Indirect Effects of Consumer–Company Identification And Inferred Motive
| Hypothesized Indirect Effect | Path A (X → Y) | Path B (X → M) | Path C (M → Y) | Confidence Intervals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clothing | ||||
| Guilt → C-CI → CI | −3.68** | −1.41** | 0.16 | 0.007, 0.38 |
| Guilt → IM → CI | −3.68** | −2.73** | 0.31** | 0.21, 0.59 |
| CI → PI | 0.91** | |||
| Technology | ||||
| Guilt → C-CI → CI | −1.12** | −0.66** | 0.54** | 0.20, 0.49 |
| Guilt → IM → CI | −1.12** | −0.75** | 0.38** | 0.04, 0.42 |
| CI → PI | 0.83** | |||
| Food | ||||
| Guilt → C-CI → CI | −1.47** | −0.34** | −1.75 | 0.008, 0.36 |
| Guilt → IM → CI | −1.47** | −0.75** | 0.38** | 0.002, 0.31 |
| CI → PI | 0.97** | |||
Note: X = independent variable—guilt appeal intensity; Y = dependent variable—corporate image; M= mediators (CI = corporate image, IM = inferred motive); C-CI = consumer–company identification; PI = purchase intentions; ** p < .05; the confidence intervals reported relate to Kappa-squared estimates.