Cross-sectional survey reveals self-efficacy and perceived severity drive protective security behavior among professionals, highlighting the importance of confidence-building training.
Phishing has evolved into a multichannel threat spanning email, SMS, messaging applications, social media, and collaboration platforms, yet limited empirical evidence exists on how professionals in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region perceive and respond to these threats. This study applies Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) to examine how threat appraisal (perceived severity [PS] and perceived vulnerability [PV]), coping appraisal (response efficacy [RE] and self-efficacy [SE]), exposure frequency (EF), organizational preparedness (OP), and cybersecurity training (TR) influence phishing-related security behavior (SB) across multiple communication channels. A cross-sectional survey of 120 MENA professionals was analyzed using reliability and validity assessments, correlation analysis, and multivariate regression. The results demonstrate widespread phishing exposure across communication channels and strong measurement reliability. SE emerged as the strongest predictor of protective SB, followed by PS, whereas EF, RE, OP, and TR did not independently predict behavior after controlling for PMT variables. These findings extend PMT to a multichannel phishing context and provide empirical evidence from the underexamined MENA region. Practically, the findings can assist cybersecurity managers, chief information security officers (CISOs), security awareness teams, and organizational policy makers in designing multichannel phishing awareness programs, strengthening reporting procedures, implementing cross-channel verification practices, and developing training that enhances employees’ confidence in recognizing and responding to phishing attacks across diverse communication platforms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Essam Natsheh (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: