Recommending Breast Cancer Screening to My Mum: Examining the Interplay of Threat, Efficacy, and Virality on Recommendation Intention in the Chinese Context
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. The EPPM as a Theoretical Basis
1.3. EPPM Constructs and Message Involvement
1.4. Virality and Message Involvement
1.5. Threat, Efficacy, Virality, and Message Involvement
1.6. The Behavioral Outcome of Message Involvement
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design and Participants
2.2. Stimuli
2.3. Measures
3. Results
3.1. Randomization Check
3.2. Manipulation Check
3.3. Hypotheses Testing
4. Discussion
4.1. Explanations of the Findings
4.2. Practical Implications
4.3. Limitations and Future Directions
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Xinhua Net. Available online: http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2021-02/04/c_1127064923.htm (accessed on 29 November 2022).
- Dibden, A.; Offman, J.; Duffy, S.W.; Gabe, R. Worldwide review and meta-analysis of cohort studies measuring the effect of mammography screening programmes on incidence-based breast cancer mortality. Cancers 2020, 12, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lehman, C.D.; Arao, R.F.; Sprague, B.L.; Lee, J.M.; Buist, D.S.M.; Kerlikowske, K.; Henderson, L.M.; Onega, T.; Tosteson, A.N.A.; Rauscher, G.H.; et al. National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: Update from the breast cancer surveillance consortium. Radiology 2017, 283, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- American Cancer Society. Available online: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2019-2020.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2022).
- Sinicrope, P.S.; Brockman, T.A.; Patten, C.A.; Frost, M.H.; Vierkant, R.A.; Petersen, L.R.; Rock, E.; Clark, L.P.; Vachon, C.M.; Fredericksen, Z.S.; et al. Factors associated with breast cancer prevention communication between mothers and daughters. J. Womens Health 2008, 17, 1017–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Aspy, C.B.; Vesely, S.K.; Oman, R.F.; Rodine, S.; Marshall, L.; McLeroy, K. Parental Communication and Youth Sexual Behaviour. J. Adolesc. 2007, 30, 449–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McRee, A.-L.; Reiter, P.L.; Gottlieb, S.L.; Brewer, N.T. Mother–Daughter Communication about HPV Vaccine. J. Adolesc. Health 2011, 48, 314–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Prensky, M. Digital Game-Based Learning. Comput. Entertain. 2001, 1, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borah, P.; Xiao, X. The importance of ‘likes’: The interplay of message framing, source, and social endorsement on credibility perceptions of health information on Facebook. J. Health Commun. 2018, 23, 399–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burns, J.M.; Davenport, T.A.; Durkin, L.A.; Luscombe, G.M.; Hickie, I.B. The Internet as a setting for mental health service utilisation by young people. Med. J. Aust. 2010, 192, S22–S26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mosavel, M.; Ports, K.A. Upward communication about cancer screening: Adolescent daughter to mother. J. Health Commun. 2015, 20, 680–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Browne, J.L.; Chan, A.Y.C. Mother-daughter communication about mammography in an Australian sample. J. Fam. Commun. 2012, 12, 129–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mosavel, M.; Genderson, M.W. From adolescent daughter to mother: Exploring message design strategies for breast and cervical cancer prevention and screening. J. Canc. Educ. 2013, 28, 558–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maloney, E.K.; Lapinski, M.K.; Witte, K. Fear appeals and persuasion: A review and update of the extended parallel process model. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2011, 5, 206–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, J.; Wang, X.; Peng, T.Q.; Chen, L. Cancer-prevention messages on Chinese social media: A content analysis grounded in the extended parallel process model and attribution theory. Int. J. Commun. 2019, 13, 1959–1976. [Google Scholar]
