Table 3 SEM results for Study 2 Direct...

Table 3

SEM results for Study 2

Direct effects	B	β	SE(B)	z-value	p-value
D_NoResponse → Blame	−3.090	−0.583	0.203	−15.245	< 0.001
D_Apology → Blame	−3.125	−0.589	0.203	−15.306	< 0.001
Blame → Reviewer credibility	0.547	0.779	0.035	15.662	< 0.001
Reviewer credibility → Purchase intentions	−0.224	−0.310	0.055	−4.070	< 0.001
*Indirect effects*	B	β	LCI	UCI	p-value
D_NoResponse → Blame → Reviewer credibility → Purchase intentions	0.378	0.141	0.189	0.589	< 0.05
D_Apology → Blame → Reviewer credibility → Purchase intentions	0.382	0.142	0.188	0.595	< 0.05
*Total effects*	B	β	LCI	UCI	p-value
D_NoResponse → Purchase intentions	0.378	0.141	0.189	0.589	< 0.05
D_Apology → Purchase intentions	0.382	0.142	0.188	0.595	< 0.05

Direct effects	B	β	SE(B)	z-value	p-value
D_NoResponse → Blame	−3.090	−0.583	0.203	−15.245	< 0.001
D_Apology → Blame	−3.125	−0.589	0.203	−15.306	< 0.001
Blame → Reviewer credibility	0.547	0.779	0.035	15.662	< 0.001
Reviewer credibility → Purchase intentions	−0.224	−0.310	0.055	−4.070	< 0.001
Indirect effects	B	β	LCI	UCI	p-value
D_NoResponse → Blame → Reviewer credibility → Purchase intentions	0.378	0.141	0.189	0.589	< 0.05
D_Apology → Blame → Reviewer credibility → Purchase intentions	0.382	0.142	0.188	0.595	< 0.05
Total effects	B	β	LCI	UCI	p-value
D_NoResponse → Purchase intentions	0.378	0.141	0.189	0.589	< 0.05
D_Apology → Purchase intentions	0.382	0.142	0.188	0.595	< 0.05

Note(s):

Firm response strategy was dummy coded. D_NoResponse compares the callout condition to the no response condition (reference group). D_Apology compares the callout condition to the apology condition (reference group). Total effects and indirect effects use bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5,000 samples. Direct effects are ML estimates. B = unstandardized estimate; β = standardized estimate; SE(B) = standard error of B; LCI = lower 2.5% confidence interval; UCI = upper 2.5% confidence interval. Confidence intervals are unstandardized. Blame was measured on a seven-point semantic differential scale where higher (lower) values indicate more blame placed on the service firm (reviewer)

Source(s): Authors’ own work

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable