11 Chapter6

97
CHAPTER 6
EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
6.1
OVERVIEW
This chapter provides a detailed description of the both the studies
and their associated results. Initially, the pretests are discussed, followed by a
description of the experiments in both the studies. Finally the results of the
experiments are examined and a discussion of the results is presented.
6.2
PRETESTS
Two pretests were conducted. The first pretest was done to identify
the products that were familiar and of interest to the study population. The
second pretest was done to identify the country that was considered proximal
to the target population. The second pretest was conducted to develop stimuli
for the experiments in Study 1. Both the pretests were conducted on forty four
MBA (first year) students in a large South Indian University. The average age
of the students was 20 and 56% of them were male. The questionnaire Q1 is
shown in Appendix 2.
6.2.1
Product Category
This pretest was conducted to identify products that were relevant
to the target population. A set of 10 products were selected for the pretest.
The selection was based on products used in extant green advertising studies
and popular products that used green advertisements in India (chosen from
98
Table 4.4 in Chapter 4). The ten products were laundry detergent (Schuhwerk
& Lefkoff-Hagius 1995; Kong & Zhang 2013), shampoo (Chang 2011),
mobile phone (Paladino & Ng 2013), mineral water (Grimmer & Woolley
2012), jeans, laptop, skin whiteners, scooter, notebooks and wristwatch.
Consumer involvement scale (Traylor & Joseph 1984) - a six item sevenpoint scale that is used to gauge consumers involvement across product
categories was used to measure consumer involvement with the selected
products (The scale Q1a is shown in Appendix 2). The results of the pretest
are shown in Table 6.1a. Mobile phones (M=17.45, S.D=7.949) and
wristwatches (M=15.93, S.D=5.699) were ranked high by the consumers.
Wristwatch
Notebook
Scooter
whitener
Skin
Bottle
Water
Laptop
Jeans
Mobile
Shampoo
Detergent
Table 6.1a Results of pretest for product preferrences
Mean
28.02 26.55 17.45 19.14 18.45 24.93
22.77
19.57 23.50 15.93
44
44
44
8.523
7.053 6.743 5.699
44
44
44
44
44
Std.
8.245 7.866 7.949 7.438 6.670 8.445
Deviation
44
44
A t-test was also conducted to verify if there was any relationship between
gender and product preferences. The results of the t-tests are shown in Table
6.1b. The results show that there were no gender differences in the product
preferences. Based on this pretest, mobile phones and wristwatches were
chosen as the products for the experiments.
99
Table 6.1b
Results of independent samples t-test to test gender

difference in product preferrences
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
Sig.
t-test for Equality of Means
df
95%
Confidence
Sig. *
Mean Std. Error Interval of
(2the
Difference Difference
tailed)
Difference
Lower Upper
Detergent
Equal
variances
assumed
.076
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Shampoo
Equal
variances
assumed
Jeans
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
.725
.408
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Laptop
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
.813
.600
2.524
-4.494 5.694
.241 41.889 .811
.600
2.493
-4.431 5.631
.156
3.400
2.352
-1.347 8.147
1.475 41.946 .148
3.400
2.305
-1.251 8.051
.943
.175
2.435
-4.739 5.089
.074 40.911 .941
.175
2.359
-4.589 4.939
.741
.758
2.276
-3.834 5.351
.330 38.783 .743
.758
2.298
-3.890 5.406
.740
.633
1.899
-3.199 4.466
.326 35.889 .746
.633
1.940
-3.303 4.569
1.420 .240 1.446
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Mobile
.784 .238
.444
.399 .072
.527 .333
.509 .333
42
42
42
42
42
100
Table 6.1b (Continued)

Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
Sig.
t-test for Equality of Means
df
95%
Confidence
Sig. *
Mean Std. Error Interval of
(2the
Difference Difference
tailed)
Difference
Lower Upper
Water_Bottle Equal
variances
assumed
.250
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Skin_whitener Equal
variances
assumed
.004
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Scooter
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
3.242
2.538
-1.881 8.364
1.284 41.320 .206
3.242
2.525
-1.856 8.339
.542
-1.600
2.599
-6.846 3.646
-.616 40.772 .541
-1.600
2.596
-6.844 3.644
.747
.700
2.158
-3.655 5.055
.339 38.753 .737
.700
2.068
-3.483 4.883
.507
-1.375
2.055
-5.522 2.772
-.682 41.976 .499
-1.375
2.015
-5.442 2.692
.335
1.683
1.727
-1.801 5.168
.963 38.160 .342
1.683
1.748
-1.855 5.221
.952 -.616
1.025 .317 -.669
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Wristwatch
.209
4.590 .038 .324
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Notebook
.619 1.277
.044
.835 .975
42
42
42
42
42
101
6.2.2
Geographical Proximity of Environmental Issues

Students rated the relevancy of environmental issues based on
geographical (spatial) proximity using seven point scales from relevant to

me to irrelevant to me (Chang 2012) (The scale Q1b is shown in
Appendix 2). Table 6.2 shows the results of this pretest.
It can be seen that issues related to South India (M=1.93
S.D=1.676) were considered highly relevant when compared to North India
and other countries (China, USA and Australia). Environmental issues in
Australia were considered least important (M=4.30 S.D=1.960).
Table 6.2 Pretest for geographical proximity
China North_India USA South_India Australia
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
6.3
STUDY
3.75
2.57
3.98
1.93
4.30
44
44
44
44
44
1.754
1.485
1.886
1.676
1.960
1:
EXPERIMENT
1:
TEMPORAL
AND
GEOGRAPHICAL FRAMING OF THREAT

This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of temporal and
geographical framing of threat on the PMT variables. The effect of the PMT
variables on involvement and the subsequent influence of involvement on
attitudes and purchase intention was also evaluated. The stimuli were
developed based on the products chosen using the pretests i.e mobile phone
and wristwatch. The experiment was also used to assess the stimuli, content
and face validity of the instrument.
102
6.3.1
Experimental Design
A 2 (temporal proximity of health threat: day vs. year) x 2
(geographical proximity of the health threat: local vs. global) between

subjects experimental design was utilized to investigate the hypotheses. This
resulted in four possible combinations of the factors. Fifty nine valid
responses were obtained from MBA students from a large South Indian
University (39 % male, median age=22). The students were randomly
assigned to the four possible conditions for the mobile phone stimuli.
Similarly, forty one valid responses were obtained from MBA students from a
large South Indian University (62 % male, median age=23). The students
were randomly assigned to the four possible conditions for the watch stimuli.
Data collection was through a paper and pencil questionnaire (Q2
shown in Appendix 3). Students first filled the questionnaire containing the
major dependent variables. Next, they were asked to answer a filler
questionnaire which asked them to describe their favourite celebrity. This was
a filler task designed to distract the respondents from associating the
personality variables question with the next questionnaire. On completion,
they filled counterbalanced questionnaires containing the questions for the
variables related to the environment (environmental concern, environmental
knowledge)
and
the
personality
variable
(consideration
for
future
consequences).
6.3.2
Stimuli
A total of four print advertisements were developed for the four
cells: temporally proximal threat and geographically proximal threat;

temporally proximal threat and geographically distant threat; temporally
distant threat and geographically proximal threat; temporally distant threat
103
and geographically distant threat. The advertisements also listed the

environment friendly features of the wristwatch or the mobile phone.
In the temporal threat conditions, the advertisement distinguished
between a day vs. year. Either day or year was used as the reference to specify
the number of people who suffer from respiratory diseases and cancers due to
toxins from either plastic waste (in case of watch) or electronic waste (in case
of mobiles) (Chandran & Menon 2004). In terms of geographical proximity
India was used to denote proximity and world was used to denote
geographically distant threats (Chang 2012). Although Australia was shown
as the location that is most geographically distant in the pretests, it was not
meaningful to represent an equivalent message that presented a threat in
Australia as part of the stimuli. Hence a more generic world was used to
denote a geographically distant threat. The ad was similar to those appearing
in the current Indian print media. The layout and format were not distinct and
contained basic information about the mobile phone or watch. The ad showed
a photograph of the mobile phone/watch and contained a description of the
product features and its environmental attributes. The mobile phone ad
contained a description of the display unit, talk time, standby time, OS and
memory. The mobile phone ad also specified that it contained recyclable
materials and avoided toxic components. The wristwatch ad contained details
about the materials and components used. The ad for the wristwatch also
highlighted its biodegradability.
6.3.3
Treatment Validity
The four print advertisements were analyzed by an expert panel to
assess if it contained the necessary variations in the temporal proximity and

the geographical proximity. This panel consisted of 3 marketing professors
and 2 Phd students who were familiar with marketing literature on fear
104
appeals, PMT and temporal framing. The panel suggested changes to the
presentation format and the final version of the advertisements are shown in
Appendix 4 (Figure A4.1, Figure A4.2, Figure A4.3, Figure A4.4, Figure
A4.5, Figure A4.6, Figure A4.7 and Figure A4.8)
6.3.4
Manipulation Checks
Manipulation checks were conducted by adding questions to verify
if the manipulations were successful. To this end, two questions were

included in the questionnaire. The temporal manipulation was checked asking
the question: How long do you think it takes for plastic waste pollution to
cause respiratory diseases or cancer?. The response to this item was
measured using seven point semantic scales anchored from 1 = the near future
and 7 = Distant future. Geographical manipulation was checked asking the
question: Is the issue of plastic pollution relevant to your country?. The
response to this item was measured using seven point semantic scales
anchored from 1 = Relevant to my country and 7 = Irrelevant to my country.
6.3.5
Dependent Variables
The study has mostly used previously validated instruments to
measure the constructs. The dependent variables include perceived severity,

perceived vulnerability, perceived self-efficacy, perceived response-efficacy,
fear, message involvement, attitude towards the advertisement, attitude
towards the brand and purchase intention. The other variables related to
individual
characteristics
included
environmental
concern,
objective
environmental knowledge and consideration for future consequences. The

sources and scales are described in detail below and shown in Appendix 3 as
discussed previously.
105
6.3.5.1
Protection motivation theory variables

The PMT variables were adapted from Milne et al (2002). They are
described in detail below:

Perceived severity
Perceived severity was measured using a four item seven point
scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree. Participants were
asked to indicate their responses on the following statements: I believe that
plastic waste / e-waste in the environment may cause severe health issues like
respiratory diseases and cancer, I believe that plastic waste / e-waste
pollution is a serious threat to human health, I do not think that plastic
waste /e-waste will affect our health, I believe plastic waste / e-waste
pollution is a significant problem. In the case of wristwatch plastic waste
was used and e-waste was used with mobile phone stimuli.
Perceived vulnerability
Perceived vulnerability was measured using a three item seven
point scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree to determine
the participants susceptibility to the threat. Participants were asked to
indicate their responses to the following statements: I am worried that I
might get respiratory illness or cancer because of plastic waste / e-waste,
Plastic waste /E-waste pollution is a big concern for me as it might affect my
health, It is possible that I am at risk of being affected by respiratory illness
or cancer because of plastic waste / e-waste.
Response efficacy
Response efficacy was also measured using a three item seven
106
whether participants believed if purchasing recyclable / biodegradable

products averted the threat. Participants rated their responses on the following
statements: Buying biodegradable / recyclable products is highly effective in
preventing diseases due to plastic/e-waste pollution, Buying biodegradable /
recyclable products will significantly lower the risk of being affected by
respiratory diseases and cancer, Buying biodegradable products is an
effective method of reducing respiratory illness and cancer in humans. In the
case of mobile phone, the word biodegradable was changed to recyclable.
Self efficacy
Self efficacy was measured using a three item seven point scale
where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree to determine whether
participants believed if they were capable of averting the threat. Participants
rated their responses to the following statements: It would be easy for me to
identify a biodegradable watch/ mobile made of recycled materials, It is not
difficult for me to check if the watch contains plastic or not / mobile is made
of recycled materials or not, I can easily identify a biodegradable watch /
mobile made of recycled materials.
Fear
Fear is an affective response to the threat levels presented in the
stimuli. Participants rated their emotions (the extent to which they
experienced each of the emotions afraid, scared, fearful, anxious and worried)
while viewing the advertisement on a seven item seven point Likert Scale (1 =
Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree). This measure is similar to fear
measures used in previous studies that employ the protection motivation
theory and the scale had a high internal reliability (Hartmann et al 2013).
107
6.3.5.2
Message involvement
Participants reported agreement with six statements (on a seven
point Likert scale) adapted from Cox & Cox (2001) : I got involved in what
the advertisement had to say, The ad's message seemed relevant to me,
This ad really made me think, This ad was thought-provoking , The ad
was very interesting, and I felt strong emotions while reading this ad. This
scale had a good internal reliability score in previous studies (Cox & Cox
2001; Cauberghe et al 2009).
6.3.5.3
Attitudes and Intentions
Attitude towards ad
Attitude towards the ad was measured by using three seven point
semantic
differential
scales:
good/bad,
pleasant/unpleasant,
and
favorable/unfavorable ( =0.88) (Mackenzie & Lutz 1989).

Attitude towards the brand
Attitude towards the brand was measured by using three seven
point semantic differential scales: good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant, and
favorable/unfavorable ( =0.93) (Muehling & Laczniak 1988).
Purchase intention
Participants were asked to respond to three sets of bipolar
adjectives (unlikely-likely, definitely would-definitely would not, improbableprobable) placed on seven point scales to indicate how likely they were to
purchase the advertised brand. This scale was also adapted from previous
research (MacKenzie et al 1986).
108
6.3.5.4
Variables related to the environment and personality
Environmental concern
Participants environmental concern was measured using the scale
proposed by Schultz (2001). The scale requires the participants to rank their
environmental concerns from one to seven on sub-categories namely
biospheric concerns (plants, marine life, birds, and animals), altruistic
concerns (humanity, children, people in the country, future generations) and
egoistic concerns (me, my future, my health, my lifestyle).
Objective environmental knowledge
Objective environmental knowledge was measured using a set of
fifteen questions similar to the MEAK subscale on environmental knowledge
(Maloney et al 1975). The questions were based on combination of general
questions about environmental awareness (for instance, impact of climate
change, pollutants in batteries and CFLs) and issues specific to India (for
example, Bhopal disaster, maximum greenhouse emissions in India). Some of
the questions were taken from an online quiz (http://edugreen.teri.res.in/
explore/quiz/quiz.htm). The scale is in a quiz format and the correct answers
are summed to form the objective environmental knowledge score. Higher
scores reveal a high degree of factual knowledge about the environment and
vice-versa.
Consideration for future consequences (CFC)
Individuals temporal orientation was measured using the
consideration of future consequences fourteen item scale (Joireman et al
2012). The scale has two components measuring the concern with future
109
consequences and concern with immediate consequences. The consideration

for future consequences score was determined after recoding the immediate
items (3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12).
6.3.6
Results of Experiment 1
The experiment was conducted with the mobile phone and
wristwatch stimuli to evaluate the effect of temporal and geographical

framing of threat on the PMT variables. The effect of PMT variables on
involvement and the subsequent influence of involvement on attitudes and
intention was also evaluated. The experiment was also used to assess the
content and face validity of the instrument. The results are discussed below.
6.3.6.1
Manipulation check
Mobile phone stimuli

Temporal proximity manipulations were not successful as there was
no difference in the way participants evaluated the temporal proximity of the
threat. There was no significant main effect of the temporal proximity
manipulation (day vs. year) in both the proximal (M = 3.66) and distal (M =
3.87) conditions (F (1,57) = 0.224 ; p>0.5). The mean values and the ANOVA
tests are shown in Table 6.3a and Table 6.3b.
Table 6.3a shows that the mean values are very close in value. It
can also be seen from Table 6.3b that the temporal proximity did not have any
effect on the manipulation check variable. Geographical manipulations were
checked next.
110
Table 6.3a Experiment 1: Mean values of the manipulation check

variable for temporal distance of threat (mobile phone
stimuli)
Day
MC_TIME
95%
Confidence
Interval for
Std.
Std.
N Mean
Minimum Maximum
Mean
Deviation Error
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
29 3.66
1.610
.299
3.04
4.27
1
6
Year 30 3.87
Total 59 3.76
1.814
1.705
.331
.222
3.19
3.32
4.54
4.21
1
1
7
7
Table 6.3b Experiment 1: One way ANOVA - manipulation check

variable for temporal distance of threat (mobile phone
stimuli)
ANOVA
MC_TIME
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F
Sig.
Between Groups
.660
1
.660
.224 .638
Within Groups
Total
168.018
168.678
57
58
2.948
Similarly geographical proximity manipulations were also not successful as

there was no significant main effect of the geographical proximity
manipulations as proximity manipulation (India vs. World) did not produce
any statistically significant effect in both the proximal (M = 2.37) and distal
(M = 1.90) conditions (F (1,57) = 2.552 ; p>0.05). The results of the
geographical manipulation checls are shown in Tables 6.4a and 6.4b.
111
Table 6.4a
Experiment 1: Mean value of the manipulation check

variable for geographical distance of threat (mobile phone
stimuli)
Descriptives
MC_GEOGRAPHY
95% Confidence
Interval
for Mean
Std.
Std.
N Mean
Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
India 30 2.37 1.299
.237
1.88
2.85
1
6
World 29 1.90
Total 59 2.14
Table 6.4b
.939
1.152
.174
.150
1.54
1.84
2.25
2.44
1
1
4
6
Experiment 1: One way ANOVA of the manipulation check

variable for geographical distance of threat (mobile phone
stimuli)
ANOVA
MC_GEOGRAPHY
Between Groups
Sum of
Squares
3.259
Mean
Square
3.259
1.292
df
Within Groups
73.656
57
Total
76.915
58
Sig.
2.522
.118
Watch stimuli
Temporal proximity manipulations were not successful for the
watch stimuli as there was no significant main effect of the temporal
proximity manipulation (day vs. year) in both the proximal (M = 4.05) and
distal (M = 3.55) conditions (F (1, 40) = 0.990; p>0.05). The results are
shown in Tables 6.5a, 6.5b.
112
Table 6.5a Experiment 1: Mean values of the manipulation check

variable for temporal distance of threat (watch stimuli)
Descriptives
MC_TIME
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Day 22 4.05
Year 20 3.55
1.704
1.504
Total 42 3.81
1.612
N Mean
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
.363
.336
Lower
Bound
3.29
2.85
Upper
Bound
4.80
4.25
.249
3.31
4.31
Minimum Maximum
1
1
7
7
Table 6.5b Experiment 1: One way ANOVA of the manipulation check

variable for temporal distance of threat (watch stimuli)
ANOVA
MC_TIME
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
2.572
2.572
.990
.326
Within Groups
103.905
40
2.598
Total
106.476
41
Between Groups
Similarly geographical proximity manipulations were also not successful as

there was no significant main effect of the geographical proximity
manipulations (India vs. World) in both the proximal (M = 1.96) and distal
(M = 2.24) conditions (F(1,40) = 0.414 ; p>0.05). Tables 6.5c and 6.5d show
these results.
113
Table 6.5c Experiment 1: Mean values of the manipulation check

variable for geographical distance of threat (watch stimuli)
Descriptives
MC_GEOGRAPHY
N Mean
Std.
Std.
Deviation Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Minimum Maximum
India 25 1.96
1.306
.261
1.42
2.50
World 17 2.24
1.437
.349
1.50
2.97
Total 42 2.07
1.351
.208
1.65
2.49
Table 6.5d Experiment 1: One way ANOVA of the manipulation check

variable for geographical distance of threat (watch stimuli)
ANOVA
MC_GEOGRAPHY
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
.767
.767
.414
.523
Within Groups
74.019
40
1.850
Total
74.786
41
Between Groups
A failed manipulation check in social psychology research is not of

great concern and does not indicate that the manipulation of the independent
variable failed (Sigall & Mills 1998). Therefore further analyses on the data
were conducted.
114
6.3.6.2
Scale reliability

The internal consistency of the scales was assessed using Cronbach
. Table 6.6 below shows the reliability scores. Almost all the constructs
meet and exceed 0.6 the rule of thumb criteria suggested by Nunnally
(Nunnally 1970) indicating that the instrument is reasonably reliable.
Although self-efficacy has a lower reliability score, most PMT studies report
such low score. Since
> 0.5 is acceptable, the same measure was used and
the reliabilities are deemed acceptable. As this study was also used to evaluate
the scales, the scale was retained. Environmental knowledge is treated as a
single formative indicator and therefore reliability score was not calculated
for this measure as it is illogical to check correlations between the indicators
for such a construct (Chin 1998).
Table 6.6 Experiment 1: Reliability scores using mobile phone stimulus
Construct
Cronbach
Perceived severity
0.64
0.88
Response Efficacy
0.82
Self Efficacy
0.52
Message involvement
0.82
Fear
0.89
Attitude towards ad
0.81
Attitude towards brand
0.90
Purchase intention
0.96
Environmental Knowledge
0.86
Consideration for future consequences
0.85
115
Watch stimuli
Table 6.7 below shows the reliability scores for the watch stimuli.
Table 6.7 Experiment 1: Reliability scores using watch stimulus
Construct
Cronbach
Perceived severity
0.57
0.90
Response Efficacy
0.88
Self Efficacy
0.41
Message involvement
0.82
Fear
0.89
Attitude towards ad
0.82
0.94
Purchase intention
0.93
0.89
Consideration for future consequences
0.78
It can be seen from Table 6.7 that almost all the constructs meet
and exceed 0.6 Nunnallys rule of thumb (1970). The instrument is therefore
reasonable reliable. Self-efficacy has a lower reliability score and
< 0.5 is
unacceptable. Therefore, this measure was not used for further analysis with
the watch stimulus.
6.3.6.3
Hypotheses tests of the effect of manipulations on PMT

variables
The
hypothesized
effect
of
temporal
and
geographical
manipulations on the PMT variables was analyzed using MANOVA or

MANCOVA as appropriate. After checking for missing data and outliers, it
116
was found that most of the PMT variables were negatively skewed.
MANOVA is robust to violations of multivariate normality and to violations
of homogeneity of variance/covariance matrices if groups are of nearly equal
size (Leech et al 2011). The dependent variables (perceived severity,
perceived vulnerability, fear, response-efficacy and self-efficacy) were
moderately correlated (0.27 0.49) and therefore there was no risk of
multicollinearity to pose a hindrance to conductiong MANOVA.
Table 6.8a shows the distribution characteristics of the protection
motivation variables and Table 6.8b shows the group wise means. It can be
seen that most of the variables have a mean value that is closer to the highest
score on the scale i.e. 7. Perceived severity ranks high among the threat
appraisal variables with a mean value of 5.91.
Table 6.8a
Experiment 1: Distribution characteristics of the protection

motivation variables (mobile phone stimuli)
Variable
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
PERC_SEV
4.00
7.00
5.91
0.73
PERC_VUL
1.00
7.00
4.68
1.22
RESP_EFFICACY
2.00
7.00
4.98
1.25
SELF_EFFICACY
3.50
7.00
4.41
1.72
FEAR
2.00
6.14
3.60
0.92
Table 6.8b below does not show much variation across the groups
either. The perceived severity and perceived vulnerability scores appear close
in almost all the conditions.
117
Table 6.8b
Experiment 1: Group wise mean values of protection

motivation variables for the mobile phone stimuli
Self
Perceived
Severity
Perceived
Vulnerability
Response
Efficacy
Efficacy
Temporal
proximity: Day
6.12
4.93
4.82
4.31
3.70
Temporal
proximity: Year
5.72
4.45
5.13
4.52
3.49
Geographical
proximity: India
5.83
4.50
5.13
4.74
3.53
Geographical
proximity: World
6.00
4.88
4.82
4.08
3.67
Factor
Fear
Hypothesis 1 stated that consumers who viewed advertisements that

contained threats proximal in time would perceive higher severity and high
vulnerability when compared to consumers who viewed threats that were
distant in time. A one-way MANOVA was conducted to ascertain if there
were significant differences regarding perceived severity and perceived
vulnerability, among the groups in response to manipulation of the temporal
proximity of the threat. Cell sizes were approximately equal (29 and 30) and
the Box's Test indicated that the assumptions of normality were not violated
as there was no significant differences between the covariance matrices. The
one-way MANOVA results were: Pillais Trace=0.078; Wilks lambda =
0.992; Hotellings Trace and Roys Largest Root = 0.085, F(2,56)=2.379 as
shown in Table 6.9a. Since the results of the multivariate tests were not
significant, the dependent variables are not significantly dependent on the
temporal proximity of the threat. The results indicate that there was no
statistically significant difference in severity or vulnerability based on
temporal proximity. Therefore hypothesis 1 (H1) was not supported. Table
6.9a and 6.9b shows the results of the test. Although the multivariate tests
were not significant, Table 6.9b showed the possibility of an influence of the
time factor on perceived severity of the threat.
118
Table 6.9a
Experiment1: Hypothesis 1: multivariate tests (mobile

phone stimuli)
Multivariate Testsb
Effect
Intercept
Value
Pillai's Trace
.986 1980.986a
Wilks' Lambda
.014 1980.986a
Hotelling's Trace 70.749 1980.986a
Roy's Largest Root 70.749 1980.986a
Multivariate Testsb
Effect
Value
TIME_FACTOR Pillai's Trace

.078
Wilks' Lambda
.922
Hotelling's Trace
.085
Roy's Largest Root .085
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept + TIME_FACTOR
Table 6.9b
F
2.379a
2.379a
2.379a
2.379a
Hypothesis
df
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
Error
df
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
Hypothesis
df
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
Error
df
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
.000
Sig.
.102
.102
.102
.102
Experiment 1: Hypothesis 1: tests of between-subjects

effects (mobile phone stimuli)
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Type III
Dependent
Mean
Source
Sum of
df
Variable
Square
Squares
Corrected Model PERC_SEV
2.309a
1 2.309
PERC_VUL
3.334 b
1 3.334
Intercept
PERC_SEV
2069.131
1 2069.131
PERC_VUL
1299.221
1 1299.221
TIME_FACTOR PERC_SEV
2.309
1 2.309
PERC_VUL
3.334
1 3.334
Error
PERC_SEV
29.246
57 .513
PERC_VUL
84.192
57 1.477
Total
PERC_SEV
2098.938
59
PERC_VUL
1384.889
59
Corrected Total
PERC_SEV
31.555
58
PERC_VUL
87.525
58
a. R Squared = .073 (Adjusted R Squared = .057)
b. R Squared = .038 (Adjusted R Squared = .021)
Sig.
4.500
2.257
4032.657
879.607
4.500
2.257
.038
.139
.000
.000
.038
.139
119
A follow up one-way ANOVA was hence conducted to test if the

temporal proximity of the threat had an effect on the perceived severity.
Table 6.9c shows the results of the test. There was a statistically significant
difference
between
groups
(F(1,57) = 4.500, p <.05).
as
determined
by
one-way
ANOVA
It can be seen from Table 6.9c that temporal
proximity of the threat influenced the perceived severity of the threat. A plot
was producted to check the effect. Figure 6.1 shows that participants who
viewed threats that were closer in time perceived higher levels of severity.
This implies that the temporal proximity of the threat has an effect on the
perceived severity.
Table 6.9c Experiment 1: Tests of between-subjects effects of the
temporal proximity of threat on perceived severity (mobile
phone stimuli)
Dependent Variable:PERC_SEV
Source
Type III
Sum of df
Squares
Corrected Model
Intercept
2309a
2.309
4.500
Squared
Noncent Observed
Parameter Powerb
.073
4.500
.550
2069.131 1 2069.131 4032.657 .000
.986
4032.657
1.000
.073
4.500
.550
2.309
Error
29.246 57
.513
Total
2098.938 59
CorrectedTotal
Partial
Sig
Eta
.038
TIME_FACTOR 2.309
Mean
Square
4.500
31.555 58
a.RSquared=.073 (Adjusted R Squared = .057)

b. Computed using alpha = .05
.038
120
Figure 6.1
Experiment 1 effect of framing a temporally and

geographically proximal threat on perceived severity
The main effect of geographical proximity of threat on perceived

severity and vulnerability to the threat was investigated using one-way
MANOVA. Hypothesis 2 (H2) was also not supported as there was no
statistically significant difference in severity and vulnerability based on the
geographical proximity of threat. The one-way MANOVA results were:
Pillais Trace=0.027; Wilks lambda = 0.876; Hotellings Trace and Roys
Largest Root = 0.028, F(2,56)=0.787. The results are shown in Table 6.10a
and 6.10b.
121
Table 6.10a Experiment 1: Hypothesis 2: multivariate tests (mobile

phone stimuli)
Multivariate Tests b
Effect
Intercept
Value
Hypothesis df Error df Sig.
Pillai's Trace
.985 1861.603a
2.000
56.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda
.015 1861.603a
2.000
56.000 .000
66.486 1861.603a
2.000
56.000 .000
2.000
56.000 .000
Hotelling's Trace
.027
.787a
2.000
56.000 .460
Wilks' Lambda
.973
.787a
2.000
56.000 .460
Hotelling's Trace
.028
.787a
2.000
56.000 .460
.787a
2.000
56.000 .460
GEOG_FACTOR Pillai's Trace
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept + GEOG_FACTOR
Table 6.10b Experiment 1: Hypothesis 2: tests of between-subjects

Type III
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
.453a
.453
.830
.366
PERC_VUL
2.186b
2.186
1.460
.232
PERC_SEV
2067.826
2067.826 3789.661 .000
PERC_VUL
1298.797
1298.797 867.497
GEOG_FACTOR PERC_SEV
.453
.453
.830
.366
PERC_VUL
2.186
2.186
1.460
.232
PERC_SEV
31.102
57
.546
PERC_VUL
85.339
57
1.497
Source
Intercept
Error
Dependent
Variable
.000
122

Source
Dependent
Type III
Variable
Sum of
df
Mean
Sig.
Square
Squares
Total
Corrected Total
PERC_SEV
2098.938
59
PERC_VUL
1384.889
59
PERC_SEV
31.555
58
PERC_VUL
87.525
58
a. R Squared = .014 (Adjusted R Squared = -.003)

Hypothesis 3 predicted interaction effects and stated that an

interaction between temporal proximity and geographical proximity would
cause perception of higher levels of severity and vulnerability under proximal
conditions. A 2 (temporal proximity of threat:day vs.year) x 2 (geographical
proximity of threat: India vs. World)
multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was conducted to examine this. The results also indicated that no
interaction effect exists between temporal proximity of threat and
geographical proximity of threat on both the PMT variables (Pillais
Trace=0.016; Wilks lambda = 0.984; Hotellings Trace and Roys Largest
Root = 0.017, F(2,54)=0.450). The results are shown in Table 6.11a and Table
6.11b. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was not accepted.
123

phone stimuli)
Effect
Intercept
Value
GEOG_FACTOR
TIME_FACTOR *
GEOG_FACTOR
Hypothesis Error
Sig.
df
df
Pillai's Trace
.986 1972.206a
2.000
54.000 .000
Wilks'
Lambda
.014 1972.206a
2.000
54.000 .000
73.045 1972.206a
2.000
54.000 .000
Roy's
73.045 1972.206a
Largest Root
2.000
54.000 .000
Hotelling's
Trace
TIME_FACTOR
Pillai's Trace
.082
2.398a
2.000
54.000 .101
Wilks'
Lambda
.918
2.398a
2.000
54.000 .101
Hotelling's
Trace
.089
2.398a
2.000
54.000 .101
Roy's
Largest Root
.089
2.398a
2.000
54.000 .101
Pillai's Trace
.030
.846a
2.000
54.000 .435
Wilks'
Lambda
.970
.846a
2.000
54.000 .435
Hotelling's
Trace
.031
.846a
2.000
54.000 .435
Roy's
Largest Root
.031
.846a
2.000
54.000 .435
Pillai's Trace
.016
.450a
2.000
54.000 .640
Wilks'
Lambda
.984
.450a
2.000
54.000 .640
Hotelling's
Trace
.017
.450a
2.000
54.000 .640
Roy's
Largest Root
.017
.450a
2.000
54.000 .640
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept + TIME_FACTOR + GEOG_FACTOR + TIME_FACTOR *
GEOG_FACTOR
124

Dependent
Variable
Type III
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
PERC_SEV
3.228a
1.076
2.089
.112
PERC_VUL
6.267
2.089
1.414
.249
PERC_SEV
2067.929
2067.929
4015.101 .000
PERC_VUL
1299.290
1299.290
879.425
.000
PERC_SEV
2.309
2.309
4.483
.039
PERC_VUL
3.375
3.375
2.284
.136
PERC_SEV
.473
.473
.919
.342
PERC_VUL
2.238
2.238
1.515
.224
TIME_FACTOR *
GEOG_FACTOR
PERC_SEV
.430
.430
.835
.365
PERC_VUL
.652
.652
.441
.509
Error
PERC_SEV
28.327
55
.515
PERC_VUL
81.259
55
1.477
PERC_SEV
2098.938
59
PERC_VUL
1384.889
59
PERC_SEV
31.555
58
PERC_VUL
87.525
58
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
TIME_FACTOR
GEOG_FACTOR
Total
Corrected Total

To test H4, a one way MANCOVA with perceived severity and

perceived vulnerability as dependent variable and CFC as the covariate was
conducted. The temporal proximity of the threat was the independent variable.
The assumptions for MANCOVA were met. In particular, the homogeneity of
the regression effect was evident for the covariate, and the covariate was
linearly related to the dependent measure. The one-way MANCOVA results
were as follows: (Pillais Trace=0.064; Wilks lambda = 0.936; Hotellings
Trace and Roys Largest Root = 0.068, F(2,54)=1.846). There were no
125
interaction effects and therefore H4 was not supported. The results are shown
in Table 6.12a and 6.12b below. It can be seen from Table 6.12a that the
temporal proximity of the threat did not have a significant effect on the
hypothesized variables. Hence Table 6.12b was not interpreted.
phone stimuli)
Effect
Intercept
TIME_FACTOR
TIME_FACTOR *
CFC_TOTAL
CFC_TOTAL
Pillai's Trace
Wilks'
Lambda
Hotelling's
Trace
Roy's Largest
Root
Pillai's Trace
Wilks'
Lambda
Hotelling's
Trace
Roy's Largest
Root
Pillai's Trace
Wilks'
Lambda
Hotelling's
Trace
Roy's Largest
Root
Pillai's Trace
Wilks'
Lambda
Hotelling's
Trace
Roy's Largest
Root
87.364a
87.364a
Hypothesis
df
2.000
2.000
Error
df
54.000
54.000
.000
.000
3.236
87.364a
2.000
54.000
.000
3.236
87.364a
2.000
54.000
.000
.087
.913
2.585a
2.585a
2.000
2.000
54.000
54.000
.085
.085
.096
2.585a
2.000
54.000
.085
.096
2.585a
2.000
54.000
.085
.064
.936
1.846a
1.846a
2.000
2.000
54.000
54.000
.168
.168
.068
1.846a
2.000
54.000
.168
.068
1.846a
2.000
54.000
.168
.097
.903
2.902a
2.902a
2.000
2.000
54.000
54.000
.063
.063
.107
2.902a
2.000
54.000
.063
.107
2.902a
2.000
54.000
.063
Value
.764
.236
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept + TIME_FACTOR + TIME_FACTOR * CFC_TOTAL +
CFC_TOTAL
Sig.
126
Table 6.12b Experiment 1: Hypothesis 4: tests of between-subjects effects

Type III
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
PERC_SEV
5.611 a
1.870
3.965
.012
PERC_VUL
15.982b
5.327
4.096
.011
PERC_SEV
83.946
83.946
177.959 .000
PERC_VUL
34.893
34.893
26.824
.000
PERC_SEV
1.585
1.585
3.360
.072
PERC_VUL
5.090
5.090
3.913
.053
TIME_FACTOR *
CFC_TOTAL
PERC_SEV
.984
.984
2.086
.154
PERC_VUL
3.981
3.981
3.060
.086
CFC_TOTAL
PERC_SEV
1.640
1.640
3.476
.068
PERC_VUL
6.052
6.052
4.653
.035
PERC_SEV
25.944
55
.472
PERC_VUL
71.543
55
1.301
PERC_SEV
2098.938
59
PERC_VUL
1384.889
59
PERC_SEV
31.555
58
PERC_VUL
87.525
58
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
TIME_FACTOR
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Dependent
Variable

Since the hypothesis testing did not yield any specific results, a
three way ANOVA was conducted to examine the interactions among the
factors and covariates on the individual dependent variables (perceived
severity and perceived vulnerability). Tables 6.13a and 6.13b show the result.
The results showed significant interactions of the factors and the covariate
CFC on perceived severity and perceived vulnerability of the threat.
127
Table 6.13a Experiment 1: Tests of between-subjects effects (effect of

temporal, geographical proximity of threat and CFC on
perceived severity)
Type III
Source
Sum of df
Squares
Mean
Square
Partial
F
Sig.
Eta
Squared
Noncent. Observed
Parameter Powerb
Corrected Model
9.538a
7 1.363
3.156 .008
.302
22.093
.918
Intercept
76.799
1 76.799 177.895 .000
.777
177.895
1.000
TIME_FACTOR
3.449
1 3.449
7.988 .007
.135
7.988
.792
GEOG_FACTOR
2.536
1 2.536
5.875 .019
.103
5.875
.662
CFC_TOTAL
.209
.209
.485 .489
.009
.485
.105
2.492
1 2.492
5.773 .020
.102
5.773
.654
2.093
1 2.093
4.849 .032
.087
4.849
.579
1.875
1 1.875
4.343 .042
.078
4.343
.534
1.545
1 1.545
3.579 .064
.066
3.579
.459
TIME_FACTOR *
CFC_TOTAL
GEOG_FACTOR
* CFC_TOTAL
TIME_FACTOR *
GEOG_FACTOR
* CFC_TOTAL
TIME_FACTOR *
GEOG_FACTOR
Error
Total
Corrected Total
22.017 51 .432
2098.938 59
31.555 58

128
Table 6.13b Experiment 1: Tests of between-subjects effects (effect of

temporal, geographical proximity of threat and cfc on
perceived vulnerability)
Dependent Variable:PERC_VUL
Source
Type III
Mean
Sum of df
Square
Squares
Partial
Noncent. Observed
Sig. Eta
Parameter Powerb
Squared
Corrected Model
28.190a
7 4.027 3.461 .004
.322
24.230
.943
Intercept
43.236
1 43.236 37.162 .000
.422
37.162
1.000
TIME_FACTOR
10.796
1 10.796 9.279 .004
.154
9.279
.848
GEOG_FACTOR
9.775
1 9.775 8.402 .006
.141
8.402
.812
CFC_TOTAL
.783
.673 .416
.013
.673
.127
8.870
1 8.870 7.624 .008
.130
7.624
.773
GEOG_FACTOR
* CFC_TOTAL
8.071
1 8.071 6.937 .011
.120
6.937
.734
TIME_FACTOR *
GEOG_FACTOR
* CFC_TOTAL
3.782
1 3.782 3.251 .077
.060
3.251
.424
TIME_FACTOR *
GEOG_FACTOR
3.343
1 3.343 2.874 .096
.053
2.874
.384
Error
59.336 51 1.163
TIME_FACTOR *
CFC_TOTAL
Total
.783
1384.889 59
Corrected Total
87.525 58

The following Table (Table 6.14) summarizes the results of the

hypotheses testing for the effect of the stimuli on the PMT variables (H1-H4).
129
Table 6.14
Experiment 1: Summary of the hypotheses (H1 H4)

mobile phone stimulus
Hypothesis
Factor
Perceived
Perceived
severity
vulnerability
H1
Temporal proximity (H1)
H2
Geographical proximity (H2)
H3
Temporal proximity *
Geographical proximity (H3)

H4
CFC (H4)
X no effect
- Effect present
Watch stimuli
Table 6.15 shows the distribution characteristics of the protection
motivation variables. Similar to the mobile phone stimulus, most of the values
were negatively skewed. Group averages for the variables are shown in Table
6.16. Self efficacy was not included in the analysis as the scale reliability was
very low.
Table 6.15

motivation variables for the watch stimuli
Variable
Perceived Severity
2.00
7.00
6.39
0.92
Perceived Vulnerability
1.00
7.00
4.73
1.43
Response Efficacy
2.33
7.00
5.15
1.24
Fear
1.83
6.50
3.86
0.99
130
Table 6.16 Experiment 1: Group wise mean values of protection

motivation variables for the watch stimuli
Self
Fear
Efficacy
Perceived
Severity
Perceived
Vulnerability
Response
Efficacy
6.27
4.60
5.13
3.87
6.52
4.86
5.16
3.84
Geographical
proximity: India
6.60
4.64
5.18
3.80
Geographical
proximity: World
6.08
4.86
5.09
3.94
Factor
Temporal
proximity: Day
Temporal
proximity: Year
A one-way MANOVA was conducted to verify H1 which stated

that there will be significant differences in perceived severity and perceived
vulnerability among the groups in response to manipulation of the temporal
proximity of the threat. H1 was not accepted (Pillais Trace=0.021; Wilks
lambda = 0.979; Hotellings Trace and Roys Largest Root = 0.021,
F(2,39)=0.415. Table 6.17a and 6.17b show the results.
Table 6.17a Experiment 1: Hypothesis 1: multivariate tests (watch
stimuli)
Effect
Intercept
Multivariate Testsb
Value F
a
Pillai's Trace
.981 989.360
2.000
39.000 .000
.019 989.360a
50.736 989.360a
2.000
2.000
39.000 .000
39.000 .000
2.000
39.000 .000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
39.000
39.000
39.000
39.000
Wilks' Lambda
Hotelling's Trace
Wilks' Lambda
Hotelling's Trace
Roy's Largest Root
.021
.979
.021
.021
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept + TIME_FACTOR
.415
.415a
.415 a
.415a
.664
.664
.664
.664
131

effects (watch stimuli)
Source
Dependent
Variable
Type III
Sum of
df
Squares
Mean
Square
Sig.
.667a
.667
.782
.382
PERC_VUL
.711b
.711
.343
.561
PERC_SEV
1715.810
1715.810
2012.613 .000
PERC_VUL
940.055
940.055
453.602
.000
.667
.667
.782
.382
PERC_VUL
.711
.711
.343
.561
PERC_SEV
34.101
40
.853
PERC_VUL
82.897
40
2.072
PERC_SEV
1751.250
42
PERC_VUL
1023.333
42
PERC_SEV
34.768
41
PERC_VUL
83.608
41
Intercept
Error
Total
Corrected Total

b. R Squared = .009 (Adjusted R Squared = -.016)
Hypothesis 2 was not supported as geographical proximity had no

effect on perceived severity and vulnerability (Pillais Trace=0.118; Wilks
lambda = 0.882; Hotellings Trace and Roys Largest Root = 0.134,
F(2,39)=2.60). The results are shown in Tables 6.18a and 6.18b.
132

stimuli)
Multivariate Testsb
Effect
Intercept
Value
Pillai's Trace
Wilks' Lambda
Hotelling's Trace
.981 990.045
2.000
39.000 .000
.019 990.045
2.000
39.000 .000
50.772 990.045a
2.000
39.000 .000
2.000
39.000 .000
Roy's Largest Root 50.772 990.045

