Table A2 Full model explaining brand...

Table A2

Full model explaining brand memory

	Coefficient (SE)	t	p
Outcome variable: Perceived human-likeness
X1: voice vs voice + IH	0.21 (0.18)	1.12	0.263
X2: voice vs text	0.63 (0.17)	3.59	0.000
X3: voice + IH vs text	0.42 (0.17)	2.52	0.012
Outcome variable: Cognitive load
X1: voice vs voice + IH	−0.01 (0.19)	−0.03	0.979
X2: voice vs text	−0.40 (0.18)	−2.18	0.030
X3: voice + IH vs text	−0.39 (0.17)	−2.24	0.010
Outcome variable: Persuasion knowledge
X1: voice vs voice + IH	0.15 (0.17)	0.91	0.364
X2: voice vs text	0.14 (0.16)	0.87	0.384
X3: voice + IH vs text	−0.01 (15)	−0.07	0.945
Perceived Human-likeness	0.04 (0.04)	0.86	0.393
Cognitive Load	0.12 (0.04)	2.96	0.003
Outcome variable: Brand memory
X1: voice vs voice + IH	0.82 (0.19)	4.30	0.000
X2: voice vs text	0.43 (0.19)	2.31	0.021
X3: voice + IH vs text	−0.39 (0.18)	−2.23	0.027
Perceived Human-likeness	0.03 (0.05)	0.51	0.609
Cognitive Load	−0.10 (0.05)	−2.09	0.038
Persuasion Knowledge	0.23 (0.05)	4.27	0.000

	Coefficient (SE)	t	p
Outcome variable: Perceived human-likeness
X1: voice vs voice + IH	0.21 (0.18)	1.12	0.263
X2: voice vs text	0.63 (0.17)	3.59	0.000
X3: voice + IH vs text	0.42 (0.17)	2.52	0.012
Outcome variable: Cognitive load
X1: voice vs voice + IH	−0.01 (0.19)	−0.03	0.979
X2: voice vs text	−0.40 (0.18)	−2.18	0.030
X3: voice + IH vs text	−0.39 (0.17)	−2.24	0.010
Outcome variable: Persuasion knowledge
X1: voice vs voice + IH	0.15 (0.17)	0.91	0.364
X2: voice vs text	0.14 (0.16)	0.87	0.384
X3: voice + IH vs text	−0.01 (15)	−0.07	0.945
Perceived Human-likeness	0.04 (0.04)	0.86	0.393
Cognitive Load	0.12 (0.04)	2.96	0.003
Outcome variable: Brand memory
X1: voice vs voice + IH	0.82 (0.19)	4.30	0.000
X2: voice vs text	0.43 (0.19)	2.31	0.021
X3: voice + IH vs text	−0.39 (0.18)	−2.23	0.027
Perceived Human-likeness	0.03 (0.05)	0.51	0.609
Cognitive Load	−0.10 (0.05)	−2.09	0.038
Persuasion Knowledge	0.23 (0.05)	4.27	0.000

Indirect effects
	Confidence interval
	Effect (SE)	Lower limit	Upper limit
X1 → HL → M	0.01 (0.01)	−0.02	0.04
X2 → HL → M	0.02 (0.03)	−0.05	0.09
X3 → HL → M	0.01 (0.02)	−0.04	0.06
X1 → CL → M	0.00 (0.02)	−0.04	0.05
X2 → CL → M	0.04 (0.03)	−0.002	0.11
X3 → CL → M	0.04 (0.03)	−0.003	0.10
X1 → PK → M	0.04 (0.04)	−0.04	0.12
X2 → PK → M	0.03 (0.04)	−0.04	0.11
X3 → PK → M	−0.003 (0.04)	−0.08	0.07
X1 → HL → PK → M	0.00 (0.00)	−0.004	0.01
X2 → HL → PK → M	0.01 (0.01)	−0.01	0.02
X3 → HL → PK → M	0.004 (0.01)	−0.01	0.02
X1 → CL → PK → M	0.00 (0.01)	−0.01	0.01
X2 → CL → PK → M	−0.01 (0.01)	−0.03	−0.0006
X3 → CL → PK → M	−0.01 (0.01)	−0.03	−0.0004

Indirect effects
	Confidence interval
	Effect (SE)	Lower limit	Upper limit
X1 → HL → M	0.01 (0.01)	−0.02	0.04
X2 → HL → M	0.02 (0.03)	−0.05	0.09
X3 → HL → M	0.01 (0.02)	−0.04	0.06
X1 → CL → M	0.00 (0.02)	−0.04	0.05
X2 → CL → M	0.04 (0.03)	−0.002	0.11
X3 → CL → M	0.04 (0.03)	−0.003	0.10
X1 → PK → M	0.04 (0.04)	−0.04	0.12
X2 → PK → M	0.03 (0.04)	−0.04	0.11
X3 → PK → M	−0.003 (0.04)	−0.08	0.07
X1 → HL → PK → M	0.00 (0.00)	−0.004	0.01
X2 → HL → PK → M	0.01 (0.01)	−0.01	0.02
X3 → HL → PK → M	0.004 (0.01)	−0.01	0.02
X1 → CL → PK → M	0.00 (0.01)	−0.01	0.01
X2 → CL → PK → M	−0.01 (0.01)	−0.03	−0.0006
X3 → CL → PK → M	−0.01 (0.01)	−0.03	−0.0004

Note(s): Perceived Human-likeness, F(5, 444) = 8.90, p < 0.001, R² = 0.09; Cognitive Load, F(5, 444) = 2.73, p = 0.019, R² = 0.03; Persuasion Knowledge, F(7, 442) = 3.44, p = 0.001, R² = 0.05; Brand Memory, F(8, 441) = 11.78, p < 0.001, R² = 0.18; controlled for brand familiarity, familiarity with virtual assistants, modality preference; IH = Interaction History; HL = Perceived Human-likeness; CL = Cognitive Load; PK = Persuasion Knowledge; M = Brand Memory

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable