Home > CSC-OpenAccess Library > Manuscript Information
EXPLORE PUBLICATIONS BY COUNTRIES |
![]() |
![]() |
EUROPE |
![]() |
MIDDLE EAST |
![]() |
ASIA |
![]() |
AFRICA |
............................. | |
![]() |
United States of America |
![]() |
United Kingdom |
![]() |
Canada |
![]() |
Australia |
![]() |
Italy |
![]() |
France |
![]() |
Brazil |
![]() |
Germany |
![]() |
Malaysia |
![]() |
Turkey |
![]() |
China |
![]() |
Taiwan |
![]() |
Japan |
![]() |
Saudi Arabia |
![]() |
Jordan |
![]() |
Egypt |
![]() |
United Arab Emirates |
![]() |
India |
![]() |
Nigeria |
Human-Centric Artificial Intelligence In Cybersecurity: Integrating Cyberpsychology for The Next Generation Defense Mechanisms
Troy Coienth Troublefield
Pages - 1 - 25 | Revised - 01-04-2025 | Published - 30-04-2025
Published in International Journal of Security (IJS)
MORE INFORMATION
KEYWORDS
Artificial Intelligence (AI), Cyberpsychology, Human-Centric, Cybersecurity Defenses, Behavioral Insights, Cognitive Biases, Emotional Triggers, Phishing Prevention, Insider Threat, Mitigation, Adaptive Systems.
ABSTRACT
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a cornerstone of modern cybersecurity, enabling systems capable of detecting, mitigating, and responding to cyber threats with remarkable efficiency. Despite these advancements, a critical gap remains in addressing the human element is a major factor in cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Studies reveal that over 85% of breaches are attributable to human error, including cognitive biases, emotional triggers, and habitual behaviors. Traditional AI systems primarily focus on technical vulnerabilities, such as malware or network breaches, often neglecting these human dimensions. This oversight leaves organizations vulnerable to sophisticated attacks that exploit psychological weaknesses, including phishing, social engineering, and insider threats. Integrating cyberpsychology, the study of human behavior in digital environments, into AI systems offers a transformative approach to addressing these challenges. By leveraging insights into how individuals interact with technology, human-centric AI systems can predict and mitigate errors, guide users in real-time, and foster secure behaviors. For instance, emotion-aware AI can detect user frustration during password resets and offer tailored assistance, thereby reducing user errors and boosting satisfaction. Similarly, gamified training platforms incentivize engagement, enhancing awareness and long-term adherence to secure practices. Behavioral threat modeling, informed by cyberpsychology, further strengthens security by identifying anomalies, such as unusual login activity, and proactively addressing potential risks before incidents occur. This research explores the theoretical foundations, empirical evidence, and practical applications of human-centric AI in cybersecurity through a qualitative case study approach examining three distinct organizational contexts. The findings demonstrate substantial improvements in security outcomes when psychological principles are integrated into AI-driven systems, including a 48% reduction in phishing incidents, 92% accuracy in identifying potential insider threats, and significant improvements in security awareness through gamified training. These improvements highlight how merging technical innovation with psychological understanding enables adaptive, user-centered defenses that empower individuals while significantly reducing organizational risk. The human-centric approach establishes a new benchmark for resilient and effective cybersecurity strategies that address both technical and human dimensions of security.
Aigbefo, Q. A., Blount, Y., & Marrone, M. (2022). The influence of hardiness and habit on security behaviour intention. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(6), 1151-1170. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1856928 | |
Al-Hamar, Y., Kolivand, H., & Al-Hamar, A. (2024). Anti-phishing Attacks in Gamification. In Encyclopedia of Computer Graphics and Games (pp. 117-122). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23161-2_383 | |
Al-Hashem, N., & Saidi, A. (2023). The psychological aspect of cybersecurity: understanding cyber threat perception and decision-making. International Journal of Applied Machine Learning and Computational Intelligence, 13(8), 11-22. Retrieved from https://neuralslate.com/index.php/Machine-Learning-Computational-I/article/view/41 | |
Albarrak, A. M. (2024). Integration of Cybersecurity, Usability, and Human-Computer Interaction for Securing Energy Management Systems. Sustainability (2071-1050), 16(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188144 | |
Alsharida, R. A., Al-rimy, B. A. S., Al-Emran, M., & Zainal, A. (2023). A systematic review of multi perspectives on human cybersecurity behavior. Technology in Society, 73, 102258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102258 | |
Binns, R. (2018). Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287583 | |
Buchanan, T., Pavlicková, A., Bösch, R., & Fernandes, M. (2021). Exploring the relationship between cognitive biases and susceptibility to phishing. Journal of Cybersecurity, 7(1), tyab017. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyab017 | |
Canfield, C. I., Fischhoff, B., & Davis, A. (2016). Quantifying phishing susceptibility for detection and behavior decisions. Human Factors, 58(8), 1158–1172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816678612 | |
Cram, W. A., Proudfoot, J. G., & D’arcy, J. (2017). Organizational information security policies: a review and research framework. European Journal of Information Systems, 26(6), 605-641. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0059-9 | |
