. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Mar 1.

Published in final edited form as: Health Commun. 2017 Dec 13;34(3):352–360. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2017.1407275

Table 2.

Summary of comparisons between principal outcomes by experimental condition

	Vicarious				Traditional
Variable	Self-affirmation		Control		Self-Affirmation		Control
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F(3,373)/t(223)
Derogation	2.52^a	1.12	2.91^b	1.08	2.65^a	1.11	3.12^b	1.08	6.24^***
Self-appraisal	4.99^ab	1.19	4.69^b	1.16	5.02^a	1.64	4.30^c	1.57	7.67^***
Perceived risk¹	4.97^a	1.49	4.41^b	1.53	4.86^a	1.50	4.46^b	1.56	7.43^***
Behavioral intent¹	4.09^a	1.54	4.18^a	1.40	4.81^b	1.98	4.04^a	1.69	4.22^**
Perceived risk²	5.43	1.46	4.52	1.69					3.18^**
Behavioral intent²	5.50	1.43	4.71	1.68					2.94^**
Time spent reading	208.13	127.53	169.97	97.77					2.66^**

Note.

^**

p < .01

^***

p < .001.

Posttest

Follow-up.

Means with differing scripts within outcome variables are significantly different at the p < .05 based on simple planned comparisons test. Higher scores indicate higher levels on each of the measures. Minimum score on all scales = 1 and maximum score on all scales = 7, except for derogation (1–5). Time spent reading the narrative was measured in seconds.