. 2022 Jun 24;8(6):e09784. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09784

Table 4.

Hypothesis analysis.

Structural Path	t-value	Hypothesis
Authenticity (AU)→Narrative engagement (NE)	4.96	H₁ supported
Conciseness (CO)→ Narrative engagement (NE)	4.97	H₂ supported
Reversal (RE)→ Narrative engagement (NE)	2.34	H₃ supported
Narrative engagement (NE)→Cognitive Image (CI)	9.51	H₄ supported
Narrative engagement (NE)→Affective Image (AI)	0.98	H₅ not supported
Cognitive Image (CI)→ Affective Image (AI)	3.69	H₆ supported
Cognitive Image (CI)→Behavioural Intention (BI)	5.79	H₇ supported
Affective Image (AI)→ Behavioural Intention (BI)	2.02	H₈ supported