Appendix E.

Perceived vulnerability (PSV).

The measures for the perceived vulnerability (PSV) was adapted from Ifinedo (2012).

These measures serve as predictors of an individual’ assessment of their vulnerability to a

privacy threat. Perceived vulnerability refers to the belief that a viable threat will occur. In this

study, this refers to an individual’s belief that their confidential record will eventually be

exposed to the public. Often without warning or pre-notification. A 5-point Likert scale

graduated from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5) was used to measure this

independent construct. See Appendix E.

Study Procedures

The focus of this research is to explore behavioral tendencies as it relates to threats,

privacy, autonomy, and technology. In this study, individual behavior is analyzed in the context

of intent towards blockchain application in reaction to threats to privacy and autonomy. In

general, an individual will likely prefer to browse the web and shop when their identity, if

known, may present legal or social challenges. For example, an anonymous application will be

preferable when an individual is shopping for adult toys or posting inflammatory comments
 81

online. The researcher analyzed data collected on a self-report survey; however, there is some

concern about measurement error and common-method variance, which could introduce bias into

the estimates of the relationship between the constructs. Common method variance (CMV) is

attributable to the measurement method but not to the constructs the measures represent

(Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). CMV is a contributor to systematic

measurement error (Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000). As with all forms of measurement error, when

CMV is sufficiently high, incorrect conclusions may be inferred about relationships between

constructs. To mitigate CMV, the researcher randomizes measures within the survey to prevent

participants from detecting underlying construct patterns that can affect their answers (Straub et

al. 2004).

Attitude to privacy is reflected in the protection of personal assets and the inclination to

conform with organizational security mandates (Nguyen et al., 2014). Furthermore, individual

attitude to a process is a good indicator of intent to perform the referenced activity (Ifinedo,

2014). Following these observations, the researcher explored relevant factors as listed in the

preceding sections around threats to data, privacy, and anonymity without prediction. With

exploratory factor analysis, the purpose is to uncover latent factors, but not to accept or reject a

null hypothesis or hypotheses. To participate effectively in this research, an individual should be

aware of the capabilities of blockchain applications and their anonymity. Previous research

studies have established that PMT as a theoretical framework, produce more consistent results

when the threat perception is substantial, and compliance is not mandatory (Sommestad et al.,

2015). The use of descriptive text by researchers is a common practice in ISS research studies

because many concepts are unfamiliar to the participants (Vance, Lowry & Eggett, 2015). To

ensure some familiarity with blockchain technology participants were contacted through a
 82

blockchain forum on Facebook. The survey was hosted on Qualtrics after the researcher

completed all the requirements necessary to receive approval from the NCU IRB. The survey

included an informed consent page, an age validation page (participants must be 18 years or

older) and the requirement that participants must be resident in the United States.

Researchers in earlier studies also highlighted the value of having participants of varied

age and work experience represented in the participant pool (Sommestad et al., 2015; Vance,

Lowry & Eggett, 2015). An unbalanced composition of participants may skew the results in

unexpected ways (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Teevale, Denny, Percival, and Fleming (2013)

found that age and work experience may affect an individual’s sense of fear. Hence, the

researchers added age and experience questions to the survey. Harman’s single-factor test was

also used to assess common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).

Data Collection and Analysis

The researcher conducted a quantitative survey using participants who are members of

the Facebook group named Blockchain Enthusiasts. Using participants from a blockchain group

ensures that selected individuals are familiar with Blockchain technology and cryptocurrency. It

is necessary to have participants who have some knowledge of blockchain technology and its

impact on autonomy and privacy. Also, the researcher added questions to collect various

demographic data. The researcher did not collect personally identifiable data from participants

during this study. The researcher did not make any attempt to contact participants directly and

only identified responses numerically. The survey was retrieved as a snapshot of each

participant’s responses at a specific point in time. All survey data were collected within one

month and a sample size based on recommendations from earlier studies. Recommendations

indicate that a sample size of about 200 participants is sufficient (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014).
 83

No control groups are used in this study. Survey questions consisted of seven predictor variables

(PVA, BHI, AUT, TFC, SEF, PSE, PSV) without a dependent variable; to be consistent with

EFA (Fields, 2013). The variables were measured using a 5-point (multi-level) Likert-scale

based on a pre-validated measure scored from 1 to 5 (Strongly disagree, Somewhat disagree,

Neither agree nor Disagree, Somewhat agree, Strongly agree). See Appendix E.

Assumptions

An exploratory factor analysis using the common factor model assumes that the measures

are reflective of the underlying factors. When common factors have linear effects on measures,

they are considered within the class of models known as the effects-indicator models (Bollen &

Lennox, 1991; Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000). Such models assume that measured variables related

to common factors correlate with each other, to produce a high level of internal consistency (high

Cronbach α) scores (Cortina, 1993). Hence, it follows that an individual’s attitude towards an

object such as blockchain will correlate with their level of intent to use that technology. Also,

when an individual is sensitive to loss of personal data, then there is an elevated intent to find

secure alternatives. A positive attitude towards technology may also correlate with the intention

to adopt new technologies such as blockchain. Content validity ensures that the measures used,

measure the variable as intended (Creswell & Creswell, 2017); hence, predictive scores are also

intended to align with intended measures. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin was used to test for sampling

adequacy or the proportion of common variance present in the sample. The reliability of self-

reported surveys may sometimes be questioned, and all biases cannot be eliminated; however,

self-reports have been generally considered reliable and acceptable in empirical research

(Creswell & Creswell, 2017).

 84

Limitations

A potential limitation of the study is that data collection relies on self-selected

participants and self-report, which may introduce social desirability bias and fatigue effects

(Spector, 1992). Self-reporting is a subjective method that is prone to measurement error. Self-

reporting error was minimized because participants were not asked identifying information to

assure anonymity and confidentiality. A non-random (convenience sample) sample of self-

selected participants was recruited from a single Facebook forum dedicated to blockchain, which

assumes that members of this forum are aware of blockchain technology. Also, this quantitative

exploration is non-experimental, so a control group cannot be used. The researcher used a web-

based questionnaire, which is likely to introduce response bias because some participants may

submit more than one response, and the questionnaire is not sufficiently varied. To ensure

anonymity, the IP address of participants systems was not be used to limit multiple responses. In

assessing the factors that influence a user’s attitude towards personal security involving the use

of a secure peer-to-peer technology such as blockchain, it is important to note that knowledge

and perception of peer-to-peer technology vary widely as well (Kshetri, 2017).

Delimitations

The delimitations of any study is important in assessing the boundaries and constraints

under which the researcher conducted the study. The researcher assessed factors that affect

individual attitude towards blockchain technology, which is a type of peer-to-peer cloud

computing. Factors such as organizational deterrence policies and other organizational initiatives

were not considered (Menard et al., 2014; Vance, Siponen & Pahnila, 2012). On the other hand,

lapses in organizational security could lead individuals to consider adopting secure peer-to-peer

technology, such as blockchain. Few individuals understand blockchain technologies despite the
 85

hype surrounding Bitcoin. Hence, a poorly construed methodological delimitation can pose a risk

to the legitimacy of a study. For example, the use of a non-representative sample or a participant

sample that does not have the required knowledge or experience necessary to understand the

underlying material presented in the survey can create validity problems (Stahl, Timmermans &

Mittlestadt, 2016). While knowledge of Bitcoin or similar cryptocurrencies does not equate to

knowledge of blockchain, finding individuals who have a basic understanding of blockchain may

constrain the participant pool to technology savvy individuals and threaten external validity.

The use of a web survey can only include participants who can use that medium.

However, web surveys are commonly used in ISS studies (Kim, Park & Baskerville, 2016;

Wright, 2013). The survey was hosted on Qualtrics, a commonly used location for online

surveys. Any contact or suggestion that may appear to interfere with the survey was avoided and

the views self-controlled. For example, all participants received the same instructions and the

same consent materials, and the researcher did not attempt to contact participants directly or

indirectly or attempt to influence participants responses.

Ethical Assurances

Ethical violations often occur when individuals engage in fraud, cheating, deceit,

plagiarism, and other types of unethical behavior. In competitive sports, ethical issues arise when

athletes engage in the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Such violations can lead to

significant consequences, including outright bans from competitive sports. There are many

instances of severe unethical conduct among researchers as well (The Belmont Report, 1979).

Early research on ethics was concerned with defining ethical conduct as it relates to appropriate

behavior and controls. Researchers in behavioral economics, management, and social cognitive

psychology are increasingly stressing a more practical viewpoint, such as actual behavior under
 86

temptation (Bazeman & Gino, 2012). Researchers also benefit from established ethical

guidelines required to conduct research activities in accordance with certain provisions such as

those published by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (2016). Ethical guidelines are helpful to

researchers who demonstrate an inclination towards ethical conduct (Spradley, 2016). As a

result, the researcher has familiarized himself with these guidelines and understands the meaning

of ethical misconduct and has adhered to the provisions and guidelines required to secure the

approval of Northcentral University Institutional Review Board (IRB) before data collection.

The researcher also values participants welfare and wellbeing because that is important to

this study. Study participants are aware that their contribution to this research effort has

improved knowledge and that the results are meaningful to humanity. The researcher also

assured participants that there are no direct or indirect threats or consequence as a result of this

study. The researcher ensured through statements in the consent-form that participants are aware

that their input, time, and effort is appreciated by the scientific community. Participants were

made aware of all their rights and were informed that they are free to withdraw from this study at

any time without notice or explanation.

All participants in the study received an appropriate notification, as required by the

NCU’s IRB, including an IRB-approved invitation post and informed consent document. All

participants were provided the informed consent document and could not proceed with the

survey until they acknowledged the consent. When participants do not accept the consent-form,

the survey terminated. All participants were adults over the age of 18 years. The survey was

programmed to disallow participants under 18 or those who are not resident in the United States.

Also, no individual was excluded from the study due to sexual orientation, national origin, race,

culture, or country of origin. Participant’s confidentiality is taken seriously, and all the materials
 87

derived from the study are fully redacted and secured in an encrypted vault. When necessary,

relevant research data will be made available to researchers who wish to validate or enhance this

study. The researcher also ensured that the data used is a full reflection of the research findings

regardless of the data’s support of the hypothesis and assumptions.

The researcher collected data from adult human participants using a pre-validated web

survey in Qualtrics. While the survey did not pose physical, mental or emotional risks to

participants, the researcher believed it was necessary to ensure that the administration and

collection of the survey responses are consistent with published standards such as the American

Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code (2003). The APA code of ethics (2003) stresses

the preservation of the accuracy and validity of research results, and protecting the rights and

welfare of research subjects as well as ensuring participants confidentiality and intellectual

rights. As a professional in the information systems industry, the researcher understands that it is

necessary to maintain the confidentiality of participants and their responses, especially those that

might identify particular organizations. While it was necessary to inform participants of the

scope and substance of this research, it was also necessary to assure participants that the resulting

conclusions are not predetermined.

The researcher understands the value of upholding a high ethical standard even when

there is some benefit in not doing so. In a survey of ethical behavior involving teenage

participants, researchers from Deloitte & Touche found that 80% of youths agreed that they were

capable of making sound ethical decisions but also admitted that they knowingly made poor

ethical decisions recently (Stephens, Vance, & Pettegrew, 2012). In the same study, nearly half

of the teens accepted that they could act unethically if they perceive a benefit or believe they will

not face consequence (Stephens et al., 2012; Shalvi, Gino, Barkan, and Ayal, 2015). Similarly,
 88

researchers engaged in a study on the antecedents and consequences of ethical behavior found

that self-serving justifications preceding or following individual actions suppress perceptions of

the significance of unethical lapses and may lead to further unethical behavior (Shalvi et al.,

2015). Hence, the researcher understands the limits of ethical self-monitoring and the necessity

to supplement such effort with a tedious adherence to ethical mandates in order to avoid self-

serving perceptions which can lead to poor moral judgment and lessen or impede the perception

of questionable behavior (Shalvi et al., 2015).

Adhering to ethical guidelines is very important because of the history of past abuses on

human research participants in various parts of the world (Bailey, 2014). For example, during the

Second World War, Nazi doctors forced individuals incarcerated within concentration camps to

participate in heinous experiments, ostensibly to improve science (Bailey, 2014). After the war,

the Nuremberg code, introduced in response to the shocking findings from the Nuremberg trials,

established ethical guidelines. The Nuremberg code was later incorporated into the Declaration

of Helsinki (1964) and later integrated with the physicians’ code of ethics, which resulted in the

Declaration of Geneva (Bailey, 2014). These documents also formed that basis of another ethical

initiative arising from the infamous study called the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. In the

Tuskegee study, a research effort conducted over approximately 30 years, African American

individuals were infected with the Syphilis disease and left untreated even as they passed the

disease onto partners and unborn children. In that study, researchers did not inform patients of

the nature of the study or the diagnosis and prevented or denied treatment to participants. As a

result of public outrage, the Belmont Report was produced by the National Commission for the

Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research as an ethical framework

for research using human subjects. The report arose from the National Research Act (Pub. L. 93-
 89

348) of 1974, intended to identify the basic ethical principles governing behavioral research

involving human subjects. The Commission considered the distinction between biomedical and

behavioral research as well as the accepted and routine practice of medicine, including the risk-

benefit criteria involved in determining the appropriateness of research and the guidelines for

participation and informed consent. While the Belmont report was a significant effort intended to

correct lapses in ethics, there is still some concern about the influence of unconscious prejudice

in research (Graber, 2016; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of

Health, 2016).

To improve ethical compliance and conform with provisions of the Belmont report,

Northcentral University requires students to complete IRB required modules offered by the

Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI). The researcher has a current CITI

certification in compliance with all NCU IRB provisions. Also, the Publication Manual of the

American Psychological Association (APA) provides specific guidelines regarding appropriate

ethical research conduct. In the APA manual, the authors introduced three basic principles that

characterize all research and writing. Those are: protecting the accuracy of scientific data,

ensuring the welfare and well-being of research participants, and safeguarding intellectual

property rights. These three concepts were utilized by the researcher to guide research conduct in

this study. While the risk to participants involved in this study is minimal, care was taken to

ensure that participants are not indirectly or directly affected by the procedures and methods. The

survey was pre-screened during the pilot phase for time requirement as well as confusing or

ambiguous content that may confuse survey participants. Before completing the survey,

participants were required to review the informed consent form and provide age and residency

information as required by the NCU’s IRB. All data collected in this study were collected in its
 90

unaltered form and can be made available to scholars who may need to use it in their research

without personally identifiable information. The research data is stored in encrypted and reliable

storage for no less than seven years. The researcher attests to a personal commitment to abhor

plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplication of existing studies, and falsification of results.

Summary

The purpose of this quantitative non-experimental cross-sectional study is to assess

factors influencing individual attitude towards blockchain applications when they perceive

threats to privacy. An empirical examination of the determinants of blockchain adoption

behavior requires a careful examination of associated factors. Exploratory factor analysis was

used to analyze latent constructs necessary to determine a subset of relationship that forms the

basis of correlation among these factors (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2017). With factor analysis,

mathematical methods are used to simplify underlying relationships using observed patterns of

correlation among variables (Child, 1976). The exogenous (independent) variables are privacy

(PVA), autonomy (AUT), technological facilitation (TFC), self-efficacy (SEF), perceived

severity (PSE), perceived vulnerability (PSV), and intent (BHI) towards a blockchain solution.

The measures in this study utilize a 5-point Likert scale graduated from “strongly disagree” (1)

to “strongly agree” (5). The clarity and presentation of the survey were refined using a pilot

study.

Since blockchain adoption is in its infancy in various industries, understanding its unique

characteristics and the influence of privacy concerns on attitude towards this technology may be

beneficial to researchers. Emerging cloud-based applications built-on blockchain technology

provides researchers an opportunity to evaluate technology choices and security from an

individual’s perspective. When private data falls into the wrong hand, there may be physical
 91

consequences for the individual. For example, in 2018, the US Government started asking census

participants to indicate their citizenship. Answering those questions could create anxiety among

individuals with unresolved immigration status who will not want to disclose it to the

government for fear of deportation. Hence, a forced release of private information may result in

physical deportation from a chosen country of residence. The researcher posits that when

individuals are worried about their privacy, it may lead to a positive attitude towards an

application with built-in anonymity, such as those based on blockchain.

Blockchain is a reliably secure type of cloud technology that does not require centralized

control and is designed to be difficult or impossible to corrupt. The efficacy of secure cloud

technology provides benefit to individuals and the assurance that their private data is safe,

convenient, and anonymous (Menard et al., 2014; Zyskind et al., 2015). McBride (2014)

explained that threats to autonomy undermine the social contract binding people together in the

information age and that it is a threat to human dignity. Cloud technologies with built-in security

will likely provide greater end-user confidence and assurance that embarrassing leaks of personal

records, identity theft, and possible personal harm are unlikely (Sen & Borle, 2015; Price, 2016).

Researchers have also shown that when individuals are dissatisfied with the security of their

assets, they may consider more secure alternatives or better options (Ablon et al., 2016).

Knowledge gathered from this study will inform researchers and practitioners on factors and

circumstance that may influence individual attitude towards anonymous applications such as

blockchain, especially when an individual is sensitive to data exposure. The acquisition and

storage of PCD, PII, and PHI provide a treasure trove of data for organizations, but it also creates

an attractive target for criminals and unscrupulous executives. An understanding of the

 92

relationship between privacy and individual self-determination will provide useful data to future

theorists and practitioners.

