Total 2,8000 75 High Involvement 5,9665 33 Novice Low Involvement 3,0494 27 Total 4,6538 60 High Involvement 1,9350 41 Total Expert Low Involvement 1,6879 47 Total 1,8030 88 High Involvement 3,7328 74 Total Low Involvement 2,1847 74 Total 2,9587 148 Table 27: Results of the three-way ANOVA for perceived risk Source df F Sig. Involvement 1 177.012 0.000 TypeofReview 1 51.141 0.000 Expertise 1 603.231 0.000 Involvement *TypeofReview 1 16.176 0.000 Involvement * Expertise 1 118.721 0.000 TypeofReview * Expertise 1 53.213 0.000 Involvement * 1 3.046 0.083 TypeofReview * Expertise Error 140 Since the main interaction effect among involvement, type of review and expertise is non-significant, (1,140) = 3.046, hypotheses 5d, 5d1 and 5d2 are not F p=0.083, supported. However, it is important to report that there is a significant main effect of involvement on perceived risk, (1,140) = 177.012, means revealed that F p<0.001.The high-involvement conditions create higher perceptions of risk than low-involvement conditions (Mhigh-involvement=4.007 vs. low-involvement =2.480). Also the main M effect of type of reviews is significant on perceived risk, (1,140) =51.141, F is important to mention at this point that attribute-centric reviews created p<0.001.It higher conditions of perceived risk in relation to benefit-centric reviews vs. Moreover, the main effect of expertise Mbenefit-centric=2.833). was significant on perceived risk, (1,140) =603.231. Especially for novices the F
Total 2,8000 75 Total Novice High Involvement 5,9665 33 Low Involvement 3,0494 27 Total 4,6538 60 Expert High Involvement 1,9350 41 Low Involvement 1,6879 47 Total 1,8030 88 Total High Involvement 3,7328 74 Low Involvement 2,1847 74 Total 2,9587 148 Table 27: Results of the three-way ANOVA for perceived risk Source df F Sig. Involvement 1 177.012 0.000 TypeofReview 1 51.141 0.000 Expertise 1 603.231 0.000 Involvement *TypeofReview 1 16.176 0.000 Involvement * Expertise 1 118.721 0.000 TypeofReview * Expertise 1 53.213 0.000 Involvement * TypeofReview * Expertise 1 3.046 0.083 Error 140 Since the main interaction effect among involvement, type of review and expertise is non-significant, F (1,140) = 3.046, p=0.083, hypotheses 5d, 5d1 and 5d2 are not supported. However, it is important to report that there is a significant main effect of involvement on perceived risk, F (1,140) = 177.012, p<0.001.The means revealed that high-involvement conditions create higher perceptions of risk than low-involvement conditions (Mhigh-involvement=4.007 vs. M low-involvement =2.480). Also the main effect of type of reviews is significant on perceived risk, F (1,140) =51.141, p<0.001.It is important to mention at this point that attribute-centric reviews created higher conditions of perceived risk in relation to benefit-centric reviews vs. Mbenefit-centric=2.833). Moreover, the main effect of expertise was significant on perceived risk, F (1,140) =603.231. Especially for novices the