GEOG_FACTOR Pillai's Trace
Wilks' Lambda
Hotelling's Trace
.118
2.607a
2.000
39.000 .087
.882
2.607
2.000
39.000 .087
2.607
2.000
39.000 .087
2.607
2.000
39.000 .087
.134
a. Exact statistic b. Design: Intercept + GEOG_FACTOR

(watch stimuli)
Source
Corrected Model
Dependent
Variable
PERC_SEV
Type III
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
2.650a
2.650
3.301
.077
.502
.242
.626
PERC_VUL
.502
PERC_SEV
1629.079
1629.079
2028.889 .000
PERC_VUL
913.772
913.772
439.808
.000
GEOG_FACTOR PERC_SEV
2.650
2.650
3.301
.077
PERC_VUL
.502
.502
.242
.626
PERC_SEV
32.118
40
.803
PERC_VUL
83.106
40
2.078
PERC_SEV
1751.250
42
PERC_VUL
1023.333
42
PERC_SEV
34.768
41
PERC_VUL
83.608
41
Intercept
Error
Total
Corrected Total

133
A 2 (temporal proximity of threat: day vs.year) x 2 (geographical

proximity of threat: India vs. World) multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was conducted to examine the interaction effects between
temporal proximity and geographical proximity to verify H3. It can be seen
from Table 6.19a and Table 6.19b that no interaction effect exists between
temporal proximity of threat and geographical proximity of threat on
perceived severity and vulnerability (Pillais Trace=0.044; Wilks lambda =
0.956; Hotellings Trace and Roys Largest Root = 0.046, F(2,37)=0.858).
Therefore, H3 was not accepted and the results are shown in
stimuli)
Effect
Intercept
2.000
37.000 .000
.018 1003.743
2.000
37.000 .000
54.256 1003.743
2.000
37.000 .000
Hotelling's Trace
Pillai's Trace
Wilks' Lambda
Hotelling's Trace
.129
.871
.148

TIME_FACTOR
Pillai's Trace
Wilks' Lambda
Hotelling's Trace
.044
.956
.046

GEOG_FACTOR *
TIME_FACTOR
Hypothesis Error
Sig.
df
df
.982 1003.743a
Pillai's Trace
Wilks' Lambda
GEOG_FACTOR
Value
2.000
37.000 .000
2.735
2.000
37.000 .078
2.735
2.000
37.000 .078
2.735
2.000
37.000 .078
2.735
2.000
37.000 .078
.858
2.000
37.000 .432
.858
2.000
37.000 .432
.858
2.000
37.000 .432
.858
2.000
37.000 .432
2.000
37.000 .372
Pillai's Trace
.052
1.017
Wilks' Lambda
.948
1.017a
2.000
37.000 .372
.055
1.017
2.000
37.000 .372
1.017
2.000
37.000 .372
Hotelling's Trace
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept + GEOG_FACTOR + TIME_FACTOR + GEOG_FACTOR *
TIME_FACTOR
134

(watch stimuli)
Dependent
Variable
Type III
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
PERC_SEV
5.079a
1.693
2.167
.108
PERC_VUL
1.233b
.411
.190
.903
PERC_SEV
1610.267
1610.267
2061.013 .000
PERC_VUL
906.243
906.243
418.050
.000
PERC_SEV
2.853
2.853
3.651
.064
PERC_VUL
.412
.412
.190
.665
PERC_SEV
1.377
1.377
1.762
.192
PERC_VUL
.695
.695
.321
.575
GEOG_FACTOR *
TIME_FACTOR
PERC_SEV
1.500
1.500
1.920
.174
PERC_VUL
.116
.116
.053
.819
Error
PERC_SEV
29.689
38
.781
PERC_VUL
82.376
38
2.168
PERC_SEV
1751.250
42
PERC_VUL
1023.333
42
PERC_SEV
34.768
41
PERC_VUL
83.608
41
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
GEOG_FACTOR
TIME_FACTOR
Total
Corrected Total

To test H4 a one-way MANCOVA was conducted with perceived

severity and perceived vulnerability as dependent variables and CFC as the
covariate. It can be inferred from Tables 6.20a and 6.20b that there was no
statistically significant difference between the groups and hence H4 was also
not supported.
135

stimuli)
Multivariate Testsb
Effect
Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.
Intercept
Pillai's Trace
.587 26.961a
2.000
38.000 .000
a
Wilks' Lambda
.413 26.961
2.000
38.000 .000
a
Hotelling's Trace 1.419 26.961
2.000
38.000 .000
a
Roy's Largest Root 1.419 26.961
2.000
38.000 .000
CFC_TOTAL Pillai's Trace
.086 1.791a
2.000
38.000 .181
a
Wilks' Lambda
.914 1.791
2.000
38.000 .181
a
Hotelling's Trace .094 1.791
2.000
38.000 .181
a
Roy's Largest Root .094 1.791
2.000
38.000 .181
a
.024 .467
2.000
38.000 .630
Wilks' Lambda
.976 .467a
2.000
38.000 .630
a
Hotelling's Trace .025 .467
2.000
38.000 .630
a
Roy's Largest Root .025 .467
2.000
38.000 .630
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept + CFC_TOTAL + TIME_FACTOR

(watch stimuli)
Dependent
Type III Sum
Mean
Source
df
Variable
of Squares
Square
1.441a
2 .720
b
PERC_VUL
7.717
2 3.859
Intercept
PERC_SEV
47.057
1 47.057
PERC_VUL
9.716
1 9.716
CFC_TOTAL
PERC_SEV
.774
1 .774
PERC_VUL
7.006
1 7.006
.712
1 .712
PERC_VUL
.859
1 .859
Error
PERC_SEV
33.327
39 .855
PERC_VUL
75.891
39 1.946
Total
PERC_SEV
1751.250
42
PERC_VUL
1023.333
42
Corrected Total
PERC_SEV
34.768
41
PERC_VUL
83.608
41
Sig.
.843
1.983
55.068
4.993
.906
3.600
.834
.441
.438
.151
.000
.031
.347
.065
.367
.510
136
Similar to the previous experiment, a three way ANOVA was

conducted to analyse the effect of the independent variables and covariate on
perceived severity and perceived vulnerability. The results are shown in
Tables 6.21a and 6.21b. Unlike the mobile phone stimuli, the factors and the
covariate did not influence perceived severity or perceived vulnerability.
Table 6.21a Experiment 1: Tests of between-subjects effects (effect of
perceived severity)
Source
Type III
Mean
Sum of df
Square
Squares
Partial
Noncent. Observed
Sig. Eta
Parameter Powerb
Squared
Corrected Model
6.298a
6 1.050 1.291 .287
.181
7.743
.437
Intercept
15.534 1 15.534 19.097 .000
.353
19.097
.989
TIME_FACTOR
.084
.084
.103 .750
.003
.103
.061
GEOG_FACTOR
.608
.608
.747 .393
.021
.747
.134
CFC_TOTAL
1.295
1 1.295 1.591 .215
.043
1.591
.233
TIME_FACTOR
* CFC_TOTAL
.266
.266
.328 .571
.009
.328
.086
GEOG_FACTOR
* CFC_TOTAL
.321
.321
.395 .534
.011
.395
.094
TIME_FACTOR*
GEOG_FACTOR
* CFC_TOTAL
1.520
1 1.520 1.869 .180
.051
1.869
.265
Error
28.470 35 .813
Total
Corrected Total
1751.250 42
34.768 41

137
Table 6.21b Experiment 1: Tests of between-subjects effects (effect of

perceived vulnerability)
Dependent Variable: PERC_VUL
Source
Type III
Mean
Sum of df
Square
Squares
Partial
Noncent. Observed
Sig.
Eta
Parameter Powerb
Squared
11.303a
1.884
.912 .498
.135
5.471
.310
Intercept
5.637
5.637 2.729 .108
.072
2.729
.362
TIME_FACTOR
3.258
3.258 1.577 .218
.043
1.577
.231
GEOG_FACTOR
.017
.017
.008 .928
.000
.008
.051
CFC_TOTAL
2.046
2.046
.990 .327
.028
.990
.162
2.738
2.738 1.326 .257
.036
1.326
.201
GEOG_FACTOR
* CFC_TOTAL
.040
.040
.019 .890
.001
.019
.052
TIME_FACTOR *
GEOG_FACTOR
* CFC_TOTAL
.304
.304
.147 .703
.004
.147
.066
Corrected Model
TIME_FACTOR *
CFC_TOTAL
Error
72.305 35 2.066
Total
1023.333 42
Corrected Total
83.608 41

The following table (Table 6.22) summarizes the effects of the

manipulations on the PMT variables.
138
Table 6.22
Experiment 1: Summary of the hypotheses (H1 H4) -watch

stimulus
Hypothesis
Factor
Perceived
severity
Perceived
vulnerability
H1
Temporal proximity
H2
Geographical proximity
H3
Temporal proximity *
Geographical proximity
H4
CFC
X no effect
6.3.6.4
- Effect present
Hypotheses tests of the relationship among PMT variables,

involvement, attitudes and intentions
Standard simple or multiple linear regression (ordinary least
squares (OLS)) analysis was run to ascertain the relationship between the
PMT variables, involvement, attitudes and intention variables. Only one or
two predictors were considered at a time. Similarly assumptions regarding
multicollinearity, homoscedascity, linearity and normality of residuals were
met in all the scenarios
A multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well
the perceived severity and perceived vulnerability predicted fear and the
efficacy variables. Neither perceived severity nor perceived vulnerability
predicted the dependent variables. Therefore H9a, H9b and H9c were not
supported. The results are shown in Table 6.23a, 6.23b and 6.23c. It can
therefore be inferred that the perceived threat levels did not affect fear.
139
Table 6.23a Experiment 1: Hypothesis 9a: effect of threat appraisal

components on fear (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.280
R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

a
.079
.046
.90543
a. Predictors: (Constant), PERC_VUL, PERC_SEV

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
3.919
1.960
2.390
.101a
Residual
45.909
56
.820
Total
49.828
58
Model
1

b. Dependent Variable: FEAR
Table 6.23b Experiment 1: Hypothesis 9b: effect of threat appraisal

components on response efficacy (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.247

a
.061
.027
1.23681

ANOVAb
Model
1
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Regression 5.543
2.771
Residual
85.663
56
1.530
Total
91.205
58

b. Dependent Variable: RESP_EFFICACY
F
1.812
Sig.
.173a
140
Table 6.23c Experiment 1: Hypothesis 9c: effect of threat appraisal

components on self efficacy (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
.074a

0.005
-0.030
1.16446
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
.419
.210
Residual
75.935
56
1.356
Total
76.354
58
Sig.
.155
.857a

b. Dependent Variable: SELF_EFFICACY
Simple linear regression analyses was conducted to evaluate

how well fear and the other PMT variables (perceived severity, vulnerability,
response efficacy and self efficacy) predict message involvement. The results
are shown in the following tables (Tables 6.24a, 6.24b, 6.24c, 6.24d and
6.24e). It can be seen from Table 6.24b that perceived vulnerability predicts
message involvement ( =0.30 t(58)=2.43, p<0.05, R2=0.09). From Table
6.24d, it can be seen that response efficacy predicted message involvement
=0.30 t(58)=2.41, p<0.05, R2=0.09). Therefore only H10b and H10d were
supported. The other PMT variables did not have any effect on message
involvement. Hence only perceived vulnerability and response efficacy have
an effect on message involvement.
141
Table 6.24a Experiment 1: Hypothesis 10a: effect of perceived severity

on message involvement (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
.197
0.039
0.022
1.06258
a. Predictors: (Constant), PERC_SEV

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
2.596
2.596
2.299
.135a
Residual
64.357
57
1.129
Total
66.953
58
Model
1

b. Dependent Variable: MESSAGE_INVOLVEMENT
Table 6.24b Experiment 1: Hypothesis 10b: effect of perceived

vulnerability on message involvement (mobile phone
stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the

Estimate
.307a
0.094
0.078
1.03138
a. Predictors: (Constant), PERC_VUL

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
6.319
6.319
5.941
.018a
Residual
60.634
57
1.064
Total
66.953
58
Model
1

142

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
Model
1 (Constant)
PERC_VUL
Std. Error
3.602
.534
.269
.110
Sig.
Beta
6.743 .000
.307
2.437 .018
a. Dependent Variable: MESSAGE_INVOLVEMENT
Table 6.24c Experiment 1: Hypothesis 10c: effect of fear on message

involvement (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
.193a
R Square Adjusted R Square

0.037
Std. Error of the

Estimate
0.020
1.06344
a. Predictors: (Constant), FEAR

ANOVAb
Model
1
Sum of
df
Squares
Mean
Square
Regression 2.491
2.491
Residual
64.461
57
1.131
Total
66.953
58

F
2.203
Sig.
.143a
143
Table 6.24d Experiment 1: Hypothesis 10d: effect of response efficacy on

message involvement (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
.305a
0.093
0.077
1.032228
a. Predictors: (Constant), RESP_EFFICACY

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
6.214
6.214
5.831
.019a
Residual
60.739
57
1.066
Total
66.953
58
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1 (Constant)
RESP_EFFICACY
Std. Error
3.561
.555
.261
.108
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
Beta
6.415 .000
.305
2.415 .019
Table 6.24e Experiment 1: Hypothesis 10e: effect of self efficacy on

Model Summary
Model
1
R
.167

a
0.028
0.011
a. Predictors: (Constant), SELF_EFFICACY
1.06864
144
Table 6.24e (Continued)

ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
1.859
65.094
66.953
df
1
57
58
Mean
Square
1.859
Sig.
1.628
.207a
1.142

Simple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well

coping variables predicted attitude towards the ad and purchase intention. It
can be seen from Table 6.25a and Table 6.25c that response efficacy
significantly predicted attitude towards the ad ( =0.32 t(58)=2.550, p<0.05)
and purchase intention ( =0.297 t(58)=2.352, p<0.05 R2=0.08) while selfefficacy did not predict both the variables (Tables 6.25b and Table 6.25d).
Therefore H11a and H11c were supported and H11b and H11d were not
supported.
Table 6.25a Experiment 1: Hypothesis 11a: effect of response efficacy on
attitude towards ad (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.320

a
0.102
0.087
1.04128

ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
7.048
61.803
68.851
df
1
57
58

b. Dependent Variable: ATTITUDE_AD
Mean
Square
7.048
1.084
Sig.
6.500
.013a
145
Table 6.25a (Continued)

Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
Std. Error
(Constant)
3.858
.560
RESP_EFFICACY
.278
.109
Sig.
Beta
6.889 .000
.320
2.550 .013
a. Dependent Variable: ATTITUDE_AD
Table 6.25b Experiment 1: Hypothesis 11b: effect of self efficacy on

attitude towards ad (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
.126a

0.016
-0.001
1.09033
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Square
df
1.089
1.089
Residual
67.762
57
1.189
Total
68.851
58

F
.916
Sig.
.343a
146
Table 6.25c Experiment 1: Hypothesis 11c: effect of response efficacy on

purchase intention (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.297

a
0.088
0.072
1.66704

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
15.373
15.373
5.532
.022a
Residual
158.405
57
2.779
Total
173.778
58
Model
1

b. Dependent Variable: PURCHASE_INTENTION
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
1.954
RESP_EFFICACY .411
Standardized
Coefficients
Std.
Error
Sig.
Beta
.896
.175
.297
2.180
.033
2.352
.022
a. Dependent Variable: PURCHASE_INTENTION
Table 6.25d Hypothesis 11d: effect of self efficacy on purchase intention

(mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
.0.215a

0.46
0.030
Std. Error of the

Estimate
1.70519
147
Table 6.25d (Continued)

ANOVAb
Regression
Sum of
Squares
8.041
Residual
Total
165.737
173.778
Model
1
Mean
Square
8.041
df
1
57
58
Sig.
2.765
.102a
2.908

H12a was not supported as environmental knowledge predicted

perceived severity in the direction opposite to the one hypothesized. H12b and
H12c were not supported as simple regression analyses revealed that
environmental knowledge did not predict perceived vulnerability and fear.
Environmental knowledge did not predict message involvement and therefore
H12d was not supported. Tables 6.26a, 6.26b 6.26c, 6.26d illustrate the results.
Table 6.26a Experiment 1: Hypothesis 12a: effect of environmental
knowledge on perceived severity (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the

Estimate
.0.333a
0.111
0.095
0.70162
a. Predictors: (Constant), ENV_KNOW

ANOVAb
Model
1
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Regression
3.496
3.496
Residual
28.059
57
.492
Total
31.555
58

b. Dependent Variable: PERC_SEV
F
7.102
Sig.
.010a
148

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
Std.
Error
(Constant)
5.053
.338
ENV_KNOW
.108
.041
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
14.954
.000
2.665
.010
Beta
.333
a. Dependent Variable: PERC_SEV
Table 6.26b Experiment 1: Hypothesis 12b: effect of environmental

knowledge on perceived vulnerability (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the

Estimate
.0.033a
0.001
-0.016
1.23849
ANOVAb
Model
1
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Regression .096
.096
Residual
87.429
57
1.534
Total
87.525
58
F
.063
Sig.
.803a

b. Dependent Variable: PERC_VUL
The results show that environmental knowledge played no role in

influencing threat perception.
149
Table 6.26c Experiment 1: Hypothesis 12c: effect of environmental

knowledge on fear (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the

Estimate
.0.045a
0.002
-0.015
0.93401
ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
.103
.103
.118
.733a
Residual
49.725
57
.872
Total
49.828
58
Model
1
Regression

Table 6.26d Experiment 1: Hypothesis 12d: effect of environmental

knowledge on message involvement (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the

Estimate
.0.065a
0.004
-0.013
1.08150

ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
.283
.283
.242
.625a
66.670
57
1.170
66.953
58

150
Similar regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the

relationship among involvement variables and attitude towards ad.
Environmental concern was positively related to message involvement and
therefore H13a was supported ( =0.267, t(58)=2.055, p<0.05 R2=0.07).
However it did not predict attitude towards the ad and purchase intention.
Therefore H13b and H13c were not supported. The following tables (Tables
6.27a, 6.27b, 6.27c) show the regression results which clearly show that
environmental concern was related only to message involvement.
concern (enduring involvement with the environment) on
Model Summary
Model
1
R
0.267

a
0.071
0.054
1.01307
a. Predictors: (Constant), TOTAL_ENV_CONCERN

ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
4.336
56.447
60.784
Mean
Square
4.336
1.026
df
1
55
56
Sig.
4.225
.045a

Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
1 (Constant)
3.021
TOTAL_ENV_CONCERN .324
Std.
Error
Sig.
Beta
.934
.158
3.234 .002
.267
2.055 .045
151

attitude towards the ad (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
.0.119a
0.014
-0.004
1.09816

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
.947
.947
.785
.379a
Residual
66.328
55
1.206
Total
67.275
56
Model
1
Regression


purchase intention (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
0.012

a
0.000
-0.018
1.70730

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
.022
.022
.007
.932a
Residual
160.318
55
2.915
Total
160.339
56
Model
1
Regression
a. Predictors: (Constant), TOTAL_ENV_CONCERN b. Dependent Variable:

PURCHASE_INTENTION
152
H14 was supported as message involvement predicted attitude

towards ad ( =0.616, t(58)=5.902, p<0.001). Overall model fit was R2=0.359.
Table 6.28 shows the results.
Table 6.28
Experiment 1: Hypothesis 14: effect of message involvement

on attitude towards ad (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
1
0.616 a
0.359
0.368
0.86585
a. Predictors: (Constant), MESSAGE_INVOLVEMENT

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
26.118
26.118
34.838
.000a
Residual
42.733
57
.750
Total
68.851
58
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Model
1 (Constant)
MESSAGE_INVOLVEMENT
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
2.207
.527
.625
.106
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
Beta
4.190 .000
.616
5.902 .000
It can be seen from Tables 6.29 and 6.30 that H15 and H16 were
also supported as attitude towards the ad significantly predicted the attitude
towards the brand ( =0.58 t(58)=5.412, p<0.001, R2=0.33) and attitude
153
towards the brand significantly predicted the purchase intention ( =0.517,

t(58)=4.557, p<0.001, R2=0.267).
Table 6.29
Experiment 1: Hypothesis 15: effect of attitude towards ad

on attitude towards brand (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
0.583 a

0.339
0.328
0.91829
a. Predictors: (Constant), ATTITUDE_AD

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
24.703
24.703
29.295
.000a
Residual
48.065
57
.843
Total
72.768
58
Model
1

b. Dependent Variable: ATTITUDE_BRAND
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
1.905
.592
ATTITUDE_AD
.599
.111
a. Dependent Variable: ATTITUDE_BRAND
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
3.215
.002
5.412
.000
Beta
.583
154
Table 6.30
Experiment 1: Hypothesis 16: effect of attitude towards

brand on purchase intention (mobile phone stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
0.517

0.267
0.254
1.49485
a. Predictors: (Constant), ATTITUDE_BRAND

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
46.406
46.406
20.767
.000a
Residuals
127.372
57
2.235
Total
173.778
58
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
-.029
.905
ATTITUDE_BRAND
.799
.175
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
-.032
.975
4.557
.000
Beta
.517
The results of the hypothesis tests regarding the relationship

between PMT variables, involvement, attitudes and intentions for the mobile
phone stimuli are summarised in Table 6.31.
155
Table 6.31
Hypothesis
H9a
Experiment 1: Summary of hypotheses tests regarding

relationship between PMT variables, involvement, attitudes
and intentions (H9 H16) (mobile phone stimuli)
Predictor
Perceived
Severity and
Dependent
variable
R2
Adjusted Unstandardised Standardised

