How victims perceive fear of cybercrime: importance of informed risk

ABSTRACTThe Internet and related technology development have increased cybercrime perpetration and victimization opportunities. Individuals who have experienced victimization in the past are fearful of cybercrime. Yet, despite the increase in diversified cybercrime, previous studies have used inaccurate, aggregated measures of victimization and fear. This study uses domain-specific cybercrime victimization and fear measures to clarify the relationships between the two. We further investigate how the level of informed risk of cybercrime, which is fundamental to creating effective policies for combating cybercrime, moderates such associations. Utilizing the 2019 Eurobarometer (N = 20,400, country N = 28), we conducted a separate analysis for each of the 10 types of cybercrime. As expected, a multilevel regression analysis revealed that victims are more likely to fear a type of cybercrime that they have experienced before. More interestingly, such associations are statistically significant for specific types of cybercrime depending on the level of informed risk. Based on these findings, we discuss policy implications for developing and revising campaigns and educational programs for cybercrime victims and the general public and increasing international institutional cooperation.KEYWORDS: cybercrimevictimizationfearinformed riskEurope Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. We use ‘perceived risk’ here to keep the authors’ original wording (Higgins, Ricketts, & Vegh, Citation2008).2. Each item’s original wording is as follows: 1) ‘fraudulent emails or phone calls asking for personal details (including access to your computer, logins, banking or payment information)’; 2) ‘online fraud where goods purchased are not delivered, are counterfeit or are not as advertised’; 3) ‘cyberattacks which prevent you from accessing online services like banking or public services (cyberattacks on banking and public services)’; 4) ‘the infection of devices with malicious software (viruses, etc.)’; 5) ‘identity theft (somebody stealing your personal data and impersonating you)’; 6) ‘accidentally encountering child sexual abuse material online’ (‘pornography’); 7) ‘online material which promotes racial hatred or religious extremism’; 8) ‘hacking of an online social network or email account’ (‘account hacking’); 9) ‘bank card or online banking fraud’; and 10) ‘demands for payment in return for getting back control of device’ (‘blackmail’) (see also Lee & Wang, Citation2022).3. According to the International Telecommunication Union (Citation2018), the measure of GCI focuses on legal, organizational, technical, capacity building, and cooperation dimensions (see also Lee & Kim, Citation2020). The legal factors include cybercriminal legislation, cybersecurity regulation, and cybersecurity training on regulations and laws. The organizational dimension includes strategy, responsible agency, and cybersecurity metrics, whereas the technical aspects cover national computer incident response teams (CIRT), government CIRT, sectoral CIRT, standards for organizations, and standards for professionals. Capacity building comprises standardization bodies, good cybersecurity practices, R&D programs, public awareness campaigns, professional training, national education programs and academic curricula, incentive mechanisms, and the home-grown cybersecurity industry. Finally, cooperation covers bilateral and multilateral agreements, international agreements for participation, and public – private and interagency partnerships. GCI is the average score of the five dimensions.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Sogang University [202210021.01].Notes on contributorsClaire Seungeun LeeClaire Seungeun Lee, Ph.D. is an associate professor in the School of Criminology and Justice Studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and a member of the University’s Center for Internet Security and Forensics Education and Research (iSAFER). Her research centers on deviance and crime in cyberspace, cybersecurity, social media, and the social implications of social and new technologies.Ji Hye KimJi Hye Kim, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at Sogang University, South Korea. Her research areas include social psychology, culture and cognition, and social stratification from a cross-cultural perspective.