Table 2 Indirect effects of... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2

Indirect effects of self-presentation strategies on brand responses

	B	SE	BC 95% CI		H accepted/rejected
	B	SE	Lower	Upper	H accepted/rejected
H1: Layperson (1) vs micro-celebrity (0) → Trustworthiness → Dependent variable:					H1.i accepted
H1a – Brand attitude	0.15	0.07	0.02	0.31
H1b – Product attitude	0.16	0.08	0.02	0.32
H1c – Purchase intention	0.17	0.08	0.02	0.33
H1: Opinion leader (1) vs micro-celebrity (0) → Trustworthiness → Dependent variable:					H1.ii rejected
H1a – Brand attitude	0.03	0.08	−0.12	0.18
H1b – Product attitude	0.03	0.08	−0.13	0.19
H1c – Purchase intention	0.03	0.09	−0.15	0.20
H2: Opinion leader (1) vs layperson (0) → Expertise → Dependent variables:					H2.i accepted
H2a – Brand attitude	0.26	0.08	0.12	0.44
H2b – Product attitude	0.25	0.08	0.12	0.42
H2c – Purchase intention	0.28	0.09	0.12	0.47
H2: Opinion leader (1) vs micro-celebrity (0) → Expertise → Dependent variable:					H2.ii rejected
H2a – Brand attitude	0.12	0.07	−0.01	0.28
H2b – Product attitude	0.12	0.07	−0.02	0.26
H2c – Purchase intention	0.12	0.08	−0.02	0.28
H3: Micro-celebrity (1) vs layperson (0) → Physical attractiveness → Dependent variable:					H3.i rejected
H3a – Brand attitude	0.02	0.06	−0.10	0.14
H3b – Product attitude	0.02	0.07	−0.11	0.16
H3c – Purchase intention	0.02	0.06	−0.09	0.15
H3: Micro-celebrity (1) vs opinion leader (0) → Physical attractiveness → Dependent variable:					H3.ii rejected
H3a – Brand attitude	−0.07	0.07	−0.21	0.05
H3b – Product attitude	−0.08	0.07	−0.23	0.06
H3c – Purchase intention	0.07	0.06	−0.20	0.05
H4: Layperson (1) vs micro-celebrity (0) → Social attractiveness → Dependent variable:					H4.i accepted
H4a – Brand attitude	0.15	0.07	0.01	0.30
H4b – Product attitude	0.16	0.08	0.02	0.31
H4c – Purchase intention	0.23	0.11	0.02	0.45
H4: Layperson (1) vs opinion leader (0) → Social attractiveness → Dependent variable:					H4.ii rejected
H4a – Brand attitude	0.12	0.08	−0.03	0.27
H4b – Product attitude	0.12	0.08	−0.03	0.28
H4c – Purchase intention	0.18	0.12	−0.05	0.42

	B	SE	BC 95% CI		H accepted/rejected
	B	SE	Lower	Upper	H accepted/rejected
H1: Layperson (1) vs micro-celebrity (0) → Trustworthiness → Dependent variable:					H1.i accepted
H1a – Brand attitude	0.15	0.07	0.02	0.31
H1b – Product attitude	0.16	0.08	0.02	0.32
H1c – Purchase intention	0.17	0.08	0.02	0.33
H1: Opinion leader (1) vs micro-celebrity (0) → Trustworthiness → Dependent variable:					H1.ii rejected
H1a – Brand attitude	0.03	0.08	−0.12	0.18
H1b – Product attitude	0.03	0.08	−0.13	0.19
H1c – Purchase intention	0.03	0.09	−0.15	0.20
H2: Opinion leader (1) vs layperson (0) → Expertise → Dependent variables:					H2.i accepted
H2a – Brand attitude	0.26	0.08	0.12	0.44
H2b – Product attitude	0.25	0.08	0.12	0.42
H2c – Purchase intention	0.28	0.09	0.12	0.47
H2: Opinion leader (1) vs micro-celebrity (0) → Expertise → Dependent variable:					H2.ii rejected
H2a – Brand attitude	0.12	0.07	−0.01	0.28
H2b – Product attitude	0.12	0.07	−0.02	0.26
H2c – Purchase intention	0.12	0.08	−0.02	0.28
H3: Micro-celebrity (1) vs layperson (0) → Physical attractiveness → Dependent variable:					H3.i rejected
H3a – Brand attitude	0.02	0.06	−0.10	0.14
H3b – Product attitude	0.02	0.07	−0.11	0.16
H3c – Purchase intention	0.02	0.06	−0.09	0.15
H3: Micro-celebrity (1) vs opinion leader (0) → Physical attractiveness → Dependent variable:					H3.ii rejected
H3a – Brand attitude	−0.07	0.07	−0.21	0.05
H3b – Product attitude	−0.08	0.07	−0.23	0.06
H3c – Purchase intention	0.07	0.06	−0.20	0.05
H4: Layperson (1) vs micro-celebrity (0) → Social attractiveness → Dependent variable:					H4.i accepted
H4a – Brand attitude	0.15	0.07	0.01	0.30
H4b – Product attitude	0.16	0.08	0.02	0.31
H4c – Purchase intention	0.23	0.11	0.02	0.45
H4: Layperson (1) vs opinion leader (0) → Social attractiveness → Dependent variable:					H4.ii rejected
H4a – Brand attitude	0.12	0.08	−0.03	0.27
H4b – Product attitude	0.12	0.08	−0.03	0.28
H4c – Purchase intention	0.18	0.12	−0.05	0.42

Note(s): Unstandardized b-coefficients; BC 95% CI = 95% Bias corrected bootstrap confidence interval using 5,000 bootstrap samples; italics means the indirect effect is significant; N = 229

Source(s): Created by authors

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable