Table 2. Results ANOVA results Effects... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2.

Results

ANOVA results
Effects		Mean	SD	F-value	Significance	Hypotdesis
Game newness on brand recall – F (1,170)	Congruent-newness	1.50	0.21	11.34	0.000	H1 (Supported)
Game newness on brand recall – F (1,170)	Incongruent-newness	3.55	0.18
Game newness on brand attitude – F (1,170)	Congruent-newness	2.80	0.23	17.53	0.000	H2 (Supported)
Game newness on brand attitude – F (1,170)	Incongruent-newness	1.02	0.22
Interactivity on brand recall – F (1,170)	High interactivity	3.35	0.19	13.42	0.000	Not hypothesized in this paper but results are presented here
Interactivity on brand recall – F (1,170)	Low interactivity	1.02	0.22
Interactivity on brand attitude – F (1,170)	High interactivity	2.88	0.07	18.38	0.000
Interactivity on brand attitude – F (1,170)	Low interactivity	1.21	0.16
MANOVA results
Effects		Mean	Wilk’s Lamda	F-value	Significance	Hypothesis
Game newness × interactivity on brand recall – F (2,168)	High interactivity × incongruent-newness	3.48	0.59	49.22	0.000	H3 (Supported)
	Low interactivity × incongruent-newness	1.10
	High interactivity × congruent-newness	1.08	0.51	37.45	0.672	Not hypothesized
	Low interactivity × congruent-newness	1.01
Game newness × interactivity on brand attitude – F (2,168)	High interactivity × incongruent-newness	1.92	0.42	22.08	0.881	H4 (Supported)
	Low interactivity × incongruent-newness	1.53
	High interactivity × congruent-newness	2.79	0.52	29.43	0.000	Not hypothesized
	Low interactivity × congruent-newness	1.11

ANOVA results
Effects		Mean	SD	F-value	Significance	Hypotdesis
Game newness on brand recall – F (1,170)	Congruent-newness	1.50	0.21	11.34	0.000	H1 (Supported)
Game newness on brand recall – F (1,170)	Incongruent-newness	3.55	0.18
Game newness on brand attitude – F (1,170)	Congruent-newness	2.80	0.23	17.53	0.000	H2 (Supported)
Game newness on brand attitude – F (1,170)	Incongruent-newness	1.02	0.22
Interactivity on brand recall – F (1,170)	High interactivity	3.35	0.19	13.42	0.000	Not hypothesized in this paper but results are presented here
Interactivity on brand recall – F (1,170)	Low interactivity	1.02	0.22
Interactivity on brand attitude – F (1,170)	High interactivity	2.88	0.07	18.38	0.000
Interactivity on brand attitude – F (1,170)	Low interactivity	1.21	0.16
MANOVA results
Effects		Mean	Wilk’s Lamda	F-value	Significance	Hypothesis
Game newness × interactivity on brand recall – F (2,168)	High interactivity × incongruent-newness	3.48	0.59	49.22	0.000	H3 (Supported)
	Low interactivity × incongruent-newness	1.10
	High interactivity × congruent-newness	1.08	0.51	37.45	0.672	Not hypothesized
	Low interactivity × congruent-newness	1.01
Game newness × interactivity on brand attitude – F (2,168)	High interactivity × incongruent-newness	1.92	0.42	22.08	0.881	H4 (Supported)
	Low interactivity × incongruent-newness	1.53
	High interactivity × congruent-newness	2.79	0.52	29.43	0.000	Not hypothesized
	Low interactivity × congruent-newness	1.11

Note:

Values in the parenthesis show df