R2
coefficient B coefficient
Fear
Not
Significant
Response
Efficacy
Not
Significant
Self Efficacy
Not
Significant
Not
Significant
Perceived
vulnerability
H9b
Perceived
Severity and
Perceived
vulnerability
H9c
Perceived
Severity and
Perceived
vulnerability
H10a
Perceived
Severity
Message
Involvement
H10b
Perceived
Message
0.09 0.07
Involvement
Vulnerability
H10c
Fear
Message
Involvement
H10d
Response
Efficacy
Message
0.09 0.07
Involvement
H10e
Self Efficacy
Message
Involvement
H11a
Response
efficacy
Attitude
towards ad
H11b
Self Efficacy
Attitude
towards ad
H11c
Response
efficacy
Purchase
Intention
H11d
Self Efficacy
Purchase
Intention
H12a
Environmental Perceived
Severity
Knowledge
0.26
0.30*
Not
Significant
0.26
0.30*
Not
Significant
0.10 0.08
0.27
0.32*
Not
Significant
0.08 0.07
0.41
0.29*
Not
Significant
0.11 0.09
0.10
0.33*
156
Table 6.31 (Continued)
H12b
Vulnerability
Knowledge
Not
Significant
H12c
Environmental Fear
Knowledge
Not
Significant
H12d
Environmental Message
Involvement
Knowledge
Not
Significant
H13a
0.07 0.05
concern
Involvement
H13b
Environmental Attitude
concern
towards ad
Not
significant
H13c
Environmental Purchase
concern
Intention
Not
significant
H14
Message
Involvement
Attitude
towards ad
0.37 0.36
0.625
0.616***
H15
Attitude
towards ad
Attitude
towards
brand
0.33 0.32
0.59
0.58***
H16
Attitude
Purchase
towards brand Intention
0.26 0.25
0.79
0.51***
0.32
0.26*
***p <.001 **p <.01 *p <.05; n= 58
Watch stimuli
perceived severity and perceived vulnerability predicted fear and response
efficacy. Table 6.32a shows that H9a was not supported as the model was not
significant. H9b was partially supported as perceived vulnerability positively
influenced response efficacy ( =0.595 t(39)=4.099, p<0.001, R2 =0.309). H9c
was not tested because of the low reliability values for self efficacy. The
results of the regression analysis are shown below in Table 6.32b.
157

components on fear (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.153

a
0.023
-0.27
1.00674

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
.949
.474
.468
.630a
Residual
39.527
39
1.014
Total
40.476
41
Model
1
Regression


components on response efficacy (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
1
.556

a
0.309
0.273
1.05815

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
19.489
9.744
8.703
.001a
Residual
43.667
39
1.120
Total
63.156
41
Model
1

158

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
3.313
.002
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
3.854
1.163
PERC_SEV
-.180
.196
-.133
-.919
.364
PERC_VUL
.517
.126
.595
4.099
.000
a. Dependent Variable: RESP_EFFICACY
H10a was supported as perceived severity predicted message

involvement ( =0.37 t(39)=2.496, p<0.05, R2 = 0.367). H10b and H10d were
supported, as simple linear regression analyses revealed that among the PMT
variables only perceived vulnerability ( =0.54 t(39)=4.108, p<0.001, R2 =
0.29) and response efficacy ( =0.39 t(39)=2.717, p<0.05,R2 = 0.156)
significantly predicted message involvement. The results are shown in the
following tables (Tables 6.33a, 6.33b, 6.33c and 6.33d). H10e was not tested
because it involved self efficacy.
on message involvement (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.367

a
0.135
0.113
1.02271

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
6.518
6.518
6.232
.017a
Residual
41.837
40
1.046
Model
1
159

Model
Total
Sum of
Squares
df
48.355
41
Mean
Square
Sig.

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
2.077
.173
Sig.
Beta
1.120
PERC_SEV .433
.367
1.855
.071
2.496
.017

vulnerability on message involvement (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
1
.545

a
0.297
0.279
0.92206

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
14.348
14.348
16.876
.000a
Residual
34.008
40
.850
Total
48.355
41
Model
1

160

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
2.886
.101
Sig.
Beta
.498
PERC_VUL .414
.545
5.798
.000
4.108
.000

involvement (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
1
.248a
0.061
0.038
1.06524

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
Model
1
Mean
Square
df
Regression 2.966
2.966
Residual
45.389
40
1.135
Total
48.355
41
F
2.614
Sig.
.114a


message involvement (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
1
.395

a
0.156
0.135
1.01021
161

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
7.534
7.534
7.383
.010a
Residual
40.821
40
1.021
Total
48.355
41
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1
Std. Error
(Constant)
3.066
.673
RESP_EFFICACY
.345
.127
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
4.556
.000
2.717
.010
Beta
.395
Results of the simple regression analysis revealed the effect of

response efficacy on attitude towards the ad and purchase intention. The
model was not significant. Table 6.34a and 6.34b show that H11a and H11c
were not supported as response efficacy did not predict attitude towards the ad
and purchase intention.
attitude towards ad (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
1
.200a

0.040
0.016
1.01291
162
ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
Model
1
Mean
Square
df
Regression 1.714
1.714
Residual
41.040
40
1.026
Total
42.754
41
F
1.671
Sig.
.204a

Table 6.34b Experiment 1: Hypothesis 11c: effect of response efficacy on

purchase intention (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
1
.266

a
0.071
0.047
1.50427
ANOVAb
Model
1
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Regression 6.865
6.865
Residual
90.513
40
2.263
Total
97.378
41
F
3.034
Sig.
.089a

H12a, H12b, H12c and H12d were not supported environmental

knowledge did not predict the hypothesized dependent variables. Tables 6.35a,
6.35b 6.35c, 6.35d illustrate the results.
163

knowledge on perceived severity (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
a
1
.0.247
0.061
0.038
0.90330
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Sum of
Squares
2.130
32.638
Mean
Square
2.130
40
.816
df
Sig.
2.610
.114a
Total
34.768
41
Table 6.35b Experiment 1: Hypothesis 12a: effect of environmental

knowledge on perceived vulnerability (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
a
1
.0.219 0.048
0.024
1.41063
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
4.014
79.595
83.608
df
1
40
41

Mean
Square
4.014
1.990
Sig.
2.017
.163a
164
Table 6.35c Experiment 1: Hypothesis 12a: effect of environmental

knowledge on fear (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
0.123

a
0.015
-0.10
0.99834

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
.609
.609
.611
.439a
Residual
39.867
40
.997
Total
40.476
41
Model
1
Regression

Table 6.35d Experiment 1: Hypothesis 12b: effect of environmental

knowledge on message involvement (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1

a
.0.010
0.000
-0.025
1.09944

ANOVAb
Model
1
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Regression .005
.005
Residual
48.350
40
1.209
Total
48.355
41

F
.004
Sig.
.950a
165
Simple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate if

involvement predicted attitude towards ad. It can be seen from Tables 6.36a,
6.36b, 6.36c that the regression model was not significant. Unlike the
previous experiment with mobile stimuli, environmental concern was not
related to message involvement, attitude towards ad or purchases intentions.
Therefore H13a, H13b and H13c were not supported.
Model Summary
Model
0.227 a 0.051
0.028
1.07086

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
2.485
2.485
2.167
.149a
Residual
45.870
40
1.147
Total
48.355
41
Model
1


attitude towards the ad (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
.0.157a 0.025
0.000
1.02015
166

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
1.052
1.052
1.009
.321a
Residual
41.702
40
1.043
Total
42.754
41
Model
1


Model Summary
Model
1
R
0.233

a
0.054
0.031
1.51735

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
5.284
5.284
2.295
.138a
Residual
92.094
40
2.302
Total
97.378
41
Model
1

H14 was supported as message involvement significantly predicted

attitude towards ad ( =0.716, t(39)=6.482, p<0.001). Model fit was good as
R2=0.51. Table 6.37 shows the results.
167
Table 6.37

on attitude towards ad (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
0.716

a
0.512
0.500
0.72201

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
21.902
21.902
42.015
.000a
Residual
20.852
40
.521
Total
42.754
41
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Model
1 (Constant)
MESSAGE_INVOLVEMENT
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
2.096
.515
.673
.104
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
Beta
4.068 .000
.716
6.482 .000
H15 and H16 were also supported as attitude towards the ad

significantly predicted the attitude towards the brand ( =0.709, t(39)=6.367,
p<0.001, R2=0.50) and attitude towards the brand significantly predicted the
purchase intention ( =0.744, t(39)=7.037, p<0.001, R2=0.55). Tables 6.38 and
6.39 show the regression results for H15 and H16.
168
Table 6.38

on attitude towards brand (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
0.709

a
0.503
0.491
0.90473

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
33.185
33.185
40.542
.000a
Residual
32.741
40
.819
Total
65.926
41
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1
Std. Error
(Constant)
.503
.754
ATTITUDE_AD
.881
.138
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
.666
.509
6.367
.000
Beta
.709
Table 6.39

brand on purchase intention (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
1
0.744

a
0.553
0.542
1.04296
169

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
Model
1
Mean
Square
df
Regression
53.868
53.868
Residual
43.511
40
1.088
Total
97.378
41
F
49.521
Sig.
.000a

Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
1 (Constant)
ATTITUDE_BRAND
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
.097
.690
.904
.128
Sig.
Beta
.141
.744
.889
7.037 .000
Table 6.40 shows the summary of the results regarding the

relationship between the PMT variable, involvement, attitudes and purchase
intention for the watch stimuli.
Table 6.40
Hypothesis
H9a

and intentions (H9 H16) (watch stimuli)
Predictor
Perceived
Severity and
Dependent
variable
R2

R2
Fear
Not
Significant
Response
Efficacy
Not
Significant
Perceived
vulnerability
H9a
Perceived
Severity and
Perceived
vulnerability
170

Hypothesis
H9c
H10a
Predictor
Perceived
Severity and
Perceived
vulnerability
Perceived
Severity
Perceived
Vulnerability
Fear
Dependent
variable
Self Efficacy
R2

R2
Not Tested
Message
0.135 0.113
Involvement
H10b
Message
0.29 0.27
Involvement
H10c
Message
Involvement
H10d
Response
Message
0.15 0.14
Efficacy
Involvement
H10e
Self Efficacy Message
Involvement
H11a
Response
Attitude
efficacy
towards ad
H11b
Self Efficacy Attitude
towards ad
H11c
Response
Purchase
efficacy
Intention
H11d
Self Efficacy Purchase
Intention
H12a
Knowledge
Severity
H12a
Knowledge
Vulnerability
H12a
Environmental Fear
Knowledge
H12b
Knowledge
Involvement
H13a
concern
Involvement
H13b
concern
towards ad
H13c
concern
Intention
H14
Message
Attitude
0.51 0.50
Involvement towards ad
H15
Attitude
Attitude
0.50 0.49
towards ad
towards
brand
H16
Attitude
Purchase
0.55 0.54
***p <.001 **p <.01 *p <.05; n= 41
0.433
0.367*
0.41
0.54***
0.345
Not
Significant
0.39*
Not tested
Not
Significant
Not tested
Not
Significant
Not tested
0.673
Not
Significant
Not
Significant
Not
Significant
Not
Significant
Not
Significant
Not
significant
Not
significant
0.716***
0.88
0.70***
0.90
0.74***
171
6.3.7
Conclusions from Experiment 1

This experiment examined the effects of temporal and geographical
framing of threat on PMT variables and the subsequent effects of the PMT
variables on message involvement, attitudes and purchase intention.
Although the hypothesized relationship regarding the main effects were not
significant, it was seen that temporal proximity of the threat had a significant
effect on perceived severity in the case of mobile phone stimuli. This finding
supports current research that argue that threats in day terms are considered
more closer that those that are presented in year terms (Chandran & Menon
2004). It also shows that the self-positivity bias is reduced (Gilovich et al
1993; Raghubir & Menon 1998) as people find a temporally closer threat
relevant. However this effect was not observed with the watch stimuli. This
could be because plastic waste pollution was viewed as a severe threat by
most participants as the mean value of perceived severity was very high
(6.39) when compared to the problem of e-waste (5.9). Plastic waste can be a
more familiar issue in India as the consumer encounters regular mandatory
governmental instructions and news articles on this issue. Hence for a familiar
issue, perceived severity is rated high when compared to an unfamiliar issue
like e-waste. This difference in the arousal of fear based on issue familiarity
has been discussed by Pelsmacker et al (2011). However, only perceived
severity was viewed differently in this experiment. In a similar vein,
Obermiller (1995) also found that different appeals worked for familiar and
unfamiliar issues. The reported perceived vulnerability and fear were almost
similar in both the cases. This could be again because of issue familiarity as
the watch stimulus highlights the threat of plastic waste. Therefore consumers
are more aware of the issue of plastic waste when compared to e-waste. Of
late, the government of India mandates the pricing of plastic bags that are
used to packing the goods sold by a number of retail stores. The stores also
prominently display statutory messages advocating the reduction of plastic.
172
Therefore, for a familiar issue, perceived severity and perceived vulnerability

could have had a greater impact when compared to an unfamiliar issue like ewaste disposal.
The hypothesized effect of CFC was not supported. However, in
the case of mobile phone stimulus, CFC interacted with the factors to produce
significant effects on perceived severity and perceived vulnerability. This
finding supports existing literature that consumers perception of risk varied
based on their temporal orientation (Orbell et al 2004 & Orbell & Hagger
2006; Morison et al 2010). There were no statistically significant interaction
effects of temporal proximity and geographical proximity of the threat on the
PMT variables for both the watch and mobile phone stimuli. Most participants
exhibited high levels of perceived severity, vulnerability and fear towards
environmental threats.
In both the cases, perceived vulnerability and response efficacy
significantly predicted message involvement. This is similar to the finding by
Cauberghe et al (2009). Response efficacy is a variable that is linked to
Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) and is shown to be related to
consumers environmental behaviour (Gilg et al 2005).
Unlike previous studies environmental knowledge did not predict
severity or fear as hypothesized. In the case of watch stimuli, environmental
knowledge predicted perceived severity in the positive direction contrary to
the hypothesized nature of the relationship, but in the case of mobile phone
stimuli environmental knowledge did not have any effect.
Most significantly, environmental concern did not have any effect
on attitudes, message involvement or purchase intention. This is in direct
contrast to the propositions put forward by the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo 1986).
Issue involvement is supposed to activate message elaboration and therefore
173
increase involvement with the message (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy 1990).

However consumers who reported high environmental concern (issue
involvement) did not exhibit this behaviour. This highlights the fact that better
measures are needed to assess environmental concern or enduring
involvement with the environment. Most respondents probably report
environmental concern as a socially desirable response (Bord et al 1998;
Ewert & Baker 2001; Ewert & Galloway 2009) and hence the results did not
support the related hypothesis.
Attitude towards the advertisement significantly predicted attitude
towards the brand and attitude towards the brand significantly predicted
purchase intentions in both the scenarios. This is in congruence with the dual
mediation hypothesis that states that attitude related cognitions affect the
attitude towards the ad, brand and in turn behaviour related to purchase
intentions (MacKenzie et al 1986; Teng et al 2007). The results support the
findings from most advertising studies that show that attitude towards
advertising has a strong influence on attitude towards the brand under high
involvement conditions (Gardner 1985; Park & Young 1986; Muehling &
Laczniak 1988).
This experiment showed that response efficacy and perceived
vulnerability
greatly
increased
message
involvement
and
message
involvement subsequently influenced attitudes and intentions. However

perceived severity and vulnerability did not cause fear arousal in both the
scenarios. Therefore it is necessary to investigate if fear arousal can be
obtained using a different message frame. Hence, study 2 was conducted
using goal frames and threat level as factors to increase the success of the
manipulations. Although it is not essential to conduct the two studies (study1
and study2) sequentially, they were conducted one after another in this
research to examine the effect of the framing manipulations.
174
6.4
STUDY 2: EXPERIMENT 2: THREAT LEVELS AND GOAL

FRAMING (WATCH STIMULI)
Experiment 2 was designed to use threat levels and goal frames to
influence the PMT variables. Plastic waste seemed to generate higher levels
of scores for the threat appraisal variables in the previous study. Therefore the
experiment was conducted with wristwatch as the chosen product. The
advertisements were designed for this product (Ad3). The results of this
experiment were used to design the stimuli for the next experiment.
6.4.1
Experimental Design
A 2 (threat level: high vs. low) x 2 (goal frame: loss vs. gain)
between subjects experimental design was utilized to investigate the

hypotheses. This resulted in four possible combinations of the stimuli. Sixty
nine postgraduate M.E. students from a large South Indian University (95.7 %
male, median age=22) were randomly assigned to the four possible conditions
for the watch stimuli.
The experimental procedure was the same as Experiment 1. Data
collection was through a paper and pencil questionnaire. Students first filled
the questionnaire (Q3) containing dependent variables (Appendix 5). Next,
they were asked to answer the filler task which asked them to list the reason
why they liked their favourite celebrity similar to Experiment 1. On
completion, they filled counterbalanced questionnaires on environmental
concern and objective environmental knowledge. This was similar to the
questions in Experiment 1. The personality variable CFC was not included in
this questionnaire as it was related only to temporal framing.
175
6.4.2
Stimuli
cells: high threat level and loss frame, high threat level and gain frame, low
threat level and loss frame and low threat level and gain frame. The
advertisements also listed the environment friendly features of the watch.
In the low threat conditions, the advertisement highlighted the fact
that burning plastic waste may cause various health problems. In the high
threat condition, the threat was specific and vivid language was used to
indicate that toxins from burning waste may cause cancer or respiratory
problems. The loss frame mentioned that choosing plastic products will
accelerate air pollution and increase the chances of health hazards caused by
pollution. The gain frame emphasized that by choosing a green product one
can slow down air pollution and reduce the chances of health hazards caused
by pollution. The watch advertisement contained further details about its
biodegradability.
6.4.3
Treatment Validity
The four print advertisements were analyzed by an expert panel to
assess if it contained the necessary variations in the threat level and message
frames. This panel consisted of 3 marketing professors. The changes
suggested by the panel were made and the final versions of the advertisements
are shown in Appendix 6 (Figure A6.1, Figure A6.2, Figure A6.3, and Figure
A6.4).
6.4.4
Manipulation Checks
Two questions were included in the questionnaire to check the
manipulations. Threat level manipulations were checked by including a
176
multiple response question: What health problems did the advertisement

highlight? Choose only one answer. The options were (1) Diseases (2)
Cancer (3) Respiratory problems (4) Cancer and respiratory problems. Frame
manipulations were checked asking the respondents to rate the following
questions: I can gain health benefits by buying biodegradable products, I
can lose important health benefits if I dont buy biodegradable products. The
response to these items was measured using seven point Likert scales
anchored from 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree.
6.4.5
Modified Dependent Variables

The study used the same dependent variables as Experiment 1.
However some of the PMT variables were modified to improve their

reliabilities. Perceived severity and self-efficacy variables were modified as
the reliabilities were low in Experiment1. Response efficacy and perceived
vulnerability were also changed to reflect the changes in the independent
factors. The variables were now adapted from the risk behaviour diagnosis
scale (Witte et al 1996), as this scale is widely used in measuring risks
associated with health messages. Apart from these changes, since the threat
levels varied in the advertisements, efficacy variables were changed to
measure generic diseases rather than specifying particular diseases like
respiratory diseases and cancer. The changed variables are described below
and the entire questionnaire (Q3) is shown in Appendix 5.
Perceived severity
Perceived severity was measured using a three item seven point
asked to indicate their responses on the following statements: I believe that
plastic waste pollution is a serious threat to human health, I believe that
177
plastic waste disposal may cause severe health issues., I believe that plastic
waste pollution is extremely harmful.
the participants perceived susceptibility to the threat. Participants were asked
to indicate their responses on the following statements. It is possible that I
might get affected by diseases caused by plastic waste pollution., It is
probable that I will suffer from various diseases caused by plastic waste
pollution., I am at risk for getting health problems caused by plastic waste
pollution. These items were collapsed into a single perceived vulnerability
score.
Response efficacy
Response efficacy was measured using a three item seven point
scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree to determine
whether participants believed if purchasing biodegradable products averted
the threat. Participants rated their responses on the following statements:
Purchasing biodegradable products is a highly effective way of preventing
diseases due to plastic pollution, Buying biodegradable products will
significantly lower my risk of being affected by diseases caused by plastic
pollution, Buying biodegradable products is an effective method of
reducing threats caused by plastic pollution to human health. These items
were combined into a single response efficacy score.
178
Self efficacy
Self efficacy was measured using a three item seven point scales
where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree to determine whether
participants believed if they were capable of averting the threat. Participants
rated their responses on the following statements: I am capable of identifying
and purchasing biodegradable products, I can easily switch over to
biodegradable products to prevent future health problems, It is not difficult
for me to check if products contain plastic or not.
6.4.6
Results of Experiment 2 - Threat Levels and Goal Framing

This study was conducted with the watch stimuli to evaluate the
effect of different threat levels (low/high) and goal frames (gain vs. loss) on
the PMT variables. The effect of PMT variables on involvement and the
subsequent influence of involvement on attitudes and purchase intention were
also evaluated.
6.4.6.1
Manipulation checks
If the participant under high threat condition chose any other
answer, apart from the generic diseases, the manipulation was considered
successful. A chi-square test, comparing the observed frequencies of cases
with the correct evaluation of the threat with the expected frequencies,
revealed that the threat manipulation was successful only in the high threat
condition. The results can be seen in Table 6.41 below. The threat condition
that was assigned to them was correctly identified by 94.2% of the
participants in the high threat condition. This showed that the manipulation
worked for the high threat condition. Even under low threat condition
179
participants viewed the threat as high (64.7% of them viewed the threat as
high).
Table 6.41 Experiment 2: Manipulation check for threat levels
Threat_level * MC_THREAT Crosstabulation
Count
Threat_level
high
low
Total
Value
Pearson ChiSquare
5.515a
MC_THREAT
Cancer and Resp
Generic
31
4
22
53
12
16
Total
35
34
69
Chi-Square Tests
df Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1sided)
sided)
sided)
1
.019
Continuity
4.256
1
.039
Correctionb
Likelihood Ratio
5.707
1
.017
Fisher's Exact
.024
.019
Test
N of Valid Cases
69
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
7.88. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
The frame manipulation was not successful as there was no

significant main effect of the frame manipulation (loss vs. gain) in both the
conditions (Table 6.42).
Similar to Experiment 1, unsuccessful manipulation checks were
not of great concern and did not indicate that the manipulation of the
independent variable failed (Sigall & Mills 1998). Hence further analyses
were conducted.
180
Table 6.42 Experiment 2: Manipulation check for frame type

ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F
MC_GAIN Between Groups 1.503
1 1.503
.535
Within Groups 188.265
Total
189.768
MC_LOSS Between Groups 4.304
67 2.810
68
1 4.304
Within Groups
Total
67 1.915
68
6.4.6.2
128.333
132.638
Sig.
.467
2.247 .139
Scale reliability
The internal consistency of the scales was assessed using Cronbach
. The Table 6.43 below shows the reliability scores.

