Table 4.
Recipes formulating a high PTG.
| Raw coverage | Unique coverage | Consistency | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model A: ptg = f (inc, ed, ag, mar, gen, irp) | |||
| M1. ∼mar*∼ag*∼inc*irp | .572 | .513 | .983 |
| M2. mar*ag*∼ed*∼inc*irp | .131 | .037 | .997 |
| M3. mar*ag*ed*inc*irp | .177 | .084 | .994 |
| solution coverage: .728 | |||
| solution consistency: .984 | |||
| Model B: ptg = f (ps, gs, oms, sms, fs, irp) | |||
| M1. gs*ps*oms*fs | .818 | .036 | .993 |
| M2. gs*ps*fs*irp | .834 | .053 | .992 |
| M3. gs*ps*oms*sms*irp | .749 | .011 | .995 |
| M4. gs*oms*sms*fs*irp | .750 | .012 | .995 |
| M5. ps*oms*sms*fs*irp | .748 | .010 | .996 |
| solution coverage:.903 | |||
| solution consistency:.987 | |||
| Model C: ptg = f (an, di, so, irp) | |||
| M1. ∼so*irp | .821 | .022 | .976 |
| M2. ∼di*irp | .792 | .015 | .980 |
| M3. an*irp | .528 | .049 | .991 |
| M4. ∼an*∼di*∼so | .602 | .027 | .980 |
| solution coverage: .927 | |||
| solution consistency: .967 | |||
| Model D: ptg = f (gs, ps, oms, sms, fs, an, di, so, irp) | |||
| M1. gs*ps*oms*fs*∼an*∼di*∼so | .546 | .019 | .997 |
| M2. gs*ps*fs*∼an*∼di*∼so*irp | .549 | .009 | .997 |
| M3. gs*ps*sms*fs*∼di*∼so*irp | .662 | .006 | .997 |
| M4. gs*ps*oms*sms*fs*∼so*irp | .678 | .009 | .997 |
| M5. gs*ps*oms*sms*fs*∼di*irp | .660 | .006 | .997 |
| M6. gs*ps*oms*sms*fs*an*irp | .467 | .034 | .999 |
| M7. gs*oms*sms*fs*∼an*∼di*∼so*irp | .508 | .005 | .998 |
| solution coverage: .806 | |||
| solution consistency: .995 | |||
Note: irp = infection risk perception; gs = government support; oms = official media support; sms = social media support; ps = public support; fs = family and friends support; an = anxiety; di = depression and irritability; so = somatization. The symbol ∼ indicates a negation condition.