Table 5 Results of hypotheses testing... | Emerald Publishing

Table 5

Results of hypotheses testing

Path	Test	Statistic	Effect size	p-value	Supported
5.a H1: One-way ANOVA (direct effect model)
Anthropomorphism → PI	One-Way ANOVA	F(1, 434) = 202.43	η² = 0.318	< 0.001	Yes

Group

Mean (M)

SD

High anthropomorphism

5.21

1.45

Low anthropomorphism

3.03

1.38

5.b H2: Model 6 of the Hayes Process Macro (indirect effect model)
Path	Effect (b)	BootSE	95% CI (LL, UL)	Supported
Anthropomorphism → PI	0.43	0.14	[0.16, 0.70]	Yes
Anthropomorphism → SP → PI	0.43	0.09	[0.24, 0.63]	Yes
Anthropomorphism → SP → Trust → PI (H2)	0.49	0.08	[0.35, 0.66]	Yes

5.c H3a: Model 8 of the Hayes Process Macro (Moderation of Transparency on Anthropomorphism → SP)
Path	Effect (b)	SE	p-value	95% CI (LL, UL)	Supported
Anthropomorphism → SP	2.52	0.31	0.001	[1.92, 3.12]	Yes
Moderation effect (anthro × transparency) → SP	−0.17	0.07	0.013	[−0.31, −0.04]	Yes
Conditional Effect (transp = 2.0)	2.17	0.18	0.001	[1.80, 2.54]	Yes
Conditional Effect (transp = 4.5)	1.73	0.13	0.001	[1.48, 2.00]	Yes
Conditional Effect (transp = 6.0)	1.47	0.19	0.001	[1.10, 1.85]	Yes

5.d H3b: Model 92 of the Hayes Process Macro (Moderation of Transparency on Anthropomorphism → SP → Trust → PI)
Path	Transparency level	Effect (b)	SE/BootSE	p-value	95% CI (LL, UL)	Supported
Anthropomorphism → SP → Trust → PI	Low transparency	0.60	0.15	–	[0.31, 0.92]	Yes
	Moderate transparency	0.46	0.08	–	[0.32, 0.62]	Yes
	High transparency	0.37	0.09	–	[0.22, 0.59]	Yes
Conditional direct effects
Anthropomorphism → PI	Low transparency	0.12	0.24	0.609	[−0.34, 0.58]	No
	Moderate transparency	0.48	0.13	0.001	[0.20, 0.75]	Yes
	High transparency	0.69	0.21	0.001	[0.29, 1.10]	Yes
(SP× transparency) → Trust	–	0.008	0.019	0.657	[−0.02,0.46]	N/A
(Trust × transparency) → PI	–	−0.028	0.021	0.355	[−0.09,0.03]	N/A

Note(s): All confidence intervals are 95% CI; Number of bootstrap samples = 5,000

Source(s): Authors’ own work