## 4 Results and Analysis
### Analysis of NonCompliance Behaviors  
In line with RQ2 of this SLR, the current section exhibits the behavioral factors concluded in studies as a significant determinant of influencing information security policy noncompliance. This section evaluated studies related to factors that cause information security policy noncompliance. This section analyzed the studies' results related to neutralization, security-related stress, security-related value conflicts, and deterrence strategies effects that can cause employees' noncompliance with information security policies.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Authors** & **Research Method** & **Sample Size** & **Findings** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{[15]} & Quantitative study. SPSS and & \multirow{3}{*}{917 usable responses collected} & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Deterence and intention are the best predictors of actual compliance behavior towards ISP \\ \end{tabular} } \\  & Amos were used for model and & & \\  & data testing. & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{[90]} & The quantitative methodology & Randomly selected persons from different firms having more than & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} The difference between intended information security behavior and \\ actual security behavior is addressed in \\ this study. Intended behavior does \\ have a significant effect on \\ actual behavior \\ \end{tabular} } \\  & \begin{tabular}{c} The quantitative methodology \\ used and research model tested \\ with partial least squares \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Randomly selected persons from different firms having more than \\ 500 employees—exact number of \\ participants not mentioned \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} The difference between intended \\ information security behavior and \\ actual security behavior is addressed in \\ this study. Intended behavior does \\ have a significant effect on \\ actual behavior \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{[35]} & Literature review & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} A composite theoretical \\ information security behavioral \\ compliance model developed \\ with the help of previous studies \\ \end{tabular} } \\  & \begin{tabular}{c} Quantitative research \\ methodology. SEM used for \\ model and hypotheses testing \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} 387 usable responses collected \\ from SMEs in Malaysia \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Intentions of employees depend upon \\ theory of planned behavior (TPB) \\ predictors and dysfunctional \\ IS behaviors \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{[92]} & The quantitative research \\ methodology adopted, and PLS is \\ used for hypothesis testing & & 208 computer users participated \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} The intention is not the only predictor \\ of actual behavior \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{[93]} & Quantitative study design SEM & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} 444 correct responses considered \\ towards misbehavior \\ \end{tabular} } \\  & \begin{tabular}{c} Quantitative study design SEM \\ used for results analysis \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} 444 correct responses considered \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} SCPT and GDT have significant effects \\ on the insider’s negative attitude \\ towards misbehavior \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 10: Studies on actual compliance behaviors.