General deterrence theory
- 1 General deterrence theory
- 2 Acronym
- 3 Alternate name(s)
- 4 Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)
- 5 Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)
- 6 Concise description of theory
- 7 Diagram/schematic of theory
- 8 Originating author(s)
- 9 Seminal articles
- 10 Originating area
- 11 Level of analysis
- 12 IS articles that use the theory
- 13 Links from this theory to other theories
- 14 External links
- 15 Original Contributor(s)
General deterrence theory
Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)
Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)
Concise description of theory
Schuessler (2009)<ref>Schuessler, J. 2009. General deterrence theory: Assessing information systems security effectiveness in large versus small businesses. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Texas, United States -- Texas. (Publication No. AAT 3377466).</ref> wrote that General Deterrence Theory (GDT) "posits that individuals can be dissuaded from committing antisocial acts through the use of countermeasures, which include strong disincentives and sanctions relative to the act" (p. 11). He references Straub and Welke (1998) <ref>Straub, D. W., & Welke, R. J. (1998). Coping with systems risk: Security planning models for management decision making. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 22(4), 441.</ref> for the foundational work on this subject. Schuessler also noted "Using GDT as a guideline, countermeasures could be put in place to eliminate such a threat or at least mitigate some of the risk should the event occur. Countermeasures such as education and training, backups, reprimands and so on can all serve as tools to eliminate or mitigate such risk. The current research expands this conceptual view of GDT to include other sources of threats such as non-humans threats. In this way, other threats such as natural disasters and technical failures can also be examined. It is believed that this extension is valid because often times, preemptive planning can help to mitigate these threats as well. For example, backups can replace lost data after hardware failure or a natural disaster (p. 12)."
Diagram/schematic of theory
Straub, D. W., & Welke, R. J.
Straub, D. W., & Welke, R. J. (1998). Coping with systems risk: Security planning models for management decision making. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 22(4), 441.
Level of analysis
IS articles that use the theory
Links from this theory to other theories
Please feel free to make modifications to this site. In order to do so, you must register.
Return to Theories Used in IS Research