 93

Chapter 4: Findings

The purpose of this quantitative non-experimental cross-sectional study was to assess

factors influencing individual attitude towards blockchain applications when they perceived

threats to privacy arising from frequent data breaches. As the threats to personal privacy continue

to increase, the determinants that influence individual behavior towards secure autonomous

technology is likely to provide practitioners, businesses and researchers with improved visibility

into consumer behavior and choice (Acquisti, Brandimarte & Loewenstein, 2015; Kraus,

Wechsung & Möller, 2017). While researchers have demonstrated that individual perception of

insecurity can evoke a protective response (Van Schaik et al., 2018), such insecurity seems to be

an insufficient motivator for protective behavior because salient psychological and privacy

motivators may also play important roles (Kraus et al., 2017). Unfortunately, little research exists

in ISS that is focused on intent to adopt autonomous peer-to-peer cloud technology in response

to various threats to personal data. Although researchers studied individual behavior towards

commercial cloud technology adoption, those studies rarely differentiated between

organizational and personal attitudes or the underlying factors unique to specific technologies

(Chen et al., 2016; Menard et al., 2014; Oliveira et al., 2014).

In extant studies, researchers showed there is a significant connection between behavior

and intent to adopt technological initiatives (Ifinedo, 2014; King & Thatcher, 2014) but various

inconsistencies in findings regarding the influence of insecurity on protective response have not

been fully explained (Acquisti et al., 2015; Kraus et al., 2017; Van Schaik et al., 2018). In some

cases, the response to privacy threats may not mirror expected concerns; a phenomenon known

as the privacy paradox (Dienlin & Trepte, 2015). As a result, an exploration of different subsets

of measures that influence the response, such as the psychological need for privacy, a need for
 94

autonomy and the influence of technology and threats on behavior towards emerging technology

such as blockchain is warranted. Although convenience, automaticity and threat response exert

influence on cloud adoption, that analysis did not include technological foundations unique to

cloud technology (Menard et al., 2014; Senyo, Addae, & Boateng, 2018).

The researcher retrieved 240 participant responses to the survey. From those, 202 met the

screening criteria such as questions regarding residency in the United States and age. After

cleaning and removal of incomplete entries, there were only 187 usable responses for n=187. As

a first step, the data was examined in Qualtrics and found to have reversed scoring. It was

necessary to use the recode function in Qualtrics to export the data consistently. After the data

download, it was still necessary to ensure that missing data was consistently managed. Other data

that was automatically collected by Qualtrics but was not required for the survey were removed.

Incomplete responses were removed as well. The downloaded survey had a Likert-type scale that

was coded in Qualtrics as follows: 1 – Strongly Agree, 2 – Somewhat Agree, 3 – Neither Agree

nor Disagree, 4 – Somewhat Disagree and 5 – Strongly Disagree. It was necessary to recode

these variables into new variables following the more common definition: 5 – Strongly Agree, 4

– Somewhat Agree, 3 – Neither Agree nor Disagree, 2 – Somewhat Disagree, and 1 – Strongly

Disagree (Oliviera et al., 2014) without impacting statistical results. These new variables were

compared with the original to ensure they maintain the same values, such as standard deviation,

median, skewness, and kurtosis. Afterward, all statistical observations were performed with the

recoded values.
 95

Results

After obtaining NCU IRB approval, a link to the pilot survey was posted on the Facebook

forum Blockchain Enthusiasts requesting participants with expertise in blockchain technology to

respond to the pilot. Five responses were received, and the pilot closed to avoid sampling fatigue

since the same forum would be used to conduct the full study. Common feedback from pilot

participants was that the survey questionnaire had ambiguous wording in a few places.

Respondents also complained about the color choice and the spacing of the questions on the

online questionnaire. Other comments included suggestions to minimize the use of the word

blockchain. Additionally, pilot participants were insistent that knowledge of blockchain was

required for participants to understand the survey material. The survey was modified to conform

to the feedback received, and participation remained constrained to the same Facebook forum.

The scree plot obtained after factor analysis of the final dataset was somewhat ambiguous

although there was a visible inflection that could justify selecting 5 or 6 factors. Kaiser (1960)

suggested retaining all factors with an eigenvalue higher than 1. This criterion often referred to

as Kaiser’s criterion is based on the concept that eigenvalues represent the level of variation

explained by a factor; hence, an eigenvalue of 1 is substantial variation. On the other hand,

Jolliffe (1972) suggested a less stringent criterion by suggesting the retention of all factors with

eigenvalues larger than 0.7. Evidence shows that the Kaiser criterion is accurate when the

number of variables is less than 30 and communalities greater than 0.7 or when the sample size is

over 250 and communalities higher than 0.6 (Stevens, 2002). When these do not apply, the scree

plot is the best approach. The graphing of eigenvalues makes the relative importance of each

factor more apparent (Fields, 2013). Typically, the results show few factors with a high

eigenvalue and many others with low eigenvalues giving the graph a characteristic shape. The
 96

point of inflection, where the slope of the line changes dramatically, is often used to determine

the cut-off for the number of factors to retain (Cattell, 2010). The communalities are an

indication of the percentage of common variance. When the value is one, then all common

variance is represented. If the value is zero, then no common variance is represented. After

determining the number of factors to extract, we re-estimate the communalities.

With parallel analysis, each eigenvalue is compared against an eigenvalue for the

corresponding factor using randomly generated data that shares the same characteristics

(Franklin, Gibson, Robertson, Pohlmann, & Fralish, 1995; Horn,1965). Humphreys and

Montanelli (1975) compared the parallel analysis method with the maximum likelihood method

and found that parallel analysis was remarkably more accurate. Using parallel analysis, the

number of factors to retain are those eigenvalues that are larger than their random counterparts

(Horn, 1965). Unfortunately, experts disagree on whether the eigenvalues from the principal

component or the common/principal axis factor eigenvalues should be used. The researcher

extracted and examined the factor eigenvalues to compare with the observed data and found

evidence to retain six factors (O’Connor, 2000). Six factors were extracted using suppression of

coefficients below 0.5 the factor matrix is shown on Appendix I (Factor Extraction).
 97

The parallel analysis provided sufficient information to retain six factors since the EFA

values were higher than those obtained with random data using the same number of variables,

sample size, and type of analysis.

Table 1
Parallel Analysis Results

Eigenvalues

Factor EFA Parallel Analysis

1 10.824 0.97

2 3.252 0.83

3 2.294 0.74

4 1.612 0.66

5 1.195 0.58

6 1.136 0.51

Values obtained for these six factors were higher than noise values from parallel analysis

or Monte Carlo simulation. The researcher labeled the extracted factors using a generalized

description appropriate to this context, see Table 2.

 98

Table 2
Relating Items to Questions and Labels

Factor EV Description RQ Items

1 10.824 I am very afraid 4&5 PSE2, PSV1, PSV2, PSV3

2 3.252 Blockchain or bust 7 BHI1, BHI2, BHI3, BHI4

3 2.294 I can do anything 3 SEF1, SEF2, SEF3, SEF4

4 1.612 I am the master of my universe 6 AUT1, AUT2, AUT3, AUT4

5 1.195 Give me technology 2 TFC1, TFC2, TFC3, TFC4

6 1.136 Leave me alone 1 PVA2, PVA3, PVA4

RQ = research question, EV = eigenvalue

Analysis with Interpretation. A maximum likelihood factor analysis was performed on

28 items using an orthogonal (Varimax) rotation. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling

adequacy had a value of 0.89, which is considered quite good (Fields, 2013). Multicollinearity is

not a significant concern since the Pearson correlation coefficient between all pairs of questions

does not have any values above 0.9, although there are a few variables with values above 0.3

(Fields, 2013). Also, all KMO values for individual items exceed the acceptable limit of 0.50

(Fields, 2013).
 99

Table 3

KMO and Bartlett’s Test from Final Study

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling .890

Adequacy.

Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 4000.876

Sphericity df 378

Sig. .000

An EFA was run to obtain eigenvalues for each factor. Six factors had eigenvalues above

Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and those explained over 72% of the total variance. See Appendix L

(Initial Eigenvalues). The Kaiser criterion is useful when the number of variables is < 30 and

communalities > 0.7, so it can be used under this circumstance (Stevens, 2002). The Kaiser

criterion recommends retaining all factors with eigenvalues larger than 1. Also, it is advisable to

retain all factors that account for at least 70% of the total variance (Stevens, 2002). Six factors

meet these criteria. In addition, these six factors were found to be valid after comparison using

parallel analysis. Plotting each eigenvalue against the associated factor produced the scree plot as

seen in Figure 2.
 100

Figure 2
Scree Plot

There is some ambiguity in determining the appropriate point of inflection since one

factor was dominant, and there appear to be two points of inflection. However, the scree plot

provides evidence for extracting 5 or 6 factors. The researcher selected six factors due to the

sample size and convergence between the Kaiser’s criterion, scree plot, parallel analysis, and

considering the sample size and variable-to-factor ratio (Fields, 2013).

Items with communalities below 0.3 were dropped from the study, see Appendix J

(Communalities). Also, items with low communalities could not be extracted. The rotated factor

plot is shown in Appendix M with the suppression of coefficients below 0.5 to clarify results

(Fields, 2013). An initial factor analysis using oblique rotations demonstrated that the factors

were relatively independent, suggesting that an interpretation of the orthogonally rotated matrix

is reasonable (Menard, 2014). Please see the correlation matrix and SPSS output in Appendix G.

The rotated factor matrix shows the significant coefficients distributed across the six factors as
 101

seen in Appendix M (Rotated Factor Matrix with Suppression). The unsuppressed rotated factor

matrix is shown in Appendix K.

Overview of demographic information. Choosing participants from a community of

blockchain enthusiasts improve generalization as it relates to the domain under study. Statistical

tests show that the sample distribution is non-normal; however, with factor analysis, statistical

inference is more meaningful if the variables are multivariate normal (Tabachnick & Fidell,

2014). The pilot sample was quite small, although its purpose was also limited. Reliability

analysis of the pilot data (α = 0.85) exceeded the acceptable level of 0.7 for EFA (Nunnally,

1967). The descriptive statistics from the pilot survey is reproduced in Appendix N.

After incorporating the textual changes derived from anonymous comments during the

pilot, and closing the pilot, the final study was submitted and approved by the NCU IRB and the

approved survey published on Qualtrics. Members of the Facebook forum “Blockchain

Enthusiasts” were again invited to participate in the final survey. Unfortunately, the number of

participants in the pilot did not indicate the expected number of participants, since the pilot was

capped at 5 participants and closed quickly. Participation and activity in a Facebook forum with

a membership of over 13,000 members vary with time and may not provide a gauge to predict

participation and interest. The number of individuals who previewed or attempted the survey was

n=240 before closure. After data cleaning, which involved deleting abandoned and partially

completed responses, the sample size decreased (n=187). A sample size of n=187 is sufficiently

robust for this analysis. The sample characteristics of the final study is presented in Appendix O.

The sample size for this study was n = 187. This number is adequate for factor analysis

when there is moderate to high communalities and three or greater items per factor (Fields,

2013). For inferential purposes, the sample was drawn from members of a blockchain forum on
 102

Facebook, which is a marginally representative population of users with some knowledge of

blockchain technology. The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin (KMO), an estimate of the sufficiency of the

sample size or the sampling adequacy for EFA analysis returned a value of 0.889. Since KMO is

greater than 0.50, the sample is sufficient

All survey participants were familiar with blockchain technology as required. Over 37%

of the participants have medium expertise with blockchain technology. Of the remaining, 11%

are self-described experts, 33% have a high level of expertise,17% percent have a low level of

expertise, while 0.5% claim no expertise. Participants ages range from 18 to 65 years and over.

The age distribution of participants was 18 – 34 (56%), 35 – 50 (31%), 51 – 65 (9.1%), over 65

(6%). Age was non-normally distributed with skewness of 1.275 (SE = 0.17) and kurtosis of

1.068 (SE – 0.354). Overall, participants were 119 men (63%) and 68 women (36%). The level

of education and employment status of participants is shown in Table 4. A majority of the

participants are either employed or in school (90%).

Table 4
Participant Employment Status

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent
Full time or part time 114 61.0 61.0
Unemployed 8 4.3 65.2
Not working 7 3.7 69.0
Student 53 28.3 97.3
Other 5 2.7 100.0
Total 187 100.0
 103

Table 5
Education Demographics of Participants

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent
Less than high school 2 1.1 1.1
High school / GED 21 11.2 12.3
Some college, no degree 42 22.5 34.8
Non-degree Professional 8 4.3 39.0
Bachelor's degree 40 21.4 60.4
Master's Degree 50 26.7 87.2
Professional Degree (e.g. MD, DDS, 14 7.5 94.7
DVM)
Doctorate (e.g. PhD, EdD) 10 5.3 100.0
Total 187 100.0

Approximately 50% of participants have a college degree or higher, and over 80% have

some college education. Cronbach’s alpha for the seven subscales in this study was 0.9, with a

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) of 0.89 and a significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2(378) =

4000, p < .001).

Table 6
Reliability Statistics of Individual Scales

Scale Items Cronbach’s α

PVA 4 0.59

AUT 4 0.88

TFC 4 0.91

PSE 4 0.65

PSV 4 0.89

BHI 4 0.92
 104

The descriptive statistics for all items in this study are presented in Appendix P. The PVA

and PSE improved with the deletion of a single component in each scale.

Gender differences. When SPSS data was split by gender, differences were observed in

the number of factors with an eigenvalue higher than 1, for males and females. Five factors were

extracted for males, while six factors were extracted for females. The dominant factor for

females was latent intent, with an eigenvalue of 10.53, which explained 37.67% of the total

variance. For males, technological facilitation was the dominant factor with an eigenvalue of

11.26, which explained 40.23% of the total variance. In comparison, female participants were

influenced by threats to a larger degree than males; hence, male participants were significantly

driven by technology.

Table 7
Factors Identified Using Male Participants Only

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Eigenvalue 11.26 3.41 2.15 1.81 1.31

% of variance 40.23 12.19 7.67 6.48 4.68

Construct Technology Latent Intent Self- Threat Autonomy

efficacy

Table 8
Factors Identified Using Female Participants Only

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

3
Eigenvalue 10.53 3.20 2.90 1.55 1.44 1.13

% of variance 37.62 11.46 10.39 5.56 5.15 4.03

 105

Table 9
KMO By Gender

KMO and Bartlett's Testa

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling .873
Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 2884.765
Sphericity df 378
Sig. .000
a. Gender. = Male

KMO and Bartlett's Testa

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling .744
Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 1613.603
Sphericity df 378
Sig. .000
a. Gender. = Female

Validity and Reliability of the Data

Content validity of the selected constructs, the intention scale and manipulations were

verified through a literature review as well as a expert subject-matter review during the pilot. The

constructs used in this study originated from published instruments derived from multiple studies

(Chatterjee et al., 2015; Ifinedo, 2012; Smith et al., 1996; Weinstein et al., 2012; Woon &

Kakanhalli, 2007). The pilot participants were experts in blockchain applications and technology

who are active participants of a Facebook forum on blockchain applications. The pilot survey

had text that encouraged participants to validate the wording and subjective interpretations of the

survey questionnaire and leave comments as necessary. Convergent validity was assessed by

checking whether items from the same construct correlate highly with each other. Discriminant
 106

validity was analyzed using the factor loadings to see if items loaded higher on their intended

scale than on other scales (Woon & Kakanhalli, 2007).

The correlation matrix was examined for coefficient and significance levels. The R-

matrix had no coefficients above 0.9, and most variables had values considerably above 0.3,

which indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern (Fields, 2013). The determinant for the

R-matrix was not zero. The researcher evaluated communalities and analyzed factors that

influenced the validity of correlations, such as outliers and non-linear relationships. The average

observed communalities was 0.7 and the number of variables n=28, with a variable to construct a

ratio of 1 to 7, which is adequate. The samples size is within the expected range of 5 -10

participants per variable, as recommended (Stevens, 2002).

SPSS v25 was used for data analysis, but it has some drawbacks, for example, reporting

model fit indices are often poor for maximum likelihood procedures and may reduce matrix

eigenvalues (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). Parallel analysis was an additional step used to clarify

the decision to retain selected factors. With parallel analysis, each eigenvalue is compared with

the eigenvalue of a factor derived from randomly generated data using data with similar

characteristics (Fields, 2013). Results obtained from the parallel analysis is often more

dependable than those obtained from scree plots or Kaiser’s criterion (Fields, 2013). It was also

necessary to ensure that the survey is measuring the constructs reliably; hence, a KMO of 0.89

was deemed sufficiently greater than the baseline of 0.50. Reliability analysis was used to ensure

that data for EFA is appropriate and that reverse scored items would not interfere with the

analysis. Bartlett’s test of sphericity shows that the data is sufficiently reliable because it

indicates that there is at least one significant correlation between items (Fields, 2013). The

communalities were sufficiently high although one item had a communality lower than 0.3.
 107

Table 10
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity

X2 df p

4000 378 <.001

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The first research question refers to an individual’s privacy concern. The privacy (PVA)

subscale consisted of 4 items (α = 0.59) a marginally decent number, however, when item PVA1

is deleted the Cronbach α = 0.77 indicating a slight improvement. PVA1, which explores an

individual’s “collection concern” did not load onto any factor. In the internet age, privacy

concern is often related to an individual’s expectation of control over the processing and

transferring of personal information as well as interactions involving their personal information

and the availability of such data (Dienlin & Trepte, 2015). The second (0.57), third (0.71) and

fourth (0.77) items loaded on factor 6 (0.68). Factor 6 with an eigenvalue of 1.13 accounts for

4.0% of the variance on intent towards blockchain applications. The second question (PVA2)

reflects an individual’s expectation of organizational security practices, third question (PVA3)

refers to an individual’s conviction about an organization’s obligation to secure data, and the

fourth question (PVA4) is a measure of an individual’s attitude towards the cost of protecting

confidential data. These items correlate weakly with behavioral intent, technology facilitation,

and perception of threat. These items confirm the minimal influence of organizational security

practice in motivating blockchain intentions.

