Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Aging. 2018 Mar;33(2):325–337. doi: 10.1037/pag0000228

Table 3. Ratings of Advertisement Credibility across Emotional Arousal Conditions in Older and Younger Adult Responders.

Predictor Unstd. Coeff. SE t p
Main Effects Model
Intercept (γ00) 3.95 0.23 17.17 < .001
HAP vs. LA (γ01) 0.07 0.20 0.35 .726
HAN vs. LA (γ02) 0.23 0.22 1.07 .289
Younger vs. Older Adults (γ03) 0.26 0.20 1.29 .201
Race (γ04) -0.08 0.22 -0.38 .703
Education Level (γ05) 0.04 0.04 1.09 .279
Shipley Score (γ06) -0.04 0.02 -1.70 .091

Interactive Effects Model
Intercept (γ00) 4.12 0.24 17.03 < .001
HAP vs. LA in Older Adults (γ01) -0.18 0.29 -0.63 .528
HAN vs. LA in Older Adults (γ02) -0.03 0.27 -0.10 .920
Younger vs. Older Adults in LA (γ03) -0.07 0.27 -0.26 .797
HAP vs. LA by Younger vs. Older Adults (γ04) 0.50 0.42 1.18 .240
HAN vs. LA by Younger vs. Older Adults (γ05) 0.53 0.43 1.23 .220
Race (γ06) -0.09 0.22 -0.41 .681
Education Level (γ07) 0.05 0.04 1.45 .151
Shipley Score (γ08) -0.04 0.02 -1.72 .088

Note. HAP=high-arousal positive emotion condition; HAN=high-arousal negative emotion condition; LA=low arousal condition; SE=standard error. Results reflect two multilevel models: main effects model (upper panel) and interactive effects model (lower panel). Predictors are listed at Level 2.