Received 21.12.2025, Revised 01.05.2026, Accepted 25.06.2026 Published 03.08.2026

A fuzzy model for assessing the behavioral component of digital security among different socio-demographic population groups

Volodymyr Polishchuk*, Vasyl Sehlianyk

volodymyr.polishchuk@tuke.sk



The relevance of the study was determined by the growing number of cyber threats in the digital environment and the need to develop methods for assessing the behavioural component of digital security, considering differences in digital literacy and technology use experience across various socio-demographic groups. The purpose of the study was to substantiate an approach to assessing the level of safe user behaviour in the digital environment based on sociodemographic differences in the population. To achieve this goal, methods of intelligent knowledge analysis, fuzzy set theory, multidimensional membership functions, and sociological data analysis were applied. The study developed an information model for assessing the behavioural component of digital security among the population based on a system of criteria that described users’ safe interaction with the digital environment. Groups of indicators were formed to reflect citizens’ awareness of cyber threats, their practices in using personal data protection tools, and their behavioural characteristics when interacting with digital resources. A fuzzy approach to determining the integral level of digital security based on multidimensional membership functions was proposed, which enables the integration of quantitative and qualitative assessment indicators and provides both numerical and linguistic evaluations of users’ safe behaviour levels. The model was verified using questionnaire survey data obtained from 315 respondents representing different socio-demographic groups. The practical significance of the results obtained lies in the possibility of integrating the developed model into decision-support systems intended for monitoring the level of digital security of the population, segmenting socio-demographic groups by cyber-risk level, and substantiating targeted managerial, educational, and preventive measures aimed at improving digital literacy and users’ safe behaviour

cyber threats; safe digital behaviour; fuzzy logic; digital literacy; multicriteria assessment; membership functions; decision support
78-89
Polishchuk, V., & Sehlianyk, V. (2026). A fuzzy model for assessing the behavioral component of digital security among different socio-demographic population groups. Information Technologies and Computer Engineering, 23(2), 78-89. https://doi.org/10.31649/vitce/2.2026.78

