Table 4.
Mediation analysis of emotional response, perceived message strength, and message derogation on the effects of message framing and self-affirmation on indoor tanning intentions
| Independent Variable |
Mediating Variable |
Intentions to Tan |
Intentions to Quit Tanning |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Effect | Framing | -- | −.05 (−.37, .28) | .16 (−.16, .51) |
| Indirect Effect | Framing | Fear Response | −.11 (−.23, −.04) | .20 (.10, .35) |
| Framing | Perceived Message Strength |
−.07 (−.15, .001) | .15 (−.03, .34) | |
| Framing | Message Derogation | .03 (−.01, .08) | −.03 (−.09, .001) | |
| Direct Effect | Self- Affirmation |
-- | .28 (−.02, .56) | .09 (−.23, .39) |
| Indirect Effect | Self- Affirmation |
Fear Response | −.02 (−.08, .03) | .04 (−.06, .13) |
| Self- Affirmation |
Perceived Message Strength |
.08 (.01, .18) | −.18 (−.39, −.01) | |
| Self- Affirmation |
Message Derogation | .03 (.00, .09) | .04 (−.06, .13) |
Regression coefficients and bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals are displayed. Confidence intervals that do not include 1 are statistically significant at p < .05. Models adjusted for baseline covariates including relevant intentions measures, attitudes towards tanning, perceived risks of tanning, and indoor tanning behavior.