Total views : 174

Kansei Information Security Assessment (KISA): Characterizing Trust as Stimuli for User Emotional Assessment in Information Security


  • School of Bionics, Computer and Media Sciences, Tokyo University of Technology, Tokyo,, Japan
  • Faculty of Defence Science and Technology, National Defense University of Malaysia (UPNM), Kem Perdana Sungai Besi, Kuala Lumpur,, Malaysia
  • Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Shah Alam, Selangor,, Malaysia


This paper reports the preliminary study of implementing Kansei Engineering as emotion assessment platform in information security. Trust was chosen as the initial emotional traits for the study. The development and characterization of trust as Kansei stimuli is presented in this paper. In the development of trust as Kansei stimuli, literature reviews of previous published papers on trust as emotional aspect in information security were done in online databases, which are Science Direct, IEEE Xplore, Springer Link and Google Scholar. A number of 52 related articles were found to have reported on the topic. Based from literature reviews, the basic of trust elements in the information security were found to be integrity, benevolence and ability of the humans and technical entities in the information security implementations. Furthermore, trust assessments will also need to cover the element of cultural and religion influence in affecting the trust among the human users. Therefore, in characterizing trust as Kansei stimuli, the stimuli will need to assess the trust level of integrity, benevolence and ability of the humans and technical components, and also on cultural and religion background among the human users. With this findings, the development and characterization of trust as Kansei stimuli in information security domain was proven possible, thus provides novel findings that Kansei Engineering could be implemented as emotion assessment in information security domain. This paper shows and proven the possibility of the applying Kansei Engineering as emotion assessment platform in information security. It opened a new chapter in the research in Kansei Engineering and information security.


Emotion Assessment, Information Security, Kansei Engineering, Kansei Stimuli, Trust.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 154)


  • Ahmad A, Maynard SB, Park S. Information security strategies: Towards an organizational multi-strategy perspective. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. 2014; 25:357–70.
  • Colwill C. Human factors in information security: The insider threat–Who can you trust these days? Information security technical report. 2009; 14:186–96.
  • Crossler RE, Johnston AC, Lowry PB, Hu Q, Warkentin M, Baskerville R. Future directions for behavioral information security research. Computers and Security. 2013; 32:90–101.
  • Da Veiga A, Martins N. Information security culture and information protection culture: A validated assessment instrument. Computer Law and Security Review. 2015; 31:243–56.
  • Shropshire J, Warkentin M, Sharma S. Personality, attitudes, and intentions: Predicting initial adoption of information security behaviour. Computers and Security. 2015; 49:177–91.
  • Probst CW, Hunker J. The risk of risk analysis and its relation to the economics of insider threats. Economics of Information Security and Privacy, Springer; 2010. p. 279–99.
  • Sarkar KR. Assessing insider threats to information security using technical, behavioural and organisational measures. Information Security Technical Report. 2010; 15:112–33.
  • Kim JJ, Park EHE, Baskerville RL. A model of emotion and computer abuse. Information and Management. 2016; 53:91–108.
  • Henshel D, Cains M, Hoffman B, Kelley T. Trust as a human factor in holistic cyber security risk assessment. Procedia Manufacturing. 2015; 3:1117–24.
  • Albuquerque RD, Villalba LJG, Orozco ALS, de Sousa RT, Kim T-H. Leveraging information security and computational trust for cybersecurity. The Journal of Supercomputing; 2015. p. 1–35.
  • Ifinedo P. Understanding information systems security policy compliance: An integration of the theory of planned behavior and the protection motivation theory. Computers and Security. 2012; 31:83–95.
  • Johnston AC, Warkentin M. Fear appeals and information security behaviors: An empirical study. MIS Quarterly; 2010. p. 549–66.
  • Bravo-Lillo C, Cranor L, Komanduri S, Schechter S, Sleeper M. Harder to ignore? Revisiting pop-up fatigue and approaches to prevent it. 10th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2014); 2014. p. 105–11.
  • Morrison EW, Robinson SL. When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of management Review. 1997; 22:226–56.
  • Shaw ED, Fischer LF. Ten tales of betrayal: The threat to corporate infrastructure by information technology insiders analysis and observations. Defense Personnel Security Research Center (PERSEREC), Monterey, CA, Tech. Rep. 05-13; 2005.
  • D’Arcy J, Herath T, Shoss MK. Understanding employee responses to stressful information security requirements: a coping perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2014; 31:285–318.
  • Lee C, Lee CC, Kim S. Understanding information security stress: Focusing on the type of information security compliance activity. Computers and Security. 2016; 59:60–70.
  • Lokman AM. Design and emotion: The Kansei engineering methodology. Malaysian Journal of Computing. 2010; 1:1–11.
  • Whipple JM, Griffis SE, Daugherty PJ. Conceptualizations of trust: Can we trust them? Journal of Business Logistics. 2013; 34:117–30.
  • Bauer PC. Conceptualizing and measuring trust and trustworthiness. Political Concepts. Committee on Concepts and Methods Working Paper Series. 2015; 61:1–27.
  • Marsh SP. Formalising trust as a computational concept. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Stirling; 1994.
  • Koskosas IV, Choudrie J, Paul RJ. The interrelationship and effect of trust and strong cultures in setting information systems security goals. Communications of the IIMA. 2015; 4:5.
  • Bahtiyar Ş, Çağlayan MU. Security similarity based trust in cyber space. Knowledge-Based Systems. 2013; 52:290–301.
  • Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review. 1998; 23:393–404.
  • Sicari S, Rizzardi A, Grieco L, Coen-Porisini A. Security, privacy and trust in Internet of Things: The road ahead. Computer Networks. 2015; 76:146–64.
  • Flowerday S, Von Solms R. Trust: An element of information security. IFIP International Information Security Conference; 2006. p. 87–98.
  • Dietz G, Hartog DND. Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review. 2006; 35:557–88.
  • Oltramari A, Henshel D, Cains M, Hoffmanm B. Towards a human factors ontology for cyber security. STIDS; 2015.
  • Von Solms R, Van Niekerk J. From information security to cyber security. Computers and Security. 2013; 38:97–102.
  • Bishop M. What is computer security? IEEE Security and Privacy. 2003; 1:67.
  • Anderson JM. Why we need a new definition of information security. Computers and Security. 2003; 22:308–13.
  • Ashenden D. Information security management: A human challenge? Information Security Technical Report. 2008; 13:195–201.
  • Levy P. Beyond kansei engineering: The emancipation of kansei design. International Journal of Design. 2013; 7.
  • Lokman AM, Noor N. Kansei Engineering concept in e-commerce website. Proceedings of the International Conference on Kansei Engineering and Intelligent Systems; 2006. p. 117–24.
  • Mishra AK. Organizational responses to crisis. Trust in organizations. Frontiers of theory and research; 1996. p. 261–87.
  • Schlienger T, Teufel S. Analyzing information security culture: increased trust by an appropriate information security culture. Database and Expert Systems Applications, 2003. Proceedings. 14th International Workshop; 2003. p. 405–9.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.