- Roberto, A.J.; Mongeau, P.A.; Liu, Y.; Hashi, E.C. “Fear the flu, Not the flu shot”: A test of the extended parallel process model. J. Health Commun. 2019, 24, 829–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee-Won, R.J.; Na, K.; Coduto, K.D. The effects of social media virality metrics, message framing, and perceived susceptibility on cancer screening intention: The mediating role of fear. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 1387–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alhabash, S.; McAlister, A.R. Redefining virality in less broad strokes: Predicting viral behavioral intentions from motivations and uses of Facebook and Twitter. New Media Soc. 2015, 17, 1317–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Lu, J.; Wang, H. When health information meets social media: Exploring virality on Sina Weibo. Health Commun. 2017, 32, 1252–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witte, K. Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Commun. Monogr. 1994, 61, 113–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witte, K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Commun. Monogr. 1992, 59, 329–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witte, K. Fear as motivator, fear as inhibitor: Using the extended parallel process model to explain fear appeal successes and failures. In Handbook of Communication and Emotion: Research, Theory, Applications, and Contexts, 1st ed.; Anderson, P.A., Guerrero, L.K., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1998; pp. 423–450. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, L.; Yang, X. Using EPPM to evaluate the effectiveness of fear appeal messages across different media outlets to increase the intention of breast self-examination among Chinese women. Health Commun. 2019, 34, 1369–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Termeh Zonouzy, V.; Niknami, S.; Ghofranipour, F.; Montazeri, A. An educational intervention based on the extended parallel process model to improve attitude, behavioral intention, and early breast cancer diagnosis: A randomized trial. Int. J. Womens Health 2018, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, K.; Liao, T. Explicating cues: A typology for understanding emerging media technologies. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2020, 25, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jahng, M.R.; Littau, J. Interacting is believing: Interactivity, social cue, and perceptions of journalistic credibility on Twitter. J. Mass Commun. Q. 2016, 93, 38–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Capurro, D.; Cole, K.; Echavarría, M.I.; Joe, J.; Neogi, T.; Turner, A.M. The use of social networking sites for public health practice and research: A systematic review. J. Med. Internet. Res. 2014, 16, e79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kuang, K.; Cho, H. Delivering vaccination messages via interactive channels: Examining the interaction among threat, response efficacy, and interactivity in risk communication. J. Risk. Res. 2016, 19, 476–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laczniak, R.N.; Kempf, D.S.; Muehling, D.D. Advertising message involvement: The role of enduring and situational factors. J. Curr. Issues Res. Advert. 1999, 21, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macinnis, D.; Jaworski, B. Information processing from advertisements: Toward an integrative framework. J. Mark. 1989, 53, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, K.; Zhou, M. The influence of emotionality on the diffusion of information on microblogs about social events: The effect of involvement. Commun. Soc. 2017, 41, 119–147. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, L.; Yang, X.; Fu, L.; Liu, X.; Yuan, C. Using the extended parallel process model to examine the nature and impact of breast cancer prevention information on mobile-based social media: Content analysis. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2019, 7, e13987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wakefield, M.A.; Loken, B.; Hornik, R.C. Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. Lancet 2010, 376, 1261–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Greenwald, A.G.; Leavitt, C. Audience involvement in advertising: Four levels. J. Consum. Res. 1984, 11, 581–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change; Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Fernando, A.G.; Sivakumaran, B.; Suganthi, L. Message involvement and attitude towards green advertisements. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2016, 34, 863–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Kuru, O.; Campbell, S.W.; Baruh, L. Explaining health misinformation belief through news, social, and alternative health media use: The moderating roles of need for cognition and faith in intuition. Health Commun. 2022, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T.; Schumann, D. Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. J. Consum. Res. 1983, 10, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kitchen, P.J.; Kerr, G.; Schultz, D.E.; McColl, R.; Pals, H. The elaboration likelihood model: Review, critique and research agenda. Eur. J. Mark. 2014, 48, 2033–2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, W.E.; Lutz, R.J. An empirical test of an updated relevance-accessibility model of advertising effectiveness. J. Advert. 