# The Role of Decision-Making Styles in Shaping Cybersecurity Compliance Behavior
## 2 Theoretical Background  
Researchers working on decision-making behavior suggest that individuals show stereotypical reactions in similar situations due to their habits [28; 29; 30]. These stereotypical reactions individuals exhibit in their decision-making processes are called decision-making styles [29; 30; 31]. The term \"decision-making style\" refers to the routines that people follow while making decisions [28] and an individual's unique way of understanding and reacting to activities requiring decision-making [32]. After an analysis of earlier research on decision-making styles, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [29] identified it as a habitual, automatic reaction style used by a person in decision-making situations, and it is more of a habit-based tendency than a personality attribute. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [31] defined a decision-making style as a cognitive procedure that depicts how a person handles a challenge. This implies that each person uses different methods of perceiving and analyzing information and, therefore, will make different decisions. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [33] argued that decision behavior could be predicted if one knew how they made decisions. Prediction of human decision-making behavior would enable the prediction of cybersecurity behavior and all other fields of application. The General Decision-Making Style Inventory (GDMS), developed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [29], was used in this study to measure individuals' decision-making styles. In GDMS, five different decision-making styles are measured. Sufficient samples were not obtained from the two decision-making styles (spontaneous and avoidant) in this study. Nevertheless, the remaining rational, intuitive, and dependent decision-making styles, for which sufficient samples were obtained, were from [PERSON]'s [32] decision-making styles typology. The most well-known, logically valid, and least-redundant taxonomic categorization of decision-making styles is [PERSON]'s [32] division of decision-making into dependent, intuitive, and rational styles [34; 35; 36]. Specific characteristics and inclinations emerge for different decision-making styles. Rational style is characterized by consciously and rationally making decisions; intuitive style is represented by deciding in accordance with emotions and a sense of fulfillment; dependent style is described as deciding depending on what others think and expect of you [29; 32]. After determining the decision-making styles of individuals, cybersecurity compliance behaviors were explained theoretically. Many theories have been used in literature to elucidate individuals' security compliance behaviors. In this study, the protection motivation theory (PMT) was used to investigate individuals' cybersecurity compliance behaviors. The protection motivation theory describes why people are driven to act when they are warned about danger or risky conduct [13; 26; 27]. In other words, the theory's fundamental premise is that people are driven to defend themselves when confronted with potentially dangerous situations [37]. PMT comprises two appraisal processes to understand how individuals motivate themselves in risky situations: coping appraisal and threat appraisal. Coping appraisal describes how people evaluate their capacity to cope with and prevent possible loss or harm from a danger [38; 39] and comprises self-efficacy, response efficacy, and perceived barriers. The threat appraisal explains how individuals perceive threats and includes perceived severity and vulnerability factors. Cyber-attacks pose a potentially dangerous situation in the digital world [1]. In many different usage areas, such as the home computers [17], smartphones [40], wireless networks [38], and smart cities [41], there is an increasing potential danger of cyberattacks. In the event of these attacks, many negative situations may be encountered, such as the disclosure of personal data, the interruption of access to systems, and financial loss [40]. These potentially dangerous situations in cyber issues comply with the context of PMT [37].