Skip to main content

Table 5 Pairwise comparisons among weapons of influence

From: Empirical analysis of weapons of influence, life domains, and demographic-targeting in modern spam: an age-comparative perspective

  Liking Scarcity Social proof Authority Commitment Perceptual contrast
Reciprocation − 6.95 a − 7.06 a − 7.10 a − 6.73 a − 7.01 a − 7.06 a
Liking   − 0.30 − 5.62 a − 0.78 − 3.60 a − 5.28 a
Scarcity    − 5.07 a − 1.05 − 3.03 a − 4.36 a
Social proof     − 6.10 b − 3.22 b − 1.32
Authority      − 4.75 a − 5.71 a
Commitment       − 2.29
  1. a Indicates that the prevalence of weapon of influence shown in the row was higher than the prevalence of weapon of influence shown in the corresponding column.b Indicates that the prevalence of weapon of influence shown in the row was lower than the prevalence of weapon of influence shown in the corresponding column. Italic indicates significant difference between prevalence of weapons of influence at the Bonferroni adjusted level of \(p = .001\)
\