Table 6.43 Experiment 2: Reliability scores using watch stimulus
Construct
Cronbach
Perceived severity
0.84
0.71
Response Efficacy
0.64
Self Efficacy
0.56
Message involvement
0.80
Fear
0.92
Attitude towards ad
0.86
0.91
Purchase intention
0.91
0.78
All the variables except self-efficacy had reliability scores exceeding 0.6.
Self-efficacy also has adequate reliability in this case. The results suggest that
181
the instrument was reasonably reliable. The scale reliability for perceived
severity increased with the revision.
6.4.6.3

variables
Tables 6.44 and 6.45 show the distribution characteristics and the
group wise means of the protection motivation variables. It can be seen that
the average values for perceived severity and perceived vulnerability are high
and closer to the maximum score. The group-wise means also show that there
are not much variations in the scores across the groups.
Table 6.44

motivation variables (watch stimuli)
PERC_SEV
1.00
7.00
6.22
1.00
PERC_VUL
2.33
7.00
5.31
1.20
RESP_EFFICACY
3.33
7.00
5.92
0.82
SELF_EFFICACY
2.00
6.67
4.88
1.26
FEAR
1.00
7.00
4.34
1.60
Table 6.45

motivation variables for the (watch stimuli)
Self
Perceived
Severity
Perceived
Vulnerability
Response
Efficacy
Efficacy
Threat level: High
6.25
5.32
5.90
4.91
4.25
Threat level: Low
6.17
5.29
5.94
4.85
4.42
Goal frame: Gain
6.27
5.43
6.07
5.06
4.49
Goal frame: Loss
6.16
5.19
5.78
4.72
4.20
Factor
Fear
182
To test the hypotheses regarding the effect of manipulations on the

PMT variables, MANOVA was conducted to test the hypotheses. Hypothesis
5 stated that participants who viewed advertisements with higher threats
levels would report higher severity and vulnerability when compared to
consumers who viewed weaker threats. A one-way MANOVA was conducted
to test this hypothesis. The one-way MANOVA results were: Pillais
Root = 0.002, F(2,66)=0.057, p > 0.05) (Table 6.46a). The results indicate
that there was no statistically significant difference in severity and
vulnerability based on threat levels and hence Table 6.46b was not further
interpreted. Therefore hypothesis 5 (H5) was not supported.
stimuli)
Multivariate Testsb
Effect
Intercept
Value
.977 1387.169a
2.000
66.000 .000
.023 1387.169
2.000
66.000 .000
42.035 1387.16 a
2.000
66.000 .000
Roy's Largest Root 42.035 1387.16 9a
2.000
66.000 .000
Pillai's Trace
Wilks' Lambda
Hotelling's Trace
Threat_level Pillai's Trace

Wilks' Lambda
Hotelling's Trace
.002
.057a
2.000
66.000 .945
.998
2.000
66.000 .945
2.000
66.000 .945
2.000
66.000 .945
.002

a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept + Threat_level
.057
.057
.057
183

(watch stimuli)
Dependent
Variable
Type III Sum

of Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Corrected
Model
PERC_SEV
.112a
.112
.111
.740
PERC_VUL
.015
.015
.010
.919
Intercept
PERC_SEV
2666.199
2666.199
2641.484 .000
PERC_VUL
1944.363
1944.363
1340.709 .000
PERC_SEV
.112
.112
.111
.740
PERC_VUL
.015
.015
.010
.919
PERC_SEV
67.627
67
1.009
PERC_VUL
97.167
67
1.450
PERC_SEV
2735.000
69
PERC_VUL
2042.111
69
PERC_SEV
67.739
68
Source
Threat_level
Error
Total
Corrected
Total

The results also indicate that there was no statistically significant

difference in severity and vulnerability based on frame type (Pillais
Root = 0.010, F(2,66)=0.341, p > 0.05). Therefore hypothesis 6 (H6) was not
supported. The following tables (Tables 6.47a and 6.47b) show the results.
Table 6.47a Experiment 2: Hypothesis 6:
stimuli)
multivariate tests (watch
Multivariate Testsb
Effect
Intercept Pillai's Trace
Wilks' Lambda
Hypothesis Error
df
df
Value
.977
1392.001a
2.000
66.000
.000
.023
2.000
66.000
.000
1392.001
Sig.
184

Effect
Hypothesis
df
a
42.182 1392.001
2.000
a
42.182 1392.001
2.000
a
.010
.341
2.000
a
.990
.341
2.000
a
.010
.341
2.000
a
.010
.341
2.000
Value
Hotelling's Trace
Roy's Largest Root
frame
Pillai's Trace
Wilks' Lambda
Hotelling's Trace
Roy's Largest Root
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept + frame
Error
df
66.000
66.000
66.000
66.000
66.000
66.000
Sig.
.000
.000
.712
.712
.712
.712

(watch stimuli)
Source
Dependent
Variable
Type III Sum of

df
Squares
Mean
Square
Sig.
Corrected
Model
PERC_SEV
.194a
.194
.192
.663
PERC_VUL
.991
.991
.690
.409
Intercept
PERC_SEV
2664.194
2664.194 2642.679 .000
PERC_VUL
1945.068
1945.068 1354.799 .000
PERC_SEV
.194
.194
.192
.663
PERC_VUL
.991
.991
.690
.409
PERC_SEV
67.545
67
1.008
PERC_VUL
96.191
67
1.436
PERC_SEV
2735.000
69
PERC_VUL
2042.111
69
PERC_SEV
67.739
68
PERC_VUL
97.182
68
frame
Error
Total
Corrected
Total

It can be seen from Tables 6.48a and 6.48b that the proposed
interaction between threat levels and frames was also not supported (Pillais
185

Root = 0.086 (F2,64)=2.539, p>0.05). Therefore hypothesis 7 (H7) was not
supported.
stimuli)
Multivariate Testsb
Effect
Intercept
Pillai's Trace
Wilks' Lambda
frame
64.000 .000
Hotelling's Trace 43.124 1379.959a 2.000
64.000 .000
Roy's Largest
Root
43.124 1379.959a 2.000
64.000 .000
Pillai's Trace
.010
.325a
2.000
64.000 .724
.990
.325
2.000
64.000 .724
Hotelling's Trace .010
.325
2.000
64.000 .724
Roy's Largest
Root
.010
.325a
2.000
64.000 .724
Pillai's Trace
.002
.061a
2.000
64.000 .941
.998
.061
2.000
64.000 .941
.061
2.000
64.000 .941
Roy's Largest
Root
.002
.061a
2.000
64.000 .941
Pillai's Trace
.074
2.539a
2.000
64.000 .087
.926
2.000
64.000 .087
2.539
2.000
64.000 .087
Roy's Largest
Root
2.539a
2.000
64.000 .087
Wilks' Lambda
.023
1379.959a 2.000
Error
Sig.
df
64.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda
frame *
Threat_level
.977
Hypothesis
df
1379.959 2.000
Wilks' Lambda
Threat_level
Value
.079
2.539
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept + frame + Threat_level + frame * Threat_level
186
From Table 6.48b it could be seen that the interaction of the independent
factors had an effect on perceived vulnerability. Hence a followup ANOVA
revealed this effect. The ANOVA results are shown in Table 6.48c. Figure
6.2 shows that gain frames and high levels of threat produced higher
vulnerability scores. Under loss frame conditions, low threat produced higher
scores of perceived vulnerability.
Table 6.48b Experiment 2: Hypothesis 7:
stimuli)

Dependent
Variable
Type III Sum

of Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Corrected
Model
PERC_SEV
.743a
.248
.240
.868
PERC_VUL
7.784
2.595
1.886
.141
Intercept
PERC_SEV
2661.319
2661.319
2582.032 .000
PERC_VUL
1940.361
1940.361
1410.803 .000
PERC_SEV
.180
.180
.175
.677
PERC_VUL
.907
.907
.659
.420
PERC_SEV
.128
.128
.124
.726
PERC_VUL
.050
.050
.036
.850
frame *
Threat_level
PERC_SEV
.442
.442
.428
.515
PERC_VUL
6.781
6.781
4.930
.030
Error
PERC_SEV
66.996
65
1.031
PERC_VUL
89.398
65
1.375
PERC_SEV
2735.000
69
PERC_VUL
2042.111
69
PERC_SEV
67.739
68
PERC_VUL
97.182
68
Source
Frame
Threat_level
Total
Corrected
Total

187
Table 6.48c Experiment 2: Hypothesis 7: interaction effect of goal

frames and threat levels on perceived vulnerability
Dependent Variable:PERC_VUL
Source
Corrected
Model
Intercept
Type III
Mean
Sum of df
Square
Squares
Partial
Noncent. Observed
Eta
Parameter Powerb
Squared
Sig.
1.886
.141
.080
5.659
.467
1940.361 1 1940.361 1410.803 .000
.956
1410.803
1.000
7.784a
2.595
Threat_level
.050
.050
.036
.850
.001
.036
.054
frame
Threat_level
* frame
.907
.907
.659
.420
.010
.659
.126
6.781
6.781
4.930
.030
.071
4.930
.590
89.398
65
1.375
Error
Total
2042.111 69
Corrected
97.182 68
Total
a. R Squared = .080 (Adjusted R Squared = .038) b. Computed using alpha = .05
Figure 6.2
Experiment 2 effect of threat levels and goal on perceived

vulnerability
188
In order to examine H8a regression analyses was done with three

predictors: framing, environmental concern and an interaction term of these
variables with purchase intention as the dependent variable. Framing was
dummy coded with the loss-frame message condition allocated a value of 0
and the gain-frame message condition a value of 1.
The interaction terms were calculated as a product of frame type
and environmental concern (frame x environmental concern). The hypothesis
was not supported as the interaction between the variables did not predict
purchase intention. Since the model was significant, a follow up stepwise
regression revealed that only environmental concern predicted purchase
intention. Table 6.49a shows this interaction.
Table 6.49a Experiment 2: Hypothesis 8a: interaction of frame and
environmental concern on purchase intention (watch
stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the

Estimate
.0.444a
0.197
0.147
1.25387
a. Predictors: (Constant), TOTAL_ENV_CONCERN, FRAME_CODED,

ENV_CONC_X_FRAME
ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
21.394
7.131
4.461
.007a
Residual
103.901
65
1.598
Total
125.295
68
Model
1

ENV_CONC_X_FRAME
189

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Model
B
1 (Constant)
Std.
Error
Sig.
-.146
.884
Beta
-.688
4.717
FRAME_CODED
.127
3.294
.047
.039
.969
ENV_CONC_X_FRAME
.007
.523
.018
.014
.989
.750
.401
1.181 .242
Similarly H8b was also not supported as message involvement did

not interact with frame type to produce an effect on purchase intentions.
Table 6.49b shows this interaction. Since the model was significant, a follow
up stepwise regression revealed that only message involvement significantly
predicted purchase intention.
Table 6.49b Experiment 2: Hypothesis 8b: interaction of frame and
message involvement on purchase intention (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.0.515a
R Square
Adjusted R Square
0.266
0.232
Std. Error of the

Estimate
1.18986
Predictors: (Constant), MESS_INV_X_FRAME, MESSAGE_INVOLVEMENT,

FRAME_CODED
190

ANOVAb
Model
1
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Square
df
Regression 33.270
11.090
Residual
92.025
65
1.416
Total
125.295
68
F
7.833
Sig.
.000a
a. Predictors: (Constant), MESS_INV_X_FRAME,

MESSAGE_INVOLVEMENT, FRAME_CODED
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
Std. Error
3.679
2.110
-1.331
1.470
-.493
-.905 .369
MESSAGE_INVOLVEMENT
.254
.400
.204
.634 .528
MESS_INV_X_FRAME
.270
.276
.637
.979 .331
1 (Constant)
FRAME_CODED
Beta
1.744 .086
H8c was not tested as the sample consisted of mostly male subjects
(95.7%). Therefore gender based variations could not be investigated.
The summary of results is shown in Table 6.50. The table clearly
highlights the fact that the factors were not successful in producing the
hypothesized main effects or interaction effects.
191
Table 6.50
Experiment 2: Summary of the effect of manipulations on

PMT variables with the watch stimulus
Hypothesis
Factor
Perceived
severity
Perceived
vulnerability
H5
Threat level
H6
Goal frame
H7
Threat level * Goal Frame
Purchase
Intention
H8a
Environmental concern *
Goal Frame
H8b
Message Involvement * Goal

Frame
6.4.6.4

involvement, attitudes and intentions
Similar to Experiment 1, standard simple or multiple linear
regression (ordinary least squares (OLS)) analyses were run to ascertain the
effect of the predictor variables. Only one or two predictors were considered
at
time.
Similarly
assumptions
regarding
like
multicollinearity,
homoscedascity and linearity were met in all the scenarios.

perceived severity and perceived vulnerability predicted fear. H9a was
supported as both perceived severity ( =0.318, t(66)=2.622, p<0.05) and
perceived vulnerability ( =0.273, t(66)=2.254, p<0.05) significantly predicted
fear. The model fit was also good (R2=0.261).
192
Perceived severity also predicted both the efficacy variables.

Tables 6.51a, 6.51b and 6.51c show the regression results.
components on fear (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
.510a

0.261
0.238
1.39272

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
45.110
22.555
11.628
.000a
Residual
128.018
66
1.940
Total
173.128
68
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
B
1
Std. Error
(Constant)
-.755
1.099
PERC_SEV
.508
.194
PERC_VUL .365
.162
a. Dependent Variable: FEAR
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
Beta
-.687
.495
.318
2.622
.011
.273
2.254
.028
193

components on response efficacy (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
1
.382

a
0.146
0.120
0.77197

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
6.700
3.350
5.621
.006a
Residual
39.332
66
.596
Total
46.032
68
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Model
1
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
6.497
.000
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
3.959
.609
PERC_SEV
.196
.107
.237
1.821
.073
PERC_VUL
.141
.090
.205
1.569
.121
From Table 6.51b it can be seen that although the model was
significant, the predictors were not significant. Hence H9b was not supported.
A stepwise regression was conducted to evaluate which one of the variables
contributed to the model. The results showed that perceived severity alone
predicted response efficacy as shown in Table 6.51 b1 (R2=0.114 =0.337,
t(66)=2.931, p<0.01).
194
Table 6.51b1 Experiment 2: Effect of threat appraisal components on

response efficacy (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.337

a
0.114
0.100
0.78036

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
5.232
5.232
8.592
.005a
Residual
40.800
67
.609
Total
46.032
68
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Model
1
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
(Constant)
4.195
.597
PERC_SEV
.278
.095
Sig.
7.027
.000
2.931
.005
Beta
.337

Excluded Variablesb
Model
1
PERC_VUL
Beta In
.205
t
1.569
Sig.
.121
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), PERC_SEV

Partial
Correlation
.190
Collinearity
Statistics
Tolerance
.762
195
The results showed that perceived severity alone signficantly

predicts self efficacy as shown in Table 6.51c (R2=0.090
=0.331,
t(66)=2.459, p<0.01). Hence H9c was not supported.

Table 6.51c Experiment 2: Hypothesis 9c: effect of threat appraisal
components on self efficacy (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
.300a

0.090
0.062
1.22004

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
9.721
4.861
3.265
.044a
Residual
98.240
66
1.488
Total
107.961
68
Model
1

b. Dependent Variable: SELF_EFFICACY
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
2.734
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
Sig.
Beta
.963
2.839
.006
PERC_SEV .418
.170
.331
2.459
.017
PERC_VUL
.142
-.080
-.593
.555
-.084
a. Dependent Variable: SELF_EFFICACY
Simple regression analyses were run with each of the PMT

variables and each one of them except self-efficacy significantly predicted
message
involvement.
Perceived
severity
( =0.261
t(67)=2.213,
196
p<0.05,R2=0.06),
perceived
vulnerability
( =0.334
t(67)=2.898,
p<0.001,R2=0.111), fear ( =0.554 t(67)=5.447, p<0.001,R2=0.307),
and
response efficacy ( =0.458 t(67)=4.221, p<0.05,R = 0.210) significantly

predict message involvement. The results are shown in the following tables
Tables 6.52a, 6.52b, 6.52c and 6.52d. Therefore H10a, H10b, H10c, H10d
were supported and H10e was not supported.
on message involvement (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.261

a
0.068
0.054
1.06091

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
5.512
5.512
4.898
.030a
Residual
75.411
67
1.126
Total
80.924
68
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Model
1
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
3.420
.812
PERC_SEV
.285
.129
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
4.214
.000
2.213
.030
Beta
.261
197

vulnerability on message involvement (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
1

a
.0.334
0.111
0.098
1.03598

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
9.016
9.016
8.400
.005a
Residual
71.908
67
1.073
Total
80.924
68
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1
Std. Error
(Constant)
3.576
.572
PERC_VUL
.305
.105
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
6.255
.000
2.898
.005
Beta
.334

involvement (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
1
.554a 0.307
0.297
0.91495
198
Table 6.52c (Continued)

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
24.836
24.836
29.668
.000a
Residual
56.088
67
.837
Total
80.924
68
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1
Std. Error
(Constant)
3.549
.321
FEAR
.379
.070
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
11.042
.000
5.447
.000
Beta
.554

Model Summary
Model R
1
.458

a
0.210
0.198
0.97676

ANOVAb
Model
1
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Regression 17.001
17.001
Residual
63.922
67
.954
Total
80.924
68

F
17.820
Sig.
.000a
199

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1
Std. Error
(Constant)
1.594
.861
RESP_EFFICACY
.608
.144
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
1.852
.068
4.221
.000
Beta
.458
Table 6.52e Experiment 2: Hypothesis 10e: effect of self efficacy on

Model Summary
Model
.236a

0.056
0.042
1.06800

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
4.502
4.502
3.947
.051a
Residual
76.422
67
1.141
Total
80.924
68
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Model
1
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
4.196
.518
SELF_EFFICACY
.204
.103
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
8.097
.000
1.987
.051
Beta
.236
200
Multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well

coping variables predicted attitude towards ad and purchase intention. Both
response efficacy ( =0.474, t(67)=4.409, p<0.001, R2=0.225) and self
efficacy ( =0.271, t(67)=2.306, p<0.05,R2=0.074) predicted attitude towards
ad. However they did not predict purchase intention. Therefore H11a and
H11b were supported but H11c and H11d were not. These results can be seen
in Tables 6.53a, 6.53b, 6.53c and 6.53d.
Model Summary
Model R
1
.474a
0.225
0.213
1.01172

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
19.897
19.897
19.439
.000a
Residual
68.579
67
1.024
Total
88.477
68
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Model
1
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
1.739
.892
RESP_EFFICACY
.657
.149
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
1.950
.055
4.409
.000
Beta
.474
201
Table 6.53b Experiment 2: Hypothesis 11b: effect of self efficacy on

Model Summary
Model R
1
.271

a
0.074
0.060
1.10608

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
6.508
6.508
5.320
.024a
Residual
81.968
67
1.223
Total
88.477
68
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
B
1
(Constant)
4.434
SELF_EFFICACY .246
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
Sig.
Beta
.537
.106
.271
8.261
.000
2.306
.024
Table 6.53c Experiment 2: Hypothesis 11b: effect of response efficacy on

Model Summary
Model R
1
.185a

0.034
0.020
1.34386
202

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
4.296
4.296
2.379
.128a
Residual
120.999
67
1.806
Total
125.295
68
Model
1
Regression

Table 6.53d Experiment 2: Hypothesis 11d: effect of self efficacy on

Model Summary
Model R
1

a
.0.110
0.012
-0.003
1.35918

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
1.521
1.521
.824
.367a
Residual
123.773
67
1.847
Total
125.295
68
Model
1
Regression

H12a, H12b, H12c and H12d were not supported as environmental

knowledge did not significantly predict perceived severity, perceived
vulnerability, fear or message involvement. Tables 6.54a , 6.54b 6.54c, 6.54d
illustrate the results.
203

knowledge on perceived severity (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
0.130

a
0.017
0.002
0.99695

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
1.147
1.147
1.154
.286a
Residual
66.592
67
.994
Total
67.739
68
Model
1


knowledge on perceived vulnerability (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
0.092

a
0.009
-0.006
1.19921

ANOVAb
Model
1
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Regression .829
.829
Residual
96.353
67
1.438
Total
97.182
68

F
.577
Sig.
.450a
204

knowledge on fear (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
0.077

a
0.006
-0.009
1.60273

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
1.021
1.021
.398
.530a
Residual
172.107
67
2.569
Total
173.128
68
Model
1
Regression