Research question 2 analyzes the extent that affection for technology influences intent to

adopt blockchain technology using items derived from the literature (Chatterjee et al., 2015). The

technology facilitation (TFC) subscale consisted of 4 items (α = 0.910). Individuals’ perceptions

 108

of the enabling role of technology in providing facilitating attributes for data exploitation is

associated with increased behavioral control towards the use of technology (Chatterjee et al.,

2015). These items converged on factor 5 (0.66) and were significant. Factor 5, with an

eigenvalue of 1.195 accounts for 4.2% of the variance on intent towards blockchain applications.

Item TFC2 (0.81) refers to the belief that technology can improve the utility of other

technologies. TFC1 (0.61) and TFC2 (0.81) refers to technology enablement and ease of use.

TFC4 (0.57) assesses ethical consideration affecting the use of technology.

Self-efficacy is an important construct in many theoretical foundations (TPB: Ajzen,

2011; PMT: Rogers, 1975). Research question 3 explored the extent self-efficacy influenced

intent to adopt blockchain applications. Question 3 (SEF) was assessed using a 4-item scale (α =

0.910). Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s confidence in their ability to perform and achieve

specific goals. Self-efficacy emphasizes the individual’s judgment regarding his or her ability to

cope with or conduct a recommended action. The scale for self-efficacy (SEFI) was adapted

from Woon and Kakanhalli (2007), and all items on this scale loaded significantly on factor 3

(0.76). Factor 3, with an eigenvalue of 2.294 accounted for 8% of the variance on intent towards

blockchain applications. Also, self-efficacy correlates significantly with behavioral intent (r =

0.5, p <.01), which suggests that self-efficacy has some relationship with intent towards

blockchain applications.

Research question 4 explored the extent that perceived severity of a threat influences

intent towards blockchain applications. Perceived severity (PSE) scale was assessed using four

items adapted from Ifinedo (2012). The PSE scale (α = 0.65) loaded poorly on all factors. Just

one measure, PSE2 loaded significantly on factor 1. PSE2 assesses an individual’s belief that

their data will be stolen. PSE2 significantly correlated with behavioral intent (r =0.6, p < .01),
 109

which indicates that concern for data loss or theft bears some relationship with intent towards

blockchain applications; which is aligned with previous findings (Menard et al., 2014). This item

was measured using a 5-point Likert scale.

Research question 5 assessed an individual’s vulnerability to a data incident. The scale

for perceived vulnerability (PSV) was adapted from Ifinedo (2012). Four items (α = 0.89) were

used as indicators of an individual’ assessment of their vulnerability to a privacy threat.

Perceived vulnerability refers to the belief that a viable threat will occur. In this study, this refers

to an individual’s belief that their confidential record will be exposed to the public, often without

warning or pre-notification. Three items in this-this scale loaded highly on factor 1. Factor 1,

with an eigenvalue of 10.824 accounted for 39% of the variance on intent towards blockchain

applications. One item (PSV4) loaded poorly and was discarded. The other three items (PSV1,

PSV2, PSV3) loaded on factor 1 (along with PSE2) indicating a strong sense of dread. A 5-point

Likert scale was used to measure these items.

Research question 6 explored the influence of autonomy on attitude. Autonomy in this

study, autonomy refers to an individual’s ability to make independent choices that affect their

person, freely without coercion or external concern. McBride (2014) explained that threats to

autonomy undermine the social contract binding people together in the information age and that

this is a threat to human dignity. McBride conceptualized an autonomy, community,

transparency, identity, value, and emotion (ACTIVE) model, in order to describe the autonomy

of the individual. For parsimony, the researcher assessed autonomy using measures derived from

the subscale of authorship or self-congruence (α = 0.86). All four questions loaded appropriately

on factor 4 (0.77). Factor 4, with an eigenvalue of 1.612 accounted for 6% of the variance in

intent towards blockchain applications. The first question, AUT1 (0.74), represents autonomy in
 110

the context of important values and feelings. The second question, AUT2 (0.82), represents

autonomy in the context of identity. The third question, AUT3 (0.80) explores autonomy in the

context of the self.

Research question 7 explored latent intent towards blockchain application. The

behavioral intention (BHH) subscale had 4 items (α = 0.92). The degree of favorableness

towards an activity is related to attitude towards that activity (Ajzen, 2011). The researcher

adapted the scales for behavioral intention from extant literature (Ifinedo, 2012). These measures

assessed an individual’s existing intention to select a Blockchain application for personal

privacy. The items in this scale loaded on to factor 2. Factor 2, with an eigenvalue of 3.25

accounted for 12% of the total variance in intent towards blockchain applications. The first

question, BHI1, explores intention towards Blockchain application. The second question, BHI2,

clarifies such intention by asking about a context involving confidential data. The third question,

BHI3, restates intention in the context of privacy. Finally, the fourth question, BHI4, explored

intention in as broad a context as possible.

Hypotheses Testing. The following hypotheses were tested and accepted or rejected, as noted

below:

H01. k=0 factors are needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications. This

was rejected since more than zero factors were significantly extracted.

H02. k=1 factor is needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications. This was

rejected since more than one factor was significantly extracted.

H03. k=2 factors are needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications. This

was rejected since more than two factors were significantly extracted.
 111

H04. k=3 factors are needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications. This

was rejected since more than three factors were significantly extracted.

H05. k=4 factors are needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications. This

was rejected since more than four factors were significantly extracted.

H06. k=5 factors are needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications. This

was rejected since more than five factors were significantly extracted.

H07. k=6 factors are needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications. This

was not rejected since six factors were significantly extracted.

H08. k=7 factors are needed to characterize intent towards blockchain applications. This

was rejected since six factors were significantly extracted.

Evaluation of the Findings

The choice of rotation depends on the circumstance or theoretical consideration that

determines whether factors are independent or related. In most natural environments’ factors are

not independent therefore an oblique rotation is a sensible choice; however, to improve the

resolution of underlying factors, a rotated solution can be helpful (Fields, 2013; Menard et al.

2014). Pedhazur and Schmelkin (1991) suggested that when an oblique rotation shows a

negligible correlation between extracted factors, then an orthogonal rotation is sensible. After

exploratory analysis, six factors with an eigenvalue greater than one were extracted. The first

factor had an eigenvalue of 10.824 (39% of total variance), the second factor had an eigenvalue

of 3.252 (12% of total variance), the third factor had an eigenvalue of 2.294 (8.1% of total

variance), the fourth factor had an eigenvalue of 1,61 (5.7% of total variance), the fifth factor had

an eigenvalue of 1.195 (4.2% of total variance) and the sixth factor had an eigenvalue of 1.136

(4.0% of total variance). These six factors combined, represent 72.5% of the total variance. The
 112

next step was to perform rotation and test whether Ho7: k=6 factors is a reasonable hypothesis to

characterize intent towards blockchain applications. Convergence with the scree plot, parallel

analysis, and Kaiser’s criterion indicates that Ho7: k=6 factors were needed to characterize intent

towards blockchain applications. The researcher followed the guidance which stated that when

using the “factor transformation matrix,” when an oblique rotation shows minimally correlated

factor structure, then the orthogonally rotated structure can be used (Fields, 2013).

To extract observed factors, Stevens (2002) recommends that for a sample size of 100,

the loading should be greater than 0.512 and for a sample size of 200, the loading should be

greater than 0.364. The researcher suppressed small coefficients by excluding values below 0.4

improves the clarity of the factor structure in both rotated and non-rotated factor analysis. Also,

while the maximum likelihood method is best suited for normal data, it provides better clarity for

hypothesis testing (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2017). The research questions developed at the

beginning of the study all emerged as significant contributors to intent to adopt blockchain

applications. Of the six factors extracted, first two explained the majority of the variance. The six

factors were broadly described, in order from factor 1 to 6, as “I am very afraid,” “Blockchain or

bust,” “I can do anything,” “I need a cave,” “Give me technology,” and “Organizational security

is bad.”

“I am very afraid.” This is an appropriate description of the first factor extracted. With

an eigenvalue of 10.824, factor one accounted for 39% of the variance on intent towards

blockchain applications. It comprises of items derived from perceived severity of threats and

perceived vulnerability to threats. These items evaluated an individual’s threat perception and

vulnerability. One item in perceive severity (r = 0.6, p <.01), and 4 items in perceived

vulnerability scale (r = 0.6, p < .01) correlate significantly with intent to adopt blockchain
 113

applications. This data illustrates the importance of latent intent, technology, and threat in

driving the adoption of blockchain technology and supports the direct link between attitude and

intent as proposed by TPB (Ajzen, 2011). This indicates that the perception of threats is the most

significant contributor to intention towards blockchain applications. This supports early findings

that threat susceptibility (β = 0.099, p < 0.01) and severity (β = 0.114, p < 0.01) are important

indicators of intent to adopt a cloud application (Menard, 2014). The results justify the

application of PMT as the theoretical basis of this inquiry and align with findings which show

that security concerns explain over 44% of the variance regarding the selection of a cloud

computing platform (Rogers, 1975; Oliviera et al., 2014). Also, research findings show that

individual perception of risk to PHI or PII will evoke a corresponding protective response (van

Schaik et al., 2018). This analysis did not evaluate the impact of ease and convenience as

indicators of intent towards cloud technology (Menard et al., 2014).

“Blockchain or bust.” The second factor measured latent intent towards blockchain

applications and may simply assess the impact of the hype surrounding blockchain and Bitcoin.

In a community with a heightened awareness of cryptocurrency, some curiosity about blockchain

will be present. For some, there is a need to use blockchain for something because it is cool.

Factor 2, with an eigenvalue of 3.25 accounted for 12% of the total variance in behavioral intent

towards blockchain applications. The first survey question, BHI1, explored overall intention

towards blockchain while the other questions clarified behavioral intention using various

contexts. From a technological perspective, individuals are known to seek technologies that

empower their autonomy, and that would minimize their mistakes or consequences of their

action (Woodside, Augustine, & Gilberson, 2017). Hence, it is not surprising that a significant

portion of early blockchain adopters includes criminal with sensitivity to privacy, who seek
 114

untraceable illicit proceeds from malware and ransomware attacks (Woodside et al., 2017).

Behavioral intent also correlates significantly with technological facilitation (r = 0.5, p < .01),

self-efficacy (r = 0.4, p < .01), an item in perceive severity (r = 0.6, p <.01), and perceived

vulnerability (r = 0.6, p < .01). This data illustrates the importance of latent intent, technology,

and threat in driving the adoption of blockchain technology and supports the direct link between

attitude and intent as proposed by the TPB.

“I can do anything.” The components of factor 3 capture the essence and importance of

self-efficacy in motivating individual action. This “can do” spirit is the reason self-efficacy is a

significant construct in both TPB and PMT (Ajzen, 2011; Rogers, 1975). Factor 3 affirmed

research question 3. The data shows that self-efficacy correlates significantly with behavioral

intent to adopt blockchain applications (r = 0.5, p < .01). As expected, self-efficacy also

correlated significantly with technology facilitation (r = 0.5, p < .01). Self-efficacy (SEFI) scale

adapted from Woon and Kakanhalli (2007) had an eigenvalue of 2.294, which accounted for 8%

of the variance on intent towards blockchain applications. This construct illustrates the

importance of the skills and measures needed to protect an individual’s personal information

(Bandura, 1991). Self-efficacy is the confidence in an individual’s ability to cope effectively and

has been shown to strongly predict protection motivation in a variety of contexts (Herath & Rao,

2009).

“Leave me alone.” This is an appropriate expression for items from factor 4, which

assess individual privacy. These survey questions were adapted from Smith et al. (1996) and

were used to measure privacy dimensions; namely concerns about data collection, concerns

about errors in personal data, unauthorized use or misuse of personal data and improper access to

personal data. Factor 6 with an eigenvalue of 1.13 accounts for 4.0% of the variance on intent
 115

towards blockchain applications. The second survey question (PVA2) reflects an individual’s

expectation of organizational security practices, third survey question (PVA3) refers to an

individual’s personal conviction about an organization’s obligation to secure data, while the

fourth survey question (PVA4) measures an individual’s attitude towards the cost of protecting

confidential data. These items correlate weakly with behavioral intent, technology facilitation,

and perception of threat and may warrant future analysis. It is not surprising that attitude towards

blockchain correlates with the intention to control the processing and transfer of personal

information as well as the interactions involving personal information (Dienlin & Trepte, 2015).

“Give me technology.” Individuals’ perceptions of the enabling role of technology in

providing facilitating attributes for data exploitation is associated with increased behavioral

control towards the use of technology (Chatterjee et al., 2015). These items converged on factor

5 (0.66). Factor 5 with an eigenvalue of 1.195 accounts for 4.2% of the variance related to intent

towards blockchain applications. Various items such as survery question TFC2 (0.81) refers to

the belief that technology can improve the utility of other technologies. TFC1 (0.61) and TFC2

(0.81) refers to technology enablement and ease of use. TFC4 (0.57) assesses ethical

consideration affecting the use of technology. The items in factor 5 correlate significantly (r =

0.5, p < .01) with behavioral intent towards blockchain applications. These findings assert that

feeling towards technology influences intent towards blockchain applications. In support,

technology is known to drive changes in social behavior, especially in online dating using mobile

applications (Jung, Bapna, Ramaprasad & Umyarov, 2019). Researchers also recognized

individuals’ perceptions of the enabling role of technology in providing facilitating attributes

(Chatterjee et al., 2015).

 116

“I am the master of my universe.” The autonomy of the individual converged on factor

4. Autonomy refers to an individual’s ability to make reasoned choices that affect their person,

freely without coercion or external concern. McBride (2014) explained that threats to autonomy

undermine the social contract binding people together in the information age and that this is a

threat to human dignity. McBride conceptualized an autonomy, community, transparency,

identity, value, and emotion (ACTIVE) model to describe the autonomy of the individual. Factor

4, with an eigenvalue of 1.612 accounted for 6% of the variance found in the items. The items

comprising factor 6 (autonomy) did not correlate significantly with behavioral intent but

correlated with selected items such as perceived severity and perceived vulnerability to threats.

The first survey question, AUT1 (0.74), represents autonomy in the context of values and

feelings. The second survey question AUT2 (0.82), represents autonomy in the context of

identity. The third survey question, AUT3 (0.80) explores autonomy in the context of the self.

Extant research supports the findings that autonomy promotes interest-taking in technologies

such as blockchain; a component of the General Causality Orientation Scale by Deci and Ryan

(1985). The self-determination scale also highlights the importance of autonomy in choice-

making (Sheldon, 1995). Furthermore, autonomy is a necessary component of subjective well-

being (Olesen, Thomsen, & O’Toole, 2015).

Summary

The researcher explored individual behavior towards secure peer-to-peer technology such

as blockchain, in the context of personal autonomy and threats to privacy. Exploratory factor

analysis (EFA) was used to analyze the relationships between various measures and to develop

appropriate theories (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2017). The results show that six factors are

significant in influencing the use of blockchain applications. The data also shows that there are
 117

subtle differences between genders on the significance of these factors. Two dominant factors

emerged, attitude to technology and perception of threats. These findings support extant research

on protection motivation and validate the theoretical basis for this analysis, which is anchored on

threat protection. This exploration benefits from the mix of theoretical foundations such as

protection motivation theory (PMT) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Researchers

found that the combined model explained 70% of the variance related to behavioral intention

while each model individually represented 45% and 60% of the variance (Ifinedo, 2012). Using

EFA, relevant constructs and measures were drawn from the following general questions:

privacy questions, technology questions, anonymity questions, self-efficacy questions, perceived

severity questions, and perceived vulnerability questions (Osborne, 2015). These questions were

affirmed as important factors that influence an individual’s intent towards blockchain

applications.
 118

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions

The problem the researcher addressed is persistent data breaches and its impact on

individual technology choices. When individuals perceive a significant threat to sensitive

personal records, they may explore alternatives such as anonymous and autonomous systems

(Assadulah, & Onyefolahan, 2015; Zhao, Detlor, & Connelly, 2016). Insecurity is a persistent

concern partly due to the onerous task of defending against cyber-attacks (Dutta, Peng,

Choudray, 2013; Munodawafa & Awad, 2018). It was recently reported that 500 million

individual accounts were compromised at Yahoo (Verizon Inc, 2018). Similar events have

engulfed other large organizations such as Facebook, Grindr, Equifax, TJX, and others. These

and many other companies have suffered significant data exposure events affecting hundreds of

millions of individual records (Gressin, 2017).

The purpose of this quantitative non-experimental cross-sectional study was to assess

factors influencing individual attitude towards blockchain applications when they have concerns

about threats to privacy. As the threats to personal privacy increases, individual behavior could

change and the determinants that influence the adoption of secure technology is likely to provide

practitioners, businesses, and researchers with improved visibility into consumer behavior and

choice (Kraus, Wechsung & Möller, 2017; Acquisti, Brandimarte & Loewenstein, 2015). While

researchers have shown that the individual perception of insecurity can evoke a protective

response (Van Schaik et al., 2018), such insight does not accurately predict protective behavior

when salient psychological and privacy factors also play important roles (Kraus et al., 2017).