2000, 29, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Block, L.G.; Keller, P.A. When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. J. Mark. Res. 1995, 32, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.W. They liked and shared: Effects of social media virality metrics on perceptions of message influence and behavioral intentions. Comput. Human Behav. 2018, 84, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alhabash, S.; McAlister, A.R.; Hagerstrom, A.; Quilliam, E.T.; Rifon, N.J.; Richards, J.I. Between likes and shares: Effects of emotional appeal and virality on the persuasiveness of anticyberbullying messages on Facebook. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2013, 16, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.W. Rumor has it: The Effects of virality metrics on rumor believability and transmission on Twitter. New Media Soc. 2018, 20, 4807–4825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Chen, L.; Shi, J.; Peng, T.-Q. What makes cancer information viral on social media? Comput. Human Behav. 2019, 93, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alhabash, S.; Baek, J.; Cunningham, C.; Hagerstrom, A. To comment or not to comment?: How virality, arousal level, and commenting behavior on YouTube videos affect civic behavioral intentions. Comput. Human Behav. 2015, 51, 520–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee-Won, R.J.; Abo, M.M.; Na, K.; White, T.N. More than numbers: Effects of social media virality metrics on intention to help unknown others in the context of bone marrow donation. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2016, 19, 404–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sundar, S.S. The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility; Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., Eds.; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008; pp. 73–100. [Google Scholar]
- Trivedi, J. The effect of viral marketing messages on consumer behavior. J. Manag. Res. 2017, 17, 84–98. [Google Scholar]
- Segev, S.; Fernandes, J. The anatomy of viral advertising: A content analysis of viral advertising from the elaboration likelihood model perspective. J. Promot. Manag. 2022, 29, 125–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaiken, S. The heuristic model of persuasion. In Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium; Zanna, M.P., Olson, J.M., Herman, C.P., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, MI, USA, 1987; Volume 5, pp. 3–39. [Google Scholar]
- Rimal, R.N.; Real, K. Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change.: Use of the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to understand health behaviors. Human Commun. Res. 2003, 29, 370–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Susan, D.; Kirby, J.R.; Ureda Randall, L.; Rose, J.H. Peripheral cues and involvement level: Influences on acceptance of a mammography message. J. Health Commun. 1998, 3, 119–135. [Google Scholar]
- Vafeiadis, M.; Shen, F. Effects of narratives, frames, and involvement on health message effectiveness. Health Mark. Q. 2021, 39, 213–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Igartu, J.J.; Cheng, L.; Lopes, O. To think or not to think: Two pathways towards persuasion by short films on AIDS prevention. J. Health Commun. 2003, 8, 513–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahmad Rizal, A.R.; Nordin, S.M.; Ahmad, W.F.W.; Ahmad Khiri, M.J.; Hussin, S.H. How does social media influence people to get vaccinated? The elaboration likelihood model of a person’s attitude and intention to get COVID-19 vaccines. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ko, L.K.; Turner-McGrievy, G.M.; Campbell, M.K. Information processing versus social cognitive mediators of weight loss in a podcast-delivered health intervention. Health Educ. Behav. 2014, 41, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- TC Lab. Available online: https://www.testcloudlab.com/testcloud-study/tutorialIndex/shiyongshouce (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- Beijing Daily. Available online: https://reurl.cc/ROeNox (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- China Daily. Available online: https://reurl.cc/334zgV (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- Zhang, X.; Zhou, S. Clicking health risk messages on social media: Moderated mediation paths through perceived threat, perceived efficacy, and fear arousal. Health Commun. 2019, 34, 1359–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cho, H.; Salmon, C.T. Fear appeals for individuals in different stages of change: Intended and unintended effects and implications on public health campaigns. Health Commun. 2006, 20, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Witte, K. Predicting risk behaviors: Development and validation of a diagnostic scale. J. Health Commun. 1996, 1, 317–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Altunel, C.M.; Erkurt, B. Cultural tourism in Istanbul: The mediation effect of tourist experience and satisfaction on the relationship between involvement and recommendation intention. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2015, 4, 213–221. [Google Scholar]
