Table 3.
Week 1 manipulation check outcomes for the total sample and by treatment arm.
| Outcomesa,b | Mean (SD) | P valuek | ||||||||
|
|
Total | CGEc | CGRd | CLEe | CLRf | SGEg | SGRh | SLEi | SLRj |
|
| Perceived message-framing as a loss (8-point scale) | 5.20 (3.22) | 3.74 (2.23) | 4.39 (3.00) | 5.74 (3.25) | 7.58 (2.86) | 4.07 (2.66) | 4.17 (3.04) | 6.06 (3.33) | 6.00 (3.41) | <.001 |
| Perceived complexity level (8-point scale) | 2.98 (2.02) | 3.07 (2.12) | 2.81 (2.26) | 3.34 (2.33) | 3.60 (2.14) | 2.45 (1.54) | 2.86 (1.95) | 3.05 (1.96) | 2.78 (1.81) | .05 |
| Perceived emotional level (8-point scale) | 3.35 (2.23) | 3.72 (2.13) | 2.24 (1.52) | 4.39 (2.72) | 3.39 (2.33) | 3.62 (2.22) | 2.80 (1.90) | 3.82 (2.28) | 2.86 (1.97) | <.001 |
| Perceived credibility (8-point scale) | 7.57 (2.01) | 7.43 (1.85) | 8.01 (1.78) | 7.60 (1.90) | 7.87 (1.80) | 6.98 (2.45) | 7.70 (1.96) | 7.36 (2.01) | 7.64 (2.09) | .10 |
| Enjoyment of messages (8-point scale) | 5.90 (1.49) | 5.87 (1.46) | 5.78 (1.37) | 6.13 (1.57) | 5.93 (1.46) | 5.93 (1.54) | 5.78 (1.47) | 5.96 (1.56) | 5.80 (1.53) | .90 |
| Perceived relevance (5-point scale) | 2.37 (0.85) | 2.37 (0.87) | 2.40 (0.91) | 2.38 (0.81) | 2.57 (0.79) | 2.22 (0.81) | 2.41 (0.83) | 2.26 (0.94) | 2.40 (0.81) | .40 |
| Perceived readability (5-point scale) | 3.46 (0.78) | 3.41 (0.81) | 3.44 (0.84) | 3.51 (0.75) | 3.45 (0.85) | 3.53 (0.70) | 3.50 (0.75) | 3.36 (0.84) | 3.49 (0.71) | .93 |
aMissing values are not presented in this table. Out of 636 participants, 530 (530/636, 83.3%) completed the manipulation check survey.
bParticipants were randomized to one of the 8 treatment arms, describing the type of messages.
cCGE: complex, gain-framed, emotional.
dCGR: complex, gain-framed, rational.
eCLE: complex, loss-framed, emotional.
fCLR: complex, loss-framed, rational.
gSGE: simple, gain-framed, emotional.
hSGR: simple, gain-framed, rational.
iSLE: simple, loss-framed, emotional.
jSLR: simple, loss-framed, rational.
kSignificance testing with analysis of variance.