Regression results on the affective appeal profile (dependent variable: AAP)
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 0.276* (0.159) | 0.062 (0.158) | 0.271* (0.159) | 0.264 (0.162) | 0.298* (0.158) | 0.268* (0.157) |
| BPOWER | 0.002* (0.001) | 0.003*** (0.001) | 0.002 (0.001) | 0.002* (0.001) | 0.001 (0.001) | 0.002* (0.001) |
| AREA_RELIG | −0.022 (0.018) | 0.031 (0.021) | −0.02 (0.018) | −0.02 (0.018) | −0.027 (0.018) | −0.028 (0.018) |
| ROA | −75.133* (38.109) | −64.008* (35.834) | −81.78** (38.571) | −75.769* (38.274) | −67.408* (38.081) | −82.894** (37.863) |
| RELIG | 6.829*** (1.012) | 3.267** (1.284) | 6.082*** (1.224) | 6.97*** (1.07) | 6.386*** (1.038) | 6.505*** (1.014) |
| COOP | 5.854 (9.232) | 1.821 (8.712) | 5.664 (9.227) | 6.344 (9.338) | 2.355 (9.389) | 5.553 (9.123) |
| RELIG × AREA_RELIG | 1.013*** (0.246) | |||||
| RELIG × BPOWER | −0.015 (0.014) | |||||
| COOP × AREA_RELIG | −0.602 (1.424) | |||||
| COOP × BPOWER | −0.131* (0.077) | |||||
| RELIG × COOP | 179.559* (91.896) | |||||
| R-Sq | 0.353 | 0.437 | 0.36 | 0.354 | 0.369 | 0.374 |
| Adj. R-Sq | 0.326 | 0.407 | 0.327 | 0.321 | 0.336 | 0.342 |
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 0.276* (0.159) | 0.062 (0.158) | 0.271* (0.159) | 0.264 (0.162) | 0.298* (0.158) | 0.268* (0.157) |
| BPOWER | 0.002 (0.001) | 0.001 (0.001) | ||||
| AREA_RELIG | −0.022 (0.018) | 0.031 (0.021) | −0.02 (0.018) | −0.02 (0.018) | −0.027 (0.018) | −0.028 (0.018) |
| ROA | −75.133* (38.109) | −64.008* (35.834) | −81.78** (38.571) | −75.769* (38.274) | −67.408* (38.081) | −82.894** (37.863) |
| RELIG | ||||||
| COOP | 5.854 (9.232) | 1.821 (8.712) | 5.664 (9.227) | 6.344 (9.338) | 2.355 (9.389) | 5.553 (9.123) |
| RELIG × AREA_RELIG | ||||||
| RELIG × BPOWER | −0.015 (0.014) | |||||
| COOP × AREA_RELIG | −0.602 (1.424) | |||||
| COOP × BPOWER | ||||||
| RELIG × COOP | ||||||
| 0.353 | 0.437 | 0.36 | 0.354 | 0.369 | 0.374 | |
| Adj. | 0.326 | 0.407 | 0.327 | 0.321 | 0.336 | 0.342 |
Note(s): Standard errors are reported in parentheses. *, ** and *** indicate significance at the 90%, 95% and 99% level, respectively. We conducted several diagnostic checks to assess the assumptions of Model 2. Residual plots confirmed the assumption of homoscedasticity. A histogram of residuals suggested approximate normality. Cook’s Distance revealed one outlier (Cook’s Distance = 0.74), the exclusion of which leave all findings and inferences qualitatively unchanged. No other data point exceeded the critical threshold of 0.5 (mean = 0.016). Multicollinearity was evaluated using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), with all predictor variables showing VIF values below 5 (VIFmax = 3.6)
Source(s): Authors’ own work