- Krieger, J.L.; Sarge, M.A. A serial mediation model of message framing on intentions to receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine: Revisiting the role of threat and efficacy perceptions. Health Commun. 2013, 28, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, D.; Cox, A.D. Communicating the consequences of early detection: The role of evidence and framing. J. Mark. 2001, 65, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, J.Y.; Sundar, S.S. To tweet or to retweet? That is the question for health professionals on Twitter. Health Commun. 2013, 28, 509–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ohanian, R. Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. J. Advert. 1990, 19, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cauberghe, V.; De Pelsmacker, P.; Janssens, W.; Dens, N. Fear, Threat and efficacy in threat appeals: Message involvement as a key mediator to message acceptance. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2009, 41, 276–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coughlin, S.S.; King, J.; Richards, T.B.; Ekwueme, D.U. Cervical cancer screening among women in metropolitan areas of the United States by individual-level and area-based measures of socioeconomic status, 2000 to 2002. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2006, 15, 2154–2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hayes, A.F. Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Commun. Monogr. 2018, 85, 4–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witte, K.; Allen, M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ. Behav. 2000, 27, 591–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birmingham, W.C.; Hung, M.; Boonyasiriwat, W.; Kohlmann, W.; Walters, S.T.; Burt, R.W.; Stroup, A.M.; Edwards, S.L.; Schwartz, M.D.; Lowery, J.T.; et al. Effectiveness of the extended parallel process model in promoting colorectal cancer screening: EPPM in CRC screening. Psycho-Oncology 2015, 24, 1265–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Champion, V.L. Revised susceptibility, benefits, and barriers scale for mammography screening. Res. Nurs. Health 1999, 22, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Yang, X. Linking risk perception to breast cancer examination intention in China: Examining an adapted cognitive mediation model. Health Commun. 2021, 36, 1813–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popova, L. The extended parallel process model: Illuminating the gaps in research. Health Educ. Behav. 2012, 39, 455–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Yang, J.Z.; Chu, H. When we increase fear, do we dampen hope? Using narrative persuasion to promote human papillomavirus vaccination in China. J. Health Psychol. 2021, 26, 1999–2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaiken, S.; Liberman, A.; Eagly, A.H. Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Unintended Thought; Uleman, J.S., Bargh, J.A., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 212–252. [Google Scholar]
- Chung, M.; Kim, N. When I learn the news is false: How fact-checking information stems the spread of fake news via third-person perception. Hum. Commun. Res. 2021, 47, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emery, L.F.; Romer, D.; Sheerin, K.M.; Jamieson, K.H.; Peters, E. Affective and cognitive mediators of the impact of cigarette warning labels. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2014, 16, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mitchell, A.A. The dimensions of advertising involvement. Adv. Consum. Res. 1981, 8, 25–30. [Google Scholar]
