There is a quiet assumption most people carry when it comes to cybercrime. It is not about firewalls, passwords, or antivirus software. It is a belief. A feeling. A small voice in the back of the mind that says, “I’m careful. I’m smart. That kind of thing happens to other people.” Cybersecurity professionals have a fancy term for this mental shortcut. Optimism bias. It is the tendency for humans to believe they are less likely than others to experience negative events. We see it everywhere in life, including car accidents, health problems, and financial mistakes. Technology risks are no different.
Ironically, that belief is one of the most reliable predictors of who actually becomes a victim.
Most people do not ignore security advice because they are reckless. They ignore it because threats feel abstract and distant. A data breach sounds like a corporate problem. A scam sounds like something that targets the gullible. A hack sounds like a highly technical event involving elite criminals.
Real-world attacks look nothing like that.
What Research Says About Optimism Bias in Cyber Risk
It’s not just anecdotal observation when we talk about “it won’t happen to me.” There is actual research showing that people, (and often decision-makers!) tend to underestimate their own risk when it comes to cybersecurity.
A recent academic paper on optimism bias and cyber risk management found that individuals and organizations often believe that cyber threats are unlikely to affect them personally. This is a documented behavioral pattern, not just a gut feeling. The authors explain that decision-makers with a strong optimism bias are less likely to invest in risk management measures like cyber-insurance or additional protective defenses, because they perceive the likelihood of loss as low even when objective risk is high. In other words, people assume cyber incidents won’t happen to them until they actually experience one.
This type of optimism bias isn’t just a quirky personality trait. It directly affects how people make security decisions. When you believe a threat is unlikely, you invest less in protection, even if the potential consequences are severe. That dynamic helps explain why many cyber incidents succeed without “breaking” technical defenses, they succeed because human judgment decided the risk wasn’t real.
Cybercrime Is a Numbers Game
Modern cybercrime is largely opportunistic and statistical. Attackers are rarely singling out individuals through deep investigation. Instead, they cast wide nets, automate their outreach, and wait for normal human behavior to do the rest. It is less like a targeted strike and more like probability at work.
This is why victims are so often competent, intelligent, and experienced people.
Scams succeed because they exploit psychology rather than technical ignorance. Urgency, authority, familiarity, fear, and even helpfulness are universal human triggers. They work on busy executives, seasoned administrators, small business owners, and even people with deep technical knowledge.
A Personal Reminder That No One Is Immune
Across more than a decade of working in technical and security roles, I have learned something that still surprises people outside the industry. Deep security knowledge does not automatically make someone immune to social engineering. In fact, expertise can sometimes create a dangerous sense of confidence.
Years ago, I worked with a legal professional who specialized in areas closely related to cybersecurity and cybercrime. She was exceptionally intelligent, highly educated, and deeply familiar with the legal implications of security failures. From a knowledge standpoint, she understood both the threats and the risks better than most employees ever will.
Ironically, that very expertise appeared to shape her perception of personal risk. Because she felt informed and experienced, routine security awareness training was viewed as unnecessary. Despite employer mandates, the training was repeatedly skipped. Over time, this became normalized. Seniority, professional credentials, and a general belief that she was an unlikely target all contributed to the assumption that the risk was minimal.
Then reality intervened.
After many years with the organization, she became the victim of a spear-phishing attack. The message was convincing, contextually appropriate, and appeared to come from a trusted authority figure. There were no obvious red flags, no cartoonishly bad grammar, no glaring signs of fraud. Acting on what felt like a routine request, she purchased several thousand dollars in gift cards and sent the details directly to the attacker.
From a technical perspective, nothing extraordinary had occurred. There was no sophisticated malware, no exotic exploit, no dramatic system breach. The attack succeeded by leveraging psychology, timing, and trust. The same human factors that affect every other person.
The lesson was both simple and uncomfortable. Cybersecurity incidents are not reserved for the uninformed or the careless. They happen to capable, intelligent professionals who believe they are unlikely to be fooled. Optimism bias does not discriminate by job title, education level, or experience.
No one is automatically exempt from being human.
How Optimism Bias Changes Our Reactions
What makes optimism bias particularly dangerous is that it subtly reshapes how people interpret warning signs. When a strange email arrives, the safest reaction should be uncertainty. Instead, many people default to assuming legitimacy. When a caller claims to be from IT or a vendor, familiarity and routine often override caution.
The brain is constantly trying to conserve effort. Assuming safety is cognitively easier than assuming risk.
Attackers understand this. Their messages are designed to feel ordinary and expected. Not dramatic or obviously fraudulent, just believable enough to avoid triggering suspicion. The most effective scams are often the most boring and routine looking.
Incidents Are About Probability, Not Intelligence
Perhaps the most important mindset shift is this. Cyber incidents are rarely about intelligence. They are about exposure and probability.
If you receive enough emails, messages, calls, and notifications, you will eventually encounter a convincing attack. That is not paranoia. It is mathematics. Timing and context determine success more than awareness alone. A well-crafted message arriving at a moment of distraction can bypass even strong skepticism.
The better question is not “Who would fall for this?” The more realistic question is “Under what conditions might anyone fall for this?”
Security Starts With Self-Awareness
Once you accept that reality, security becomes less about avoiding embarrassment and more about managing risk. Small habits become easier to justify. Pause before reacting. Verify unusual requests. Treat unexpected urgency with healthy suspicion.
Not because you are careless, but because you are human.
The uncomfortable truth is that cybercriminals do not need you to be naïve. They only need you to be busy, tired, or momentarily trusting. Conditions that describe nearly everyone at some point.
“It won’t happen to me” feels like confidence. In practice, it is often the exact opposite of protection. Let’s stay safe out there!
