Table 1
Difference Between Participants of Varied Goal Orientations on Message Selection.
| Message | Fit % (#) | Did Not Fit % (#) | Difference in Proportion | Chi-squared (df) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DET_IM | 67.36% (64) | 32.63% (31) | 0.34 | 5.69 (1) | p = .017 |
| DET_EX | 55.56% (25) | 44.44% (20) | 0.11 | 4.96 (1) | p = .026 |
| DEC_IM | 68.89% (62) | 31.11% (28) | 0.38 | 7.10 (1) | p = .008 |
| DEC_EX | 57.89% (24) | 42.10% (33) | 0.16 | 9.24 (1) | p = .002 |
| IMP_IM | 70.00% (56) | 30.00% (24) | 0.40 | 7.09 (1) | p = .008 |
| IMP_EX | 70.83% (17) | 29.17% (7) | 0.41 | 9.90 (1) | p = .002 |
| MAIN_IM | 71.62% (53) | 28.37% (21) | 0.43 | 8.16 (1) | p = .004 |
| MAIN_EX | 48.21% (27) | 51.79% (29) | 0.04 | 1.58 (1) | p = .209 |
[i] Note: Difference in proportion was calculated by subtracting column 3 from column 2.
Table 2
Predicting likelihood of Completing Task Considering Message SoC and Participants Fit with Message SoC.
| Model | Order | Message SoC | SoC Fit | x2 | R2 | PAC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 58.9 | |||||
| 1 | 70.82***; 0.41 [0.33–0.50] | 97.88***(1) | .23 | 69.1 | ||
| 2 | 64.88***; 0.42 [0.34–0.52] | 0.64; 1.07 [0.90–1.28] | 98.52***(2) | .23 | 69.1 | |
| 3 | 65.84***; 0.41 [0.33–0.51] | 0.56; 1.07 [0.90–1.28] | 1.81; 1.16 [0.93–1.45] | 100.34***(3) | .24 | 68.2 |
[i] Note: Columns two through four represent the independent variables entered and are explained as follows: Order refers to the order in which each participant was presented with the message; Message SoC reflects the SoC the message was tailored to; SoC fit depicts participants fit with the corresponding message. Within each Independent variable column, the Ward test statistic was presented first, followed by the Odds Ratio score, with the confidence interval in []. R2 represents the explained variation in the likelihood participants choose to do the activity based on the independent variables included in the model using Nagelkerke R2. PAC represents the percentage accuracy in classification which denotes the percentage of participants that could be correctly classified (choosing to do the activity or not) based on the independent variables included in the model. Significance was illustrated as follows: *p < .01, **p < .05, ***p < .001.
Table 3
Predicting likelihood of Completing Task Considering Message Frame and Participants Goal Orientation.
| Model | Order | Frame | Intrinsic | Extrinsic | X2 (DF) | R2 | PAC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 58.9 | ||||||
| 1 | 70.81***; 0.41 [0.33–0.50] | 97.88***(1) | .23 | 69.1 | |||
| 2 | 68.81***; 0.41 [0.37–0.52] | 1.31; 1.26 [0.96–1.88] | 99.19***(2) | .23 | 69.1 | ||
| 3 | 71.16***; 0.40 [0.32–0.49] | 1.10; 1.26 [0.82–1.93] | 4.86**; 1.33 [1.03–1.72] | 0.43; 0.93 [0.76–1.15] | 104.71***(6) | .25 | 69.1 |
[i] Note: Columns two through five represent the independent variables entered and are explained as follows: Order refers to the order in which each participant was presented with the message, Frame reflect to the message frame, and Intrinsic and Extrinsic represent the goal orientation scores of participants. Within each Independent variable column, the Ward test statistic was presented first, followed by the Odds Ratio score, with the confidence interval in []. R2 represents the explained variation in the likelihood participants choose to do the activity based on the independent variables included in the model using Nagelkerke R2. PAC represents the percentage accuracy in classification which denotes the percentage of participants that could be correctly classified (choosing to do the activity or not) based on the independent variables included in the model. Significance was illustrated as follows: *p < .01, **p < .05, ***p < .001.