Skip to main content

Table 5 Mediation analyses with T0 risk perception as independent variable and symptom expectation as mediator

From: Does precautionary information about electromagnetic fields trigger nocebo responses? An experimental risk communication study

   Coefficient ANOVA Sobel test
Dependent variable Path b-weight; t (p) F (p) R2 Indirect effect, b-weight (95% CI) Z (p)
Symptom difference a .15; 3.69 (<.001) 13.65 (< .001) .09   
b .14; 3.71 (<.001) 17.65 (<.001) .21 .02
(.008, .043)
2.57 (.01)
c’ .06; 3.3 (.001)
c .08; 4.44 (<.001) 19.70 (<.001) .13
Attributed symptoms b .16; 5.69 (<.001) 20.56 (<.001) .23 .02
(.009, .048)
3.07 (.002)
c’ .02; 1.09 (.28)
c .04; 2.66 (.008) 7.08 (.008) .05
Belief to perceive sham EMF b 1.23; 4.40 (<.001) 23.77 (<.001) .26 .19
(.007, .364)
2.79 (.005)
c’ .52; 3.72 (<.001)
c .70; 4.98 (<.001) 24.78 (<.001) .16
\