Table 6.54d Experiment 2: Hypothesis 12d: effect of environmental

knowledge on message involvement (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
0.103

a
0.011
-0.004
1.09322

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
.850
.850
.711
.402a
Residual
80.073
67
1.195
Total
80.924
68
Model
1
Regression

205
Similar simple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate if

involvement predicted attitude towards ad. Environmental concern was
positively related to message involvement ( =0.457 t(66)=4.203, p<0.001,
R2=0.209) and therefore H13a was supported. H13b was also supported as
environmental concern significantly predicted attitude towards ad ( =0.499
t(66)=4.716, p<0.001, R2=0.249). Environmental concern significantly
predicted purchase intention ( =0.408 t(66)=3.661, p<0.001, R2=0.167) and
therefore H13c was supported. The following tables (Tables 6.55a, 6.55b,
6.55c) show the regression results.
Model
R
1
0.457 a
Model Summary
0.209
0.197
0.97766

ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Sum of
Squares
16.883
64.040
Mean
Square
16.883
67
.956
df
Sig.
17.664
.000a
Total
80.924
68
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Std.
B
Beta
Error
1 (Constant)
.112
1.215
.193
.457
Sig.
.092 .927
4.203 .000
206

attitude towards the ad (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
0.499 a
0.249
0.238
0.99571

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
22.050
22.050
22.241
.000a
Residual
66.426
67
.991
Total
88.477
68
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1 (Constant)
TOTAL_ENV_CONCERN
Std. Error
-.175
1.237
.927
.197
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
Beta
-.141 .888
.499
4.716 .000

Model Summary
Model
0.408 a

0.167
0.154
1.24834
207

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
Model
1
Mean
Square
df
Regression 20.884
20.884
Residual
104.410
67
1.558
Total
125.295
68
F
13.401
Sig.
.000a

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
B
1 (Constant)
-.536
Standardized
Coefficients
Std. Error
Sig.
Beta
1.551
.246
-.345 .731
.408
3.661 .000
It can be seen from Table 6.56 that H14 was supported as message
involvement predicted attitude towards ad ( =0.718 t(66)=8.452, p<0.001).
The model fit was also good with R2 =0.516.
Table 6.56

on attitude towards ad (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
1
0.718

a
0.516
0.509
0.79944
208

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
45.657
45.657
71.439
.000a
Residual
42.820
67
.639
Total
88.477
68
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1 (Constant)
MESSAGE_INVOLVEMENT
Std.
Error
1.732
.471
.751
.089
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
Beta
3.674 .000
.718
8.452 .000
H15 and H16 were also supported as attitude towards the ad

significantly predicted the attitude towards the brand ( =0.747 t(66)=9.210,
p<0.001, R2=0.559). Table 6.57 illustrates this result. Attitude towards the
brand significantly predicted the purchase intention as seen in Table 6.58
=0.647, t(66)=6.942, p<0.001, R2=0.418).
Table 6.57

on attitude towards brand (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
0.747

a
0.559
0.552
0.74046
209

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
46.512
46.512
84.832
.000a
Residual
36.735
67
.548
Total
83.246
68
Model
1

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1
Std. Error
(Constant)
1.409
.452
ATTITUDE_AD
.725
.079
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
3.115
.003
9.210
.000
Beta
.747
Table 6.58

brand on purchase intention (watch stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
1
R
0.647

a
0.418
0.410
1.04293

ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Regression
52.419
52.419
48.192
.000a
Residual
72.876
67
1.088
Total
125.295
68
Model
1

210

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1
(Constant)
ATTITUDE_BRAND
B
.757
.794
Std. Error
.640
.114
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
1.183
6.942
.241
.000
Beta
.647
Table 6.59 below shows the summary of the hypotheses tests

regarding the relationship among the PMT variables, involvement, attitudes
and purchase intention.
Table 6.59
Hypothesis
H9a

and intentions (H9 H16) (watch stimuli)
Predictor
Perceived
Severity and
Dependent
variable
Fear
R2

R2
0.261 0.238
0.508
0.318*
0.365
0.273*
Perceived
vulnerability
H9b
Perceived
Severity and
Response
Efficacy
Not supported
(Only
perceived
severity)
Perceived
vulnerability
H9a
Perceived
Severity and
Self efficacy 0.300 0.090
0.418
0.331*
Perceived
vulnerability
H10a
Perceived
Severity
Message
0.06 0.05
Involvement
0.285
0.261*
H10b
Perceived
Message
0.11 0.09
Involvement
0.305
0.334**
Message
0.30 0.29
Involvement
0.37
0.55***
Vulnerability
H10c
Fear
211

Hypothesis
Predictor
Dependent
variable
R2

R2
H10d
Response
Efficacy
Message
0.21 0.19
Involvement
H10e
Self Efficacy
Message
Involvement
H11a
Response
efficacy
Attitude
towards ad
0.22 0.21
0.65
0.47 ***
H11b
Self Efficacy
Attitude
towards ad
0.07 0.06
0.246
0.271 *
H11c
Response
efficacy
Purchase
Intention
Not
Significant
H11d
Self Efficacy
Purchase
Intention
Not
Significant
H12a
Severity
Knowledge
Not
Significant
H12b
Vulnerabilty
Knowledge
Not
Significant
H12c
Environmental Fear
Knowledge
Not
Significant
H12d
Involvement
Knowledge
Not
Significant
H13a
0.20 0.19
concern
Involvement
0.81
0.45***
H13b
concern
towards ad
0.25 0.24
0.92
0.49***
H13c
concern
Intention
0.16 0.15
0.902
0.408***
H14
Message
Involvement
Attitude
towards ad
0.51 0.50
0.751
0.718***
H15
Attitude
towards ad
Attitude
towards
brand
0.55 0.55
0.725
0.747***
H16
Attitude
Purchase
0.41 0.41
0.79
0.64***
***p <.001 **p <.01 *p <.05; n= 68
0.608
0.458***
Not
Significant
212
6.4.7

This experiment examined the effects of varying threat levels and
goal frames on PMT variables and the subsequent effects of the PMT
variables on message involvement, attitudes and purchase intention. The
manipulation checks were moderately successful as under higher threat
conditions, participants identified the threat levels correctly. Internal
consistency of the self-efficacy scale successfully improved to 0.56. There
was no main effect of threat levels on perceived severity of threat, perceived
vulnerability and fear. The goal frames did not influence the threat appraisal
variables as hypothesized. There was also no significant interaction effect
between the factors as hypothesized. However independent variables had an
interaction effect on perceived vulnerability. The interaction showed that gain
frames and higher threat levels increased feelings of perceived vulnerability.
This result confirms the results of previous studies (Rothman et al 1993;
Mann et al 2004) that gain frames work better in the case of preventive
behaviour. This result also shows that goal framing can be used to promote
pro-environmental behaviour by accentuating intrinsic goals related to health
and well-being (Lindenberg & Steg 2007; Pelletier & Sharp 2008).
In contrast to previous studies (Cox & Cox 2001; Meyers-Levy &
Maheswaran 2004; van t Riet et al 2008;OKeefe & Jensen 2009; Janssens
et al 2010; Updegraff 2013) loss frames did not increase threat perception.
Similarly there was no relationship between involvement and framing. Both
environmental concern and message involvement did not interact with frames
to produce an effect on purchase intention.
Perceived severity and perceived vulnerability significantly
predicted fear as proposed by PMT (Rogers & Prentice-Dunn 1997; Floyd et
al 2000) and other studies that apply this theory (Milne et al 2000; de Hoog et
al 2008). Since the participants judged the threat to be high, fear levels
213
increased and coping appraisal was also intiated (Maddux & Rogers 1983;
Boer & Seydel 1996; Milne et al 2000). In the case of the previous
experiment only response efficacy and perceived vulnerability predicted
message involvement. In this experiment all the PMT variables (perceived
severity, perceived vulnerability, fear and response efficacy) except self
efficacy significantly predicted message involvement. This shows that higher
levels of health risk increased elaboration and thereby increased their
involvement with the message as observed in previous studies (Bloch &
Richins 1983; Richins & Bloch 1986; Keller & Block 1996; de Hoog 2005).
Therefore fear can increase more effortful processing in environment related
communication (Meijnders et al 2001). The relationship between the PMT
variables and message involvement is similar to the results presented by
recent research (Cauberghe et al 2009). Environmental knowledge did not
have any effect on the hypothesized variables. Unlike the previous
experiment, environmental concern had a significant effect on message
involvement, attitudes and intentions. This confirms ELMs proposition that
issue involvement has an effect on attitudes and intentions (Petty & Cacioppo
1986). Both environmental concern and message involvement had a
significant influence on attitudes and intention similar to other advertising
studies (Gardner 1985; Park & Young 1986; Muehling & Laczniak 1988).
The manipulation checks were comparatively successful than
Experiment1 for the threat level perception. Therefore Experiment 3 was
designed using these two factors (threat level and goal frames) by refining the
stimuli. Since high scores for perceived severity and vulnerability were
reported in both the scenarios, the threat levels were modified, such that the
low threat level contained very generic statements about pollution issues,
whereas the high threat levels highlighted the perceived vulnerability to the
threat, by mentioning risks of cancer and respiratory illness. The next
214
experiment used the issue of e-waste (based on mobile phone stimuli) to

observe if similar effects were observed.
6.5
STUDY 2: EXPERIMENT 3: THREAT LEVELS AND GOAL

FRAMING (MOBILE PHONE STIMULI)
Experiment 3 was designed to use threat levels and goal frames to
influence the PMT variables. This experiment was conducted with mobile
phones as the chosen product. The mobile phone stimulus was chosen for the
experiment and the changes to the stimulus were made based on the
information gained from Experiment 2.
6.5.1
Experimental Design
A 2 (frame type: gain vs. loss) x 2 (threat level: high vs. low)
between subjects experimental design was utilized to investigate the

hypotheses. This resulted in four possible combinations of the stimuli. One
hundred and ninety undergraduate engineering students from a large South
Indian University (52.4 % male, median age=20) were randomly assigned to
the four possible conditions. Males and female respondents were represented
almost equally. The respondents age ranged from 18-22. The participants
were exposed to the stimulus and data collection was through a paper and
pencil questionnaire.The questionnaire (Q4) is shown in Appendix 7. On
completing the questions on the dependent variables, the respondents were
given the filler questionnaire followed by the counterbalanced questionnaires
related to the environment (environmental concern and environmental
knowledge). This was similar to the questions in Experiment 1. The
personality variable CFC was also not included in this questionnaire.
215
6.5.2
Stimuli and Treatment Validity

cells: high threat level and gain frame; high threat level and loss frame; low
threat level and gain frame; low threat level and loss frame.
The
advertisements listed the features of the green mobile phone and specified that
the mobile phone is 82% recyclable. In Experiment 2, the participants judged
low levels of threat as a severe threat. Hence in this experiment the threat
levels were toned down in the low threat level conditions.
In the low threat condition, the advertisement emphasized that ewaste was difficult to dispose and did not specifically mention a health threat.
In the high threat condition, the message emphasized health threats like
respiratory illness and highlighted personal vulnerability towards the threat.
The gain frame exhorted the respondents to protect themselves and the loss
frame message highlighted the potential losses incurred when not purchasing
a green product. These were also made stronger. The advertisements were
shown to the panel as in the previous experiments to check their validity. The
advertisements are presented in Appendix 8 (Figure A8.1, Figure A8.2, Figure
A8.3 and Figure A8.4).
6.5.3
Manipulation Checks
Threat level manipulations were checked by verifying if the
perceived severity and perceived vulnerability varied for different threat

levels. Frame manipulations were checked by asking the respondents (similar
to Experiment 2) to rate the following questions: I can gain health benefits
by buying recylable products, I can lose important health benefits if I dont
buy recylable products. The response to this items was measured using seven
point Likert scales anchored from 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly
Agree.
216
6.5.4
Dependent Variables
Most of the dependent variables were the same as Experiment 2.
The items were changed to reflect the issue of e-waste and changes are
described below.
6.5.4.1
Protection motivation theory variables
Perceived severity
Perceived severity was measured using a three item seven point
asked to indicate their responses on the following statements. I believe that
e-waste pollution is a serious threat to human health, I believe that e-waste
disposal may cause severe health issues, I believe that e-waste pollution is
extremely harmful. The three items were averaged into a single perceived
severity score.
the participants susceptibility to the threat. Participants were asked to
indicate their responses on the following statements: It is possible that I
might get affected by diseases caused by e-waste pollution., It is probable
that I will suffer from various diseases caused by e-waste pollution, I am at
risk for getting health problems caused by e-waste pollution. These items
were collapsed into a single perceived vulnerability score.
217
Response efficacy
Response efficacy was also measured using a three item seven
whether participants believed if purchasing recyclable products averted the
threat. Participants rated their responses on the following statements:
Purchasing recyclable products is a highly effective way of preventing
diseases caused by e-waste pollution, Buying recyclable products will
significantly lower my risk of being affected by diseases caused by e-waste
pollution, Buying recyclable products is an effective method of reducing
threats to human health caused by e-waste pollution These items were
combined into a single response efficacy score.
Self efficacy
Self efficacy was measured using a three item seven point
scaleswhere 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree to determine
whether participants believed if they were capable of averting the threat.
Participants rated their responses on the following statements: I am capable
of checking if products contain recyclable materials, I can easily switch
over to recyclable products to prevent future health problems, I can identify
and purchase recyclable products These items were combined into a single
self efficacy score. The rest of the dependent variables remained the same as
Experiment 2. The questionnaire (Q4) is shown in Appendix 7 as discussed
previously.
6.5.5
Demographics
There were very few demographic variables collected from the
participants, as these variables were not the major focus of the research
questions. Table 6.60 shows the demographic details of the sample based on
218
the usable responses out of the 190 students. Male and female students were
represented in almost equal proportions. Most of the students were aged 20
and above.
6.5.6
Data Screening
Unlike previous experiments, this study planned to use PLS-SEM.
Hence to ensure data integrity, data screening was conducted using SPSS 19
to ensure the validity of the data prior to hypotheses testing. Data was first
screened for missing values and outliers (univariate and multivariate). Apart
from this, other multivariate statistical assumptions (normality, linearity and
homoscedasticity) were also investigated.
Table 6.60 Demographic details
Variable
Count
Gender
Male
96
47
Female
85
53
Total
181
100
18
0.6
19
35
19.3
20
96
53.0
21
44
24.3
22
2.8
42
23.2
Electrical and Electronics Engineering 56
30.9
Information Technology
31
17.1
Mining Engineering
15
8.3
Printing Technology
37
20.4
Age
Course
Civil Engineering
219
6.5.6.1
Missing Value Analysis

On inspection, there were very few missing values. Only one value
was missing in the dependent variable. Hair et al (2009) recommend mean

imputation as a suitable method for replacing missing values in such cases.
Hence mean imputation was used to replace this missing value. After
imputation of the missing value, the items were summated to determine the
composite score of the variables.
6.5.6.2
Outlier Analysis
Univariate outliers
Box plots were used to identify univariate outliers among
dependent variables. Outlier analyses were conducted on composite variables
to reduce the effect any variations that single indicators might cause. Few
outliers were identified.
Multivariate outliers
Multivariate outliers are unusual combinations of variable values
(Hair et al 2009). Mahalanobis' distance was used to identify multivariate
outliers. A conservative level of significance of 0.001 was used to identify
outliers. Four cases were identified as outliers.
6.5.6.3
Decision regarding outliers

Since there were no data entry errors or other anomalies, univariate
outliers were not deleted as deleting them might impact the generalizability of
the data (Hair et al 2009). Only the multivariate outliers were removed as they
represented a small proportion (2.1%) of the total number of cases. This
resulted in 181 usable responses.
220
6.5.6.4
Univariate normality
Skewness and kurtosis were assessed to determine univariate
normality. Certain variables (perceived severity, response efficacy, self

efficacy, message involvement) did not follow a normal distribution.
For instance, respondents perceived high severity in both high and low threat
conditions and therefore the perceived severity value was negatively skewed.
The skewness and kurtosis values are shown in Table 6.61.
Table 6.61 Univariate normality
Mean
Skewness
Statistic Statistic
Kurtosis
Zskew
Statistic
Zkurtosis
PERC_SEV
5.6427
-.900
-4.97238
.696
1.938719
PERC_VUL
4.7403
-.681
-3.76243
.402
1.119777
RESP_EFFICACY
5.6446
-.816
-4.50829
1.287
3.584958
SELF_EFFICACY
4.6961
-.330
-1.8232
-.434
-1.20891
MESSAGE_INVOLVEMENT 5.1860
-.766
-4.23204
.755
2.103064
FEAR
3.9945
-.221
-1.22099
-.563
-1.56825
ATTITUDE_AD
5.3168
-.632
-3.49171
.500
1.392758
ATTITUDE_BRAND
5.1731
-.321
-1.77348
-.341
-0.94986
PURCHASE_INTENTION
4.5783
-.544
-3.00552
-.143
-0.39833
ENV_KNOW
6.6133
.360
1.98895
-.076
-0.2117
TOTAL_ENV_CONCERN
5.9982
-1.420
-7.8453
3.451
9.612813
Most of the skewness and kurtosis values range from -1 to +1,

except environmental concern. Further tests showed that Z-values of the
skewness and kurtosis values of most variables were negative. This is not
surprising as the computed mean values are very high for the threat and fear
variables. Hair et al (2009) also recommend Z-tests for testing the skewness
221
of the variables and based on significance at 0.01 levels, seven variables

exceeded the value of 2.58. Most variables are negatively skewed.
6.5.6.5
Multivariate Statistical Assumptions
Multivariate normality
Multivariate normality was assessed based on Mardias coefficient
(Mardia 1970) using IBM AMOS 18. A high critical ratio of the coefficient
(26.512) indicated that data was significantly not normal as it exceeded the
cut-off value of 5.0 as suggested by Bentler (2006).
Linearity and homoscedasticity
Linearity and homoscedasticity were assessed among the variables
by using the regression residual and scatter plots. The variables met the
assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity.
6.5.6.6
Conclusions from Data Screening

There was very few missing data and data imputation was done to
handle missing data. Data analysis showed that most variables were
negatively skewed and had a non-normal distribution. MANOVA is robust to
the violations of normality (Leech et al 2011) and therefore hypotheses
involving MANOVA were conducted using IBM SPSS 19. This study was
planned to be analysed using partial least squares based SEM (PLS-SEM) and
therefore this choice ensured that non normal data distribution did not pose a
problem for further analysis. Additionally the fact that PLS also works well
for a series of cause and effect relationships is to the studys advantage
(Bontis et al 2007). PLS bootstrap also provides a more accurate and efficient
estimation of structural model parameters when compared to MLE and
222
Bollen-Stine SEM bootstraps when there are fewer than 200 observations
(Sharma & Kim 2013).
6.5.7
Validity and reliability analyses

Validity and reliability was assessed in two different ways. For the
first level of analysis, to assess the effect of the factors on the PMT variables
MANOVA is to be used. Hence Cronbachs
& EFA (Exploratory Factor
Analysis) were used to analyse the reliability and validity of the PMT
variables.
Next, the results of path analysis were to be analysed using PLSSEM. Hence, the measurement model was checked to ensure the reliability
and validity criteria associated with the formative and reflective measurement
model.
6.5.7.1
Validity and reliability of the PMT variables

