## 7 Discussion
In addition, for coping appraisal direct hypotheses (H3, H4 and H5) the results show that H3 (SE \(\rightarrow\) CP) and H5 (CR \(\rightarrow\) CP) were rejected, while only H4 (RE \(\rightarrow\) CP) was accepted with a low significance level where bootstrap was based on two tailed critical value test commonly used, which consider t-value 1.65 significance level at (10%), 1.96 significance level (5%), and 2.65 significance level (1%) [121]. The \(p\)-value associated with hypothesis H3 (SE \(\rightarrow\) CP), which determines the relationship between self-efficacy and cyberattack prevention, was 0.813, indicating that self-efficacy (SE) is not a significant predictor for cyberattack prevention (CP). This was in line with some previous studies [67; 122] that reported self-efficacy to be an insignificant predictor for protective motivation behavior, especially in association with the effect intervention of other variables. Furthermore, the results indicated that the relationship between response efficacy and cyberattack prevention (RE \(\rightarrow\) CP), as in hypothesis (H4) in the structural model, was significant. The path coefficient for H4 was reported as \(p\)-value 0.011, with a \(t\) value of 2.559, which was more than the threshold point of \(t>1.96\). This is consistent with the results of [117; 123], which confirmed the positive correlation between response efficacy and cyberattack prevention among the total sample of users. For the last hypothesis in coping appraisal, the results indicated that the relationship between response cost and cyberattack prevention (RC \(\rightarrow\) CP), as in hypothesis (H5) in the structural model, was not significant. The path coefficient for H5 was reported as \(p\)-value 0.346, with a \(t\)-value of 0.943, which was less than the threshold point of \(t>1.96\). This result is in line with the results of [123; 124], which confirmed the response cost was not a significant predictor of protection motivation among the total sample of users. Furthermore, the result for the newly emerged H6 and H7 indicated the acceptance of H6 as the government frequent alerting has a significant positive relationship on cyberattack prevention (GF \(\rightarrow\) CP) with t-value 1.94 significance level at (10%). Based on our research, we could not find an empirical and quantitative study that confirms similar results of H6. However, many other non-empirical studies confirm the necessity of government support to enact regulations and frequent alerts to protect their citizens and organizations from cyberattacks [125; 126; 127]. Governments should therefore take a lead in employing cybersecurity concepts by encouraging standard-setting and certification, raising knowledge and awareness at all levels of organizations, including top management, and conducting cybersecurity events. On the other hand, the results for H7 indicated that the path coefficient for H7 was reported as a \(p\)-value of 0.935, with a \(t\) value of 0.082, which was less than the threshold point of \(t>\) 1.96. Therefore, organization frequent training has no direct significant effect on cyberattack prevention (OFT \(\rightarrow\) CP). This result contradicted the previous research results [128; 129; 130; 131], which confirmed the existence of a relationship between cybersecurity organization training and individuals' cybersecurity protective behavior. A possible explanation for this result is that the participants may not be fully aware of the available cybersecurity training and those who are aware might not be fully satisfied with the current level of cybersecurity training. Therefore, financial and other business organizations need to improve current training programs and design effective interventions to increase information security awareness and compliance.