Involvement 1 29.375 0.000 TypeofReview *Involvement 1 6.718 0.011 Error 144 R Squared = 0.208 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.191) Concerning table 15, the main effect of type of review on perceived risk is significant, (1,144) =0.406, =0.525. It is quite interesting the fact that the main F p effect of Involvement on perceived risk is significant, (1,144) =29.375, F respondents in the high involvement condition gave higher p<0.001.Specifically, scores on perceived risk than respondents in the low involvement condition (Mhigh- involvement=3.755 vs. Moreover, there was a significant Mlow-involvement=2.234. interaction effect between type of review and involvement, (1,144) = 6.718, F p<0.05. Specifically, participants who received attribute-centric reviews in the high involvement condition had lower risk perception than those who received benefit centric reviews (Mattribute-centric=3.481 vs. On the Mbenefit-centric=4.029). contrary in the low involvement condition benefit centric reviews seemed to lower the effects of risk perception (Mattribute-centric=2.687 vs. Mbenefit-centric=1.780). Simple effects revealed that the effect of attribute-centric reviews was lower on perceived risk for the high involvement condition than the effect of benefit centric reviews, (1,144) = 3.944, p<0.05. On the other hand, the effect of benefit-centric F reviews on perception of risk is lower for the low involvement condition than the effect of the benefit-centric reviews, (1,144) =32.543, Hence, Hypotheses F p<0.001. 4a and 4b are supported. Table 16: Univariate tests for perception of risk Attribute vs Benefit df F Sig. Contrast 1 3.944 0.049 Attribute-centric Error 144 Contrast 1 32.543 0.000 Benefit-centric Error 144 Results of the three way ANOVAs 5.2.1 The cognitive fit and the effect of Involvement on informativeness Table 17: Descriptive statistics of informativeness
Involvement 1 29.375 0.000 TypeofReview *Involvement 1 6.718 0.011 Error 144 R Squared = 0.208 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.191) Concerning table 15, the main effect of type of review on perceived risk is F (1,144) =0.406, p =0.525. It is quite interesting the fact that the main effect of Involvement on perceived risk is significant, F (1,144) =29.375, p<0.001.Specifically, respondents in the high involvement condition gave higher scores on perceived risk than respondents in the low involvement condition (Mhigh- involvement=3.755 vs. Mlow-involvement=2.234. Moreover, there was a significant interaction effect between type of review and involvement, F (1,144) = 6.718, p<0.05. Specifically, participants who received attribute-centric reviews in the high involvement condition had lower risk perception than those who received benefit centric reviews (Mattribute-centric=3.481 vs. Mbenefit-centric=4.029). On the contrary in the low involvement condition benefit centric reviews seemed to lower the effects of risk perception (Mattribute-centric=2.687 vs. Mbenefit-centric=1.780). Simple effects revealed that the effect of attribute-centric reviews was lower on perceived risk for the high involvement condition than the effect of benefit centric reviews, F (1,144) = 3.944, p<0.05. On the other hand, the effect of benefit-centric reviews on perception of risk is lower for the low involvement condition than the effect of the benefit-centric reviews, F (1,144) =32.543, p<0.001. Hence, Hypotheses 4a and 4b are supported. Table 16: Univariate tests for perception of risk Attribute vs Benefit df F Sig. Attribute-centric Contrast 1 3.944 0.049 Error 144 Benefit-centric Contrast 1 32.543 0.000 Error 144 Results of the three way ANOVAs 5.2.1 The cognitive fit and the effect of Involvement on informativeness Table 17: Descriptive statistics of informativeness significant,