References

  1. Alanazi, M., Freeman, M., & Tootell, H. (2022). Exploring the factors that influence the cybersecurity behaviors of young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 136, article number 107376. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107376.
  2. Almansoori, A., Al-Emran, M., & Shaalan, K. (2023). Exploring the frontiers of cybersecurity behavior: A systematic review of studies and theories. Applied Sciences, 13(9), article number 5700. doi: 10.3390/app13095700.
  3. Argyridou, E., Nifakos, S., Laoudias, C., Panda, S., Panaousis, E., Chandramouli, K., Navarro-Llobet, D., Mora Zamorano, J., Papachristou, C., & Bonacina, S. (2023). Cyber hygiene methodology for raising cybersecurity and data privacy awareness in health care organizations: Concept study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, article number e41294. doi: 10.2196/41294.
  4. Bender, S., Horn, S., Loewenstein, G., & Roberts, O. (2024). Phishing feedback: Just-in-time intervention improves online security. Behavioural Public Policy, 1-13. doi: 10.1017/bpp.2024.19.
  5. Bognár, L. (2025). Predicting cybersecurity incidents via self-reported behavioral and psychological indicators: A stratified logistic regression approach. Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy, 5(3), article number 67. doi: 10.3390/jcp5030067.
  6. Bognár, L., & Bottyán, L. (2024). Evaluating online security behavior: Development and validation of a personal cybersecurity awareness scale for university students. Education Sciences, 14(6), article number 588. doi: 10.3390/educsci14060588.
  7. Branley-Bell, D., Coventry, L., Dixon, M., Joinson, A., & Briggs, P. (2022). Exploring age and gender differences in ICT cybersecurity behaviour. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2022, article number 2693080. doi: 10.1155/2022/2693080.
  8. Chaudhary, S., Gkioulos, V., & Katsikas, S. (2023). A quest for research and knowledge gaps in cybersecurity awareness for small- and medium-sized enterprises. Computer Science Review, 50, article number 100592. doi: 10.1016/j.cosrev.2023.100592.
  9. Desolda, G., Ferro, L.S., Marrella, A., Catarci, T., & Costabile, M.F. (2021). Human factors in phishing attacks: A systematic literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(8), article number 173. doi: 10.1145/3469886.
  10. European Commission. (2021). Ethics and Data Protection. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/ethics-and-data-protection_he_en.pdf.
  11. Hanus, B., Windsor, J.C., & Wu, Y. (2018). Definition and multidimensionality of security awareness: Close encounters of the second order. ACM SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 49(1), 103-133. doi: 10.1145/3210530.3210538.
  12. Hasegawa, K., O’Brien, N., Prendergast, M., Bompani, N., Peiris, D., & Darzi, A. (2024). Cybersecurity interventions in health care organizations in low- and middle-income countries: Scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, article number e47311. doi: 10.2196/47311.
  13. Hong, Y., & Furnell, S. (2021). Understanding cybersecurity behavioral habits: Insights from situational support. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 57, article number 102710. doi: 10.1016/j.jisa.2020.102710.
  14. Karayel, T., Aktaş, B., & Akbıyık, A. (2025). Human factors in remote work: Examining cyber hygiene practices. Information & Computer Security, 33(1), 96-116. doi: 10.1108/ICS-11-2023-0215.
  15. Kennison, S.M., & Chan-Tin, E. (2020). Taking risks with cybersecurity: Using knowledge and personal characteristics to predict self-reported cybersecurity behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, article number 546546. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.546546.
  16. Khadka, K., & Ullah, A.B. (2025). Human factors in cybersecurity: An interdisciplinary review and framework proposal. International Journal of Information Security, 24, article number 119. doi: 10.1007/s10207-025-01032-0.
  17. Khan, N.F., Ikram, N., & Saeed, S. (2022). The cybersecurity behavioral research: A tertiary study. Computers & Security, 120, article number 102826. doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2022.102826.
  18. Kovalchuk, D. (2025). Utilising large language models for automated real-time cyber threat analysis. Bulletin of Cherkasy State Technological University, 30(1), 48-58. doi: 10.62660/bcstu/1.2025.48.
  19. Lee, C.S., & Kim, D. (2023). Pathways to cybersecurity awareness and protection behaviors in South Korea. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 63(1), 94-106. doi: 10.1080/08874417.2022.2031347.
  20. Mayer, P., Zou, Y., Lowens, B.M., Dyer, H.A., Le, K., Schaub, F., & Aviv, A.J. (2023). Awareness, intention, (in)action: Individuals’ reactions to data breaches. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 30(5), article number 77. doi: 10.1145/3589958.
  21. Morrison, B., Coventry, L., & Briggs, P. (2021). How do older adults feel about engaging with cyber-security? Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(5), 1033-1049. doi: 10.1002/hbe2.291.
  22. Morrow, E. (2024). Scamming higher ed: An analysis of phishing content and trends. Computers in Human Behavior, 158, article number 108274. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108274.
  23. Nguyen, B.H., & Le, H.N.Q. (2024). Investigation on information security awareness based on KAB model: The moderating role of age and education level. Information & Computer Security, 32(5), 598-612. doi: 10.1108/ICS-09-2023-0152.
  24. Polishchuk, V., & Sehlianyk, V. (2026). Dataset of 315 respondents on digital security behavior across socio-demographic groups [Data set]. Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18953401.
  25. Prümmer, J., van Steen, T., & van den Berg, B. (2024). A systematic review of current cybersecurity training methods. Computers & Security, 136, article number 103585. doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2023.103585.
  26. Rohan, R., Pal, D., Hautamäki, J., Funilkul, S., Chutimaskul, W., & Thapliyal, H. (2023). A systematic literature review of cybersecurity scales assessing information security awareness. Heliyon, 9(3), article number e14234. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14234.
  27. Skare, M., Gavurova, B., & Polishchuk, V. (2026). Information-analytical system for evaluating artificial intelligence readiness and adoption in enterprises: A policy framework. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 22, article number 52. doi: 10.1007/s11365-026-01187-9.
  28. Šolić, K., Velki, T., Fosić, I., & Vuković, M. (2024). Study on information security awareness using the behavioral-cognitive internet security questionnaire. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 21(4), 49-68. doi: 10.12700/APH.21.4.2024.4.3.
  29. van Steen, T., & Deeleman, J.R.A. (2021). Successful gamification of cybersecurity training. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(9), 593-598. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2020.0526.
  30. 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. doi: 10.1080/08874417.2020.1712269.