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to examine
component loadings for the PMT constructs. The prescribed minimum sample
size for EFA is 100 (Hair et al 2009). On completion of the EFA, scale
reliabilities were assessed using the reliability coefficient (Cronbach ). The
PMT constructs (perceived severity, perceived vulnerability, fear, response
efficacy and self efficacy) loaded on five factors. Since PMT hypothesizes
close relationship between the constructs, oblique rotation was used and
factor loading above 0.4 was used to interpret each factor (Wu et al 2005).
None of the items loaded on more than one factor.
Next, the internal
reliabilities of the constructs were tested using Cronbachs

adequate.
and were found
223
Scale reliability of the PMT constructs

Table 6.62 lists the reliabilities of the PMT constructs used. All the
scales had adequate reliabilities except response efficacy which had a
moderate reliability of 0.56. However, other PMT studies have also used this
variable despite achieving such moderate reliability scores (e.g. Milne et al
2002; Wu et al 2005; Daley et al 2009). Hence, this variable was retained in
the study.
Table 6.62 Experiment 3: Means and reliabilities of the PMT constructs
Scale Items
Item-total correlation ( ) MEAN
SD
Perceived Severity
0.67
5.65
0.93
0.62
4.76
1.13
Response Efficacy
0.56
5.64
0.82
Self Efficacy
0.61
4.7
1.18
Fear
0.87
4.0
1.321
6.5.7.2
Reliability of the reflective constructs by assessing the

measurement/outer model
Indicator reliability and composite reliability were used to assess
the reliability of the reflective measurement model. Cronbachs
exceeded
0.6 for all constructs (Table 6.62), except response efficacy which had a
moderate reliability as discussed previously. Composite reliability was now
used to prioritise indicators during estimations. Indicator reliability was
checked by examining the indicator loadings. Table 6.63 shows the indicator
loading and the composite reliability. The loadings ranged from 0.40 to 0.94
and most of them exceeded 0.70 (Fornell & Larcker 1981). Loadings below
0.7 are candidates for deletion if deleting these indicators leads to an increase
in composite reliability above the threshold value of 0.70. However composite
224
reliability scores ranged from 0.76 to 0.95 and therefore exceeded the 0.7 cutoff (Hair et al 2011; Hair et al 2012). Only MI2 (The ad's message seemed
relevant to me.) from the message involvement scale had a low value but it
was not necessary to remove this indicator as the AVE and CR values were
above requisite cut-off criteria (Hair et al 2011) .
Common method bias
Common method variance is a potential problem in social science
research as data is collected through surveys based on self reporting. This
research tried to minimise the effect of common method bias by (a) increasing
the clarity of questions by using iterative pretests (b) not collecting sensitive
personal data as it might induce social desirability responses (Herath & Rao
2009; Mohan et al 2013). Harmans One-Factor Test was employed to test if
a single factor emerged from the analysis or if a general factor explained
majority of the variance (Podsakoff et al 2003). The results of an exploratory
factor analysis on IBM SPSS 19 showed that multiple factors were present
and the major factor accounted for only 29 % of the total variance. However
this method has its own limitations (Podsakoff et al 2003; Chin et al 2012).
Therefore the correlations matrix of the latent variables was observed and the
largest correlation was 0.65 which is lower than the correlations that suggest
common method bias (r > 0.9).
6.5.7.3
Validity
Convergent and discriminant validity was also assessed for the
measurement model. The average variance extracted (AVE) was higher than
the requisite 0.50 for all the constructs except environmental concern which is
a second order construct. The values are shown in Table 6.63. Discriminant
validity was evaluated by the examination of the cross loading of the variable
and the Forner-Larcker criterion.
225
Table 6.63
Experiment 3: Composite reliability, indicator reliability

and convergent validity
Construct
Perceived Severity
Response Efficacy
Self Efficacy
Fear
Message Involvement
Attitude towards ad
Outer
Loading
>0.7
Composite
Reliability
>0.7
AVE
PS1
0.8361
0.824
0.619
PS2
PS3
0.8671
0.6251
PV1
PV2
0.8741
0.5212
0.791
0.568
PV3
RE1
RE2
RE3
0.8177
0.7463
0.7732
0.6812
0.778
0.539
SE1
0.6773
0.761
0.525
SE2
SE3
0.5718
0.8864
F1
F2
F3
F4
0.8286
0.8871
0.8813
0.7723
0.904
0.661
F5
MI1
MI2
0.6578
0.6895
0.859
0.512
0.951
0.866
0.901
0.753
Indicator
MI3
MI4
MI5
MI6
0.4081
0.7837
0.7461
0.7964
0.7968
AAB1
AAB2
0.917
0.9402
AAB3
0.935
AAD1
0.8815
AAD2
0.8629
AAD3
0.8559
>0.5
226
Construct
Purchase Intention
Biospherical-Concern
Egoistic-concern
Altruistic - Others
Outer
Loading
>0.7
Composite
Reliability
>0.7
AVE
PI1
0.9222
0.949
0.860
PI2
0.9301
PI3
0.933
Animals
0.711
0.844
0.573
Birds
0.778
Plants
0.803
Children
0.741
Me
0.833
0.844
0.538
My Future
0.839
My Health
0.708
My LifeStyle
0.643
All People
0.715
0.805
0.626
My children
0.684
People in
my country
0.714
Marine
0.736
0.859
0.604
Indicator
Bio
>0.5
Egoistic
Altruistic
The AVE of the latent construct must be greater than the latent
constructs highest squared correlation with other constructs (Fornell &
Larcker 1981). It can be seen from Table 6.64 that the Forner-Larcker
criterion is satisfied. Table 6.65 shows the details of the second-order
construct. Here too, the criterion was met.
The main diagonal in Table 6.64 and 6.65 show the AVE of the
constructs. The scales satisfied the discriminant validity criteria. The loadings
and cross-loading of item to other constructs were also inspected to evaluate
227
discriminant validity. Items loaded more on their constructs when compared

to other constructs as required.
Table 6.64 Experiment 3: Discriminant validity
AAD AAB
FEAR MI
PS
PV
PI
RE
SE
AAD 0.753
AAB 0.498 0.866
FEAR 0.071 0.068 0.661
MI
0.313 0.281 0.26
0.512
PS
0.0595 0.091 0.148
0.127 0.619
PV
0.053 0.094 0.086
0.089 0.164 0.568
PI
0.243 0.428 0.132
0.231 0.075 0.034 0.86
RE
0.088 0.071 0.094
0.181 0.261 0.158 0.047961 0.539
SE
0.033 0.035 0.024
0.071 0.076 0.031 0.09
Table 6.65
0.127449 0.525
Experiment 3: Discriminant validity of the second order

construct (environmental concern)
Egoistic
Altruistic
Egoistic
0.538
Altruistic
0.099
0.573
Biospheric
0.130
0.298
Biospheric
0.626
The analysis shows that the reflective measurement model for the
(both first-order and second-order) variables used in this research are reliable
and valid.
Validity of the formative construct
Hair et al (2011) recommend the examination of convergent
validity, collinearity among indicators and use previous theory to retain
indicators that do not have significant outer loading to asses the formative
228
constructs and indicators. The weight of the indicators was examined by

resampling using bootstrapping (181 observations per subsample, 5,000
subsamples and no sign changes) in SmartPLS as this is the primary statistic
for examining the indicators (Hair et al 2012). The t-values were significant
for most of the indicators except EK7, EK8, EK14 and EK15 (p<0.05). Hence
these indicators were removed from the model. Subsequently variance
inflation factor (VIF) was used to test the multicollinearity among the
remaining environment knowledge indicators. The results show minimal
collinearity among the indicators as the VIF of all items ranged between
1.073 and 1.33, below the common cut off
value of 5. Therefore, the
assumption of multicollinearity was not violated (Chin, 2010).

6.5.8
Results of Experiment 3: threat levels and goal framing

This experiment was conducted to verify goal framing and threat
levels. The mobile phone stimulus was chosen, since electronic waste seemed
to be a less familiar issue when compared to biodegradability.
This study was conducted with the mobile phone stimuli to evaluate
the effect of different threat levels (low/high) and goal frames (gain vs. loss)
on the PMT variables. The effect of PMT variables on involvement and the
subsequent influence of involvement on attitudes and purchase intention were
evaluated using the path model.
6.5.8.1
Manipulation checks
One-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the effectiveness of
the message in manipulating the perceived severity, perceived vulnerability

based on threat levels. In both the threat levels, the mean for the perceived
severity remained above 5.5 and perceived vulnerability scores ranged above
4.9. Therefore there was no statistically significant effect of the threat level on
229
these variables. Similarly the manipulation checks of the frames indicated that
there was no statistically significant effect of the frames on the variables
included for manipulation checks. Tables 6.66a, 6.66b, 6.66c and 6.66d show
the results of the manipulation check.
Table 6.66a Experiment 3: Manipulation check: effect of threat level on
perceived severity
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable:PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Threat Level
Mean
Std. Deviation
high
5.7753
.88731
89
low
5.5145
.96383
92
Total
5.6427
.93362
181

Dependent Variable:PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Source
Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square
Corrected Model 3.077
Sig.
.060
3.077
3.580
Intercept
5765.935
5765.935
6709.822 .000
Threat_level
3.077
3.077
3.580
Error
153.820
179 .859
Total
5920.000
181
Corrected Total 156.896
.060
180
Table 6.66b Experiment 3: Manipulation check: effect of threat level on

perceived vulnerability
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable:PERCEIVED VUNERABILITY
Threat Level
Mean
Std. Deviation
High
4.8052
1.02840
89
low
4.6775
1.24177
92
Total
4.7403
1.14049
181
230

Dependent Variable:PERCEIVED VULNERABILITY
Source
Sig.
Corrected Model .738a
.738
.566
Intercept
4067.903
4067.903
3119.890 .000
Threat_level
.738
.738
.566
Error
233.391
179 1.304
Total
4301.333
181
.453
.453
180
Manipulation checks also revealed that the frame manipulation was

not successful as there was no significant main effect of the frame
manipulation (loss vs. gain) in both the conditions (Table 6.66c and 6.66d).
Table 6.66c Experiment 3: Manipulation check: effect of frame type
(gain)
Dependent Variable:MC_GAIN
Source
Sig.
Corrected Model .816a
.816
.526
Intercept
5045.855
5045.855
3251.132 .000
frame_type
.816
.816
.526
Error
277.813
179 1.552
Total
5328.000
181
180
.469
.469
231
Table 6.66d Manipulation check: effect of frame type (loss)

Dependent Variable:MC_LOSS
Source
Corrected Model
.021
.021
3916.154
3916.154
.021
.021
Error
461.051
179
2.576
Total
4378.000
181
Corrected Total
461.072
180
Intercept
frame_type
Sig.
.008
.928
1520.422 .000
.008
.928
Similar to the other experiments , failed manipulation checks were

not of great concern and therefore further analysis on the data was conducted.
6.5.8.2

variables
The hypothesized effect of goal frames and threat levels on the
PMT variables was analyzed using MANOVA. The dependent variables

(perceived severity, perceived vulnerability, fear, response-efficacy and selfefficacy) were only moderately correlated (0.21 0.51) and therefore there
was no risk of multicollinearity to pose a hindrance to MANOVA. Tables
6.67 and 6.68 show the distribution characteristics and the group wise means
of the protection motivation variables. Similar to previous experiments, the
perceived severity and perceived vulnerability to the threat are on the higher
side. The group wise means do not seem to differ much similar to the
previous experiments.
232
Table 6.67

motivation variables watch stimuli
PERC_SEV
2.67
7.00
5.64
0.93
PERC_VUL
1.00
7.00
4.74
1.14
RESP_EFFICACY
2.33
7.00
5.64
0.83
SELF_EFFICACY
1.67
7.00
4.70
1.20
FEAR
1.00
7.00
3.99
1.33
Table 6.68

motivation variables for the mobile phone stimuli
Self
Factor
Perceived
Severity
Perceived
Vulnerability
Response
Efficacy
Efficacy
Threat
level: High
5.77
4.80
5.71
4.78
3.98
Threat
level: Low
5.51
4.67
5.57
4.60
4.00
Goal frame:
Gain
5.72
4.72
5.71
4.66
3.86
Goal frame:
Loss
5.56
4.75
5.57
4.72
4.12
Fear
A one-way MANOVA was conducted to test hypothesis 5 (H5) that

stated that participants who viewed advertisements with higher threats levels
would report higher levels of severity and vulnerability when compared to
consumers who viewed weaker threats. The results did not show significant
differences between the groups (Pillais Trace=0.20; Wilks lambda = 0.980;
Hotellings Trace and Roys Largest Root = 0.020, F(2,178) =1.782, p >0.05)
and hence the hypothesis was not supported (Table 6.69a and 6.69b).
233

phone stimuli)
Multivariate Testsb
Effect
Intercept
Value
Hypothesis
df
Error
df
Sig.
Pillai's Trace
.977 3712.945a
2.000
178.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda
.023 3712.945a
2.000
178.000 .000
Hotelling's
Trace
41.718 3712.945
2.000
178.000 .000
Roy's Largest
Root
41.718 3712.945a
2.000
178.000 .000
.020
1.782a
2.000
178.000 .171
.980
1.782a
2.000
178.000 .171
Hotelling's
Trace
.020
1.782
2.000
178.000 .171
Roy's Largest
Root
.020
1.782a
2.000
178.000 .171
Threat_level Pillai's Trace

Wilks' Lambda
a. Exact statistic b. Design: Intercept + Threat_level

Source
Corrected
Model
Intercept
Dependent
Variable
Type III Sum of

df
Squares
Mean
Square
Sig.
Perceived
severity
3.077 a
3.077
3.580
.060
Perceived
vunerability
.738b
.738
.566
.453
Perceived
severity
5765.935
5765.935 6709.822 .000
Perceived
vunerability
4067.903
4067.903 3119.890 .000
234

Dependent
Variable
Source
Threat_level
Error
Total
Corrected
Total
Type III Sum of

df
Squares
Mean
Square
Sig.
Perceived
severity
3.077
3.077
3.580
.060
Perceived
vunerability
.738
.738
.566
.453
Perceived
severity
153.820
179
.859
Perceived
vunerability
233.391
179
1.304
Perceived
severity
5920.000
181
Perceived
vunerability
4301.333
181
Perceived
severity
156.896
180
Perceived
vunerability
234.129
180

Hypothesis 6 (H6) was not supported as the results indicated that

there was no statistically significant difference in severity and vulnerability
based on frame type (Pillais Trace=0.010; Wilks lambda = 0.990;
Hotellings Trace and Roys Largest Root = 0.010, F(2,178) = 0.872, p >0.05)
(Table 6.70a and 6.70b).
perception.
Therefore frame type did not increase threat
235

phone stimuli)
multivariate tests (mobile
Multivariate Testsb
Value
Hypothesis
df
Error
df
Sig.
Pillai's Trace
.976
3659.959a
2.000
178.000
.000
Wilks' Lambda
.024
3659.959 a
2.000
178.000
.000
Hotelling's
Trace
41.123 3659.959a
2.000
178.000
.000
Roy's Largest
Root
41.123 3659.959a
2.000
178.000
.000
Effect
Intercept
.010
.872a
2.000
178.000
.420
Wilks' Lambda
.990
.872a
2.000
178.000
.420
Hotelling's
Trace
.010
.872a
2.000
178.000
.420
Roy's Largest
Root
.010
.872a
2.000
178.000
.420
frame_type Pillai's Trace
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept + frame_type

Source
Corrected
Model
Intercept
Dependent
Variable
Type III Sum

of Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Perceived
severity
1.124 a
1.124
1.292
.257
Perceived
vunerability
.054b
.054
.041
.840
Perceived
severity
5764.188
5764.188
6623.707 .000
Perceived
vunerability
4065.598
4065.598
3109.007 .000
236

Dependent
Variable
Source
frame_type
Error
Total
Corrected
Total
Type III Sum

of Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
Perceived
severity
1.124
1.124
1.292
.257
Perceived
vunerability
.054
.054
.041
.840
Perceived
severity
155.772
179
.870
Perceived
vunerability
234.075
179
1.308
Perceived
severity
5920.000
181
Perceived
vunerability
4301.333
181
Perceived
severity
156.896
180
Perceived
vunerability
234.129
180

The proposed interaction between threat levels and frames was also
not supported (Pillais Trace=0.011; Wilks lambda = 0.989; Hotellings
Trace and Roys Largest Root = 0.011, F(3,175) = 0.630, p >0.05).
Therefore hypothesis 7 (H7) was not supported. Tables 6.71a and 6.71b show
the MANOVA results. Therefore the factors did not interact to produce any
significant results.
237

phone stimuli)
multivariate tests (mobile
Multivariate Testsb
Effect
Intercept
frame_type
Threat_level
frame_type *
Threat_level
Value
Hypothesis
df
Error
Sig.
df
Pillai's Trace
.977 3720.629a
2.000
176.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda
.023 3720.629a
2.000
176.000 .000
Hotelling's
Trace
42.280 3720.629a
2.000
176.000 .000
Roy's Largest
Root
42.280 3720.629a
2.000
176.000 .000
Pillai's Trace
.010
.876a
2.000
176.000 .418
Wilks' Lambda
.990
.876a
2.000
176.000 .418
Hotelling's
Trace
.010
.876a
2.000
176.000 .418
Roy's Largest
Root
.010
.876a
2.000
176.000 .418
Pillai's Trace
.020
1.810a
2.000
176.000 .167
Wilks' Lambda
.980
1.810
2.000
176.000 .167
Hotelling's
Trace
.021
1.810a
2.000
176.000 .167
Roy's Largest
Root
.021
1.810a
2.000
176.000 .167
Pillai's Trace
.010
.901a
2.000
176.000 .408
Wilks' Lambda
.990
.901
2.000
176.000 .408
Hotelling's
Trace
.010
.901a
2.000
176.000 .408
Roy's Largest
Root
.010
.901a
2.000
176.000 .408
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept + frame_type + Threat_level + frame_type * Threat_level
238

Source
Corrected
Model
Dependent
Variable
Type III
Sum of
Squares
df
Perceived
5.210 a
3
severity
Perceived
2.467 b
3
vunerability
Intercept
Perceived
5766.088
1
severity
Perceived
4065.379
1
vunerability
frame_type
Perceived
1.140
1
severity
Perceived
.046
1
vunerability
Threat_level
Perceived
3.115
1
severity
Perceived
.777
1
vunerability
frame_type *
Perceived
1.029
1
Threat_level
severity
Perceived
1.673
1
vunerability
Error
Perceived
151.686
177
severity
Perceived
231.662
177
vunerability
Total
Perceived
5920.000
181
severity
Perceived
4301.333
181
vunerability
Corrected Total Perceived
156.896
180
severity
Perceived
234.129
180
vunerability
Mean
Square
Sig.
1.737
2.027
.112
.822
.628
.598
5766.088
6728.366 .000
4065.379
3106.127 .000
1.140
1.330
.250
.046
.035
.851
3.115
3.635
.058
.777
.593
.442
1.029
1.201
.275
1.673
1.278
.260
.857
1.309
239
A regression analysis was done with three predictors: framing,

environmental concern and the interaction term with purchase intention as the
dependent variable to test H8a. Framing was dummy coded with the lossframe message condition allocated a value of 0 and the gain-frame message
condition a value of 1. The interaction terms were calculated as a product of
frame type and environmental concern (frame x environmental concern) from
these variables. It can be seen from Table 6.72 that the hypothesis was not
supported as interaction between the variables did not predict purchase
intention. Hence the two variables did not have the hypothesized effect.
Table 6.72a Experiment 3: Hypothesis 8a: interaction of frame and
environmental concern on purchase intention (mobile phone
stimuli)
Model Summary
Model
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the

Estimate
.0.127a
0.016
-0.001
1.45332

ENV_CONC_X_FRAME
ANOVAb
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
Sig.
6.123
2.041
.966
.410a
Residual
373.796
177
2.112
Total
379.919
180
Model
1
Regression
a. Predictors: (Constant), TOTAL_ENV_CONCERN, frame_coded,

frame_x_env_concern
240

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
Std.
Error
5.118
2.463
-1.237
1.682
-.427
-.735 .463
frame_x_env_concern
.186
.278
.413
.668
TOTAL_ENV_CONCERN
-.059
.407
-.033
-.146 .884
1 (Constant)
frame_coded
Beta
2.078 .039
.505
Similarly Table 6.72b shows that H8b was not supported as

message involvement did not interact with frame type to produce an effect on
purchase intentions. However, the model was significant, a follow up
stepwise regression revealed that only message involvement significantly
predicted purchase intention.
Table 6.72b Experiment 3: Hypothesis 8b: interaction of frame and
message involvement on purchase intention (mobile phone
stimuli)
Model Summary
Model R
a
1
.0.474
0.225
0.212
Std. Error of the Estimate

1.28982
Predictors: (Constant), frame_x_MI, MESSAGE_INVOLVEMENT, frame_coded

ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Sum of
Squares
85.455
df
3
Mean
Square
28.485
Sig.
17.122
.000a
Residual
294.464
177
1.664
Total
379.919
180
a. Predictors: (Constant), frame_x_MI, MESSAGE_INVOLVEMENT,
frame_coded b. Dependent Variable: PURCHASE_INTENTION
241

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
Model
B
1 (Constant)
.830
frame_coded
.043
MESSAGE_INVOLVEMENT .768
frame_x_MI
-.038
Sig.
Std.
Error
1.618
1.060
.307
.015
.509
.513 .609
.040 .968
2.500 .013
.201
-.079
-.189
Beta
.850
A one-way MANOVA analysis of the factors and gender showed

significant differences in risk perception based on gender. Therefore H8c was
supported. Tables 6.72c and 6.72d show the results. It can be seen that gender
has an effect on perceived severity and fear independently ((Pillais
Root = 0.061, F(3,171) = 3.495, p <0.05). Gender also interacts with the
factors to produce an effect on the perceived severity of threat (Pillais
Root = 0.050, F(3,171) = 2.834, p <0.05).
Table 6.72c Experiment 3: Hypothesis 8c: multivariate tests (mobile
phone stimuli)
Effect
Intercept
Hypothesis
Error df Sig.
df
Value
Pillai's Trace
.978
2572.816a
3.000
171.000 .000
Wilks'
Lambda
.022
2572.816a
3.000
171.000 .000
45.137 2572.816a
3.000
171.000 .000
Roy's Largest
45.137 2572.816a
Root
3.000
171.000 .000
Hotelling's
Trace
242

Effect
frame_type
Threat_level
GENDER
frame_type *
Threat_level
Hypothesis
Error df Sig.
df
Value
Pillai's Trace
.032
1.905a
3.000
171.000 .131
Wilks'
Lambda
.968
1.905a
3.000
171.000 .131
Hotelling's
Trace
.033
1.905a
3.000
171.000 .131
Roy's Largest
Root
.033
1.905a
3.000
171.000 .131
Pillai's Trace
.025
1.471a
3.000
171.000 .224
Wilks'
Lambda
.975
1.471a
3.000
171.000 .224
Hotelling's
Trace
.026
1.471a
3.000
171.000 .224
Roy's Largest
Root
.026
1.471a
3.000
171.000 .224
Pillai's Trace
.058
3.495a
3.000
171.000 .017
Wilks'
Lambda
.942
3.495a
3.000
171.000 .017
Hotelling's
Trace
.061
3.495a
3.000
171.000 .017
Roy's Largest
Root
.061
3.495a
3.000
171.000 .017
Pillai's Trace
.009
.493a
3.000
171.000 .688
Wilks'
Lambda
.991
.493a
3.000
171.000 .688
Hotelling's
Trace
.009
.493a
3.000
171.000 .688
Roy's Largest
Root
.009
.493a
3.000
171.000 .688
243

Effect
frame_type *
GENDER
Threat_level *
GENDER
frame_type *
Threat_level *
GENDER
Hypothesis
Error df Sig.
df
Value
Pillai's Trace
.017
.966a
3.000
171.000 .410
Wilks'
Lambda
.983
.966a
3.000
171.000 .410
Hotelling's
Trace
.017
.966a
3.000
171.000 .410
Roy's Largest
Root
.017
.966a
3.000
171.000 .410
Pillai's Trace
.001
.041a
3.000
171.000 .989
Wilks'
Lambda
.999
.041a
3.000
171.000 .989
Hotelling's
Trace
.001
.041a
3.000
171.000 .989
Roy's Largest
Root
.001
.041a
3.000
171.000 .989
Pillai's Trace
.047
2.834a
3.000
171.000 .040
Wilks'
Lambda
.953
2.834a
3.000
171.000 .040
Hotelling's
Trace
.050
2.834a
3.000
171.000 .040
Roy's Largest
Root
.050
2.834a
3.000
171.000 .040
a. Exact statistic
b. Design: Intercept + frame_type + Threat_level + GENDER + frame_type *
Threat_level + frame_type * GENDER + Threat_level * GENDER + frame_type *
Threat_level * GENDER
244
Table 6.73d Experiment 3: Hypothesis 8c: tests of between-subjects

Source
Corrected
Model
Intercept
Dependent
Variable
Mean
Square
Sig.
Partial
Noncent. Observed
Eta
Parameter Powerb
Squared
Perceived
severity
16.307a
2.330
2.867
.007
.104
20.066
.917
Perceived
vunerability
4.223c
.603
.454
.866
.018
3.178
.196
Fear
19.299d
2.757
1.588
.142
.060
11.119
.649
Perceived
severity
5760.417 1 5760.417 7088.373 .000
.976
7088.373
1.000
Perceived
vunerability
4044.202 1 4044.202 3043.185 .000
.946
3043.185
1.000
Fear
2893.106 1 2893.106 1666.937 .000
.906
1666.937
1.000
Threat_level Perceived
severity
3.036
3.036
3.736
.055
.021
3.736
.485
Perceived
vunerability
.893
.893
.672
.414
.004
.672
.129
Fear
.006
.006
.003
.954
.000
.003
.050
1.223
1.223
1.505
.222
.009
1.505
.230
Perceived
vunerability
.057
.057
.043
.836
.000
.043
.055
Fear
3.577
3.577
2.061
.153
.012
2.061
.298
Perceived
severity
4.382
4.382
5.392
.021
.030
5.392
.637
Perceived
vunerability
.005
.005
.004
.950
.000
.004
.050
12.505
12.505
7.205
.008
.040
7.205
.761
.559
.559
.688
.408
.004
.688
.131
1.563
1.563
1.176
.280
.007
1.176
.190
.023
.023
.013
.909
.000
.013
.051
.063
.063
.077
.782
.000
.077
.059
Perceived
vunerability
.003
.003
.002
.962
.000
.002
.050
Fear
.145
.145
.084
.773
.000
.084
.060
Frame_type Perceived
severity
GENDER
Type III
Sum of df
Squares
Fear
*
severity
vunerability
Fear
* GENDER severity
245
Source
Dependent
Variable
* GENDER severity
.075
.093
.761
.001
.093
.061
Perceived
vunerability
.776
.776
.584
.446
.003
.584
.118
Fear
2.937
2.937
1.692 .195
.010
1.692
.253
6.680
6.680
8.220 .005
.045
8.220
.814
.999
.999
.752
.387
.004
.752
.139
.406
.406
.234
.629
.001
.234
.077
Fear
Total
Corrected
Total
Partial
Noncent. Observed
Sig. Eta
Parameter Powerb
Squared
.075
* Frame_type severity
* GENDER
Perceived
vunerability
Error
Type III
Mean
Sum of df
Square
Squares
Perceived
severity
140.590 173
Perceived
vunerability
229.906 173 1.329
Fear
300.256 173 1.736
Perceived
severity
5920.000 181
Perceived
vunerability
4301.333 181
Fear
3207.560 181
Perceived
severity
156.896 180
Perceived
vunerability
Fear
.813
234.129 180
319.554 180

c. R Squared = .018 (Adjusted R Squared = -.022)
d. R Squared = .060 (Adjusted R Squared = .022)
246
Plots were produced to check the interaction effects among the

three factors. The following figures show the various interactions. Figure 6.3
show that women perceive the environmental threat to be more severe to their
health when compared to men. Fear arousal is also greater in women when
compared to men (Figure 6.4). It can be seen from Figure 6.5 that women
perceived high severity in both the low and high threat conditions when gain
framing is used. However men perceived higher levels of severity only under
high threat conditions when gain frames are used. Figure 6.6 shows that under
loss frame condition, higher threat levels evoke higher levels of perceived
severity only in the case of women. Men do not perceive greater threat
severity under loss conditions even when high threat levels are used.
Figure 6.3 Estimated marginal means for perceived severity
247
Figure 6.4 Estimated marginal means for fear
Figure 6.5
Estimated marginal means for perceived severity for gain

frames
248
Figure 6.6
Estimated marginal means for perceived severity for loss

frames
Table 6.74 shows the effect of the manipulations.

Table 6.74
Hypothesis
Experiment 3: Summary of the effect of manipulations on

PMT variables with the mobile stimulus
Factor
Perceived
severity
Perceived
vulnerability
Fear
H5
Threat level
NA
H6
Goal frame
NA
H7
Threat level * Goal Frame
NA
H8c
Gender * Goal Frame
Effect of Interactions on Purchase Intentions

Purchase Intention
H8a
Environmental concern * Goal Frame
H8b
Message Involvement * Goal Frame
249
6.5.8.3

involvement, attitudes and intentions using the structural/ inner
model
As the measurement model was reliable and valid, the structural
model was tested with SmartPLS version 2.0.M3 (Ringle et al 2005). Initially
collinearity among the exogenous constructs was examined and there were no
multicollinearity issues. The main evaluation criterion for the structural model
is the value of the coefficient of determination (R2) as it represents the
explained variance of all the endogenous variables (Hair et al 2011). The level
and significance of the path coefficients (Hair et al 2011) are other important
criteria to judge the model.
The structural model was tested with 5000 sub-samples generated
using bootstrapping to evaluate the significance of the path co-efficients (181
observations per subsample, 5,000 subsamples and no sign changes). The
results of the structural model are shown in Figure 6.7. The significance of the
hypotheses were evaluated based on two-tailed tests (p < 0.05 (t=1.971), p <
0.01 (t= 2.598) and p < 0.001 (t= 3.334)).
The R2 values (shown in brackets) and path coefficients can be seen in Figure
6.7. R2 values greater than 0.33 are substantial and values between 0.19 and
0.33 are moderate (Chin 1998; Henseler et al 2009). Hair et al (2011) suggest
that 0.20 can be considered high for consumer behaviour studies.
Based on Chins criteria (Chin 1998) it can be observed that:
The coefficient of determination, R2 is 0.22 for the fear
endogenous latent variable. This means that the three latent
variables (perceived severity, perceived vulnerability, and
250
environmental knowledge) moderately explain 22.0% of the

variance in fear.
environmental
knowledge
-0.22***
-0.11
-0.04
environmental
concern
fear (0.22)
0.29***
0.35***
perceived
severity
0.07
0.04
message
involvement (0.36)
0.16*
perceived
vulnerability
0.03
0.07
0.56***
0.22**
0.11
0.24*
*
response
efficacy
0.02
0.71***
(0.30)
0.25*
*
attitude towards
ad (0.32)
0.07
0.40***
attitude towards
brand (0.50)
self efficacy
(0.07)
-0.01
0.18*
0.62***
-0.01
purchase
intention (0.46)
Figure 6.7 Hypothesis testing using PLS-SEM

The coefficient of determination, R2 is 0.36 for the message
involvement endogenous latent variable. This means that the six
latent variables. (perceived severity, perceived vulnerability,
response efficacy, self efficacy, fear and environmental
251
concern) substantially explain 36.0% of the variance in message

involvement.
The coefficient of determination, R2 is 0.32 for the attitude
towards ad endogenous latent variable. This means that the four
latent variables (response efficacy, self efficacy, message
involvement and environmental concern moderately explain
32.0% of the variance in attitude towards ad.
The coefficient of determination, R2 is 0.50 for the attitude
towards brand endogenous latent variable. This means that the
the latent variable (attitude towards ad) substantially explains
50.0% of the variance in attitude towards brand.
The coefficient of determination, R2 is 0.46 for purchase
intention. This means that the latent variable - attitude towards
brand substantially explains 46.0% of the variance in purchase
intention.
Based on the inner model loadings and path co-efficients from
Figure 6.7, it can be summarised that:
The hypothesized path relationship between perceived severity,
perceived vulnerability and fear is statistically significant.
perceived severity has a comparatively stronger effect (0.29) on
fear.
perceived severity (0.40) and perceived vulnerability (0.24)
significantly predict response efficacy
The hypothesized relationship between perceived severity and
self efficacy was significant (0.25) whereas perceived
vulnerability was not significantly related to self efficacy (0.07)
252
The hypothesized path relationship between perceived severity

(0.04), perceived vulnerability (0.07), self efficacy (0.11) and
message involvement was not statistically significant. However
fear (0.35) and response efficacy (0.22) had a signficiant
relationship with message involvement.
response efficacy (0.07) and self efficacy (0.02) were not related
to attitude towards ad. While response efficacy (-0.01) was not
related to purchase intention, the hypothesized relationship
between self efficacy (0.18) and purchase intention was
significant.
The hypothesized path relationship between perceived severity
(-0.11), perceived vulnerability (-0.04), message involvement
(0.07) and environmental knowledge was not statistically
significant. However fear (-0.22) had a signficiant relationship
with environmental knowledge
environmental concern was not related to any of the
hypothesized relationships. The path coefficients were not
significant
with
the
hypothesized
variables
message
involvement (0.07), attitude towards ad (0.03) and purchase

intention.
message involvement (0.56) is a significant predictor of attitude
towards ad
attitude towards ad is a strong predictor (0.71) of attitude
towards brand
Similarly attitude towards brand is a significant predictor (0.62)
of purchase intention.
253
Table 6.75 summarises the result of the hypotheses tests and their associated
results.
Table 6.75 Experiment 3: Results of hypothesis testing using PLS-SEM
Hypothesis
H9a
H9a
Path
Perceived severity
fear
fear
response
(standard)
tvalue
0.29 ***
4.03
Supported
2.02
Supported
5.92
Supported
0.16
***
H9b
Perceived severity
efficacy
H9b
response efficacy
0.24 **
3.03
Supported
H9c
Perceived severity
efficacy
0.25 *
2.50
Supported
H9c
efficacy
0.07
0.58
Not
supported
H10a
Perceived severity
involvement
0.04
0.50
Not
supported
H10b
message involvement
0.07
0.89
Not
supported
H10c
Fear
0.35***
4.82
Supported
H10d
Response efficacy
involvement
0.22**
2.63
Supported
H10e
Self efficacyinvolvement
0.11
1.57
Not
Supported
H11a
Response efficacy
towards ad
0.07
0.92
Not
Supported
H11b
Self efficacytowards ad
0.02
0.35
Not
Supported
H11c
Response efficacy
intention
-0.01
0.22
Not
Supported
self
self
message
message involvement
message
message
attitude
attitude
purchase
0.40
Result
254
(standard)
tvalue
purchase
0.18*
2.52
Supported
H12a
Environmental knowledge
perceived severity
-0.11
1.45
Not
Supported
H12b
perceived vulnerability
-0.04
0.62
Not
Supported
H12c
-0.22***
3.47
Supported
Hypothesis
H11d
Path
Self efficacy-
Result
intention
fear
H12d
message involvement
-0.08
1.349
Not
Supported
H13a
message involvement
0.07
1.08
Not
Supported
H13b
attitude towards ad
0.03
0.46
Not
Supported
H13c
-0.01
0.316
Not
purchase intention
H14
Message involvement
attitude towards ad
H15
Attitude towards ad
towards brand
H16
Supported
attitude
0.56 ***
9.50
Supported
0.71 ***
17.7
Supported
0.62 ***
10.3
Supported
purchase intention
Note: n=181; Estimates represent 5000 bootstrapping testing
*p<0.05 ; **p < 0:01; * **p <0:001
255
It is also necessary to assess the predictive relevance of the inner

model and therefore the models predictive relevance was analyzed using
Stone-Geisser test criterion Q2 (Chin. 2010; Hair et al 2011). This was
determined using the blindfolding procedure in SmartPLS. The omission
distance was chosen as 7, since values between 5 and 10 are advantageous
(Hair et al 2012). Cross-validated measure Q2 was checked and the results are
shown in Table 6.76. The Q2 values for all the endogenous constructs were
greater than zero as required. Table 6.76 also lists the R2 values of the
endogeneous contructs.
Table 6.76 Experiment 3: Models predictive relevance
Endogenous Construct
R2
Q2
Attitude towards ad
0.32 0.23
0.50 0.43
Purchase intention
0.46 0.40
Message involvement
0.36 0.19
Fear
0.22 0.15
Next, the effect size was calculated to measure the impact of a

predictor on a specific endogenous construct. Effect size represents Cohens d.
The values of 0.02 (small), 0.15 (medium) and 0.35 (large) indicate that the
construct has a small, medium or large effect size on the criterion (dependent)
construct respectively (Cohen 1988). The effects are shown in Table 6.77.
Although fear has a small effect on message involvement the effect size 0.14
is very close to the medium threshold. Most of the other effect sizes are small.
However message involvement has a medium effect on attitude towards ad
and attitude towards brand has a medium effect on purchase intention.
Attitude towards ad has a strong effect on attitude towards brand.
256
Table 6.77 Experiment 3: Effect sizes

Exogenous
Endogeneous Variable
Variable
Effect
Size f2
Effect size
Interpretation
Purchase intention
Attitude Towards brand
0.32
Medium
Purchase intention
Self efficacy
0.05
Small
Attitude towards ad
0.43
Large
Attitude towards ad
Message involvement
0.26
Medium
Attitude towards ad
Response efficacy
0.01
Small
Attitude towards ad
0.06
Small
Message involvement
Fear
0.14
Small
Message involvement
0.01
Small
Message involvement
Response efficacy
0.04
Small
Message involvement
Self efficacy
0.01
Small
Message involvement
0.01
Small
Fear
Perceived severity
0.09
Small
Fear
0.03
Small
Fear
0.06
Small
Perceived severity
0.01
Small
6.5.9

This experiment examined the effects of varying threat levels and
goal frames on PMT variables and the subsequent effects of the PMT
variables on message involvement, attitudes and purchase intention. The issue
of e-waste (based on mobile phone stimuli) was used to observe if the
hypothesized effects were supported. The levels of perceived severity and
vulnerability remained high in this experiment too. It can be inferred from
Table 6.67 and 6.68 that perceived severity, vulnerability and fear remain
257
high for watch stimuli. Similar to Experiment 2 there was no main effect of
threat level or the goal frames. Similarly the hypothesized interaction effects
were only partially significant. Similar to Experiment 2 loss frames did not
increase threat perception as suggested by other researchers (Cox & Cox
2001; Meyers-Levy & Maheswaran 2004; van t Riet et al 2008;OKeefe &
Jensen 2009; Janssens et al 2010; Updegraff 2013).
There was no relationship between involvement and framing as
hypothesized. Both environmental concern and message involvement did not
interact with frames to produce an effect on purchase intention. This is in
contrast to the findings by other researchers who imply an effect between
involvement and framing (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy 1990; Rothman et al
2006; Kim 2013). However gender played a significant role in predicting the
effect of the factors on the PMT variables. Women were more fearful and
perceived higher severity when facing an environmental threat when
compared to men. This confirms earlier findings by Garbarino & Strahilevitz
(2004) who find that women are more risk averse when compared to men.
The result also highlights the gender gap known to exist in environmental
threat perceptions (Flynn et al 1994; Bord & Connor 1997; McCright &
Dunlap 2011; Franzen & Vogl 2013). The interaction between frame and
gender also showed that women generate more negative thoughts when
presented with a negative goal frame when compared to men (Putrevu 2010).
Similar to the previous experiment, perceived severity and
vulnerability significantly influenced fear arousal as proposed by PMT
(Rogers & Prentice-Dunn 1997 ; Floyd et al 2000) and other studies that
apply this theory (Milne et al 2000; de Hoog et al 2008). Coping appraisal
was also initiated (Maddux & Rogers 1983; Boer & Seydel 1996; Milne et al
2000). Response efficacy was significantly influenced by perceived severity
and vulnerability. However self efficacy was only moderately influenced by
258
perceived severity and not by perceived vulnerability. In this experiment too,

all the PMT variables except self-efficacy predicted message involvement.
This finding confirms that higher levels of health risk increase involvement
with the message (Bloch & Richins 1983; Richins & Bloch 1986; Keller &
Block 1996; de Hoog 2005). Fear can therefore be used to increase message
involvement in enviromental communication (Meijnders et al 2001).
Apart from this, the finding also shows that while using goal frames
and threat levels, emphasis on the response efficacy would significantly
increase consumer involvement. The results are also in contrast to the finding
by Punam & Keller (1995) who find that low efficacy promotes more effortful
processing. Recent research emphasizes the importance of response efficacy
and treats it as a key component to message acceptance (Lewis et al 2010).
However, contrary to previous research, the efficacy variables were not
related to attitudes. Self efficacy significantly predicted purchase intentions
confirming the findings of earlier research (Maibach & Murphy 1995;
Luszczynska 2004; Gaston & Prapavessis 2012; Kreausukon et al 2012).
While objective environmental knowledge did not decrease the levels of
perceived severity or vulnerability, it had a negative effect on fear (Averbeck
et al 2011). Knowledge did not affect the levels of message involvement
similar to Experiment 2. Interestingly, environmental concern did not have an
effect on any of the hypothesized variables. This is in contrast to the findings
of Experiment 2 and contrary to the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo 1986). However ,
this finding was related to Experiment1 where environmental concern did not
predict the hypothesized variables. From Table 6.77, it can also be inferred
that message involvement has a stronger effect on attitude towards the ad.
Hence, this experiment based on stimuli related to e-waste showed
similar results as Experiment 2. The major difference was the role of
environmental concern. While Experiment 2 showed an effect of
259
environmental concern, this experiment showed that this variable was not
effective in influencing attitudes or intentions.
Apart from the findings
related to environmental concern, there were no major differences between

the issue of e-waste and plastic waste.There were only two other differences.
In case of Experiment 2, perceived severity affected message involvement
and vulnerability affected self-efficacy. Hence, both the experiments highlight
the role of message involvement in promoting attitudes and intentions towards
green advertising.
6.5.10
Gender and Environmental Concern

Some green marketing studies claim that gender has a significant
effect on environmental concern (Shrum et al 1995; Jain & Kaur 2006;

Mostafa 2007). This was not investigated as part of hypothesis testing as it
was not part of the research objective, Surprisingly, a post hoc analysis
revealed that gender did not have any significant effect on environmental
concern in all the three experiments. This confirms the recent finding by other
researchers who do not find a link between environmental concern and gender
(e.g. DSouza et al (2007)).

11 Chapter6

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

11 Chapter6

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

97

Table 6.1a Results of pretest for product preferrences

28.02 26.55 17.45 19.14 18.45 24.93

19.57 23.50 15.93

7.053 6.743 5.699

Results of independent samples t-test to test gender

t-test for Equality of Means

.241 41.889 .811

1.475 41.946 .148

.074 40.911 .941

.330 38.783 .743

.326 35.889 .746

1.420 .240 1.446

Table 6.1b (Continued)

t-test for Equality of Means

1.284 41.320 .206

-.616 40.772 .541

.339 38.753 .737

-.682 41.976 .499

.963 38.160 .342

1.025 .317 -.669

4.590 .038 .324

Geographical Proximity of Environmental Issues

geographical (spatial) proximity using seven point scales from relevant to

GEOGRAPHICAL FRAMING OF THREAT

(geographical proximity of the health threat: local vs. global) between

cells: temporally proximal threat and geographically proximal threat;

and geographically distant threat. The advertisements also listed the

assess if it contained the necessary variations in the temporal proximity and

if the manipulations were successful. To this end, two questions were

measure the constructs. The dependent variables include perceived severity,

environmental knowledge and consideration for future consequences. The

Protection motivation theory variables

described in detail below:

whether participants believed if purchasing recyclable / biodegradable

Attitudes and Intentions

favorable/unfavorable ( =0.88) (Mackenzie & Lutz 1989).

Variables related to the environment and personality

consequences and concern with immediate consequences. The consideration

wristwatch stimuli to evaluate the effect of temporal and geographical

Mobile phone stimuli

Table 6.3a Experiment 1: Mean values of the manipulation check

Table 6.3b Experiment 1: One way ANOVA - manipulation check

Similarly geographical proximity manipulations were also not successful as

Experiment 1: Mean value of the manipulation check

Experiment 1: One way ANOVA of the manipulation check

Table 6.5a Experiment 1: Mean values of the manipulation check

Table 6.5b Experiment 1: One way ANOVA of the manipulation check

Similarly geographical proximity manipulations were also not successful as

Table 6.5c Experiment 1: Mean values of the manipulation check

Table 6.5d Experiment 1: One way ANOVA of the manipulation check

A failed manipulation check in social psychology research is not of

Mobile phone stimuli

> 0.5 is acceptable, the same measure was used and

Attitude towards brand

Consideration for future consequences

Hypotheses tests of the effect of manipulations on PMT

manipulations on the PMT variables was analyzed using MANOVA or

Experiment 1: Distribution characteristics of the protection

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Experiment 1: Group wise mean values of protection

Hypothesis 1 stated that consumers who viewed advertisements that

Experiment1: Hypothesis 1: multivariate tests (mobile