Table 2. A design planner which specifies research questions, hypotheses, sampling plans, analysis plans, and contingent interpretation for “Specify exactly which analyses you will conduct to examine the main question/hypothesis(es)”.
| Question | Hypothesis | Sampling plan (e.g., power analysis) | Analysis plan | Interpretation given different outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Does perceived efficacy underlie self-efficacy? | Hypothesis 1: Perceived efficacy has a positive effect on self-efficacy | As there are no other details to supplement, please refer to “How many observations will be collected and what rule will you use to terminate data collection?” for the sampling plan of the present study | We will analyze relevant indexes in the model using SEM. Specifically, we will use the false discovery rate (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995) to adjust the p values of the coefficients of concern and then compare the adjusted p values with 0.05 to decide whether each coefficient is significant or not | For the health proposal in the present study, there is no evidence showing that its perceived efficacy underlies its self-efficacy in the Japanese context |
| Does perceived efficacy underlie response efficacy? | Hypothesis 2: Perceived efficacy has a positive effect on response efficacy | For the health proposal in the present study, there is no evidence showing that its perceived efficacy underlies its response efficacy in the Japanese context | ||
| Does perceived threat underlie perceived susceptibility? | Hypothesis 3: Perceived threat has a positive effect on perceived susceptibility | There is no evidence showing that the perceived threat of COVID-19 underlies its perceived susceptibility in the Japanese context | ||
| Does perceived threat underlie severity? | Hypothesis 4: Perceived threat has a positive effect on severity | There is no evidence showing that the perceived threat of COVID-19 underlies its severity in the Japanese context | ||
| Does repetition (increase in frequency of exposure to health proposal message from once to twice) influence response efficacy? | Hypothesis 5: Repetition has a positive effect on response efficacy | (1) The message is short while not interesting enough to elicit attention, thus, after 24–72 h, the memory of it may weaken and the effect becomes weak to detect (2) The response efficacy is stable if the content of the health proposal message is fully understood from the beginning |
||
| Does repetition (increase in frequency of exposure to health proposal message from once to twice) influence perceived susceptibility? | Hypothesis 6a: Repetition has a positive effect on perceived susceptibility H6b: Repetition has a negative effect on perceived susceptibility |
(1) The message is short while not interesting enough to elicit attention, thus, after 24–72 h, the memory of it may weaken and the effect becomes weak to detect (2) Perceived susceptibility, as a kind of conjectural perception, is not directly connected with the content of the health proposal message, and thus may not be influenced by repetition |
||
| Is behavior intention influenced by perceived efficacy? | Hypothesis 7: Perceived efficacy has a positive effect on behavior intention | In the COVID-19 pandemic, the perceived threat is so high that a fear control process is adopted, where perceived efficacy can be barely high enough to influence behavior intention | ||
| Is behavior intention influence by perceived threat? | Hypothesis 8a: Perceived threat has a positive effect on behavior intention H8b: Perceived threat has a negative effect on behavior intention |
In previous research, the correlation between perceived threat and behavior indicators was not always significant (Witte, 1996), which means that the influence of perceived threat is weak. In the EPPM, perceived threat may act as a kind of judgment criterion, which means that the danger control process will not start until perceived threat reaches a certain level. After that, the fluctuation in its value does not influence behavior intention anymore |