Table 2.

Results of binary logistic regressions examining the impact of message condition on likelihood of friend‐and‐neighbor voucher use (an indicator of diffusion)

Unadjusted for covariates (all samples)							Adjusted for covariates (highly engaged sample only)
Sample	Message comparison	odds ratio	confidence interval	Uncorrected p value	false discovery rate corrected p value	odds ratio	confidence interval	uncorrected p value	false discovery rate corrected p value
Full sample (n = 2793)	efficacy versus norms	1.769	1.035, 3.024	0.037	0.214
	efficacy versus control	1.617	0.959, 2.726	0.071	0.214
	norms versus control	0.914	0.508, 1.646	0.764	0.764
	combined versus control	1.347	0.785, 2.312	0.279	0.419
	combined versus norms	1.474	0.848, 2.563	0.169	0.338
	combined versus efficacy	0.833	0.514, 1.350	0.459	0.550
Highly engaged sample (n = 793)	efficacy versus norms	1.804	0.835, 3.899	0.133	0.399	2.048	0.913, 4.592	0.082	0.246
	efficacy versus control	1.395	0.679, 2.867	0.365	0.548	1.461	0.696, 3.065	0.316	0.475
	norms versus control	0.773	0.342, 1.747	0.536	0.644	0.713	0.306, 1.661	0.434	0.520
	combined versus control	1.551	0.765, 3.144	0.224	0.448	1.662	0.809, 3.415	0.167	0.334
	combined versus norms	2.006	0.940, 4.279	0.072	0.399	2.329	1.059, 5.122	0.035	0.212
	combined versus efficacy	1.111	0.578, 2.138	0.752	0.752	1.138	0.581, 2.228	0.707	0.707
Random sample (n = 2000)	efficacy versus norms	1.756	0.827, 3.729	0.143	0.286
	efficacy versus control	1.936	0.891, 4.205	0.095	0.286
	norms versus control	1.102	0.464, 2.619	0.826	0.991
	combined versus control	1.102	0.464, 2.619	0.826	0.991
	combined versus norms	1.000	0.430, 2.328	1.000	1.000
	combined versus efficacy	0.569	0.268, 1.209	0.143	0.286