## 7 Discussion  
Based on Figure 2 and theoretical foundation explained in Section 3, this study model was developed via proposing seven independent variables and one mediation variable \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Hypothesis**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Path**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Original Sample (O)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Standard Deviation**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**T Statistics**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\) Values**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Results**} \\  & & & **(STDEV)** & & (10/STDEV1) & & \\ \hline H1 & PS \(\rightarrow\) CP & \(-\)0.007 & 0.045 & 0.211 & 0.833 & Rejected \\ H2 & PV \(\rightarrow\) CP & \(-\)0.069 & 0.046 & 1.558 & 0.120 & Rejected \\ H3 & SE \(\rightarrow\) CP & \(-\)0.013 & 0.048 & 0.236 & 0.813 & Rejected \\ \hline H4 & RE \(\rightarrow\)CP & 0.161 & 0.063 & 2.599 & 0.011 & Accepted \\ H5 & RC \(\rightarrow\) CP & 0.055 & 0.057 & 0.943 & 0.346 & Rejected \\ H6 & GF \(\rightarrow\)CP & 0.105 & 0.056 & 1.940\({}^{*}\) & 0.053 & Accepted \\ \hline H7 & OFT \(\rightarrow\) CP & 0.003 & 0.062 & 0.082 & 0.935 & Rejected \\ \hline H8 & PS \(\rightarrow\) CL & 0.019 & 0.047 & 0.358 & 0.721 & Rejected \\ H9 & PV \(\rightarrow\) CL & 0.09 & 0.043 & 2.016 & 0.044 & Accepted \\ H10 & SE \(\rightarrow\) CL & 0.178 & 0.057 & 3.365 & 0.001 & Accepted \\ H11 & RE \(\rightarrow\) CL & 0.241 & 0.065 & 3.713 & 0.000 & Accepted \\ H12 & RC \(\rightarrow\) CL & 0.170 & 0.059 & 2.846 & 0.005 & Accepted \\ H13 & OFT \(\rightarrow\) CL & 0.156 & 0.061 & 2.586 & 0.010 & Accepted \\ H14 & GF \(\rightarrow\) CL & 0.202 & 0.059 & 3.470 & 0.001 & Accepted \\ \hline H15 & CL \(\rightarrow\) CP & 0.554 & 0.073 & 7.595 & 0.000 & Accepted \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
* * Significant at level 0.01. Cyberattack Prevention (CP), Cybersecurity, Leadership (CL), Self-Efficacy (SE) Government Frequent Alerting (GF), Organization Training (OFT), Perceived Severity (PS), Perceived Vulnerability (PV), Response Cost (RC), Response Efficacy (RE).  
\end{table} 
Table 13: Table of hypothesis testing (direct effect). named as cybersecurity leadership and coded as (CL) and one dependent variable named as cyberattack prevention and coded as (CP). In accordance, the researchers of this study proposed twenty-two hypotheses to be examined. Regarding the first seven direct hypotheses (H1-H7), the empirical findings in this study indicated that there is no significant direct relationship between the seven proposed hypotheses except two hypotheses (H4 and H7). Therefore, the results for testing threat appraisal revealed that perceived severity (PS) and perceived vulnerability (PV) have no significant relation with cyberattack prevention in hypothesis H1 (PS \(\rightarrow\) CP) and H2 (PV \(\rightarrow\) CP) of the structural model and were thus rejected. The results in (Table 13) for perceived severity (PS) and perceived vulnerability (PV) indicate that the related \(p\)-value for (PS) was 0.833, which was more than the threshold value of \(p>0.05\), and the related \(p\)-value for (PV) was 0.120, which was more than the threshold value of \(p>0.05\). These results provide sufficient empirical evidence to reject hypothesis H1 and H2. Although the result appears to be at odds with both theoretical predictions and the results of several other investigations [61; 64; 65] from various contexts, it is in line with findings from earlier research that has shown similar findings, where the perceived severity (PS) and perceived vulnerability (PV) did not predict secure behavior [65; 117]. As repeatedly reported by previous PMT research [118; 119; 120], threat appraisal is a poor predictor of both security behavioral intentions and safety behaviors. This may be interpreted by considering the mediating effect that is already proved to be existed or the users feel that sufficient technical preventive measures have already been undertaken regarding perceived vulnerability.