Figure 1
Mediation moderated model for the tobacco and alcohol (Pros and cons).
Table 1
Information evaluation depending behavior, means and standard deviations.
| Themes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tobacco M(SD) | Alcohol M(SD) | Electromagnetic waves M(SD) | ||||
| Pro | Con | Pro | Con | Pro | Con | |
| C | 3.53 (0.86) | 3.23 (1.08) | 3.32 (0.99) | 3.60 (0.94) | ||
| N.C. | 2.94 (0.80) | 3.47 (0.87) | 2.96 (0.78) | 3.62 (0.80) | ||
| Total | 3.13 (0.86) | 3.39 (0.94) | 3.16 (0.91) | 3.61 (0.87) | 3.06 (0.89) | 3.56 (0.88) |
[i] C = alcohol consumers/smokers, N.C. = non consumers/non-smokers.
Table 2
Information novelty, means and standard deviations, all participants taken together.
| Themes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tobacco M(SD) | Alcohol M(SD) | Electromagnetic waves M(SD) | ||||
| Pro | Con | Pro | Con | Pro | Con | |
| 3.37 (1.10) | 2.97 (1.20) | 3.18 (1.24) | 3.11 (1.15) | 3.05 (1.06) | 3.50 (1.09) | |
Table 3a
Descriptive statistics and correlations for the pro-tobacco texts.
| Pro-tobacco texts | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min | Max | M | SD | 1. | 2. | 3. | |||
| 1. Behavior | |||||||||
| 2. Evaluation | 1 | 4.86 | 3.13 | 0.86 | –.33 | ** | |||
| 3. Novelty | 1 | 5 | 3.44 | 1.18 | –.20 | .65 | ** | ||
| 4. Exposure | 1 | 5 | 3.23 | 1.43 | –.28 | * | .23 | .08 | |
[i] Note: The correlation is statistically significant for a threshold of *.05 and **.01.
Table 3b
Descriptive statistics and correlations for the con-tobacco text.
| Con-tobacco text | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min | Max | M | SD | 1. | 2. | 3. | |||
| 1. Behavior | |||||||||
| 2. Evaluation | 1.43 | 5 | 3.39 | 0.94 | 0.12 | ||||
| 3. Novelty | 1 | 5 | 2.88 | 1.24 | –0.07 | 0.46 | ** | ||
| 4. Exposure | 1 | 5 | 3.00 | 1.44 | –0.04 | 0.25 | * | 0.41 | * |
[i] Note: The correlation is statistically significant for a threshold of *.05 and **.01.
Table 3c
Descriptive statistics and correlations for the pro-alcohol texts.
| Pro-alcohol texts | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min | Max | M | SD | 1. | 2. | 3. | |||
| 1. Behavior | |||||||||
| 2. Evaluation | 1.14 | 5 | 3.16 | 0.91 | .20 | ||||
| 3. Novelty | 1 | 5 | 3.18 | 1.24 | .06 | .55 | ** | ||
| 4. Exposure | 1 | 5 | 2.86 | 1.47 | .16 | .39 | ** | .58 | ** |
[i] Note: The correlation is statistically significant for a threshold of **.01.
Table 3d
Descriptive statistics and correlations for the con-alcohol texts.
| Con-alcohol texts | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min | Max | M | SD | 1. | 2. | 3. | |||
| 1. Behavior | |||||||||
| 2. Evaluation | 1.14 | 5 | 3.61 | 0.87 | –.01 | ||||
| 3. Novelty | 1 | 5 | 3.11 | 1.15 | .06 | .44 | ** | ||
| 4. Exposure | 1 | 5 | 2.87 | 1.38 | .03 | .40 | ** | .43 | ** |
[i] Note: The correlation is statistically significant for a threshold of **.01.
Table 3e
Descriptive statistics and correlations for the pro-waves texts.
| Pro-electromagnetic waves texts | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min | Max | M | SD | 1. | 2. | |||
| 1. Evaluation | 1.14 | 5 | 3.06 | 0.89 | ||||
| 2. Novelty | 1 | 5 | 3.05 | 1.06 | .59 | ** | ||
| 3. Exposure | 1 | 5 | 2.97 | 1.45 | .33 | ** | .25 | * |
[i] Note: The correlation is statistically significant for a threshold of *.05. and of **.01.
Table 3f
Descriptive statistics and correlations for the con-electromagnetic waves texts.
| Con-electromagnetic waves texts | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min | Max | M | SD | 1. | 2. | |||
| 1. Evaluation | 1.29 | 5 | 3.56 | 0.88 | ||||
| 2. Novelty | 1 | 5 | 3.50 | 1.09 | .67 | ** | ||
| 3. Exposure | 1 | 5 | 3.10 | 1.43 | .39 | ** | .41 | ** |
[i] Note: The correlation is statistically significant for a threshold of **.01.
Table 4
Regression coefficients, standards errors and model summary information for moderated mediation pro-tobacco texts.
| Pro-tobacco | Evaluation | Exposure to information | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antecedent | Coeff. | SE | p | Coeff. | SE | p |
| Smoking behavior (C) | –0.60 | 0.21 | .007 | –0.57 | 0.37 | ns |
| Novelty (N) | – | – | – | –0.04 | 0.19 | ns |
| Evaluation (E) | – | – | – | 0.47 | 0.26 | ns |
| Interaction (E*N) | – | – | – | 0.32 | 0.15 | .04 |
| Constant | 1.00 | 0.37 | .009 | 3.97 | 0.67 | <.001 |
| R2 = .11 F(1, 66) = 7.88, p = .007 | R2 = .17 F(4, 63) = 3.11, p = .02 | |||||
Figure 2
Conditional indirect effect of smoking behavior on selective exposure to pro-tobacco information.
Légende: * < 0.01, † ns, () simple effects.
Figure 3
Interaction effect between information novelty and evaluation on selective exposure.
Figure 4
Mediation moderated mode, indirect effect of attitude on exposure to information.
Table 5
Descriptive statistics and correlations all participants taken together.
| Min | Max | M | SD | 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Age | 18 | 81 | 40.21 | 19.23 | |||||||
| 2. Attitude | 1 | 7 | 4.75 | 1.77 | 0.07 | ||||||
| 3. Evaluation | 1 | 7 | 4.40 | 1.53 | –.14 | .19 | |||||
| 4. Novelty | 1 | 7 | 5.49 | 1.58 | –.24 | .26 | .21 | ||||
| 5. Exposure | 1 | 7 | 5.75 | 1.66 | –.36 | ** | .37 | * | .26 | .55 | ** |
[i] Note: the correlation is statistically significant for a threshold of **.01 and *.05.
Table 6
Regression coefficients, standard error, and model summary information (depicted in figure 5).
| Antecedents | Conséquents | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation | Exposure to information | |||||
| Coeff. | SE | p | Coeff. | SE | p | |
| Attitude (A) | 0.22 | 0.10 | .027 | 0.25 | 0.10 | .013 |
| Condition (C) | 1.30 | 0.32 | <.001 | – | – | – |
| Interaction 1 (A*C) | 0.80 | 0.19 | <.001 | – | – | – |
| Evaluation (E) | – | – | – | 0.14 | 0.11 | ns |
| Novelty (N) | – | – | – | 0.31 | 0.11 | .008 |
| Interaction 2 (E*N) | – | – | – | –0.19 | 0.06 | .003 |
| Age | – | – | – | –0.02 | 0.01 | .037 |
| Constant | –0.11 | 0.16 | ns | 6.61 | 0.38 | <.001 |
| R2 = .42 F(3, 53) = 12.62, p < .001 | R2 = .53 F(5, 51) = 11.31, p < .001 | |||||
Figure 5
Conditional indirect effect of attitude toward GMOs on selective exposure to information.
Legend: *** < .001, ** < .01, * < .05, () simple effects.
Figure 6
Interaction effect between attitude toward GMOs and experimental condition on information evaluation.
Figure 7
Interaction effect between information evaluation and information novelty on selective exposure.