Unveiling femvertising: examining gratitude, consumers attitude towards femvertising and personality traits

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model.

Table 1. Means and correlations.

Construct	Means	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Message involvement	2.95	1.23	(0.90)
2. Feminist consciousness	3.25	1.05	.26**	(0.85)
3. Gratitude	2.85	1.34	.31**	.28**	(0.90)
4. Attitude towards femvertising	2.87	1.10	.18**	.14**	.33**	(0.93)
5. Extraversion	3.05	1.29	−.02	.06	.00	.00	(0.92)
6. Agreeableness	3.25	1.37	.00	−.09	.01	.00	.16**	(0.93)

Notes: n = 402; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05 level (2-tailed). Cronbach’s α values are presented crossways in Italics. SD = standard deviation. MI = message involvement, FC = feminist consciousness, EXTR = extraversion, AGRB = agreeableness, GRT = gratitude, ATF = attitude towards femvertising.

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis of discriminate validity.

Models	Factors	χ2	df	χ2/df	Δχ2	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	TLI
Model 1	6 Factors: MI, FC, GRT, EXTR, AGRB	795.00	449	1.77	–	.04	.04	.96	.95
Model 2	4 Factors: MI + FC, EXTR + AGRB, GRT, ATF	2969.01	458	6.48	2174.01	.11	.12	.71	.69
Model 3	2 Factor: MI + FC + EXTR, GRT + AGBR + ATF	4910.57	463	10.60	1941.56	.15	.16	.49	.46
Model 4	1 Factor: MI + FC + EXTR + GRT + AGBR + ATF	6274.46	464	13.52	1363.89	.17	.18	.34	.29

Table 3. Results of bootstrapped mediation analysis.

β(SE)
	GRT	ATF
Education	−0.02 (0.05)	−0.03 (0.04)
Age	0.06 (0.05)	−0.07 (0.04)
Gender	−0.15 (0.12)	−0.13 (0.10)
MI	0.33 (0.05) ***	0.08 (0.44)
GRT	–	0.25 (0.04) ***
F	12.09 ***	11.78***
R^2	0.10	0.12

Note(s): N = 402, B = Unstandardized coefficient, SE = Standard error, Bootstrapping specified at 5000 with 95% confidence interval.

Table 4. Results of bootstrapped mediation analysis.

β(SE)
	GRT	ATF
Education	−0.07 (0.05)	−0.05 (0.04)
Age	0.10 (0.05)	0.06 (0.04)
Gender	−0.17 (0.12)	−0.13 (0.10)
FC	0.37 (0.06) ***	0.06 (0.05)
GRT	–	0.26 (0.04) ***
F	10.17***	11.27***
R^2	0.98	0.12

Note(s): N = 402, B = Unstandardized coefficient, SE = Standard error, Bootstrapping specified at 5000 with 95% confidence interval.

Table 5. Indirect effects of message involvement on attitude towards Femvertising.

Indirect effect of MI	Effect (SE)	95% CI
		LL	UL
Attitude towards femvertising
Mediator: Gratitude
−1 SD of Agreeableness	0.013(0.222)	−0.327	0.056
Mean Agreeableness	0.087(0.0177)	0.054	0.123
+1 SD of Agreeableness	0.146(0.030)	0.089	0.209

Notes: MI = Message involvement; LL = Lower limit; UL = upper limit; CI = confidence interval. Bootstrap size 5000.

Table 6. Indirect effects of message involvement on attitude towards femvertising.

Indirect effect of MI	Effect (SE)	LL	UL
Attitude towards femvertising
Mediator: Gratitude
−1 SD of Extraversion	−0.001 (0.211)	−0.044	0.038
Mean Extraversion	0.078 (0.016)	0.047	0.113
+1 SD of Extraversion	0.157 (0.031)	0.099	0.222

Notes: MI = Message involvement; LL = Lower limit; UL = upper limit; CI = confidence interval. Bootstrap size 5000.

Table 7. Indirect effects of feminist consciousness on attitude towards femvertising.

Indirect effect of FC	Effect (SE)	95% CI
		LL	UL
Attitude towards femvertising
Mediator: Gratitude
−1 SD of Extraversion	0.030 (0.288)	−0.254	0.088
Mean Extraversion	0.091 (0.212)	0.054	0.136
+1 SD Extraversion	0.152 (0.031)	0.096	0.221

Notes: FC = Feminist consciousness; LL = Lower limit; UL = upper limit; CI = confidence interval. Bootstrap size 5000.

Table 8. Indirect effects of feminist consciousness on attitude towards femvertising.

Indirect effect of FC	Effect (SE)	95% CI
		LL	UL
Attitude towards femvertising
Mediator: Gratitude
−1 SD of Agreeableness	0.006(0.027)	−0.047	0.608
Mean Agreeableness	0.100(0.020)	0.062	0.145
+1 SD of Agreeableness	0.175(0.034)	0.110	0.248

Notes: FC = Feminist consciousness; LL = Lower limit; UL = upper limit; CI = confidence interval. Bootstrap size 5000.