A post-positivist worldview provides an opportunity to develop ideas that increase social

occurrence using experiences, views, and perspectives of participants (Karatas-Ozkan, Anderson,

Fayolle, Howells & Candor, 2014). With factor analysis, mathematical methods are used to
 119

simplify underlying relationships between variables using patterns of correlations and

observations (Child, 1976). Exploration provides opportunities to uncover salient factors that

underpin individual attitude towards new technology. In exploring individual attitude towards

misuse or loss of personal data, it is necessary to incorporate an appropriate coping strategy such

as intention towards anonymity and control using blockchain technology (Rogers, 1975).

Previous researchers often failed to explore the basic constructs underlying attitude towards

personal data security (Chatterjee et al., 2015; Menard et al., 2014). In this study, the researcher

relied on EFA to analyze latent constructs necessary to determine a subset of relationship that

forms the basis of correlation among factors (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2017). While a qualitative

inquiry would have been more exhaustive and may yield a broader perspective into observed

factors, such method will not provide information on the size of the effect or the strength of each

relationship. EFA, in contrast, involves measuring the variable, determining the correlation

matrix, extracting the factors, optionally rotating the factors for interpretability, and then

subjectively evaluating the results (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014).

Using participants from a Facebook forum on blockchain, individuals were surveyed on

various scales derived from existing research instruments. The results show that all the research

questions were affirmative and that the selected scales measured and validated the influence of

threat perception, threat vulnerability, self-efficacy, autonomy, and technology affection on

intent to adopt blockchain applications. The results also show that some factors, such as threat

appraisal and technology affections, differ across gender. The preceding finding is supported by

research that shows that men are more impulsive with technology than women (Jung et al. 2019).

There are several limitations in this study, including the source of participants for this study, the

number of participants and their distribution across various demographics and populations.
 120

Factor analysis usually benefits from a larger sample size; however, in this study, the sample size

was barely adequate. The location and source of participants is also of some concern. While

Facebook is an acceptable medium for research (Kosinski, Matz, Gosling, Popov & Stillwell,

2015), it is difficult to qualify it as a stable source of participants since membership cannot be

attributed to a location. To minimize the global reach, the survey disallowed the participation for

non-residents of the United States. Despite these concerns, Facebook is acknowledged to be a

valuable research tool for social science researchers (Kosinski, Matz, Gosling, Popov &

Stillwell, 2015). In the next paragraph, the researcher will discuss the implications of the results

of this analysis and make recommendations for practice.

Implications

The findings of this research present an assessment of factors that influence intention

towards blockchain applications, especially in an environment with frequent reports of

organizational insecurity, mobile insecurity, and prevalence of data theft. This study’s findings

imply that there is substantial interest in the casual use of blockchain applications to overcome

threats to privacy. Some hint of this finding was evident in the rapid adoption of cryptocurrencies

worldwide. The results show that blockchain applications will likely spread to other business

sectors, although further confirmation of these findings will clarify this message. An

understanding of the factors that influence intent towards blockchain applications will assist

researchers and practitioners in coping with future demand and designing better services.

In this study, a dominant theme is that perception of threats and technology aptitude

motivates intent towards blockchain applications. Labeled as “I am very afraid,” the first factor

extracted accounted for 39% of the variance on intent towards blockchain applications. It

comprised of items derived from perceived severity of threats and perceived vulnerability to
 121

threats. Threat perception and severity were identified as major factors by both genders. While

the significance of threats is more pronounced with women, the impact of tangible threats

provided a basis to validate the utility of the PMT model in this study. Using PMT Rogers (1975)

emphasized the importance of assessing the validity of the threat and coping response in the

context of a clearly defined threat and coping mechanism. In the age of the internet and

smartphones, individuals are likely to store private information in their devices and hence are

more likely to worry about such data being compromised. Popular entertainment and political

personalities have been compromised by the release of private texts, or pictures they thought

were safely stored on their phones (Marwick, 2017). In some cases, families and lives have been

broken by a sudden dump of private messages or media (Zimmerle, 2018). Individuals with

knowledge and experience with blockchain understand its benefits such as autonomy,

anonymity, and integrity. Given this awareness, participants chose technology and threats as the

most important factors influencing intent towards blockchain applications. Surprisingly,

autonomy was not viewed as highly, possibly because autonomy rarely guarantees anonymity.

An analysis of messages on the online message forum StackOverflow found that web

security, mobile security, cryptography, software security, and system security were the leading

topics of concern among technologists (Yang et al., 2016). Other findings support the conclusion

that threats motivate security behavior (Crossler et al., 2014; Ifinedo, 2012; Teodor et al., 2015).

In contrast, Menard et al. (2014) found that convenience is more important in the selection of a

cloud platform for backups, but they acknowledged the strong influence of threats. To emphasize

the importance of security and threat mitigation, the PKI infrastructure which is important for

blockchains is applied to a wide variety of technology initiatives including network security,

internet of things, web, storage and transactional security (Bala, Maity & Jena, 2017). Hence,
 122

perceptions of insecurity will continue to affect the development of autonomous technologies

such as blockchain.

Self-efficacy and technology affection were also identified as important factors that

influence intent towards blockchain applications. Self-efficacy refers to the “I can do anything”

mindset. Those individuals are more likely to take on the task of protecting themselves because

they believe they can. A category of users who appear to be enamored with the hype of

blockchain were labeled as the “Blockchain or bust” group. Those sentiments correlate strongly

with the intent to use a blockchain application. The implications are that individuals with

confidence in technology are drawn to platforms such as blockchain. These individuals are more

likely to be competent with private and public keys, digital wallets, and smart contracts. In public

blockchain communities, competence is often rewarded. For example, when a miner computes a

hash that is within a certain parameter, they receive a cryptocurrency reward (Woodside,

Augustine, & Gilberson, 2017). Other factors were also found to be important in influencing

intent towards blockchain applications. The analysis shows that the strength of these factors is

not as high as threats, technology, and latent interest, however, they are important within the

parameters of this research. These factors include privacy and autonomy. Individuals with a

heightened sense of privacy and autonomy are also likely to adopt blockchain applications. This

finding implies that excessive collection of private data and its potential loss may cause

defections from existing products towards blockchain applications.

Recommendations for Practice

Blockchain applications have a strong appeal to individuals with concerns about privacy

or who may rely on personal applications for private artifacts and data. These concerns, when

they are perceived as threats, may cause a change in behavior. Researchers have shown that the
 123

majority of pregnant women use pregnancy monitoring applications (Hughes et al., 2019; Lupton

& Pedersen, 2016). While many women expect privacy and anonymity with their pregnancy

records, the applications do not honor those expectations (Zimmerle, 2018). When confronted

with the reality that their data is public, some women may perceive a threat to privacy. Hence, it

is important to validate that applications storing sensitive private data utilize blockchain and PKI

infrastructure to assure the anonymity of clients. Anonymized data if stolen, may not be of great

concern to the owner. While anonymized data is still useful for research, its benefits to criminals

are questionable.

Organizations should also evaluate the necessity to store sensitive private data

anonymously. Organizations should consider the use of other methods of identification that does

not involve linking user identity to the data. Several studies have evaluated better ways to

leverage blockchain to store data anonymously within the blockchain while maintaining minimal

third-party control and conforming with legal mandates (Giancaspro, 2017; Kirkmann &

Newman, 2018). The advent of decentralized autonomous organizations portends the future trend

in business transactions platforms used to conduct business. The Ethereum blockchain platform

features smart contracts that can initiate and complete transactions without identity. As

individuals become even more aware of the limitations of organizational security, blockchain-

type autonomous organizations are likely to gain more ground in the industry (Woodside et al.,

2017). Since research shows that individuals view threats as a major motivator towards

blockchain applications and the incidence of organizational threats is ever present, there is little

choice but to invest in technologies that assure anonymity and minimizes the value of stolen

data. Unfortunately, it is necessary to be aware that blockchain can also be used to create new
 124

forms of malware that can overcome existing anti-viral programs (Moubarak, J., Chamoun, M.,

& Filiol, E, 2018).

Recommendations for Future Research

As data breaches and online attacks on organizations escalate across the globe, security is

a major concern of individuals and organizations. The common approach is to implement

security policies and adhere to mandates; however, this approach has not yielded expected

results. Organizations struggle to implement proposed mandates even as workers and security

staff persists as a weak link. Within organizations, training regimens and hardening initiatives

have provided temporary assurances of security. This study illustrates the importance individuals

place on their security and the factors that may compel individuals to seek alternative tools.

Organizations that leverage the knowledge gained from research into autonomous technologies

are likely to prosper in a world where personal-use applications are prevalent.

Future research could provide confirmatory steps necessary to establish the strength and

direction of the factors extracted in this study, as well as validate the linear and non-linear

relationship among these constructs, in the presence of mediating and moderating factors. Future

exploratory research can also be performed in other electronic forums and should utilize larger

populations to validate the conclusions of this study. The next step in this research is

confirmatory analysis using these factors, including the full complement of constructs derived

from TPB and PMT. Portions of chapter 2 in this study could be used to assist future researchers

in familiarizing themselves with the literature.

Conclusions

This study was an attempt to analyze the factors that influence an individual’s intent

toward blockchain applications. This analysis was important because blockchain applications
 125

come with built-in anonymity and integrity, which can lessen the concerns about data loss. Since

data breaches and insecurity plague many organizations, mobile applications, cloud vendors, and

even hardware vendors; it is necessary to transact business without reliance on identification.

This study illustrates the importance of fear in motivating attitudes towards blockchain and its

potential to motivate the adoption of blockchain applications. It also highlights the disparity

among genders in the importance of threats and technology in making assessments about

personal security. While male participants place technology high on the list of factors, the female

participants place threats highest. When applications such as pregnancy tracking tools are

insecure, users with sensitivity will worry about exposure of personal records, and this may, in

turn, influence the intent towards blockchain applications. When applications are created for

women’s health, the impact of data insecurity should be taken seriously. Hence, wanton

compromises and fear of data breaches with attendant violations of privacy will increasingly

push users towards blockchain-type applications. Such a trend is already evident in the

cryptocurrency industry where blockchain applications dominate. PMT is appropriate as a model

for this study due to its threat appraisal and coping appraisal constructs. The results support the

findings of many studies which show that threats compel changes in security behavior as

affirmed by this study as well.

 126

References

Ablon, L., Heaton, P., Lavery, D. C., & Romanosky, S. (2016). Consumer attitudes toward data
breach notifications and loss of personal information. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation. doi:10.7249/j.ctt1bz3vwh

Abraham, S. (2012). Exploring the effectiveness of information security training and persuasive
messages Available from Dissertations & Theses Europe Full Text: Business. Retrieved
from http://www.riss.kr/pdu/ddodLink.do?id=T13297098

Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age
of information. Science, 30(347), 509-514. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1465

Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology &
Health, 26(9), 1113-1127. doi:10.1080/08870446.2011.613995

Allen, J. (2017). Surviving ransomware. American Journal of Family Law, 31(2), 65. Retrieved
from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/journals/am-j-fam-law/

Alsaleh, M., Alomar, N., & Alarifi, A. (2017). Smartphone users: Understanding how security
mechanisms are perceived and new persuasive methods. PLoS One, 12(3), e0173284.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173284

Al-Muhtadi, J., Qiang, M., Saleem, K., AlMusallam, M., & Rodrigues, J. (2018). Misty clouds—
A layered cloud platform for online user anonymity in social internet of things. Future
Generation Computer Systems, 92, 812-820. doi:10.1016/j.future.2017.12.040

Al-Saggaf, Y. (2015). Data mining and privacy of social network site’s users: Implications of the
data mining problem. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(4), 941-966.
doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9564-6

American Psychological Association. (2003). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of

Conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code.html

Anderson, C., Baskerville, R. L., & Kaul, M. (2017). Information security control theory:
Achieving a sustainable reconciliation between sharing and protecting the privacy of
information. Journal of Management Information Systems, 34(4), 1082.
doi:10.1080/07421222.2017.1394063

Anderson, C. L., & Agarwal, R. (2010). Practicing safe computing: A multimethod empirical
examination of home computer user security behavioral intentions. MIS Quarterly, 34(3),
613-643. doi:10.2307/25750694

Andres, A., & Asongu, S. (2013). Fighting software piracy: Which governance tools matter in
Africa? Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 66-682. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1620-7

Anoica, A., & Levard, H. (2018). Quantitative description of internal activity on the Ethereum
public blockchain. 2018 9th IFIP International Conference on New Technologies,
 127

Mobility and Security (NTMS) New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS), Paris
France. doi:10.1109/NTMS.2018.8328741

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-
analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471-499.
doi:10.1348/014466601164939

Appari, A., & Johnson, M. E. (2010). Information security and privacy in healthcare.
International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management, 6(4), 279-314.
doi:10.1504/IJIEM.2010.035624

Assadulah, A. M., & Onyefolahan, I. O. (2015). Factors influencing information privacy concern
in cloud computing environment. International Symposium on Mathematical Sciences
and Computing Research (iSMSC). Symposium conducted by the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Ipon Malaysia. doi:10.1109/ISMSC.2015.7594059

Auspurg, K., & Hinz, T. (2015). Factorial survey experiments. Los Angeles CA: SAGE.

Azaria, A., Ekblaw, A., Vieira, T., & Lippman, A. (2016). MedRec: Using Blockchain for
Medical Data Access and Permission Management. Paper presented at 2nd International
Conference on Open and Big Data (OBD), Vienna, Austria. doi:10.1109/OBD.2016.11

Bala, D. Q., Maity, S., & Jena, K. S. (2017). Mutual authentication for IoT smart environment
using certificate-less public key cryptography. Third International Conference on
Sensing, Signal Processing and Security (ICSSS). Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE), Chennai, India. doi:10.1109/SSPS.2017.8071559

Bailey, L. (2014) IRB: History and ethical principles. Fort Lauderdale, FL: CITI Program.
Retrieved from https://www.citiprogram.org

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L

Barnham, C. (2012). Separating methodologies? International Journal of Market Research,

54(6), 736–738. doi:10.2501/IJMR-54-6-736-738

Baskerville, R., Spagnoletti, P., & Kim, J. (2014). Incident centered information security:
Managing a strategic balance between prevention and response. Information and
Management, 51(1), 138-151. doi:10.1016/j.im.2013.11.004

Bazerman, M. H., & Gino, F. (2012). Behavioral ethics: Toward a deeper understanding of moral
judgment and dishonesty. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8(1), 85-104.
doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102811-173815

Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., & Esquivel, S. L.
(2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational
research. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(6), 1-13. Retrieved from
https://pareonline.net/pdf/v18n6.pdf
 128

Beck, R., Czepluch, J. S., Lollike, N., & Malone, S. (2016). Blockchain – The gateway to trust-
free cryptographic transactions. Proceedings at AIS Electronic Library: Research
Papers: Vol. 153. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisenet.org/ecis2016_rp/153

Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation
perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305-314. 10.1037//0033-2909.110.2.305

Boss, S. R., Galletta, D. F., Lowry, P. B., Moody, G. D., & Polak, P. (2015). What do systems
users have to fear? Using fear appeals to engender threats and fear that motivate
protective security behaviors. MIS Quarterly, 39(4), 837. Retrieved from http://misq.org

Boyce, B. (2017). Emerging technology and the health insurance portability and accountability
act. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 117(4), 517.
doi:10.1016/j.jand.2016.05.013

Bringula, R. P., Moraga, S. D., Catacutan, A. E., Jamis, M. N. & Mangao, D. F. (2018). Factors
influencing online purchase intention of smartphones: A hierarchical regression analysis.
Cogent Business & Management, 5(1) doi:10.1080/23311975.2018.1496612

Bruch, E., & Feinberg, F. (2017). Decision-making processes in social contexts. Annual Review
of Sociology, 43, 207. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053622

Buchanan, T., Paine, C., Joinson, A. N., & Reips, U. (2007). Development of measures of online
privacy concern and protection for use on the Internet. Journal of The American Society
For Information Science & Technology, 58(2), 157-165. doi:10.1002/asi.20459

Bulgurcu, B., Cavusoglu, H., & Benbasat, I. (2010). Information security policy compliance: An
empirical study of rationality-based beliefs and information security awareness. MIS
Quarterly, 34(3), 523-548. Retrieved from http://www.misq.org

Cattell, R. (2010). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
1(1966-2), 245-276. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10

Chaoqun M., Xiaolin K., Qiujun L., & Zhongding Z. (2019). The privacy protection mechanism
of Hyperledger Fabric and its application in supply chain finance. Cybersecurity, (1), 1.
doi:10.1186/s42400-019-0022-2

Chatterjee, S., Sarker, S., & Valacich, J. S. (2015). The behavioral roots of information systems
security: Exploring key factors related to unethical IT use. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 31(4), 49. doi:10.1080/07421222.2014.1001257

Chen, Y., Ramamurthy, K., & Wen, K. (2012). Organizations' information security policy
compliance: Stick or carrot approach? Journal of Management Information Systems,
29(3), 157-188. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222290305

Chen, S., Chiang, D., Liu, C., Chen, T., Lai, F., Wang, H., & Wei, W. (2016). Confidentiality
protection of digital health records in cloud computing. Journal of Medical Systems,
40(5), 1-12. doi:10.1007/s10916-016-0484-7
 129

Chickowski, E. (2016). Average cost of data breaches rises past $4 million, Ponemon says.
Retrieved from Dark Reading website http://www.darkreading.com/risk/average-cost-of-
data-breaches-rises-past-$4-million-ponemon-says/d/d-id/1325921

Child, D. (1976). The essentials of factor analysis (Repr. ed.). London: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.

