skip to main content
10.1145/3290607.3313026acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Engaging Users with Educational Games: The Case of Phishing

Published:02 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Phishing continues to be a difficult problem for individuals and organisations. Educational games and simulations have been increasingly acknowledged as versatile and powerful teaching tools, yet little work has examined how to engage users with these games. We explore this problem by conducting workshops with 9 younger adults and reporting on their expectations for cybersecurity educational games. We find a disconnect between casual and serious gamers, where casual gamers prefer simple games incorporating humour while serious gamers demand a congruent narrative or storyline. Importantly, both demographics agree that educational games should prioritise gameplay over information provision -- i.e. the game should be a game with educational content. We discuss the implications for educational games developers.

References

  1. Nalin Asanka Gamagedara Arachchilage and Steve Love. 2014. Security awareness of computer users: A phishing threat avoidance perspective. Computers in Human Behavior 38 (2014), 304--312. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Nalin Asanka Gamagedara Arachchilage, Steve Love, and Konstantin Beznosov. 2016. Phishing threat avoidance behaviour: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior 60 (2016), 185--197. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke, and Gareth Terry. 2014. Thematic analysis. Qual Res Clin Health Psychol 24 (2014), 95--114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Gamze Canova, Melanie Volkamer, Clemens Bergmann, and Benjamin Reinheimer. 2015. NoPhish app evaluation: lab and retention study. USEC. Internet Society (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Ching-Yi Chang and Gwo-Jen Hwang. 2019. Trends in digital game-based learning in the mobile era: a systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2016. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation 13, 1 (2019), 68--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Ponemon Institute. 2018. 2018 Cost of a Data Breach Study: Global Overview. Technical Report. IBM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jurjen Jansen and Paul van Schaik. 2019. The design and evaluation of a theory-based intervention to promote security behaviour against phishing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 123 (2019), 40--55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Iacovos Kirlappos and M Angela Sasse. 2012. Security education against phishing: A modest proposal for a major rethink. IEEE Security & Privacy 10, 2 (2012), 24--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Rebecca Klahr, Sophie Amili, Jayesh Navin Shah, Mark Button, and Victoria Wang. 2016. Cyber security breaches survey 2016. UK Government, Ipsos MORI and University of Portsmouth. DOI= http://bit. ly/1T4MveX (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Aamna Mohdin. 2018. Scammers target students with fake tax refund emails. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/17/scammers-target-students-with-fake-tax-refund-emailsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. James Nicholson, Lynne Coventry, and Pam Briggs. 2018. Introducing the cybersurvival task: assessing and addressing staff beliefs about effective cyber protection. In Fourteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security ({SOUPS} 2018). 443--457. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Lorelli S Nowell, Jill M Norris, Deborah E White, and Nancy J Moules. 2017. Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16, 1 (2017), 1609406917733847.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Sankalp Pandit, Sukanya Vaddepalli, Harshal Tupsamudre, Vijayanand Banahatti, and Sachin Lodha. 2018. PHISHYA Serious Game to Train Enterprise Users on Phishing Awareness. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts. ACM, 169--181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Steve Sheng, Mandy Holbrook, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Julie Downs. 2010. Who falls for phish?: a demographic analysis of phishing susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 373--382. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Steve Sheng, Bryant Magnien, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Jason Hong, and Elizabeth Nunge. 2007. Anti-phishing phil: the design and evaluation of a game that teaches people not to fall for phish. In Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on Usable privacy and security. ACM, 88--99. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Amber A Smith-Ditizio and Alan D Smith. 2019. Computer Fraud Challenges and Its Legal Implications. In Advanced Methodologies and Technologies in System Security, Information Privacy, and Forensics. IGI Global, 152--165.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Engaging Users with Educational Games: The Case of Phishing

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI EA '19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 2019
        3673 pages
        ISBN:9781450359719
        DOI:10.1145/3290607

        Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 2 May 2019

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • abstract

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format