Skip to main content
. 2019 Aug 17;48(6):1429–1439. doi: 10.1007/s10936-019-09666-7

Table 2.

Experiment 1a and 1b: mean scores of the decisions and evaluations in the negative and positive valence and language use (direct vs. indirect) conditions

Positive valence Negative valence Neutrala
Direct risk is low M (SD) Indirect risk is not high M (SD) Direct risk is high M (SD) Indirect risk is not low M (SD) Numbers only M (SD)
N = 72 N = 80 N = 72 N = 72 N = 76
Cordocentesis
 Decision 2.69 (.88) 2.72 (.93) 2.10 (.82) 2.11 (.81) 2.37 (1.03)b
 Evaluation of patient mood 3.19 (1.19) 3.00 (1.09) 2.64 (1.01) 2.76 (1.03) 2.63 (1.37)c
 Evaluation of doctor 9.31 (3.08) 9.67 (2.54) 8.40 (2.94) 8.90 (2.67) 9.08 (2.91)
N = 72 N = 78 N = 72 N = 81 N = 72
Echocardiography
 Decision 3.72 (.70) 3.83 (.75) 3.04 (.99) 3.18 (1.06) 3.43 (.84)b
 Evaluation of patient mood 4.78 (1.06) 4.72 (1.18) 3.78 (1.24) 3.90 (1.27) 4.35 (.97)b
 Evaluation of doctor 10.49 (2.36) 10.63 (2.49) 9.29 (2.76) 9.01 (2.73) 9.83 (2.57)c

Higher numbers indicate higher intention to perform a medical procedure, higher expected mood and more positive evaluation of a doctor

aIn the last column we presented average results for a message without a verbal description. Significant differences between the mean for neutral valence (only numbers) and means for positive valence and negative valence were marked: b—mean for neutral valence significantly higher from the mean of negative value and lower from mean of positive valence with a certainty of p < .05; c—mean for neutral valence significantly lower from mean of positive valence and does not differ from mean of negative valence with a certainty of p < .05