Behaviour vs Recognition: The Real Skills Security Awareness Training Must Build for Effective Cyber Resilience

It's 2026, and the problem with most security awareness training isn't that employees are careless; it's because the training itself is built for attacks that are easy to spot.

On paper, many organisations believe they are doing everything right. Employees complete their annual security awareness modules. Completion rates look healthy. Quiz scores look reassuring. Compliance boxes are ticked.

Then, suddenly, an internal message circulates that sounds exactly like your boss. The tone is familiar, the timing makes sense, and the request feels like part of a routine process. You respond quickly, not because you ignored your training, but because nothing in that training prepared you to question something that fit so seamlessly into your daily workflow.

That is the uncomfortable reality of modern cyber attacks. The problem is no longer that threats are increasing in number. The deeper issue is that training still assumes a simpler threat model: one where malicious messages look different from legitimate ones. Employees are taught to spot danger as something visually distinct. Real attacks increasingly succeed by exploiting trust, authority, and timing rather than technical mistakes.

The problem isn’t that employees don’t know the rules. It’s that real attacks don’t look like the situations they were trained for.

What this blog will help you understand

1. Why traditional security awareness training breaks down when attacks rely on credibility rather than obvious technical flaws
2. What large-scale studies reveal about the real and limited impact of conventional training approaches
3. Which human capabilities matter more than recognition of fake messages in 2026
4. How modern security awareness platforms differ in training philosophy and not only in features
5. What “resilience” actually means for human-centric security programs, beyond compliance and click rates

Traditional SAT did not suddenly stop working because attackers became more sophisticated. It stopped working because its underlying assumptions stayed the same. Training still rewards recognition instead of judgment, still happens in calm conditions instead of stressful ones, and still measures memory rather than behaviour. Completion of courses is treated as readiness, even though real decisions do not work that way.

This critique has been central to the work of Martine Angela Sasse, one of the leading voices in human-centered cybersecurity and OutThink’s scientific advisor. Dr. Sasse has long argued that awareness training fails when it treats users as the weakest link and assumes that more information will naturally lead to safer behaviour. In her view, insecure actions are not caused by ignorance, but by routines, time pressure, and poorly designed tools that make unsafe behaviour the easiest option. Training that focuses on rules and warnings cannot override these habits if the surrounding work environment remains unchanged (OutThink; CISPA).

She also highlights that most everyday security decisions are driven by automatic, habitual thinking rather than slow, deliberate reasoning. Classroom-style training targets conscious knowledge, but real attacks succeed by exploiting urgency, authority, and routine. This is why, as Dr. Sasse puts it, training that works in a classroom often fails in a crisis: it operates in psychological conditions that are nothing like the situations in which real attacks occur (OutThink).

Large-scale data now reflects the same limitations. A randomised controlled study by UC San Diego followed more than 19,000 employees for eight months and found no meaningful relationship between how recently someone had completed training and whether they clicked on a phishing link. 83.7% of employees were fully compliant with annual training, yet their failure rates were statistically indistinguishable from overdue users. 56% of users clicked at least once during the study period, and some phishing campaigns achieved failure rates above 30%, overwhelming the marginal protection offered by training.

A separate meta-analysis of 11 empirical studies on social engineering training reached a similar conclusion, finding only a trivial overall reduction in vulnerability. In other words, traditional awareness programs produce measurable improvement on paper, but very little protection in practice.

Training that works in a classroom often fails in a crisis.

If recognising suspicious content is no longer enough, what should training focus on instead? The answer lies in shaping how people interpret situations, not just what they recognise. Dr. Sasse shows that behaviour change in security depends on understanding why people act the way they do and what contextual pressures they face. Her work on security awareness campaigns emphasises that effective training must go beyond informing users about risks; it must help them accept the relevance of that information, understand how to respond, and be willing to do so even amid competing demands.

She highlights that people need support for decision-making under uncertainty, especially where automatic, habitual responses and organisational routines dominate everyday work. Without engaging those deeper aspects of human behaviour, awareness campaigns risk being ignored, irrelevant, or unsustainable.

This perspective aligns with the evidence from a 12-month longitudinal study involving more than 1,300 employees and over 13,000 simulated phishing emails found that continuous, behaviour-driven training reduced successful compromises by almost 50% within six months. What changed was not what people knew, but how they paused, questioned, and validated requests over time.

Employees need practice in judging whether a request fits normal workflows, whether its timing makes sense, and whether the channel is appropriate. Behavioural consistency matters more than isolated cues: subtle signals begin to matter only when people learn to integrate them into a pattern. Feedback loops and contextual reinforcement help shape this kind of judgement, rather than a one-off annual course.

