Cybercrime risk perception and preventive awareness among Vietnamese university students: The roles of social media, legal awareness, media influence, and education
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/kpm.10(3).2026.04
-
Article InfoVolume 10 2026, Issue #3, pp. 50-66
- 9 Views
-
0 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Cybercrime is an increasingly visible digital safety concern for young adults in Vietnam, particularly for university students who rely heavily on social media for communication, learning, and risk-related information. This cross-sectional study examines the associations between social media use, legal awareness of cybercrime, media influence and misinformation exposure, family-school education, personal safety anxiety, and cybercrime risk perception and preventive awareness. Data were collected from 746 adult respondents in Vietnam, almost all of them were undergraduate students aged 18-24, and analyzed using EFA, CFA, CB-SEM, and bootstrap resampling. The results indicate that personal safety anxiety is the strongest correlate of cybercrime risk perception and preventive awareness. Family-school education, legal awareness, media influence and misinformation exposure, and social media use are also positively associated with both anxiety and the outcome construct. Indirect associations through personal safety anxiety were observed for all four antecedents, with the strongest indirect association involving family-school education. The findings should be interpreted as associational rather than causal because the data are cross-sectional and self-reported. The study contributes to socio-legal and communication research by showing how informational, legal, educational, and emotional factors jointly relate to cybercrime-related awareness among Vietnamese university students.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)K42, D83, D91
-
References37
-
Tables13
-
Figures3
-
- Figure 1. Conceptual model and hypothesized direct and indirect pathways
- Figure 2. Standardized confirmatory factor analysis results
- Figure 3. Structural equation model results from AMOS
-
- Table 1. Respondent characteristics (N = 746)
- Table 2. Frequently used social media platforms
- Table 3. Measurement structure of the questionnaire
- Table 4. Descriptive statistics of selected observed variables
- Table 5. Internal consistency of measurement scales
- Table 6. Exploratory factor analysis results
- Table 7. CFA model fit and convergent validity
- Table 8. Discriminant validity matrix (reported coefficients)
- Table 9. Structural paths and explained variance
- Table 10. Indirect associations through personal safety anxiety
- Table 11. Multi-group analysis by gender
- Table A1. Questionnaire items used in the survey
- Table B1. Standardized CFA loadings
-
- Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
- Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & DeFleur, M. L. (1976). A dependency model of mass-media effects. Communication Research, 3(1), 3-21.
- Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
- Bastardoz, N., & Antonakis, J. (2014). Sample size requirements for unbiased estimation of structural equation models: A Monte Carlo study. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1), Article 13405.
- Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quinonez, H., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, Article 149.
- Cheung, G. W., & Wang, C. (2017). Current approaches for assessing convergent and discriminant validity with SEM: Issues and solutions. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), Article 12706.
- Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R., & Wang, L. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41, 745-783.
- Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 558-577.
- DataReportal. (2024). Digital 2024: Vietnam. DataReportal.
- Efstathiou, G. (2019). Translation, adaptation and validation process of research instruments. In R. Suhonen, M. Stolt, & E. Papastavrou (Eds.), Individualized Care. Theory, Measurement, Research and Practice (pp. 65-78). Springer.
- Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internet Crime Complaint Center. (2024). 2023 Internet crime report.
- Fissel, E. R., & Lee, J. R. (2023). The cybercrime illusion: Examining the impact of cybercrime misbeliefs on perceptions of cybercrime seriousness. Journal of Criminology, 56(2-3), 150-169.
- Griffin, R. J., Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1999). Proposed Model of the Relationship of Risk Information Seeking and Processing to the Development of Preventive Behaviors. Environmental Research, 80(2), S230-S245.
- Hendriks, L. H. (2019). Influence of a fake news message on fear of crime (Master’s Thesis). University of Twente.
- Jobst, L. J., Bader, M., & Moshagen, M. (2023). A tutorial on assessing statistical power and determining sample size for structural equation models. Psychological Methods, 28(1), 207-221.
- Koenig, H. G., & Zaben, F. A. (2021). Psychometric validation and translation of religious and spiritual measures. Journal of Religion and Health, 60(5), 3467-3483.
- Kuraku, S., Kalla, D., & Samaah, F. (2023). Navigating the link between Internet user attitudes and cybersecurity awareness in the era of phishing challenges. International Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology, 9(12), 116-124.
- Lapuh Bele, J., Dimc, M., Rozman, D., & Sladoje Jemec, A. (2014). Raising awareness of cybercrime: The use of education as a means of prevention and protection. 10th International Conference Mobile Learning 2014.
- Lee, C. S., & Chua, Y. T. (2023). The role of cybersecurity knowledge and awareness in cybersecurity intention and behavior in the United States. Crime & Delinquency, 70(9), 2250-2277.
- Lee, H., & Lim, H. (2019). Awareness and perception of cybercrimes and cybercriminals. International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence and Cybercrime, 2(1), 1-3.
- MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149.
- Martin, G. (2025). Cybercrime. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (pp. 1-3). Wiley.
- Mavric, M., Becirovic-Alic, M., & Smailovic, S. (2024). Security culture on the Internet based on the opinions of primary school students. Univerzitetska Misao, 23, 134-145.
- Maxwell, S. E., Cole, D. A., & Mitchell, M. A. (2011). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(5), 816-841.
- McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.
- Ministry of Information and Communications. (2024). Vietnam information and communications white book 2024. Government of Vietnam. (In Vietnamese).
- Ravichandran, K., & Arulchelvan, S. (2017). Structural equation model analyzed on cyber crime and media awareness in India. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Recent Trends in Computer Communication and Management (pp. 141-146).
- Reichardt, C. S. (2011). Commentary: Are three waves of data sufficient for assessing mediation? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(5), 842-851.
- Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93-114.
- Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17(3), 281-303.
- Slovic, P. (2010). The feeling of risk: New perspectives on risk perception. Earthscan.
- Tofighi, D. (2020). Bootstrap model-based constrained optimization tests of indirect effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2989.
- Wang, X., Li, Y., Khasraghi, H. J., & Trumbach, C. (2023). The mediating role of security anxiety in Internet threat avoidance behavior. Computers & Security, 134, Article 103429.
- Wang, Y. A., & Rhemtulla, M. (2020). Power analysis for parameter estimation in structural equation modeling: A discussion and tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1).
- Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329-349.
- Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913-934.
- World Economic Forum (WEF). (2024). Global Risks Report 2024. World Economic Forum.


