Table 3 Indirect effects of EF via...

Table 3

Indirect effects of EF via understanding intent and skepticism on brand and video responses

	Cool EF				Hot EF
	Via understanding intent		Via skepticism		Via understanding intent		Via skepticism
	b (SE)	CI	b (SE)	CI	b (SE)	CI	b (SE)	CI
Brand recall	0.040 (0.020)	0.005;0.085	0.007 (0.008)	−0.005;0.027	0.031 (0.053)	−0.070;0.141	0.005 (0.020)	−0.034;0.049
Purchase intention	0.001 (0.006)	−0.010;0.014	−0.018 (0.013)	−0.047;0.006	0.001 (0.008)	−0.011;0.021	−0.012 (0.037)	−0.085;0.062
Brand attitude	0.003 (0.004)	−0.003;0.012	−0.015 (0.010)	−0.036;0.004	0.002 (0.006)	−0.009;0.018	−0.009 (0.031)	−0.073;0.049
Video attitude	0.002 (0.005)	−0.008;0.011	−0.023 (0.016)	−0.055;0.007	0.002 (0.006)	−0.008;0.019	−0.015 (0.047)	−0.102;0.083

	Cool EF				Hot EF
	Via understanding intent		Via skepticism		Via understanding intent		Via skepticism
	b (SE)	CI	b (SE)	CI	b (SE)	CI	b (SE)	CI
Brand recall	0.040 (0.020)	0.005;0.085	0.007 (0.008)	−0.005;0.027	0.031 (0.053)	−0.070;0.141	0.005 (0.020)	−0.034;0.049
Purchase intention	0.001 (0.006)	−0.010;0.014	−0.018 (0.013)	−0.047;0.006	0.001 (0.008)	−0.011;0.021	−0.012 (0.037)	−0.085;0.062
Brand attitude	0.003 (0.004)	−0.003;0.012	−0.015 (0.010)	−0.036;0.004	0.002 (0.006)	−0.009;0.018	−0.009 (0.031)	−0.073;0.049
Video attitude	0.002 (0.005)	−0.008;0.011	−0.023 (0.016)	−0.055;0.007	0.002 (0.006)	−0.008;0.019	−0.015 (0.047)	−0.102;0.083

Notes:

Scores represent unstandardized b-coefficients with standard errors between parentheses; CI is the bias corrected accelerated confidence interval with the lower limit; upper limit. Significant effects are in italic (at p < 0.05). Model 4 in PROCESS was used with gender, channel viewing frequency, disclosure condition, and country controlled for

Source: Authors’ own work

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable