Study 4 Fitness-Focused Profiles vs. Profiles Not Mentioning Fitness. There was a significant interaction between weight status and profile type on the measure of comfort discussing personal health on the first dummy code, = .22 [.05, .39], bInteraction SE = .09, = 2.56, = .011 (see Figure S9 for mean differences, and Figure S5 for regression t p coefficients). Overweight participants again felt marginally more comfortable with physicians who did not mention fitness, = .16 [-.02, .34], .19, 1.70, = .091, and bSimpleEffect SE= t = p non-overweight participants did not distinguish between fitness-focused physicians and those who did not mention fitness, = -.06 [-.26, .13], .10, = .54. bSimpleEffect SE= t = -.62, p The interaction on our measure of doctor ability was not significant, = .03 [-.12, .17], b = .08, = .34, = .73 (see Figure S10 for mean differences, and Figure S5 for regression SE t p coefficients). Both overweight and non-overweight participants did not distinguish between fitness-focused physicians and physicians who did not mention fitness, = -.13 [-.09, bMainEffect .00], = .10, = -1.41, = .16. SE t p Fitness-Focused Profiles vs. Fitness Struggle Profiles. Both overweight participants and non-overweight participants rated the fitness struggle (see Figure S9 for profile no differently from the fitness-focused profiles on measures of comfort mean differences, and Figure S5 for regression coefficients) (see Figure S10 for or doctor ability mean differences, and Figure S5 for regression coefficients). The interaction between weight status and the second dummy code (which compared the fitness-focused profiles to the fitness (bMainEffect = .02 [-.25, .30], .14, .16, SE= t = struggle profiles) was not significant for comfort = .88; = .07 [-.21, .35], .14, .48, = .63) and perceived doctor ability p bInteraction SE= t = p
Study 4 Fitness-Focused Profiles vs. Profiles Not Mentioning Fitness. There was a significant interaction between weight status and profile type on the measure of comfort discussing personal health on the first dummy code, bInteraction = .22 [.05, .39], SE = .09, t = 2.56, p = .011 (see Figure S9 for mean differences, and Figure S5 for regression coefficients). Overweight participants again felt marginally more comfortable with physicians who did not mention fitness, bSimpleEffect = .16 [-.02, .34], SE= .19, t = 1.70, p = .091, and non-overweight participants did not distinguish between fitness-focused physicians and those who did not mention fitness, bSimpleEffect = -.06 [-.26, .13], SE= .10, t = -.62, p = .54. The interaction on our measure of doctor ability was not significant, b = .03 [-.12, .17], SE = .08, t = .34, p = .73 (see Figure S10 for mean differences, and Figure S5 for regression coefficients). Both overweight and non-overweight participants did not distinguish between fitness-focused physicians and physicians who did not mention fitness, bMainEffect = -.13 [-.09, .00], SE = .10, t = -1.41, p = .16. Fitness-Focused Profiles vs. Fitness Struggle Profiles. Both overweight participants and non-overweight participants rated the fitness struggle profile no differently from the fitness-focused profiles on measures of comfort (see Figure S9 for mean differences, and Figure S5 for regression coefficients) or doctor ability (see Figure S10 for mean differences, and Figure S5 for regression coefficients). The interaction between weight status and the second dummy code (which compared the fitness-focused profiles to the fitness struggle profiles) was not significant for comfort (bMainEffect = .02 [-.25, .30], SE= .14, t = .16, p = .88; bInteraction = .07 [-.21, .35], SE= .14, t = .48, p = .63) and perceived doctor ability