The UC San Diego study reinforces this need for depth in training design. Only about 10% of employees failed a given simulation and triggered embedded training, meaning most users received no learning signal at all. Among those who did, over 50% exited within 10 seconds and fewer than 24% completed the content. Interactive training reduced future click likelihood by 19%, while static training showed little effect.

These results suggest that current models train people to recognise danger, while real attacks succeed by controlling the situation in which decisions are made.

If traditional training struggles, the solution is not better slides or more realistic examples, but a change in how training is designed and evaluated. Modern SAT has to move away from being a yearly compliance exercise and toward becoming a continuous skill-building process. When attacks evolve monthly, a once-a-year course trains memory and not readiness.

Research increasingly shows that most programs optimise for completion rather than behaviour. Dashboards look healthy because people finish modules, yet their real-world decisions remain fragile (UC San Diego & UCSD Health, 2025). This disconnect exists because training is usually static while attacks are dynamic and context-driven, unfolding under time pressure and social authority (Rozema & Davis, 2025).

The evidence points to consistent patterns:

1. Success is still measured using quiz scores and click rates, even though these metrics say little about how people behave under psychological pressure (NIST Phish Scale; Dawkins & Jacobs, 2023; Steves et al., 2020).
2. Feedback is typically binary, pass or fail, which hides whether judgment improves over time (UCSD, 2025).
3. Training remains detached from real decision contexts, reinforcing recognition rather than resilience (Dr. Sasse & Murdoch, 2017; 2021).

What modern programs must do instead is treat awareness as a skill. That means adaptive difficulty based on behaviour, continuous learning rather than annual resets, and metrics that reflect real-world action such as hesitation, reporting speed, and recovery behaviour.

The strongest programs do not ask, “Did you finish training?” They ask, “Did your decisions improve?”

A common objection is simple: “But we already train our people.” And that is true. The problem is not in efforts, but rather it's the problem of human psychology.

Research shows that conventional security awareness training often leads to short-term knowledge gains but does not reliably translate into lasting behaviour change, particularly when reinforcement is limited or absent. (guardey) At the same time, phishing attacks succeed by exploiting cognitive biases such as authority, urgency, and social proof, prompting instinctive responses that bypass analytical thinking even among trained users. (ridgesecurity) Empirical reviews point to the same gap: recognition-based training focuses on what messages look like, while real compliance decisions are shaped by emotional and contextual pressures in the moment. (easychair)

Training is absorbed cognitively, while real decisions are made emotionally. Under pressure, attention narrows, authority overrides memory, and urgency leaves little room for reflection. In moments that feel legitimate and internal, the brain shifts from analytical mode to social mode, responding as a colleague rather than as a security analyst.

This is not incompetence, it can be better framed as human nature.

If training does not account for this, it will always appear effective until the moment it is tested.

Rather than comparing security awareness training platforms by feature lists or content volume, it is more useful to compare them by the kind of learning outcome they are designed to produce.

As we discussed earlier, modern attacks succeed not because employees fail to recognise fake messages, but because they are placed in situations involving authority, urgency, and realistic context. This means the most important difference between SAT platforms is not how many modules they offer, but whether they train recognition, behaviour, or judgment under pressure.

We have put together a table below that compares leading security awareness training vendors from a SAT-first perspective. Instead of ranking tools by popularity or market size, it groups platforms based on their underlying training philosophy: whether they focus on compliance and content delivery, behavioural habit formation, role-based realism, or long-term human risk reduction.

Vendor Comparison (SAT-first view)

✅ = Strong native focus ◐ = Partial / limited focus ❌ = Not a primary focus

OutThink

OutThink approaches security awareness training from a behaviour-first perspective, focusing on how people make decisions under pressure rather than whether they can recognise suspicious content. Instead of treating a click as the main indicator of risk, it looks at the patterns behind user behaviour and how judgment changes over time.

Key SAT-relevant focus areas:

• Emphasis on behavioural signals and judgment patterns, not just failure events
• Training designed around interruption, verification, and contextual reasoning, helping users practise how to pause when requests feel legitimate but incomplete
• Focus on decision-making under pressure, where authority, urgency, and realism shape outcomes
• Longitudinal view of human risk, tracking how behaviour evolves rather than resetting each year
• Prioritises behavioural change over content exposure, aligning with the shift from recognition to resilience
• Builds pattern recognition in human responses, not just pattern recognition in attack types
• Measures readiness over time, rather than relying on quiz scores or single campaign results
• Positions awareness as a skill to be developed, not a compliance task to be completed
• Focus on how people respond under pressure and authority
  
  
  Adaptive Security
  
  Adaptive Security provides hands-on, role-based awareness training with strong coverage across modern social engineering techniques. Its emphasis is on realism and scenario diversity, allowing organisations to expose users to attacks that more closely resemble real-world conditions.
  
