Promoting voluntary risk detection behaviour: an intervention study based on trending social norms combined with emotional appeals

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of experimental design and scenarios.

	Low-FF	High-FF
TSN Trending social norm
TSN + weak-WA Trending social norm + weak worry appraisal
TSN + strong-WA Trending social norm + strong worry appraisal

Figure 1. Overall tested model.

Table 2. Influence of intervention strategies on attitudes and behavioural intentions with risk and worry as mediators and perceived control as moderator.

Direct effects
a-paths: X > M	Worry (M1)	Risk perc. (M2)	b-paths: M > Y	Attitude (Y1)	Intention (Y2)
a1X1: TSN + weak-WA	.14	−0.06	b1M1: Worry	.22*	.69***
a2X2: TSN + strong-WA	.51*	.43*	b2M2: Risk perceptions	.02	−0.56**
a3X3: FF	.50*	.42	b3W: Perceved control	.21*	.20
a4X1*X3: TSN + weak-WA*FF	−0.32	−0.21	b4W*M1: Perc. control*Worry	−0.03	−0.11
a5 X2*X3: TSN + strong-WA*FF	−0.41	−0.53	b5W*M2: Perc. control*Risk perc.	−0.04	.15**
Indirect effects
ab-paths: X > M > Y1 (Attitudes)				Coefficient	95% CI lower; upper
ab1X1: TSN + weak-WA > M1: Worry > Y1: Attitude				−0.00	−0.044; .040
ab2X2: TSN + strong-WA > M1: Worry > Y1: Attitude				.04	.002; .087
ab3X3: FF > M1: Worry > Y1: Attitude				.03	.000; .072
ab4X1: TSN + weak-WA > M2: Risk perceptions > Y1: Attitude				.02	−0.010; .053
ab5X2: TSN + strong-WA > M2: Risk perceptions > Y1: Attitude				−0.02	−0.053; .012
ab6X3: FF > M2: Risk perceptions > Y1: Attitude				−0.02	−0.051; .006
ab-paths: X > M > Y2 (Intentions)
ab7X1: TSN + weak-WA > M1: Worry > Y2: Intentions				−0.00	−0.108; .099
ab8X2: TSN + strong-WA > M1: Worry > Y2: Intentions				.10	.002; .212
ab9X3: FF > M1: Worry > Y2: Intentions				.08	−0.002; .171
ab10X1: TSN + weak-WA > M2: Risk perceptions > Y2: Intentions				.03	−0.020; .090
ab11X2: TSN + strong-WA > M2: Risk perceptions > Y2: Intentions				.03	−0.101; .018
ab12X3: FF > M2: Risk perceptions > Y2: Intentions				−0.02	−0.083; .011
Mediation moderation effects: conditional indirect effect of perceived control on X > M > Y
Moderation mediation: WA > M1: Worry > Y1: Attitudes				−0.00	−0.022; .008
Moderation mediation: WA > M2: Risk perceptions > Y1: Attitudes				−0.00	−0.017; .005
Moderation mediation: FF > M1: Worry > Y1: Attitudes				−0.01	−0.034; .012
Moderation mediation: FF > M2: Risk perceptions > Y1: Attitudes				−0.01	−0.029; .011
Moderation mediation: WA > M1: Worry > Y2: Intentions				.03	−0.017; .102
Moderation mediation: WA > M2: Risk perceptions > Y2: Intentions				−0.01	−0.090; .023
Moderation mediation: FF > M1: Worry > Y2: Intentions				−0.03	−0.084; .019
Moderation mediation: FF > M2: Risk perceptions > Y2: Intentions				.03	−0.015; .078

Note: Significant effects were made bold *p≤.05; **p≤.001; 95% CI = 95 Confidence Interval; Dummy coding: Norm: X₁ (1= TSN + weak-WA; 0 = remaining two norm conditions) and X₂ (1= TSN + strong-WA; 0 remaining two norm conditions); Frame (1 = high-fear; 0 = low-fear).

Data availability statement

Data available on request from the corresponding author.