- Chaiken, S. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1980, 39, 752–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berger, J.; Milkman, K.L. What makes online content viral? J. Mark. Res. 2012, 49, 192–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tucker, C.E. The reach and persuasiveness of viral video ads. Mark. Sci. 2015, 34, 281–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Crandall, A.; Weiss-Laxer, N.S.; Broadbent, E.; Holmes, E.K.; Magnusson, B.M.; Okano, L.; Berge, J.M.; Barnes, M.D.; Hanson, C.L.; Jones, B.L.; et al. The family health scale: Reliability and validity of a short- and long-form. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 587125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smith, S.W.; Kopfman, J.E.; Lindsey, L.L.M.; Yoo, J.; Morrison, K. Encouraging family discussion on the decision to donate organs: The role of the willingness to communicate scale. Health Commun. 2004, 16, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Myrick, J.G.; Oliver, M.B. Laughing and crying: Mixed emotions, compassion, and the effectiveness of a YouTube PSA about skin cancer. Health Commun. 2015, 30, 820–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- So, J. A further extension of the extended parallel process model (E-EPPM): Implications of cognitive appraisal theory of emotion and dispositional coping style. Health Commun. 2013, 28, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duggan, A. Understanding interpersonal communication processes across health contexts: Advances in the last decade and challenges for the next decade. J. Health Commun. 2006, 11, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Participants | Participants’ Mothers | |
---|---|---|
Demographic characteristics (continuous) | M (SD) | M (SD) |
Age | 22.62 (2.71) | 49.64 (2.89) |
Annual household income (1 = below 10K CNY; 5 = above 40K CNY) | 2.80 (1.45) | 2.80 (1.45) |
Familiarity with breast cancer (1 = totally uninformed; 5 = well-informed) | 2.78 (0.74) | - |
Familiarity with breast cancer screening (1 = totally uninformed; 5 = well-informed) | 2.32 (0.88) | - |
Demographic characteristics (discrete) | N (%) | N (%) |
Education—Undergraduate level | 179 (66.54) | - |
Education—Postgraduate level | 90 (33.46) | |
Education—Primary school or below | - | 47 (17.47) |
Education—Junior high school | - | 99 (36.80) |
Education—Senior high school | - | 55 (20.45) |
Education—College or above | - | 68 (25.28) |
Family history of breast cancer (0 = False; 1 = True) | 35 (13.01) | 35 (13.01) |
High Virality | Low Virality | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Threat × efficacy | n | M (SD) | n | M (SD) | n | M (SD) |
High threat × high efficacy | 36 | 3.96 (0.94) | 32 | 3.96 (0.64) | 68 | 3.96 (0.81) |
High threat × low efficacy | 37 | 4.03 (0.58) | 31 | 3.87 (0.62) | 68 | 3.96 (0.60) |
Low threat × high efficacy | 39 | 4.01 (0.49) | 30 | 3.66 (0.60) | 69 | 3.86 (0.57) |
Low threat × low efficacy | 32 | 3.66 (0.73) | 32 | 3.86 (0.59) | 64 | 3.76 (0.66) |
Message Involvement | Recommendation Intention | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | b (SE) | t | b (SE) | t |
Constant | 3.63 *** (0.20) | 18.08 | 2.55 *** (0.25) | 10.11 |
Platform use frequency | 0.02 (0.06) | 0.39 | 0.04 (0.05) | 0.78 |
Trust in the platform | 0.07 (0.04) | 1.83 | −0.01 (0.03) | −0.25 |
Family history of breast cancer | 0.02 (0.12) | 0.16 | 0.08 (0.10) | 0.82 |
Familiarity with breast cancer screening | 0.06 (0.05) | 1.18 | 0.02 (0.04) | 0.51 |
Annual household income | −0.09 ** (0.03) | −3.34 | −0.03 (0.02) | −1.04 |
Threat | 0.18 * (0.08) | 2.25 | 0.02 (0.07) | 0.31 |
Efficacy | 0.03 (0.08) | 0.37 | 0.10 (0.07) | 1.55 |
Virality | 0.10 (0.08) | 1.23 | −0.09 (0.07) | −1.32 |
Threat × efficacy | −0.04 (0.16) | −0.23 | −0.15 (0.14) | −1.14 |
Threat × virality | −0.00 (0.16) | −0.01 | −0.04 (0.13) | −0.31 |
Efficacy × virality | 0.17 (0.16) | 1.04 | −0.06 (0.13) | −0.47 |
Threat × efficacy × virality | −0.70 * (0.32) | −2.21 | 0.34 (0.27) | 1.27 |
Message involvement | - | - | 0.47 *** (0.05) | 9.00 |
R2 (F) | 0.10 (2.31 **) | 0.29 (7.89 **) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Luo, C.; Zhang, Z.; Jin, J. Recommending Breast Cancer Screening to My Mum: Examining the Interplay of Threat, Efficacy, and Virality on Recommendation Intention in the Chinese Context. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 907. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20020907
Luo C, Zhang Z, Jin J. Recommending Breast Cancer Screening to My Mum: Examining the Interplay of Threat, Efficacy, and Virality on Recommendation Intention in the Chinese Context. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(2):907. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20020907
Chicago/Turabian StyleLuo, Chen, Zizhong Zhang, and Jing Jin. 2023. "Recommending Breast Cancer Screening to My Mum: Examining the Interplay of Threat, Efficacy, and Virality on Recommendation Intention in the Chinese Context" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 2: 907. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20020907
APA StyleLuo, C., Zhang, Z., & Jin, J. (2023). Recommending Breast Cancer Screening to My Mum: Examining the Interplay of Threat, Efficacy, and Virality on Recommendation Intention in the Chinese Context. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(2), 907. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20020907