Table 4

SEM results for Study 3

Direct effectsBβSE(B)z-valuep-value
Callout aggressiveness → Blame0.2130.1540.0703.0430.002
Blame → Reviewer credibility0.5230.4980.0806.542< 0.001
Blame → Service firm credibility−0.287−0.4220.056−5.088< 0.001
Reviewer credibility → Purchase intentions−0.096−0.1060.039−2.4590.014
Service firm credibility → Purchase intentions1.0740.7720.08612.525< 0.001
Indirect effectsBβLCIUCIp-value
Callout aggressiveness → Blame → Reviewer credibility → Purchase intentions−0.011−0.008−0.025−0.002< 0.05
Callout aggressiveness → Blame → Service firm credibility → Purchase intentions−0.066−0.050−0.113−0.024< 0.05
Total effectBβLCIUCIp-value
Callout aggressiveness → Purchase intentions−0.076−0.059−0.132−0.028< 0.05
Note(s):

Total effect and indirects effect 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

or Create an Account

Close subscription notice
Close access options