Eswaran, U., Eswaran, V., Murali, K., & Eswaran, V. (2024). Human-Centric AI Balancing Innovation with Ethical Considerations in the Age of Soft Computing. In Soft Computing in Industry 5.0 for Sustainability (pp. 87-116). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-69336-6_4 | |
Feraru, I., & Bacali, L. (2024). Explore the intersection of Self-Determination Theory and cybersecurity education-A literature review. International Journal of Advanced Statistics and IT&C for Economics and Life Sciences, 14(1).https://doi.org/10.2478/ijasitels-2024-0017 | |
Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1 | |
Hadlington, L. (2017). Human factors in cybersecurity: Examining the link between Internet addiction, impulsivity, attitudes towards cybersecurity, and risky online behaviours. Heliyon, 3(7), e00346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00346 | |
Houser, A. M., & Bolton, M. L. (2025). Formal Mental Models for Human-Centered Cybersecurity. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 41(2), 1414-1430. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2314353 | |
IBM Security. (2023). Cost of a Data Breach Report 2023. Retrieved from https://www.ibm.com/security/data-breach | |
Kadena, E., & Gupi, M. (2021). Human factors in cybersecurity: Risks and impacts. Security Science Journal, 2(2), 51-64. https://doi.org/10.37458/ssj.2.2.3 | |
Krylova-Grek, Y. (2019). Psycholinguistic aspects of humanitarian component of cybersecurity. Psycholinguistics, 26(1), 199-215. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2023-34-1-111-128 | |
Medoh, C., & Telukdarie, A. (2022). The future of cybersecurity: a system dynamics approach. Procedia Computer Science, 200, 318-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.230 | |
Metwally, E. A., Haikal, N. A., & Soliman, H. H. (2022). Detecting semantic social engineering attack in the context of information security. In Digital Transformation Technology: Proceedings of ITAF 2020 (pp. 43-65). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2275-5_3 | |
Nobles, C. (2018). Botching human factors in cybersecurity in business organizations. HOLISTICA–Journal of Business and Public Administration, 9(3), 71-88. https://doi.org/10.2478/hjbpa-2018-0024 | |
Nurse, J. R. C., Creese, S., Goldsmith, M., & Lamberts, K. (2019). Understanding insider threat: A framework for characterizing attacks. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 29(4), 269-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2019.1630125 | |
Palaniappan, S., Logeswaran, R., Khanam, S., & Gunawardhana, P. (2025). Social engineering threat analysis using large-scale synthetic data. Journal of Informatics and Web Engineering, 4(1), 70-80. https://doi.org/10.33093/jiwe.2025.4.1.6 | |
Parsons, K., Butavicius, M., Delfabbro, P., & Lillie, M. (2019). Predicting susceptibility to social influence in phishing emails. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 128, 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.02.007 | |
Pollini, A., Callari, T. C., Tedeschi, A., Ruscio, D., Save, L., Chiarugi, F., & Guerri, D. (2022). Leveraging human factors in cybersecurity: an integrated methodological approach. Cognition, Technology & Work, 24(2), 371-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-021-00683-y | |
Renaud, K., & Zimmermann, V. (2018). Ethical guidelines for nudging in information security & privacy. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 120, 22-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.05.011 | |
Statista. (2023). Global phishing statistics 2023. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com | |
Tsohou, A., Karyda, M., & Kokolakis, S. (2015). Analyzing the role of cognitive and cultural biases in the internalization of information security policies: Recommendations for information security awareness programs. Computers & Security, 52, 128-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.04.006 | |
Vishwanath, A., Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., & Rao, H. R. (2018). Why do people get phished? Testing individual differences in phishing vulnerability within an integrated, information processing model. Decision Support Systems, 51(3), 576-586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.03.002 | |
Xu, T., & Rajivan, P. (2023). Determining psycholinguistic features of deception in phishing messages. Information & Computer Security, 31(2), 199-220. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICS-11-2021-0185 | |
Yeo, L. H., & Banfield, J. (2022). Human factors in electronic health records cybersecurity breach: an exploratory analysis. Perspectives in Health Information Management, 19(Spring). | |
Yigit, Y., Kioskli, K., Bishop, L., Chouliaras, N., Maglaras, L., & Janicke, H. (2024). Enhancing cybersecurity training efficacy: A comprehensive analysis of gamified learning, behavioral strategies and digital twins. In 2024 IEEE 25th international symposium on a world of wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM) (pp. 24-32). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/WoWMoM60985.2024.00016 | |
Zimmermann, V., & Renaud, K. (2019). Moving from a "human-as-problem" to a 'human-as-solution" cybersecurity mindset. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 131, 169-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.05.005 | |
Zwilling, M., Klien, G., Lesjak, D., Wiechetek, Ł., Cetin, F., & Basim, H. N. (2022). Cyber security awareness, knowledge, and behavior: A comparative study. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 62(1), 82-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2020.1712269 | |
Dr. Troy Coienth Troublefield
Cyberpsychology, Capitol Technology University, Laurel, MD, 20708 - United States of America
ttroublefield@captechu.edu
|
|
|
|
View all special issues >> | |
|
|