Table 2.
Message evaluation at T2 | Attitude at T2 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Message condition | Gain | Non-loss | Non-gain | Loss | Gain | Non-loss | Non-gain | Loss |
Attitude at T1 | −0.01 | −0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.43* | 0.17* | 0.29* |
Intention at T1 | −0.08 | −0.16 | −0.10 | −0.03 | −0.30* | −0.15 | −0.36* | −0.14 |
Message–induced fear at T2 | 0.40* | 0.46* | 0.79* | 0.32* | −0.31 | −0.03 | 0.33* | −0.21 |
Message–induced anger at T2 | −0.55* | −0.62* | −0.52* | −0.30* | 0.16 | 0.00 | −0.43* | 0.00 |
Systematic processing at T2 | 0.62* | 0.55* | 0.58* | 0.70* | 0.19 | −0.06 | 0.07 | 0.02 |
Heuristic processing at T2 | −0.06 | −0.09 | −0.19* | −0.15* | −0.01 | −0.02 | 0.08 | −0.04 |
Message evaluation at T2 | - | - | - | - | 0.33* | 0.34* | 0.11 | 0.18 |
90% HPDI of the regression parameter does not include 0, thus the direct effect can be reasonably supported.