Table 7.
Study 3: descriptive statistics per group.
| No exposure |
Mere exposure |
Social engagement |
||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% Confidence Interval (CI) |
95% Confidence Interval (CI) |
95% Confidence Interval (CI) |
||||||||||
| Dependent variable | n | M (SD) | LL | UL | n | M (SD) | LL | UL | n | M (SD) | LL | UL |
| Pro-condom norm | 265 | −.04 (.64) | −.12 | .04 | 612 | −.01 (.63) | −.07 | .04 | 203 | .11 (.63) | .02 | .20 |
| Condom use intention | 265 | 4.30 (1.06) | 4.17 | 4.43 | 612 | 4.34 (1.08) | 4.25 | 4.42 | 203 | 4.39 (1.04) | 4.25 | 4.54 |
| Change in pro-condom norm | – | – | – | – | 600 | 2.72 (1.41) | 2.61 | 2.84 | 203 | 3.18 (1.51) | 2.98 | 3.38 |
| Change in risk perception | – | – | – | – | 599 | 2.74 (1.28) | 2.64 | 2.85 | 202 | 3.17 (1.27) | 2.99 | 3.35 |
| Change in condom use intention | – | – | – | – | 534 | 2.72 (1.49) | 2.60 | 2.85 | 184 | 3.07 (1.53) | 2.85 | 3.28 |
Note. All measures are Likert-scales with scores ranging from 1 to 5 except for ‘Pro-condom norm’ which was standardized with scores ranging from -2.36 (weak norm perception) to 1.19 (strong norm perception).