  Key SAT-relevant focus areas:
• Role-specific and scenario-based simulations
• Adaptive content tied to user performance
• Strong coverage of social engineering patterns
• Focus on contextual exposure rather than static lessons
  
  
  KnowBe4
  
  KnowBe4 is best known for its extensive content library and compliance-driven training model. It performs well for organisations that need structured, auditable coverage across large workforces, though its learning design remains more recognition-oriented than behaviour-oriented.
  
  Key SAT-relevant focus areas:
• Large catalogue of awareness content
• Strong compliance and reporting alignment
• Emphasis on knowledge reinforcement
• Limited depth in modelling decision-making under pressure
  
  
  Proofpoint Security Awareness
  
  Proofpoint integrates awareness training into its wider security ecosystem, using organisational risk and threat intelligence to inform training priorities. Its approach is structured and role-based rather than deeply adaptive, aligning training with enterprise security posture.
  
  Key SAT-relevant focus areas:
• Ecosystem-driven awareness content
• Role-based training modules
• Alignment with technical threat intelligence
• Less focus on individual behavioural modelling
  
  
  Cofense (PhishMe)
  
  Cofense concentrates on phishing awareness and reporting workflows, particularly within email environments. Its strength lies in detection and response pipelines rather than broader behavioural training across varied contexts.
  
  Key SAT-relevant focus areas:
• Strong phishing simulation and reporting focus
• Emphasis on email-based threat recognition
• Narrower scope outside phishing scenarios
• Limited behavioural insight beyond click events
  
  
  Hoxhunt
  
  Hoxhunt delivers gamified and adaptive learning aimed at improving engagement and participation. It adjusts difficulty based on user performance and uses behavioural feedback to reinforce habits over time.
  
  Key SAT-relevant focus areas:
• Behaviour-based difficulty progression
• Gamification to sustain participation
• Emphasis on habit formation
• Limited depth in complex authority or urgency scenarios
  
  
  Mimecast Awareness Training
  
  Mimecast provides short, accessible awareness modules designed for scale. Its microlearning approach prioritises reach and consistency across large user populations rather than detailed behavioural analysis.
  
  Key SAT-relevant focus areas:
• Microlearning for large workforces
• High engagement, low-friction delivery
• Baseline awareness reinforcement
• Minimal focus on nuanced behavioural measurement
  
  
  Infosec IQ
  
  Infosec IQ offers a broad awareness content library with strong LMS and SCORM compatibility, making it suitable for organisations needing flexible curriculum design and integration with existing training systems.
  
  Key SAT-relevant focus areas:
• Flexible content and curriculum options
• Strong LMS integration
• Awareness-driven training model
• Behavioural analytics is relatively shallow
  
  
  SANS Security Awareness
  
  SANS delivers expert-led training aligned with mature security programs and strong policy frameworks. Its depth makes it suitable for technically advanced or highly regulated environments, though it demands higher cognitive effort from learners.
  
  Key SAT-relevant focus areas:
• Expert-driven and research-informed content
• Strong policy and compliance alignment
• Focus on disciplined security behaviour
• Heavier learning load for non-technical users
  
  
  NINJIO
  
  NINJIO uses cinematic, story-based episodes built around real-world incidents to drive engagement and cultural awareness. Its strength lies in attention and retention rather than behavioural measurement.
  
  Key SAT-relevant focus areas:
• High engagement through storytelling
• Cultural awareness building
• Passive learning model
• Limited interactivity and behaviour tracking
  
  
  Huntress Security Awareness
  
  Huntress focuses on narrative-driven lessons designed for smaller teams and managed service providers. Its approach prioritises simplicity and retention over complex behavioural modelling.
  
  Key SAT-relevant focus areas:
• Story-first learning design
• Suitable for small teams and MSPs
• Emphasis on awareness over judgment
• Limited adaptive or behavioural depth

Security awareness is no longer about teaching people what to spot. It is about helping them navigate through uncertainty. It is about learning to pause when something feels unusually convincing yet somehow incomplete, to validate when authority and urgency collide, and to interrupt safely without fear of embarrassment.

The future of security awareness training is not detection. It is judgment. Not prediction, but preparedness. Not compliance, but resilience.

In 2026, the best security awareness training will not teach people what to look for. It will teach them how to think.