Table 4

Results of mediation analysis for Study 2

PathB (SE)LLCIULCI
Direct effects
EDC creator → Consumer engagement−0.38 (0.15)−0.6699−0.0819
AI vs Human → Consumer engagement−0.36 (0.15)−0.6699−0.0640
Hybrid vs human → Consumer engagement−0.11 (0.28)−0.67030.4545
Hybrid vs AI → Consumer engagement−0.61 (0.30)−1.2130−0.0184
EDC creator → Brand attitude−0.34 (0.10)−0.5347−0.1436
AI vs human → Brand attitude−0.34 (0.10)−0.5469−0.1320
Hybrid vs human → Brand attitude−0.10 (0.17)−0.42970.2334
Hybrid vs AI → Brand attitude−0.62 (0.06)−1.0299−0.2147
EDC creator → Advocacy intention−0.33 (0.11)−0.5398−0.1214
AI vs human → Advocacy intention−0.34 (0.10)−0.5492−0.1384
Hybrid vs human → Advocacy intention−0.20 (0.20)−0.6118−0.2125
Hybrid vs AI → Advocacy intention−0.43 (0.21)−0.8452−0.0119
Consumer engagement → Brand attitude0.60 (0.05)0.49800.7048
Consumer engagement → Advocacy intention0.76 (0.06)0.64630.0999
Indirect effects
EDC creator → Consumer engagement → Brand attitude−0.23 (0.10)−0.4213−0.0420
AI vs human → Consumer engagement → Brand attitude−0.24 (0.10)−0.4496−0.0384
Hybrid vs human → Consumer engagement → Brand attitude−0.05 (0.13)−0.32350.2052
Hybrid vs AI → Consumer engagement → Brand attitude−0.39 (0.19)−0.7910−0.0187
EDC creator → Consumer engagement → Advocacy intention−0.28 (0.12)−0.5328−0.0523
AI vs human → Consumer engagement → Advocacy intention−0.26 (0.11)−0.4949−0.0519
Hybrid vs human → Consumer engagement → Advocacy intention−0.08 (0.20)−0.48050.3058
Hybrid vs AI → Consumer engagement → Advocacy intention−0.50 (0.25)−1.0244−0.0186

Note(s): N = 158.

*p < 0.05;

**p < 0.01;

***p < 0.001. Number of bootstrap samples 5,000; B = Unstandardized coefficients (bootstrap standard errors in parentheses); LLCI = 95% lower level confidence interval; ULCI = 95% upper-level confidence interval

Source(s): Authors’ own work

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal