Table 9.
Study 4: 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 | 140 | −.02 (.67) | −.12 | .09 | 203 | −.03 (.62) | −.12 | .06 | 98 | .10 (.60) | −.03 | .22 |
| Condom use intention | 140 | 4.21 (1.05) | 4.05 | 4.38 | 203 | 4.32 (1.02) | 4.18 | 4.46 | 98 | 4.42 (.92) | 4.22 | 4.62 |
| Change in pro-condom norm | – | – | – | – | 194 | −.15 (.74) | −.25 | −.04 | 95 | .34 (.80) | .18 | .50 |
| Change in risk perception | – | – | – | – | 194 | 2.68 (1.38) | 2.48 | 2.87 | 95 | 3.49 (1.27) | 3.23 | 3.75 |
| Change in condom use intention | – | – | – | – | 194 | 2.37 (1.36) | 2.18 | 2.57 | 95 | 3.27 (1.35) | 3.00 | 3.55 |
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 -2.09 (weak norm perception) to 1.02 (strong norm perception) and ‘Change in pro-condom norm’ ranging from -.99 (weak norm perception) to 1.45 (strong norm perception).