Cisco.com. (2016, October). An Introduction to the Internet of Things (IoT). Retrieved from
Cisco website
http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/solutions/trends/iot/introduction_to_IoT_november.p
df.

Citron, D. K. (2019). Sexual privacy. Yale Law Journal, 128(7), 1870-1960. Retrieved from
https://www.yalelawjournal.org

Cohen, I. G., Hoffman, S., & Adashi, E. Y. (2017). Your money or your patient's life?
Ransomware and electronic health records. Annals of Internal Medicine, 167(8), 587-588.
doi:10.7326/M17-1312

Coinbase. (2017). Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin Price Charts. Available from Coinbase
website https://www.coinbase.com/charts?locale=en-US

Çokluk, Ö, & Koçak, D. (2016). Using horn's parallel analysis method in exploratory factor
analysis for determining the number of factors. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri,
16(2), 537. doi:10.12738/estp.2016.2.0328

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. (5th Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage

Crossler, R., & Bélanger, F. (2014). An extended perspective on individual security behaviors:
Protection motivation theory and a unified security practices (USP) instrument. Database
for Advances in Information Systems, 45(4), 51. doi:10.1145/2691517.2691521/

Experian (2018). Data Breach Industry Forecast. Available from Experian Inc.
http://www.experian.com

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in
personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109-134. doi:10.1016/0092-
6566(85)90023-6

Degabriele, J. P., & Stam, M. (2018). Untagging Tor: A Formal Treatment of Onion Encryption.
Paper presented at the Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications
of Cryptographic Techniques - EUROCRYPT 2018. Tel Aviv, Israel. doi:10.1007/978-3-
319-78372-7_9
 130

Dienlin, T., & Trepte, S. (2015). Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in-depth analysis
of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45,
285-297. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2049

Donate, M. J., & Guadamillas, F. (2011). Organizational factors to support knowledge

management and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 890-914.
doi:10.1108/13673271111179271

Dutta, A., Peng, G. C., & Choudray, A. (2013). Risks in enterprise cloud computing: The
perspective of IT experts. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 53(4), 39-48.
doi:10.1080/08874417.2013.11645649

Edwards, B., Hofmeyr, S., & Forrest, S. (2016). Hype and heavy tails: A closer look at data
breaches. Journal of Cybersecurity, 2(1), 3-14. doi:10.1093/cybsec/tyw003

Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between
constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 155-174. 10.1037//1082-
989X.5.2.155

Emekter, R., Tu, Y., & Jirasakuldech, B. (2015). Evaluating credit risk and loan performance in
online Peer-to-Peer (P2P) lending. Applied Economics, 47(1), 54-70. doi:
10.1080/00036846.2014.962222

Equifax/Harris Consumer Privacy (1996). Available from Equifax website

http://www.frogfire.com/frogfire_archive/equifax/consumers/privacy_survey/privacy_sur
vey_1996.html

Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2017). Further considerations on conceptualizing and

evaluating the replication of research results. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
69, 241-243 doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.003

Favaretto, M., De Clercq, E., & Elger, B. S. (2019). Big data and discrimination: Perils, promises
and solutions. A systematic review. Journal of Big Data, 6(1), 1-1. doi:10.1186/s40537-
019-0177-4

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2016). Incidents of Ransomware on the Rise. Retrieved from
http://scholar.aci.info/view/154eecbdee300110002/1555446de9a00014c0b

Fields, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS. CA: Sage Publications.

Feng, N., Wang, H. J., & Li, M. (2014). A security risk analysis model for information systems:
Causal relationships of risk factors and vulnerability propagation analysis. Information
Sciences, 256, 57-73. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2013.02.036

Franklin, S. B., Gibson, D. J., Robertson, P. A., Pohlmann, J. T., & Fralish, J. S. (1995). Parallel
analysis: A method for determining significant principal components. Journal of
Vegetation Science, 6, 99-106. Retrieved from https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/pb_pubs/9/
 131

Freet, D., Agrawal, R., John, S., & Walker, J. (2015). Cloud forensics challenges from a service
model standpoint: IaaS, PaaS and SaaS. Paper presented at MEDES '15 Proceedings of
the 7th International Conference on Management of computational and collective
intelligence in digital ecosystems (Pages 148-155). Caraguatatuba Brazil.
doi:10.1145/2857218.2857253

Fuller, C., Simmering, M., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. (2016). Common methods variance
detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192-3198. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008

Gartner. (2016). Gartner Says by 2020 ‘Cloud Shift’ Will Affect More Than $1 Trillion in IT
Spending. Available from Gartner Inc. website:
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3384720

Giancaspro, M. (2017). Is a ‘smart contract’ really a smart idea? Insights from a legal
perspective. Computer Law and Security Review, 33, 827-83.
doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2017.05.007

Gino, F., & Staats, B. (2015). Why organizations don’t learn. Harvard Business Review.
Available from Harvard Business Review website https://hbr.org/2015/11/why-
organizations-dont-learn

Goldberg, E. (2013). Preventing a data breach from becoming a disaster. Journal of Business
Continuity & Emergency Planning, 6(4), 295-303. Retrieved from
http://www.henrystewartpublications.com/

Gordon, W., Wright, A. & Landman, A. (2017). Blockchain in health care: Decoding the hype.
Retrieved from https://catalyst.nejm.org/decoding-blockchain-technology-health/

Graber, A. (2016). Lessons from Tuskegee: What law enforcement can learn from the history of
bioethics. Criminal Justice Ethics, 35(2), 123-141. doi:10.1080/0731129X.2016.1204715

Green, A., Albanese, B., Cafri, G., & Aarons, G. (2014). Leadership, organizational climate, and
working alliance in a children’s mental health service system. Community Mental Health
Journal, 50(7), 771-777. doi:10.1007/s10597-013-9668-5

Gressin, S. (2017). The Equifax data breach: What to do. Federal Trade Commission. Retrieved
from Equifax website https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2017/09/equifax-data-breach-
what-do

Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). New state of play in information systems research: The push
to the edges. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 271-296 doi:10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.01

Guzman, A., & Jones, S. (2014). Napster and the press: Framing music technology. First
Monday, 19, 10-6. doi:10.5210/fm.v19i10.5545

Hammill, A. (2017). The rise and wrath of ransomware and what it means for society (Masters
Thesis). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Utica College.
 132

Harman, H.H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed. revised). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.

Hart, S. (2016). After the data breach: Managing the crisis and mitigating the impact. Journal of
Business Continuity and Emergency Planning, 9(4), 317-327.

Harun, S. (2017). Emotional intelligence and self-esteem as predictors of teacher self-efficacy.

Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 12(22), 1107-1111. doi:
10.5897/ERR2017.3385

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). (1996). P.L. No. 104-191, 110
Stat. 1938. U.S. Congress.

Herath, T. & Rao, H. R. (2009). Protection motivation and deterrence: A framework for security
policy compliance in organizations. European Journal of Information Systems, 18(2),
106-125. doi:10.1057/ejis.2009.6

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rational and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.
Psychometrika, 30(2), 179-185. doi:10.1007/BF0228944

Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y., Misra, S., Rana, N., Raghavan, V., & Akella, V. (2019). Blockchain
research, practice and policy: Applications, benefits, limitations, emerging research
themes and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 114-
129. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.02.005

Huigang, L., & Yajiong, X. (2009). Avoidance of information technology threats: A theoretical
perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 71-90. Retrieved from http://misq.org

Humphreys, L. G., & Montanelli, R. G. Jr. (1975). An investigation of the parallel analysis
criteria on for determining the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 10, 193–205. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr1002_5

Ifinedo, P. (2012). Understanding information systems security policy compliance: An

integration of the theory of planned behavior and the protection motivation theory.
Computers & Security, 31(1), 83-95. doi:10.1016/j.cose.2011.10.007

Ifinedo, P. (2014). Information systems security policy compliance: An empirical study of the
effects of socialisation, influence, and cognition. Information & Management, 51(1), 69-
79. doi:10.1016/j.im.2013.10.001

Information Portal: General Data Protection Regulation (2018) European Union. Retrieved from
https://www.eugdpr.org/

Jasso, G. (2006). Factorial survey methods for studying beliefs and judgments. Sociological
Methods & Research, 34(3), 334-423. doi:10.1177/0049124105283121
 133

Jolliffe, I. T. (1972). Discarding variable in a principal component analysis 1: Artificial data.

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), 21(2), 160-173. doi:
10.2307/2346488

Joly, Y., Feze, I, N., & Simard, J. (2013). Genetic discrimination and life insurance: A
systematic review of the evidence. BMC Medicine, 11(25), 1-1. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-
11-25

Johnston, A. C., & Warkentin, M. (2010). Fear appeals and information security behaviors: An
empirical study. MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 549-566. Retrieved from http://misq.org

Joskow, P. L. (2002). Transaction cost economics, antitrust rules, and remedies. Journal of Law,
Economics, & Organization, 18(1), 95-116. doi:10.1093/jleo/18.1.95

Jung, J., Bapna, R., Ramaprasad, J., & Umyarov, A. (2019). Love unshackled: Identifying the
effect of mobile app adoption in online dating. MIS Quarterly, 43(1), 47-72.
doi:10.25300/MISQ/2019/14289

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Education and
Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151. doi:10.1177/001316446002000116

Karatas-Ozkan, M., Anderson, A. R., Fayolle, A., Howells, J., & Condor, R. (2014).
Understanding entrepreneurship: Challenging dominant perspectives and theorizing
entrepreneurship through new postpositivist epistemologies. Journal of Small Business
Management, 52(4), 589-593. doi:10.1111/jsbm.12124

Kelley, S. W., Skinner, S. J., & Ferrell, O. C. (1989). Opportunistic behavior in marketing
research organizations. Journal of Business Research, 18(4), 327-340. doi:10.1016/0148-
2963(89)90025-8

Kendall, K. E., Kendall, J. E., & Lee, K. C. (2005). Understanding disaster recovery planning
through a theatre metaphor: Rehearsing for a show that might never open.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 1.
doi:10.17705/1CAIS.01651

Khan, S. I., Sayed, A., & Hoque, L. (2016). Digital health data: A comprehensive review of
privacy and security risks and some recommendations. Computer Science Journal of
Moldova, 24(2), 273-292. Retrieved from
https://doaj.org/article/188a32c6147244ccb294c3b56a9ee689

Kim, J., Park, E., & Baskerville, R. L. (2016). A model of emotion and computer abuse.
Information and Management, 53, 91-108. doi:10.1016/j.im.2015.09.003

King, B., & Thatcher, A. (2014). Attitudes towards software piracy in South Africa: Knowledge
of intellectual property laws as a moderator. Behavior and Information Technology,
33(3), 209-223. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2012.688870
 134

Kiraz, M. (2016). A comprehensive meta-analysis of cryptographic security mechanisms for

cloud computing. Journal of Ambient Intelligence & Humanized Computing, 7(5), 731.
doi:10.1007/s12652-016-0385-0

Kirkman, S., & Newman, R. (2018). A cloud data movement policy architecture based on smart
contracts and the Ethereum blockchain. IEEE International Conference on Cloud
Engineering (IC2E). Orlando, Florida, USA. doi:10.1109/IC2E.2018.00071

Kosinski, M., Matz, S. C., Gosling, S. D., Popov, V., & Stillwell, D. (2015). Facebook as a
research tool for the social sciences: Opportunities, challenges, ethical considerations,
and practical guidelines. American Psychologist, 70(6), 543-556. doi:10.1037/a0039210

Kraus, L., Wechsung, I., & Möller, S. (2017). Psychological needs as motivators for security and
privacy actions on smartphones. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 34,
34–45. Retrieved from http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jisa

Kshetri, N. (2017). Blockchain's roles in strengthening cybersecurity and protecting privacy.

Telecommunications Policy, 41, 1027-1038. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2017.09.003

Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions, 50th Ed. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.

Lai, P. C. (2017). The literature review of technology adoption models and theories for the
novelty technology. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 14(1),
21. doi:10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002

Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2010). Understanding security behaviors in personal computer usage: A
threat avoidance perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(7),
394-413. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/

Leonard, L. N. K., Cronan, T. P., & Kreie, J. (2004). What influences IT ethical behavior
intentions—planned behavior, reasoned action, perceived importance, or individual
characteristics? Information & Management, 42(1), 143-158.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.12.008

Lomas, N. (2018, April 3). Grindr hit with privacy complaint in Europe over sharing user data.
Retrieved from Techcrunch website https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/03/grindr-hit-with-
privacy-complaint-in-europe-over-sharing-user-data/

Lub, V. (2015). Validity in qualitative evaluation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,

14(5), 1-8. doi:10.1177/1609406915621406

Ludwig, S., van Laer, T., DeRuyter, K., & Friedman, M. (2016). Untangling a web of lies:
Exploring automated detection of deception in computer-mediated communication.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(2), 511-541.
doi:10.1080/07421222.2016.1205927
 135

Lupton, D., & Pedersen, S. (2016). An Australian survey of women’s use of pregnancy and
parenting apps. Women and Birth, 29(4), 368–375. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2016.01.008.

Macas, M., Moretti, F., Fonti, A., Giantomassi, A., Comodi, G., Annunziato, M., Capra, A.
(2016). The role of data sample size and dimensionality in neural network based
forecasting of building heating related variables. Energy & Buildings, 111, 299-310.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.11.056

Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised
theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
19(5), 469-479. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(83)90023-9

Malheiros, M., Preibusch, S., & Sasse, M. A. (2013). “Fairly truthful”: The impact of perceived
effort, fairness, relevance, and sensitivity on personal data disclosure. Paper presented at
the Trust and Trustworthy Computing, (pp. 250-266), Berlin, Germany. doi:
10.1007/978-3-642-38908-5_19

Marmonov, S., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2018). The impact of information security threat
awareness on privacy-protective behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 32-44.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.028

Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from
1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81-95.
doi:10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1

Marwick, A. (2017). Scandal or sex crime? Gendered privacy and the celebrity nude photo leaks.
Ethics & Information Technology, 19(3), 177-191. doi:10.1007/s10676-017-9431-7

Mamonov, S., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2018). The impact of information security threat awareness
on privacy-protective behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 32-44.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.028

Mason, R. (1986). Four ethical issues of the information age. MIS Quarterly, 10(1), 5-12.
Retrieved from http://misq.org

McAlynn, D. (2017). WannaCry/NotPetya and how we failed miserably! ISSA Journal, 15(10),
35-46. Retrieved from http://www.issa.org/

McBride, K. N. (2014). ACTIVE ethics: An information systems ethics for the internet age.
Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 12(1), 21-44.
doi:10.1108/JICES-06-2013-0017

McCallister, E., Grance, T., & Scarfone, K. (2010). Guide to protecting the confidentiality of
personally identifiable information (PII). Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi:10.6028/NIST.SP.800-122
 136

McGreevy, G. (2017). Blockchain: Considerations for Infosec. (ISSA Journal No. 25). Retrieved
from Information Systems Security Association International website
https://www.issa.org

Menard, P., Gatlin, R., & Warkentin, M. (2014). Threat protection and convenience: Antecedents
of cloud-based data backup. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 55(1), 83-91.
doi:10.1080/08874417.2014.11645743

Menard, P., Bott, G. J., & Crossler, R. E. (2017). User motivations in protection information
security: Protection motivation theory versus self-determination theory. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 34(4), 1203-1230.
doi:10.1080/07421222.2017.1394083

Meredith, S. (2018). Facebook-Cambridge Analytica: A timeline of the data hijacking scandal.

CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/facebook-cambridge-
analytica-a-timeline-of-the-data-hijacking-scandal.html

Moubarak, J., Chamoun, M., & Filiol, E. (2018). Developing a K-ary malware using blockchain.
NOMS 2018 - 2018 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium
Taipei, Taiwan. doi: 10.1109/NOMS.2018.8406331

Nakamoto, S. (2009). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Retrieved from

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/32413652/BitCoin_P2P_electronic_
cash_system.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=152375
7055&Signature=0sWtehbhKLp%2FrvzgL7zyErEgG6k%3D&response-content-
disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DBitcoin_A_Peer-to-
Peer_Electronic_Cash_S.pdf

Neeraj, K., Iqbal, R., Misra, S., & Rodrigues, J. (2015). An intelligent approach for building a
secure decentralized public key infrastructure in VANET. Journal of Computer and
Systems Sciences, 81(6), 1042-1058. doi:10.1016/j.jcss.2014.12.016

Nguyen H. D., Yunshi L., Ping-Fu H., & Sheng-Hung, Y. (2014). An empirical study of the
organizational culture, leadership and firm performance in a Vietnam family business.
International Journal of Organizational Innovation (Online), 6(4), 109. Retrieved from
http://www.ijoi-online.org/

Nunez, J. L., & Leon, J. (2015). Autonomy support in the classroom: A review of self-
determination theory. European Psychologist, 20, 275-283. doi:10.1027/1016-
9040/a000234

Northcentral University – NCU (2018). RoadRunner. Available from https://library.ncu.edu/

O'Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components
using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods,
Instrumentation, and Computers, 32(3), 396-402. doi:10.3758/BF03200807
 137

O'Leary, D. E. (2017). Configuring blockchain architectures for transaction information in

blockchain consortiums: The case of accounting and supply chain systems. Intelligent
Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 24(4), 138-147. doi:10.1002/isaf.1417

Olesen, M. H., Thomsen, D. K., & O’Toole, M. S. (2015). Subjective well-being: Above
neuroticism and extraversion, autonomy motivation matters. Personality and Individual
Differences, 77, 45-49. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.033

Oliveira, T., Thomas, M., & Espadanal, M. (2014). Assessing the determinants of cloud
computing adoption: An analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors. Information
& Management, 51, 497-510. doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.03.006

Osborne, J. W. (2015). What is rotating in exploratory factor analysis? Practical Assessment,

20(2), 1-7. Retrieved from https://doaj.org/article/f4f74af32f084fe1af7925092f9acbc1

Ozer, E. M., & Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanism governing empowerment effects: A self-efficacy
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(3), 472-486.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.3.472

Parise, S., Guinan, P. J., & Kafka, R. (2016). Solving the crisis of immediacy: How digital
technology can transform the customer experience. Business Horizons, 59, 411-420.
doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.004

Patel, N. (2015). Metallica sued Napster 15 years ago today. Retrieved from The Verge website
https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/13/8399099/metallica-sued-napster-15-years-ago-
today

Pedhazur, E. & Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design and analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Pfleeger, S. L., Sasse, M. A., & Furnham, A. (2014). From weakest link to security hero:
Transforming staff security behavior. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, 11(4), 489-510. doi:10.1515/jhsem-2014-0035

Parlapiano, A. (2018, April 3). Are you a U.S citizen? How a 2020 census question could affect
states. Retrieved from The New York Times website http://www.nytimes.com

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B.., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) Common method
bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.88.5.879

Posey, C., Roberts, T. L., Lowry, P. B., Bennett, R. J., & Courtney, J. F. (2013). Insiders'
protection of organizational information assets: Development of a systematics-based
taxonomy and theory of diversity for protection-motivated behaviors. MIS Quarterly,
37(4), 1189. Retrieved from https://www.misq.org/
 138

Posey, C., Roberts, T. L., & Lowry, P. B. (2015). The impact of organizational commitment on
insiders' motivation to protect organizational information assets. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 32(4), 179-214. doi:10.1080/07421222.2015.1138374

Preibusch, S., Peetz, T., Acar, G., & Berendt, B. (2016). Shopping for privacy: Purchase details
leaked to PayPal. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 15, 52–64.
doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2015.11.004

Price, G. (2016). New data: Half a billion personal records stolen or lost in 2015, Symantec
releases new edition of internet security threat report. Retrieved from Infodocket website
http://www.infodocket.com/2016/04/12/new-data-half-a-billion-personal-records-stolen-
or-lost-in-2015-symantec-releases-new-edition-of-internet-security-threat-report/

Primoff, W., & Kess, S. (2017). The Equifax data breach: What CPA’s and firms need to know
now. CPA Journal, 87(12), 14-17. Retrieved from https://www.cpajournal.com

Richardson, R. & North, M. (2017). Ransomware: Evolution, mitigation and prevention.

International Management Review, 13(1), 10-21. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/facpubs/4276

Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and future
applications. Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 30-54. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1252085

Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change.
Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93-114. doi:10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803

Rogoff, B. (2015). Culture and participation: A paradigm shift. Current Opinion in Psychology,
8, 182-189. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.12.002

Russell, D., Rinnen, P., & Rhame, R. (2017). Magic quadrant for data center backup and
recovery solutions. Gartner Research Report. Available from Gartner website
https://www.gartner.com/en

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Ryan, R., Deci, E. L., Grolnick, W. S., & La Guardia, J. G. (2015). The significance of autonomy
and autonomy support in psychological development and psychopathology. In A.
Cichetti, D., & Cohen, D. J. (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology: Volume One:
Theory and Method, Second Edition (pp. 61). doi:10.1002/9780470939383.ch20

Schaub, A., Bazin, R., Hasan, O., & Brunie, L. (2016). A trustless privacy-preserving reputation
system., 31st IFIP International Information Security and Privacy Conference (SEC),
Ghent, Belgium. pp.398-411. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33630-5_27
 139

Scott, J. (2015). Deterring malicious behavior in cyberspace. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 9(1),
60. Retrieved from http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/SSQ/

Sen, R., & Borle, S. (2015). Estimating the contextual risk of data breach: An empirical
approach. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(2), 4.
doi:10.1080/07421222.2015.1063315

Senyo, K. P., Addae, E., & Boateng, R. (2018). Cloud computing research: A review of research
themes, frameworks, methods and future research directions. International Journal of
Information Management, 38, 128-139. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.07.007

Shalvi, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R., & Ayal, S. (2015). Self-serving justifications: Doing wrong and
feeling moral. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 125-130.
doi:10.1177/0963721414553264

Sheldon, K. M. (1995). Creativity and self-determination in personality. Creativity Research

Journal, 8(1), 25-36 doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0801_3

Shepherd, D. A., & Suddaby, R. (2017). Theory building: A review and integration. Journal of
Management, 43(1), 59-86. doi:10.1177/0149206316647102

Shoshana, Z. (2015). Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information
civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75-89. doi:10.1057/jit.2015.5

Siponen, M., Mahmood, M. A., & Pahnila, S. (2014). Employees' adherence to information
security policies: An exploratory field study. Information & Management, 51(2), 217-
224. doi:10.1016/j.im.2013.08.006

Siponen, M., & Vance, A. (2010). Neutralization: New insights into the problem of employee
information systems security policy violations. MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 487-502.
doi:10.2307/25750688

Skiba, D. (2017). The potential of blockchain in education and health care. Nursing Education
Perspectives, 38(4), 220. doi:10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000190

Smith, J. H., Milberg, S., & Burke, S. (1996). Information privacy: Measuring individuals'
concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 167-196.
doi:10.2307/249477

Solove, D., & Citron, D. K. (2018). Risk and anxiety: A theory of data-breach harms. Texas Law
Review, 96(4), 737-786. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2885638

Sommestad, T., Karlzén, H., & Hallberg, J. (2015). A meta-analysis of studies on protection
motivation theory and information security behaviour. International Journal of
Information Security and Privacy (IJISP), 9(1), 26-46. doi:10.4018/IJISP.2015010102
 140

Sontakke, K. A., & Ghaisas, A. (2017). Cryptocurrencies: A developing asset class. International
Journal of Business Insights & Transformation., 10(2), 10-17.
doi:10.1080/1540496X.2016.1193002

Spradley, J. P. (2016). Participant observation. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Spector, P. E. (1992). A consideration of the validity and meaning of self-report measures of job
conditions. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 7, 123-151. Retrieved from
https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10012080921

Stahl, B. C., Timmermans, J., & Mittlestadt, B. D. (2016). The ethics of computing: A survey of
the computing-oriented literature. ACM Computing Surveys, 48(4), 55. doi:
10.1145/2871186

Stavova, V., Matyas, V., Just, M., & Ukrop, M. (2017). Factors influencing the purchase of
security software for mobile devices – Case study. Infocommunications Journal, 9(1), 18-
23. Retrieved from https://www.infocommunications.hu/

Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Stephens, W., Vance, C., & Pettegrew, L. (2012). Embracing ethics and morality. CPA Journal,
82(1), 16-21. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2017.03.016

Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah
NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Strozer, J. R., Collins, M. L., & Cassidy, T. (2014). Unintentional Insider Threats: A Review of
Phishing and Malware Incidents by Economic Sector. Retrieved from CERT website
http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetid=296268

Sullivan, C., & Burger, E. (2017). E-residency and blockchain. Computer Law and Security
Review, 33, 470-481. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2017.03.016

Syverson P., Tsudik G., Reed M., & Landwehr C. (2009) Towards an analysis of Onion Routing
Security. In A. Federrath H. (Eds.), Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/3-540-44702-4_6

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using Multivariate Statistics. Essex, England: Pearson
Education Ltd.

Tang, C., & Liu, J. (2015). Selecting a trusted cloud service provider for your SaaS program.
Computers & Security, 50, 60-73. doi:10.1016/j.cose.2015.02.001

Tavani, H.T. (2007). Philosophical theories of privacy: Implications for an adequate online
privacy policy. Metaphilosophy, 38(1), 1–22, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2006.00474.x
 141

Teevale, T., Denny, S., Percival, T., & Fleming, T. (2013). Pacific secondary school students'
access to primary health care in New Zealand. The New Zealand Medical Journal,
126(1375), 58. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23824025

Teodor, S., Karlzen, H., & Hallberg, J. (2015). A meta-analysis of studies on protection
motivation theory and information security behavior. International Journal of
Information Security and Privacy, 9(1), 26-46. doi:10.4018/IJISP.2015010102

The Belmont Report. (1979). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Retrieved from
HHS.gov website https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-
report/index.html

The Economist. (2015, October 31). Blockchain: The Next Big Thing. Retrieved from The
Economist website https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21677198-technology-
behind-bitcoin-could-transform-how-economy-works-trust-machine

Trochim, W. M. K., & Donnelly, J. P. (2008). Research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.).
Mason, OH: Cengage.

Tsai, H. S., Jiang, M., Alhabash, S., LaRose, R., Rifon, N. J., & Cotten, S. R. (2016).
Understanding online safety behaviors: A protection motivation theory perspective.
Computers & Security, 59, 138-150. doi:10.1016/j.cose.2016.02.009

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Health
Information. (2016). Guiding principles for ethical research: Pursuing potential research
participants protections. Retrieved from NIH website https://www.nih.gov/health-
information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/guiding-principles-ethical-research

Vance, A., Siponen, M., & Pahnila, S. (2012). Motivating IS security compliance: Insights from
habit and protection motivation theory. Information & Management, 49(3-4), 190. doi:
10.1016/j.im.2012.04.002

Vance, A., Lowry, P. B., & Eggett, D. (2013). Using accountability to reduce access policy
violations in information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4),
263-290. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222290410

Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). What we should expect from theories in social psychology: Truth,
abstraction, progress and applicability of standards (TAPAS). Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 7(1), 40-55. doi: 10.1177/1088868312453088

Van Schaik, P., Jansen, J., Onibokun, J., Camp, J., & Kusev, P. (2018). Security and privacy in
online social networking: Risk perceptions and precautionary behavior. Computers in
Human Behavior, 78, 283-297
 142

Velazquez, O. (2014). Trust in the cloud: A cognitive-behavioral framework of technology

adoption for cloud computing in organizations (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from
Dissertations & Theses @ Universidad del Turabo

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., G, Davis, G., B, & Davis, F., D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036540

Verizon Inc. (2018) Data Breach Investigations Report. Retrieved from

https://www.verizonenterprise.com/resources/reports/rp_DBIR_2018_Report_en_xg.pdf

Wang, H., Chen, K., & Xu, D. (2016). A maturity model for blockchain adoption. Financial
Innovation, 2(1), 1-5. doi:10.1186/s40854-016-0031-z

Weinberg, J., Freese, J., & McElhattan, D. (2014). Comparing data characteristics and results of
an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-recruited
sample. Sociological Science, 1(19), 292-310. doi:10.15195/v1.a19

Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A., & Ryan, R. (2012). The index of autonomous functioning:
Development of a scale of human autonomy. Journal of Research in Personality, 46 397–
413. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.03.007

Wong, J. C. (2017). Uber concealed massive hack that exposed data of 57m users and drivers.
Retrieved from The Guardian Newspaper website
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/21/uber-data-hack-cyber-attack

Woodside, J. M., Augustine, F. K., & Giberson, W. (2017). Blockchain technology adoption
status and strategies. Journal of International Technology and Information Management,
26(2), 4. Available from http://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/jitim/vol26/iss2/4

Woon, I. M. Y., & Kakanhalli, A. (2007). Investigation of IS professionals’ intention to practice

secure development of applications. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 65, 29-41. doi:
10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.08.003

World Anti-Doping Agency. (2013). World Anti-Doping Code. Retrieved from

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/the-code

Wright, R., & Marett, K. (2014). The influence of experiential and dispositional factors in
phishing: An empirical investigation of the deceived. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 27(1), 273-303. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222270111

Wright, M. F. (2013). The relationship between young adults' beliefs about anonymity and
subsequent cyber aggression. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
16(12), 858-862. doi:10.1089/cyber.2013.0009

Xia, Q., Sifah, E. B., Smahi, A., Amofa, S., & Zhang, X. (2017). BBDS: Blockchain-based data
sharing for electronic medical records in cloud environments. Information, 8(2), 44.
doi:10.3390/info8020044
 143

Yang, X. L., Lo, D., Xia, X., Wan, Z., & Sun, J. (2016). What security questions do developers
ask㸽 A large-scale study of stack overflow posts. Journal of Computer Science and
Technology, 31(5), 910-924. doi:10.1007/s11390-016-1672-0

Yam, K., & Reynolds, S. (2016). The effects of victim anonymity on unethical behavior. Journal
of Business Ethics, 136(1), 13-22. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2367-5

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on
blockchain technology? A systematic review. PLoS One, 11(10), e0163477.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163477

Youndt, M. A., & Snell, S. A. (2004). Human resource configurations: Intellectual capital and
organizational performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(3), 337-360. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/

Yong, A., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory
factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79-94.
doi:10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079

Young, A. L., & Yung, M. (2017). Privacy and security cryptovirology: The birth, neglect, and
explosion of ransomware: Recent attacks exploiting a known vulnerability continue a
downward spiral of ransomware-related incidents. Communications of the ACM, 60(7),
24-26. doi:10.1145/3097347

Zetter, K. (2016). Why hospitals are the perfect targets for ransomware. Retrieved from Wired
website https://www.wired.com/2016/03/ransomware-why-hospitals-are-the-perfect-
targets/

Zhao, L., Detlor, B., & Connelly, C.E. (2016). Sharing knowledge in social Q&A sites: The
unintended consequences of extrinsic motivation. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 33(1), 70–100. doi:10.1080/07421222.2016.1172459

Zhong, S., Clark, M., Hou, X., Zang, Y., & Fitzgerald, G. (2014). Development of hospital
disaster resilience: Conceptual framework and potential measurement. Emergency
Medicine Journal, 31(11), 930-938. doi:10.1136/emermed-2012-202282

Zimmerle, J. C. (2018). The Cost of Free Pregnancy Apps: Credibility and Privacy Concerns.
International Journal of Childbirth Education, 33(4), 41–45. Retrieved from
https://icea.org

Zohar, A. (2015). Bitcoin: Under the hood. Communications of the ACM, 58(9), 104-113.
doi:10.1145/2701411

Zyskind, G., Nathan, O., & Pentland, A. (2015). Decentralizing privacy: Using blockchain to
protect personal data. 2015 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW),180-184, IEEE
Symposium: San Jose, CA. doi:10.1109/SPW.2015.27
 144

Appendix

Appendix A: Informed consent

My name is Chidi Ezuma-Ngwu and I am a student at Northcentral University. I am

conducting a study on personal threats, privacy and blockchain technology. This study is part of

my doctoral degree in business administration and it will be a pleasure if you agree to participate.

If you choose to participate, you will be asked to accept this consent form and provide

answers to a 38-question survey. The survey will take 10 - 15 minutes of your time

You can participate in this study if you are over the age of 18 and you are a resident of

the United States. I hope to have 200 participants.

You cannot participate in this research if you are under 18 years of age. Also, you should

not participate if you are not resident in the United States.

There are minimal risks in this study. Some risks may include stress or survey fatigue. To

reduce these risks, you can skip any question or stop at any time for any reason.

If you continue, there are no benefits to you. Indirect benefits may include developing an

interest in blockchain technology or in behavioral sciences.

The information you provide will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law. The

researcher will not ask for your name or that of your organization. Information collected will

only be used and viewed by the researcher and the NCU Institutional Review Board (IRB).

The researcher will store information collected in this study in encrypted computer disks

and secure safes, and this data will be protected during transport if necessary. The researcher will

keep the collected survey data in electronic form for 7 years. After that period, the researcher

will delete all electronic data.

 145

If you have questions, you can send an email to c.ezuma-ngwu8163@o365.ncu.edu or

call 617-712-8849. You can also contact my Northcentral University research sponsor, Dr. Brian

Allen through email at brianallen@ncu.edu or call him at 919-827-3118.

You can refuse participation in this survey without penalty or stop participating at any

time. Your participation or non-participation does not affect any potential benefit.

Please note that this survey will be best displayed on a laptop or desktop computer.

Some features may be less compatible for use on a mobile device.

 146

Appendix B: Forum Posting for General Study

My name is Chidi Ezuma-Ngwu and I am a doctoral degree student at Northcentral

University. I am conducting a study on individual behavior towards privacy, threats and

blockchain applications. As a member of this forum, I hope you will find some time to complete

a survey on the above subject at https://ncu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2hS5vdaxpSGWhQ9

There are no rewards or penalties for refusing or not completing the survey. If you have any

questions about the purpose of the study, please contact me at c.ezuma-

ngwu8163@o365.ncu.edu or Prof. Brian Allen at brianallen@ncu.edu. For questions about your

rights regarding this study, please contact the Northcentral Institutional Review Board at

irb@ncu.edu.
 147

Appendix C: Forum Posting Used to Recruit Pilot Reviewers

My name is Chidi Ezuma-Ngwu and I am a doctoral degree student at Northcentral

University. I am looking for individuals who are experts with blockchain technology and

cryptocurrency to kindly provide feedback on a research survey. If you are such a person, please

review the survey at this link https://ncu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2hS5vdaxpSGWhQ9

 148

Appendix D: Email to Forum Administrators for Permission to Post on Forum

I am writing to request permission to conduct a research study through your Facebook

forum group. I am a student at Northcentral University in San Diego, CA. currently in the

process of conducting research on privacy, threats and blockchain applications, as part of my

doctoral degree.

I hope that you and fellow moderators will give me written permission to post the survey

link to this forum. Your input is optional and there are no rewards or penalties for participating

or partially participating. All entries are anonymous and will be kept confidential. If you agree, I

will post a notice on the forum with a link to the survey. The survey will take approximately 10 -

15 minutes to complete. No costs will be incurred by your group or any participant.

Your approval will be appreciated, and I will be happy to answer any questions or

concerns that you may have at any time. If you approve, please kindly send an email to the

researcher at c.ezuma-ngwu8163@o365.ncu.edu acknowledging your consent as well as your

authority as a moderator or administrator of your group.

 149

Appendix E: Survey and Constructs

Survey demographic questions

Please answer the following questions yourself by checking the appropriate box.

1) What is your gender? Select One.

a) Female
b) Male
c) Other
2) What is your age?
a) Under 18
b) 18 – 24
c) 25 – 34
d) 35 – 44
e) 45 - 54
f) 55 - 64
3) Employment status
a) Employed full-time
b) Employed part-time
c) Unemployed looking for work
d) Unemployed not looking for work
e) Retired
f) Student
g) Disabled
4) What is your highest educational level (Select One)?
a) Doctoral degree or equivalent
b) Graduate degree
c) Attempted college
d) High school graduate
e) Other
5) How many years of paid employment in a technology field?
a) Over ten years
b) Over 5 years
c) Over 2 years
d) Less than 2 years
e) Not applicable
6) How many years of paid employment in a non-technology field?
a) Over ten years
b) Over 5 years
c) Over 2 years
d) Less than 2 years
e) Not applicable
 150

7) Do you live in the United States?

a) Yes
b) No
c) Not Sure
Questionnaire and constructs

This is a listing of constructs used in this study with Likert scale as follows:

Likert scale: Strongly agree (5) – Somewhat agree (4) – Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) –

Somewhat disagree (2) Strongly disagree (1).

Privacy Constructs (PVA)

Construct Item / Question

PVA1 (Collection Concern) It usually bothers me when companies ask me for personal

information.

PVA2 (Errors Concern) Companies should take more steps to make sure that

personal information in their files are accurate.

PVA3 (Unauthorized Use Companies should not use personal information for any

Concern) purpose unless it has been authorized by the individuals

who provided the information.

PVA4 (Improper Access Computer databases that contain personal information

Concern) should be protected from unauthorized access—no matter

how much it costs

Note: Independent variable. Adapted from Smith, Milberg and Burke (1996)

Behavioral Intention Constructs (BHI)

Construct Item / Question

 151

BHI1 I would use Blockchain applications when it is available.

BHI2 I intend to use Blockchain applications for critical

applications, e.g. involving confidential or private

information.

BHI3 I intend to use Blockchain applications to secure my

private transactions.

BHI4 I intend to use a blockchain application for personal

transactions whenever possible.

Note: Dependent variable. Adapted from Ifinedo, (2012) and Woon and Kakanhalli, (2007).

Technology Facilitation Constructs (TFC)

Construct Item / Question

TFC1 I believe that technology enables me to use a Blockchain

application to improve my privacy.

TFC2 I believe that technology makes it easy for me to use a

Blockchain application for privacy.

TFC3 I believe that technology helps me to carry out my personal

transactions using Blockchain applications.

TFC4 I believe that ethical considerations in computing are

complex and individuals should use technology to protect

themselves.

Note: Dependent variable. Adapted from Chatterjee et al. (2015).

 152

Autonomy Constructs (AUT)

Construct

AUT1 My decisions represent my most important values and

feelings.

AUT2 I strongly identify with the things that I do.

AUT3 My actions are congruent with who I really am

AUT4 I personally stand behind the important decisions I make

Note: Independent variable. Adapted from Weinstein et al. (2012).

Self-Efficacy Constructs (SEF)

Construct Item / Question

SEF1 I would be able to use Blockchain applications and

perform Blockchain private-key management without the

help of others.

SEF2 I have the expertise to implement blockchain to enhance

my privacy and protect confidential information

SEF3 I have the skills to implement preventative measures to

safeguard my digital wallet

SEF4 I believe that it is within my control to protect myself from

privacy threats

Note: Independent variable. Adapted from Ifinedo (2012) and Woon and Kakanhalli (2007).
 153

Perceived Severity Constructs (PSE)

Construct Item / Question

PSE1 I believe that it vital to protect my personal information

from compromise.

PSE2 I believe that it is highly probably that my data will be

attacked or stolen.

PSE3 I believe that threats to the security of my personal

information is serious.

PSE4 I believe that leaks of my personal information is very

harmful

Note: Independent variable. Adapted from Ifinedo (2012) and Woon and Kakanhalli (2007).

Perceived Vulnerability Constructs (PSV)

Construct Item / Question

PSV1 I know my personal data is vulnerable at various

organizations.

PSV2 I believe I could fall victim to malicious attack on my

personal data.

PSV3 I believe that I am vulnerable to any leaks of my personal

data.

PSV4 I believe that trying to protect my personal information

will reduce the chance of compromise.

Note: Independent variable. Adapted from Ifinedo (2012) and Woon and Kakanhalli (2007)
 154

Appendix F: Citi completion report – student

 155

Appendix G: Parallel Analysis Results

Parallel analysis was performed at https://analytics.gonzaga.edu/parallelengine/. The analysis

obtained using (num of variables = 28, sample size = 187, type of analysis = factor) similar

metrics is shown below.

Component Mean Percentile

or Factor Eigenvalue Eigenvalue

1 0.97064 1.084898

2 0.836765 0.929939

3 0.746025 0.830311

4 0.662131 0.725622

5 0.58009 0.65864

6 0.51148 0.57024

7 0.451971 0.504505

8 0.400649 0.448355

9 0.346665 0.393115

10 0.291417 0.339116

11 0.247031 0.291786

12 0.199105 0.242621

13 0.151724 0.196828

14 0.110723 0.152259

15 0.067972 0.105546

16 0.026164 0.063929
 156

17 -0.015572 0.027193

18 -0.051892 -0.015189

19 -0.090139 -0.060654

20 -0.125113 -0.096274

21 -0.158393 -0.131091

22 -0.195868 -0.161584

23 -0.229115 -0.201396

24 -0.26263 -0.237804

25 -0.297018 -0.267631

26 -0.334435 -0.310453

27 -0.37248 -0.3435

28 -0.419245 -0.383285
 157

Appendix H: SPSS Information

SPSS Syntax

NEW FILE.

DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT.

GET

FILE='C:\Users\Dad\OneDrive - Northcentral University\NorthCentralUniv\DIS-

9904A\SPSSWork\Full-Study\04072019\Full_Study_April_7_2019-SPSS-Recoded\Full

Study_04072019_17.33-stripped-all-no-missing-data-cleaner.sav'.

DATASET NAME DataSet2 WINDOW=FRONT.

DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet2.

DATASET CLOSE DataSet1.

RELIABILITY

/VARIABLES=Familiarity Gender Age Employment Education Expertise

/SCALE('Descriptives Reliability') ALL

/MODEL=ALPHA

/STATISTICS=SCALE CORR

/SUMMARY=TOTAL MEANS VARIANCE.

NEW FILE.

DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT.

GET
 158

FILE='C:\Users\Dad\OneDrive - Northcentral University\NorthCentralUniv\DIS-

9904A\SPSSWork\Full-Study\04072019\Full_Study_April_7_2019-SPSS-Recoded\Full

Study_04072019_17.33-stripped-all-no-missing-data-cleaner.sav'.

DATASET NAME DataSet2 WINDOW=FRONT.

DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet2.

DATASET CLOSE DataSet1.

RELIABILITY

/VARIABLES=Familiarity Gender Age Employment Education Expertise

/SCALE('Descriptives Reliability') ALL

/MODEL=ALPHA

/STATISTICS=SCALE CORR

/SUMMARY=TOTAL MEANS VARIANCE.

FACTOR

/VARIABLES PVA1 PVA2 PVA3 PVA4 TFC1 TFC2 TFC3 TFC4 AUT1 AUT2 AUT3 AUT4

SEF1 SEF2 SEF3 SEF4 PSE1

PSE2 PSE3 PSE4 PSV1 PSV2 PSV3 PSV4 BHI1 BHI2 BHI3 BHI4

/MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS PVA1 PVA2 PVA3 PVA4 TFC1 TFC2 TFC3 TFC4 AUT1 AUT2 AUT3 AUT4

SEF1 SEF2 SEF3 SEF4 PSE1

PSE2 PSE3 PSE4 PSV1 PSV2 PSV3 PSV4 BHI1 BHI2 BHI3 BHI4
 159

/PRINT UNIVARIATE INITIAL CORRELATION SIG DET KMO INV REPR AIC

EXTRACTION ROTATION

/FORMAT BLANK(.5)

/PLOT EIGEN ROTATION

/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25)

/EXTRACTION ML

/CRITERIA ITERATE(25) DELTA(0)

/ROTATION OBLIMIN.

FACTOR

/VARIABLES PVA1 PVA2 PVA3 PVA4 TFC1 TFC2 TFC3 TFC4 AUT1 AUT2 AUT3 AUT4

SEF1 SEF2 SEF3 SEF4 PSE1

PSE2 PSE3 PSE4 PSV1 PSV2 PSV3 PSV4 BHI1 BHI2 BHI3 BHI4

/MISSING LISTWISE

/ANALYSIS PVA1 PVA2 PVA3 PVA4 TFC1 TFC2 TFC3 TFC4 AUT1 AUT2 AUT3 AUT4

SEF1 SEF2 SEF3 SEF4 PSE1

PSE2 PSE3 PSE4 PSV1 PSV2 PSV3 PSV4 BHI1 BHI2 BHI3 BHI4

/PRINT UNIVARIATE INITIAL CORRELATION SIG DET KMO INV REPR AIC

EXTRACTION ROTATION

/FORMAT BLANK(.5)

/PLOT EIGEN ROTATION

/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25)

/EXTRACTION ML
 160

/CRITERIA ITERATE(25)

/ROTATION VARIMAX.

Correlation Matrix

P P P P T T T T S S S S P P P P P P P P
V V V V F F F F A A A A E E E E S S S S S S S S B B B B

A A A A C C C C U U U U F F F F E E E E V V V V H HI H H
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 T1 T2 T3 T4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 I1 2 I3 I4

Corre P 1. .1 .1 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 .3 .2 .2 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 .1 .0 - - .1 .0 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0
lation V 00 64 73 08 66 20 38 58 67 58 59 92 9 2 8 5 1 5 .0 .0 57 27 52 21 26 66 9 6
A 0 5 3 4 3 8 1 3 2 0 6

1 2 8

P .1 1. .4 .5 .3 .2 .2 .2 .2 .3 .3 .3 .0 .1 .1 .1 .3 .2 .1 .0 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 .1 .0 .1

V 64 00 77 19 70 99 73 57 65 23 00 27 7 6 4 4 3 3 7 4 48 49 73 45 86 89 8 4
A 0 7 6 9 4 8 7 4 7 9 0
2

P .1 .4 1. .6 .4 .4 .3 .3 .2 .2 .2 .4 .2 .3 .3 .2 .4 .3 .1 .0 .2 .2 .2 .3 .2 .3 .2 .2
V 73 77 00 55 56 30 99 54 31 40 25 00 4 4 1 7 0 6 1 6 38 51 56 15 68 08 3 5

A 0 6 4 9 6 1 8 2 3 9 6
3

P .2 .5 .6 1. .4 .4 .3 .3 .2 .2 .2 .3 .1 .2 .2 .1 .3 .2 .1 .0 .1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .2 .1 .2
V 08 19 55 00 72 04 97 20 38 54 54 09 4 4 2 5 8 5 3 4 71 98 81 31 46 46 1 1
A 0 9 1 3 6 3 5 4 9 0 3
4

T .2 .3 .4 .4 1. .7 .6 .6 .1 .1 .1 .2 .4 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .2 .1 .3 .4 .4 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5

F 66 70 56 72 00 97 98 24 70 84 86 80 4 1 6 2 1 7 2 4 75 24 00 89 30 54 9 3
C 0 8 7 7 1 6 2 4 3 4 3
1

T .2 .2 .4 .4 .7 1. .8 .7 .1 .2 .2 .3 .4 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 .2 .1 .4 .4 .4 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5
F 20 99 30 04 97 00 15 34 42 48 09 07 5 4 2 2 2 9 0 5 74 60 44 46 36 66 9 5

C 0 7 0 6 8 1 0 6 0 3 6
2
 161

T .1 .2 .3 .3 .6 .8 1. .6 .1 .1 .1 .2 .5 .5 .5 .5 .3 .3 .1 .0 .3 .3 .3 .5 .5 .5 .4 .5

F 38 73 99 97 98 15 00 49 37 84 63 25 3 6 9 1 3 9 6 9 90 97 68 38 09 53 0 2
C 0 0 4 4 4 1 7 9 1 9 2
3

T .1 .2 .3 .3 .6 .7 .6 1. .1 .1 .2 .3 .4 .4 .5 .4 .2 .4 .3 .2 .4 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4
F 58 57 54 20 24 34 49 00 62 55 30 23 0 4 4 6 9 6 8 5 65 27 89 97 80 25 0 9

C 0 4 1 0 9 5 4 0 1 9 2
4

A .3 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 1. .6 .5 .5 .1 .0 .0 .1 .2 .0 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0
U 67 65 31 38 70 42 37 62 00 38 96 53 2 9 3 6 2 8 1 4 72 47 38 68 46 73 5 5
T1 0 2 7 9 3 6 2 9 8 9 4

A .2 .3 .2 .2 .1 .2 .1 .1 .6 1. .6 .6 .1 .1 .1 .2 .3 .1 .1 .1 .1 .0 .1 .1 .0 .1 .0 .0
U 58 23 40 54 84 48 84 55 38 00 60 19 9 5 2 5 4 5 0 1 77 61 37 62 35 03 6 4
T2 0 1 8 1 9 9 9 9 2 4 0

A .2 .3 .2 .2 .1 .2 .1 .2 .5 .6 1. .6 .1 .1 .0 .1 .3 .1 .2 .1 .3 .2 .2 .2 .0 .0 .0 .1
U 59 00 25 54 86 09 63 30 96 60 00 90 0 2 8 6 5 6 8 9 54 15 35 17 65 96 9 0
T3 0 0 7 3 0 4 5 2 8 2 7

A .1 .3 .4 .3 .2 .3 .2 .3 .5 .6 .6 1. .1 .1 .1 .2 .3 .2 .3 .1 .3 .2 .3 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1
U 92 27 00 09 80 07 25 23 53 19 90 00 7 8 6 4 7 8 2 8 80 97 43 81 54 84 3 8
T4 0 4 3 7 8 0 4 0 0 6 1

S .0 .0 .2 .1 .4 .4 .5 .4 .1 .1 .1 .1 1. .7 .7 .6 .2 .2 .0 - .2 .2 .2 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4
E 95 77 46 49 48 57 30 04 22 91 00 74 0 4 6 4 3 7 6 .0 62 00 34 05 97 68 2 4

F1 0 0 8 5 9 6 4 3 8 0
0 4

S .1 .1 .3 .2 .5 .5 .5 .4 .0 .1 .1 .1 .7 1. .8 .7 .3 .5 .1 .0 .3 .3 .4 .5 .6 .6 .5 .6
E 23 66 44 41 17 40 64 41 97 58 27 83 4 0 3 2 6 0 1 8 82 81 26 46 34 21 1 2
F2 0 0 8 4 6 4 7 0 6 1

S .0 .1 .3 .2 .4 .5 .5 .5 .0 .1 .0 .1 .7 .8 1. .6 .3 .4 .1 .1 .4 .3 .4 .4 .5 .5 .4 .5

E 84 49 19 23 67 26 94 40 39 21 83 67 6 3 0 6 0 3 9 0 02 69 19 80 64 52 9 0
F3 8 8 0 5 4 7 1 8 6 9
0

S .1 .1 .2 .1 .4 .5 .5 .4 .1 .2 .1 .2 .6 .7 .6 1. .2 .4 .1 .0 .4 .3 .4 .5 .5 .5 .4 .5
E 53 44 76 56 21 28 14 69 63 59 60 48 4 2 6 0 8 0 2 4 18 24 09 15 47 44 6 5
F4 5 4 5 0 5 7 8 5 7 2
0
 162

PS .1 .3 .4 .3 .4 .4 .3 .2 .2 .3 .3 .3 .2 .3 .3 .2 1. .4 .4 .3 .4 .3 .4 .4 .3 .4 .3 .3

E1 18 38 01 83 16 21 31 95 26 49 54 70 3 6 0 8 0 5 3 6 06 84 27 79 88 14 3 8
9 6 4 5 0 7 7 2 5 5
0

PS .0 .2 .3 .2 .4 .4 .3 .4 .0 .1 .1 .2 .2 .5 .4 .4 .4 1. .3 .2 .5 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .4 .6
E2 51 37 68 55 72 90 97 64 82 59 65 84 7 0 3 0 5 0 1 2 72 67 68 07 44 27 8 4

6 4 7 7 7 0 0 2 5 3
0

PS - .1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .1 .3 .1 .1 .2 .3 .0 .1 .1 .1 .4 .3 1. .5 .3 .4 .3 .2 .2 .2 .1 .2
E3 .0 74 12 34 24 06 69 80 19 09 82 20 6 1 9 2 3 1 0 9 94 01 81 37 32 39 9 4
32 4 7 1 8 7 0 0 4 4 0

