Table 5.

Significant effects of the mediation analyses (Study 2)

Step 1: Effect of scenario condition on appreciation measures
General appreciation scale	B = .44, SE = .11, p < .001
Percentage that health insurance should compensate	B = 2.20, SE = .52, p < .001
Allocation of money to Lytgens’ intervention/nursing home	B = -.75, SE = .20, p < .001
Allocation of money to Lytgens’ intervention/alcohol prevention	B = -.56, SE = .22, p = .01
Step 2: Effect of scenario condition on explanatory variables
Urgency to introduce method	B = .48, SE = .15, p = .002
Urgency to develop similar methods	B = .31, SE = .15, p = .04
Certainty of attribution (Professor Lytgens saves lives)	B = .84, SE = .19, p < .001
Certainty of attribution (less mortality)	B = .42, SE = .16, p = .01.
Time interval	B = -.59, SE = .18, p = .002
Step 3: Effect of significant explanatory variables on significant appreciation measures while controlled for scenario condition
General appreciation scale
-Urgency to introduce the method	B = .16, SE = .07, p = .03
-Certainty of less mortality	B = .20, SE = .06, p = .002
Percentage that health insurance should compensate
-Urgency to introduce the method	B = 1.53, SE = .37, p < .001
Allocation of money to Lytgens’ intervention/nursing homes
-Urgency to introduce the method	B = -.34, SE = .15, p = .03
Step 4: Effect of scenario condition on significant appreciation measures while controlling significant explanatory variables
General appreciation scale	B = .16, SE = .10, p = .13
Percentage that health insurance should compensate	B = 1.39, SE = .54, p = .01
Allocation of money to Lytgens’ intervention/ nursing homes	B = 1.39, SE = .54, p = .01