Table 6 Results of hypothesis testing (CB-SEM).
From: Virtual resonance: analyzing IPA usage intensity under COVID-19's isolating canopy
H | Cause | Effect | β | T | P | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1a | Affective risk perception | Parasocial interaction | − 0.024 | 0.285 | 0.388 | Not supported |
H1b | Affective risk perception | IPA usage intensity | 0.064 | 0.724 | 0.234 | Not supported |
H2a | Cabin fever syndrome | Parasocial interaction | 0.379 | 3.577 | 0.000 | Supported |
H2b | Cabin fever syndrome | IPA usage intensity | 0.504 | 4.427 | 0.000 | Supported |
H3a | Loneliness | Parasocial interaction | 0.226 | 2.015 | 0.022 | Supported |
H3b | Loneliness | IPA usage intensity | − 0.064 | 0.576 | 0.282 | Not supported |
H4 | Parasocial interaction | IPA usage intensity | 0.511 | 6.304 | 0.000 | Supported |
CV | Gender | Parasocial interaction | 0.262 | 1.855 | 0.032 | Significant |
CV | Gender | IPA usage intensity | − 0.198 | 1.493 | 0.068 | Not significant |
CV | Age | Parasocial interaction | 0.291 | 3.799 | 0.000 | Significant |
CV | Age | IPA usage intensity | 0.071 | 0.981 | 0.163 | Not significant |
CV | IPA platform | Parasocial interaction | 0.198 | 2.925 | 0.002 | Significant |
CV | IPA platform | IPA usage intensity | − 0.003 | 0.033 | 0.487 | Not significant |