PS - .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 .0 .2 .0 .1 .1 .1 - .0 .1 .0 .3 .2 .5 1. .3 .3 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
E4 .0 47 63 49 43 50 91 51 48 12 98 80 .0 8 0 4 6 2 9 0 25 04 98 80 74 99 1 5
28 3 0 8 5 2 2 4 0 6 6
4 0

PS .1 .1 .2 .1 .3 .4 .3 .4 .1 .1 .3 .3 .2 .3 .4 .4 .4 .5 .3 .3 1. .7 .8 .5 .4 .5 .3 .5
V 57 48 38 71 75 74 90 65 72 77 54 80 6 8 0 1 0 7 9 2 00 29 15 50 63 03 7 1
1 2 2 2 8 6 2 4 5 0 2 3

PS .0 .1 .2 .1 .4 .4 .3 .5 .0 .0 .2 .2 .2 .3 .3 .3 .3 .6 .4 .3 .7 1. .8 .5 .4 .4 .3 .4
V 27 49 51 98 24 60 97 27 47 61 15 97 0 8 6 2 8 6 0 0 29 00 19 58 68 80 4 7
2 0 1 9 4 4 7 1 4 0 2 6

PS .1 .1 .2 .1 .4 .4 .3 .4 .1 .1 .2 .3 .2 .4 .4 .4 .4 .6 .3 .2 .8 .8 1. .6 .5 .5 .4 .5
V 52 73 56 81 00 44 68 89 38 37 35 43 3 2 1 0 2 6 8 9 15 19 00 46 14 48 0 6
3 4 6 9 9 7 8 1 8 0 9 3

PS .1 .2 .3 .2 .5 .5 .5 .4 .1 .1 .2 .2 .4 .5 .4 .5 .4 .6 .2 .1 .5 .5 .6 1. .6 .6 .4 .6
V 21 45 15 31 89 46 38 97 68 62 17 81 0 4 8 1 7 0 3 8 50 58 46 00 68 61 2 2

4 5 6 0 5 9 7 7 0 0 9 8

B .0 .1 .2 .2 .5 .5 .5 .4 .0 .0 .0 .1 .4 .6 .5 .5 .3 .6 .2 .1 .4 .4 .5 .6 1. .8 .6 .8

HI 26 86 68 46 30 36 09 80 46 35 65 54 9 3 6 4 8 4 3 7 63 68 14 68 00 69 5 7
1 7 4 4 7 8 4 2 4 0 1 2

B .0 .1 .3 .2 .5 .5 .5 .4 .0 .1 .0 .1 .4 .6 .5 .5 .4 .6 .2 .1 .5 .4 .5 .6 .8 1. .6 .8
HI 66 89 08 46 54 66 53 25 73 03 96 84 6 2 5 4 1 2 3 9 03 80 48 61 69 00 5 8
2 8 1 2 4 4 7 9 9 0 0 4

B .0 .0 .2 .1 .3 .3 .4 .4 .0 .0 .0 .1 .4 .5 .4 .4 .3 .4 .1 .1 .3 .3 .4 .4 .6 .6 1. .6
HI 90 89 39 10 94 93 09 09 59 64 92 36 2 1 9 6 3 8 9 1 72 42 09 29 51 50 0 3
3 8 6 6 7 5 5 4 6 0 3
0
 163

B .0 .1 .2 .2 .5 .5 .5 .4 .0 .0 .1 .1 .4 .6 .5 .5 .3 .6 .2 .1 .5 .4 .5 .6 .8 .8 .6 1.

HI 66 40 56 13 33 56 22 92 54 40 07 81 4 2 0 5 8 4 4 5 13 76 63 28 72 84 3 0
4 0 1 9 2 5 3 0 6 3 0
0

Sig. P .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .2 .3 .3 .0 .3 .0 .0 .3 .1 .1 .1
(1- V 12 09 02 00 01 29 15 00 00 00 04 9 4 2 1 5 4 3 5 16 58 19 49 64 83 1 8

tailed A 8 7 6 8 4 5 1 0 0 6
) 1

P .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0
V 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 4 1 2 2 0 0 0 6 21 21 09 00 05 05 1 2
A 8 2 1 4 0 1 9 2 2 8

P .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
V 09 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 01 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 01 00 00 00 00 00 0 0
A 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0
3

P .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
V 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 5 10 03 07 01 00 00 6 0
A 1 0 1 6 0 0 4 5 7 2
4

T .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
F 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 06 06 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0
C 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0
1

T .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

F 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 26 00 02 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0
C 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
2

T .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
F 29 00 00 00 00 00 00 31 06 13 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0

C 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0
3

T .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
F 15 00 00 00 00 00 00 13 17 01 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0
C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4

A .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .1 .0 .2 .0 .2 .0 .0 .2 .1 .2 .2
U 00 00 01 01 10 26 31 13 00 00 00 4 9 9 1 0 3 5 5 09 60 30 11 64 61 1 3
T1 9 3 8 3 1 1 3 6 0 2
 164

A .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .3 .0 .1 .2

U 00 00 00 00 06 00 06 17 00 00 00 0 1 5 0 0 1 6 6 08 02 30 13 18 80 9 9
T2 4 5 0 0 0 5 9 4 3 3

A .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .1 .0
U 00 00 01 00 06 02 13 01 00 00 00 8 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 00 02 01 01 88 95 0 7
T3 8 2 8 4 0 2 0 3 4 3

A .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
U 04 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 18 06 3 0

T4 9 6 1 0 0 0 0 7 1 7

S .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

E 98 48 00 21 00 00 00 00 49 04 88 09 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 00 03 01 00 00 00 0 0
F1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0

S .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
E 47 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 93 15 42 06 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0
F2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0

S .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
E 26 21 00 01 00 00 00 00 98 50 28 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0
F3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

S .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
E 18 24 00 16 00 00 00 00 13 00 14 00 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0
F4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

PS .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
E1 54 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PS .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
E2 45 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 31 15 12 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

PS .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

E3 31 09 64 34 01 02 11 00 53 69 00 00 9 5 0 4 0 0 0 00 00 00 01 01 00 0 0
1 6 4 0 0 0 0 4 0

PS .3 .2 .1 .2 .0 .0 .1 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .3 .1 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
E4 50 62 95 55 26 20 08 00 56 64 03 07 2 4 7 7 0 0 0 00 00 00 07 09 03 5 1
3 0 0 2 0 1 0 7 7

PS .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
V 16 21 01 10 00 00 00 00 09 08 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PS .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
V 58 21 00 03 00 00 00 00 60 02 02 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 0 0
2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 165

PS .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

V 19 09 00 07 00 00 00 00 30 30 01 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 0 0
3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PS .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
V 49 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 11 13 01 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0

B .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
HI 64 05 00 00 00 00 00 00 64 18 88 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0

B .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

HI 83 05 00 00 00 00 00 00 61 80 95 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

B .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
HI 10 12 00 67 00 00 00 00 10 93 04 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 0

B .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
HI 86 28 00 02 00 00 00 00 32 93 73 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0

a.
Deter
minan
t=

1.313
E-10
 166

Appendix I: Factor Extraction

Factor Extraction

Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 Uniqueness
PVA2 0.57 0.60
PVA3 0.71 0.50
PVA4 0.77 0.40
TFC1 0.61 0.30
TFC2 0.81 0.24
TFC3 0.66 0.31
TFC4 0.57 0.38
AUT1 0.74 0.42
AUT2 0.82 0.31
AUT3 0.80 0.31
AUT4 0.71 0.37
SEF1 0.79 0.26
SEF2 0.78 0.23
SEF3 0.85 0.23
SEF4 0.63 0.37
PSE2 0.57 0.37
PSV1 0.78 0.27
PSV2 0.83 0.22
PSV3 0.86 0.14
BHI1 0.80 0.13
BHI2 0.80 0.14
BHI3 0.55 0.52
BHI4 0.82 0.17
Varimax rotation.
 167

Appendix J: Communalities

Variable Initial Extraction

PVA1 .273 .137
PVA2 .393 .421
PVA3 .574 .625
PVA4 .570 .679
TFC1 .742 .720
TFC2 .843 .937
TFC3 .745 .742
TFC4 .737 .623
AUT1 .544 .562
AUT2 .665 .693
AUT3 .656 .695
AUT4 .630 .649
SEF1 .704 .734
SEF2 .825 .831
SEF3 .820 .868
SEF4 .642 .621
PSE1 .539 .409
PSE2 .664 .633
PSE3 .538 .239
PSE4 .439 .155
PSV1 .741 .747
PSV2 .765 .791
PSV3 .828 .868
PSV4 .687 .599
BHI1 .848 .869
BHI2 .865 .879
BHI3 .536 .489
BHI4 .868 .887
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood.
 168

Appendix K: Rotated Factor Matrix Using Varimax

1 2 3 4 5 6
PVA1 .045 -.015 .051 .306 .155 .117
PVA2 .082 .072 .010 .275 .112 .566
PVA3 .133 .095 .177 .181 .159 .713
PVA4 .064 .088 .051 .181 .187 .773
TFC1 .204 .309 .240 .113 .613 .368
TFC2 .243 .267 .273 .149 .811 .229
TFC3 .159 .259 .392 .091 .657 .239
TFC4 .373 .164 .302 .118 .566 .176
AUT1 .045 .036 .023 .737 -.011 .119
AUT2 .031 .000 .101 .815 .067 .115
AUT3 .222 .007 .015 .797 .016 .100
AUT4 .291 .037 .064 .714 .064 .212
SEF1 -.009 .240 .789 .114 .198 .042
SEF2 .172 .365 .782 .056 .169 .156
SEF3 .198 .217 .851 .002 .195 .138
SEF4 .177 .328 .629 .178 .232 .016
PSE1 .337 .249 .134 .293 .124 .338
PSE2 .570 .442 .203 .040 .139 .224
PSE3 .439 .095 .019 .167 .048 .086
PSE4 .365 .078 -.034 .113 .038 .019
PSV1 .778 .207 .191 .181 .174 .011
PSV2 .833 .164 .149 -.006 .187 .113
PSV3 .864 .245 .195 .077 .107 .072
PSV4 .468 .453 .283 .110 .239 .157
BHI1 .279 .796 .328 -.032 .173 .136
BHI2 .300 .802 .295 .019 .202 .133
BHI3 .220 .554 .345 .022 .111 .051
BHI4 .321 .815 .265 .001 .211 .075
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization
 169

Appendix L: Initial Eigenvalues

Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 10.824 38.657 38.657
2 3.252 11.616 50.273
3 2.294 8.193 58.466
4 1.612 5.756 64.222
5 1.195 4.268 68.490
6 1.136 4.058 72.548
7 .924 3.300 75.848
8 .799 2.853 78.702
9 .625 2.232 80.933
10 .570 2.034 82.968
11 .493 1.759 84.727
12 .444 1.586 86.313
13 .427 1.526 87.839
14 .395 1.411 89.251
15 .387 1.382 90.632
16 .372 1.327 91.960
17 .315 1.125 93.084
18 .274 .980 94.064
19 .263 .938 95.003
20 .255 .909 95.912
21 .232 .830 96.741
22 .204 .730 97.471
23 .191 .684 98.155
24 .137 .488 98.643
25 .116 .413 99.056
26 .103 .369 99.425
27 .097 .346 99.772
28 .064 .228 100.000
 170

Appendix M: Rotated Factor Matrix With Suppression

1 2 3 4 5 6 Uniqueness
PVA2 0.57 0.60
PVA3 0.71 0.50
PVA4 0.77 0.40
TFC1 0.61 0.30
TFC2 0.81 0.24
TFC3 0.66 0.31
TFC4 0.57 0.38
AUT1 0.74 0.42
AUT2 0.82 0.31
AUT3 0.80 0.31
AUT4 0.71 0.37
SEF1 0.79 0.26
SEF2 0.78 0.23
SEF3 0.85 0.23
SEF4 0.63 0.37
PSE2 0.57 0.37
PSV1 0.78 0.27
PSV2 0.83 0.22
PSV3 0.86 0.14
BHI1 0.80 0.13
BHI2 0.80 0.14
BHI3 0.55 0.52
BHI4 0.82 0.17
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. - Rotation: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
 171

Appendix N: Descriptive Statistics from Pilot Study

Std.
Var N Missing Mean Median Mode Min Max
Deviation

PVA1 5 0 1.40 1.00 1 .548 1 2

PVA2 5 0 1.40 1.00 1 .894 1 3

PVA3 5 0 1.00 1.00 1 .000 1 1

PVA4 5 0 1.40 1.00 1 .548 1 2

TFC1 5 0 1.20 1.00 1 .447 1 2

TFC2 5 0 1.40 1.00 1 .548 1 2

TFC3 5 0 1.60 1.00 1 .894 1 3

TFC4 5 0 1.60 2.00 2 .548 1 2

AUT1 4 0 1.25 1.00 1 .500 1 2

AUT2 5 0 1.00 1.00 1 .000 1 1

AUT3 5 0 1.20 1.00 1 .447 1 2

AUT4 5 0 1.60 2.00 2 .548 1 2

SEF1 5 0 2.20 2.00 1a 1.643 1 5

SEF2 5 0 2.40 2.00 1 1.673 1 5

SEF3 5 0 2.00 1.00 1 1.732 1 5

SEF4 5 0 2.80 3.00 1 1.789 1 5

PSE1 5 0 1.20 1.00 1 .447 1 2

PSE2 5 0 1.40 1.00 1 .894 1 3

PSE3 5 0 1.20 1.00 1 .447 1 2

PSE4 5 0 1.40 1.00 1 .548 1 2

 172

PSV1 5 0 1.00 1.00 1 .000 1 1

PSV2 5 0 1.00 1.00 1 .000 1 1

PSV3 5 0 1.00 1.00 1 .000 1 1

PSV4 5 0 1.40 1.00 1 .894 1 3

BHI1 5 0 1.40 1.00 1 .894 1 3

BHI2 5 0 1.60 1.00 1 .894 1 3

BHI3 5 0 1.60 1.00 1 .894 1 3

BHI4 5 0 1.60 1.00 1 .894 1 3

a Note: Values with an indicated multiple mode exist. The smallest value is shown.
 173

Appendix O: Sample Characteristics of Final Study

Std.
Kurtosis Skewness Mean Median Min Max
Deviation

PVA1 -0.45 -0.87 3.9 4.00 1.12 1 5

PVA2 -1.83 -0.45 4.60 5.00 0.49 4 5

PVA3 15.69 -3.44 4.83 5.00 0.44 2 5

PVA4 0.98 -1.72 4.82 5.00 0.38 4 5

TFC1 -1.51 -0.71 4.66 5.00 0.47 4 5

TFC2 3.25 -1.41 4.61 5.00 0.54 2 5

TFC3 9.40 -2.37 4.57 5.00 0.65 1 5

TFC4 2.13 -1.03 4.53 5.00 0.55 2 5

AUT1 -2.03 0.04 4.49 4.00 0.50 4 5

AUT2 1.87 0.90 4.50 5.00 0.55 2 5

AUT3 2.87 -1.06 4.42 4.00 0.60 2 5

AUT4 2.131 -1.03 4.53 5.00 0.55 2 5

SEF1 7.04 -2.08 4.49 5.00 0.70 1 5

SEF2 5.781 -1.94 4.43 5.00 0.73 1 5

SEF3 6.00 -2.11 4.40 5.00 0.81 1 5

SEF4 6.00 -2.11 4.40 5.00 0.81 1 5

PSE1 16.29 -4.24 4.95 5.00 0.21 4 5

PSE2 23.46 -4.02 4.78 5.00 0.53 1 5

PSE3 6.81 -2.90 4.91 5.00 0.28 4 5

PSE4 10.19 -3.46 4.93 5.00 0.25 4 5

 174

PSV1 16.83 -3.57 4.74 5.00 0.60 1 5

PSV2 15.46 -3.40 4.67 5.00 0.67 1 5

PSV3 14.84 -3.29 4.71 5.00 0.61 1 5

PSV4 20.84 -4.29 4.85 5.00 0.49 2 5

BHI1 2.63 -2.14 4.86 5.00 0.34 4 5

BHI2 3.20 -2.26 4.87 5.00 0.33 4 5

BHI3 27.92 -4.48 4.81 5.00 0.52 1 5

BHI4 3.20 -2.26 4.87 5.00 0.335 4 5

 175

Appendix P: Descriptive Statistics of Final Study

Mean Std. Deviation N

PVA1 3.83 1.042 187

PVA2 4.48 .659 187

PVA3 4.74 .566 187

PVA4 4.74 .473 187

TFC1 4.43 .782 187

TFC2 4.36 .827 187

TFC3 4.34 .843 187

TFC4 4.28 .874 187

AUT1 4.44 .587 187

AUT2 4.41 .692 187

AUT3 4.31 .711 187

AUT4 4.35 .806 187

SEF1 4.24 .938 187

SEF2 4.00 1.131 187

SEF3 3.99 1.145 187

SEF4 4.03 1.109 187

PSE1 4.87 .351 187

PSE2 4.40 .858 187

PSE3 4.80 .530 187

PSE4 4.83 .418 187

 176

PSV1 4.36 .896 187

PSV2 4.34 .886 187

PSV3 4.34 .904 187

PSV4 4.56 .783 187

BHI1 4.51 .758 187

BHI2 4.42 .926 187

BHI3 4.59 .645 187

BHI4 4.48 .857 187

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.