These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33835881)

  • 1. So Many Phish, So Little Time: Exploring Email Task Factors and Phishing Susceptibility.
    Sarno DM; Neider MB
    Hum Factors; 2022 Dec; 64(8):1379-1403. PubMed ID: 33835881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Phishing Email Suspicion Test (PEST) a lab-based task for evaluating the cognitive mechanisms of phishing detection.
    Hakim ZM; Ebner NC; Oliveira DS; Getz SJ; Levin BE; Lin T; Lloyd K; Lai VT; Grilli MD; Wilson RC
    Behav Res Methods; 2021 Jun; 53(3):1342-1352. PubMed ID: 33078362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Which Phish Is on the Hook? Phishing Vulnerability for Older Versus Younger Adults.
    Sarno DM; Lewis JE; Bohil CJ; Neider MB
    Hum Factors; 2020 Aug; 62(5):704-717. PubMed ID: 31237787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The role of cue utilization in the detection of phishing emails.
    Sturman D; Valenzuela C; Plate O; Tanvir T; Auton JC; Bayl-Smith P; Wiggins MW
    Appl Ergon; 2023 Jan; 106():103887. PubMed ID: 36037654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. How personal characteristics impact phishing susceptibility: The mediating role of mail processing.
    Ge Y; Lu L; Cui X; Chen Z; Qu W
    Appl Ergon; 2021 Nov; 97():103526. PubMed ID: 34246073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. It's the deceiver and the receiver: Individual differences in phishing susceptibility and false positives with item profiling.
    Kleitman S; Law MKH; Kay J
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(10):e0205089. PubMed ID: 30365492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The roles of phishing knowledge, cue utilization, and decision styles in phishing email detection.
    Sturman D; Bell EA; Auton JC; Breakey GR; Wiggins MW
    Appl Ergon; 2024 Sep; 119():104309. PubMed ID: 38729025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Assessment of Employee Susceptibility to Phishing Attacks at US Health Care Institutions.
    Gordon WJ; Wright A; Aiyagari R; Corbo L; Glynn RJ; Kadakia J; Kufahl J; Mazzone C; Noga J; Parkulo M; Sanford B; Scheib P; Landman AB
    JAMA Netw Open; 2019 Mar; 2(3):e190393. PubMed ID: 30848810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Quantifying Phishing Susceptibility for Detection and Behavior Decisions.
    Canfield CI; Fischhoff B; Davis A
    Hum Factors; 2016 Dec; 58(8):1158-1172. PubMed ID: 27562565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Understanding Phishing Email Processing and Perceived Trustworthiness Through Eye Tracking.
    McAlaney J; Hills PJ
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():1756. PubMed ID: 32849040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Signal Detection Theory (SDT) Is Effective for Modeling User Behavior Toward Phishing and Spear-Phishing Attacks.
    Martin J; Dubé C; Coovert MD
    Hum Factors; 2018 Dec; 60(8):1179-1191. PubMed ID: 30063406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Email phishing and signal detection: How persuasion principles and personality influence response patterns and accuracy.
    Lawson P; Pearson CJ; Crowson A; Mayhorn CB
    Appl Ergon; 2020 Jul; 86():103084. PubMed ID: 32174448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Who Gets Caught in the Web of Lies?: Understanding Susceptibility to Phishing Emails, Fake News Headlines, and Scam Text Messages.
    Sarno DM; Black J
    Hum Factors; 2024 Jun; 66(6):1742-1753. PubMed ID: 37127397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Role of Cue Utilization and Cognitive Load in the Recognition of Phishing Emails.
    Nasser G; Morrison BW; Bayl-Smith P; Taib R; Gayed M; Wiggins MW
    Front Big Data; 2020; 3():546860. PubMed ID: 33693413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Susceptibility to Spear-Phishing Emails: Effects of Internet User Demographics and Email Content.
    Lin T; Capecci DE; Ellis DM; Rocha HA; Dommaraju S; Oliveira DS; Ebner NC
    ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact; 2019 Sep; 26(5):. PubMed ID: 32508486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The effect of automation trust tendency, system reliability and feedback on users' phishing detection.
    Zhou Y; Cui X; Qu W; Ge Y
    Appl Ergon; 2022 Jul; 102():103754. PubMed ID: 35339760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Is the key to phishing training persistence?: Developing a novel persistent intervention.
    Sarno DM; McPherson R; Neider MB
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2022 Mar; 28(1):85-99. PubMed ID: 35157483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Creative Persuasion: A Study on Adversarial Behaviors and Strategies in Phishing Attacks.
    Rajivan P; Gonzalez C
    Front Psychol; 2018; 9():135. PubMed ID: 29515478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Predicting User Susceptibility to Phishing Based on Multidimensional Features.
    Yang R; Zheng K; Wu B; Li D; Wang Z; Wang X
    Comput Intell Neurosci; 2022; 2022():7058972. PubMed ID: 35082844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Phishing in healthcare organisations: threats, mitigation and approaches.
    Priestman W; Anstis T; Sebire IG; Sridharan S; Sebire NJ
    BMJ Health Care Inform; 2019 Sep; 26(1):. PubMed ID: 31488498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.