Michela Ponticorvo

Valeria Formisano, Danilo Gentile, Gennaro Esposito Mocerino et al.

Phishing remains one of the most pervasive cybersecurity threats, shifting the focus from technological vulnerabilities to human cognitive and psychological factors. In coherence with the trend of studies on phishing to increasingly focus on human aspects and vulnerable users profiling, this study investigates the multidimensional nature of user susceptibility by analyzing data from the Spamley dataset, involving 1,086 participants evaluated through a realistic phishing detection task. Using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), five latent constructs were identified, named: Seniority, Expertise, Creativity, Stability, and Vulnerability. Behavioral findings, validating self-reported impulsivity through its negative correlation with response times, demonstrate that faster decision-making significantly distinguishes vulnerable users from resilient ones. A K-Means clustering procedure, driven by the dimensions of Seniority (F1) and Creativity (F3), revealed two distinct user profiles: the Aware User and the High-Risk User. The results demonstrate that technical knowledge alone is insufficient to guarantee resilience; rather, the interaction between operational maturity, decision-making speed, and cognitive approach determines effectiveness. The findings suggest that the majority of users fall into the High-Risk category, characterized by hasty evaluation processes and lower critical analysis. These results underline the urgent need to move beyond "one-size-fits-all" training toward personalized, adaptive cybersecurity programs that actively address cognitive biases and behavioral tendencies.

Nicola Milano, Michela Ponticorvo, Davide Marocco

In this article we explore the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in assessing the content validity of psychometric instruments, focusing on the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ) and Big Five Inventory (BFI). Content validity, a cornerstone of test construction, ensures that psychological measures adequately cover their intended constructs. Using both human expert evaluations and advanced LLMs, we compared the accuracy of semantic item-construct alignment. Graduate psychology students employed the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) to rate test items, forming the human baseline. In parallel, state-of-the-art LLMs, including multilingual and fine-tuned models, analyzed item embeddings to predict construct mappings. The results reveal distinct strengths and limitations of human and AI approaches. Human validators excelled in aligning the behaviorally rich BFQ items, while LLMs performed better with the linguistically concise BFI items. Training strategies significantly influenced LLM performance, with models tailored for lexical relationships outperforming general-purpose LLMs. Here we highlights the complementary potential of hybrid validation systems that integrate human expertise and AI precision. The findings underscore the transformative role of LLMs in psychological assessment, paving the way for scalable, objective, and robust test development methodologies.