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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34246073)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Susceptibility to phishing on social network sites: A personality information processing model.
    Frauenstein ED; Flowerday S
    Comput Secur; 2020 Jul; 94():101862. PubMed ID: 32501314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. The Role of Health Concerns in Phishing Susceptibility: Survey Design Study.
    Abdelhamid M
    J Med Internet Res; 2020 May; 22(5):e18394. PubMed ID: 32364511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Email fraud: The search for psychological predictors of susceptibility.
    Jones HS; Towse JN; Race N; Harrison T
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(1):e0209684. PubMed ID: 30650114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Is This Phishing? Older Age Is Associated With Greater Difficulty Discriminating Between Safe and Malicious Emails.
    Grilli MD; McVeigh KS; Hakim ZM; Wank AA; Getz SJ; Levin BE; Ebner NC; Wilson RC
    J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci; 2021 Oct; 76(9):1711-1715. PubMed ID: 33378418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Persuasive Appeals Predict Credibility Judgments of Phishing Messages.
    Baryshevtsev M; McGlynn J
    Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw; 2020 May; 23(5):297-302. PubMed ID: 32271628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Personalized persuasion: Quantifying susceptibility to information exploitation in spear-phishing attacks.
    Xu T; Singh K; Rajivan P
    Appl Ergon; 2023 Apr; 108():103908. PubMed ID: 36403509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.