## 4 Results and Discussion
### Affective Valence and Arousal  
The SAM was adopted to measure the respondents' affective valence and arousal concerning the four interface formats. A one-way ANOVA was used to analyze the data. The means (and standard deviations, presented in parentheses) are tabulated in Table 7.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Interpretation Accuracy**} \\ \hline Significance & Text & Diagram & Image & Animation \\ \hline Text & & 0.000 * & 0.173 & 0.309 \\ Diagram & 0.000 * & & 0.000 * & 0.000 * \\ Image & 0.173 & 0.000 * & & 0.989 \\ Animation & 0.309 & 0.000 * & 0.989 & \\ \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Comprehension**} \\ \hline Significance & Text & Diagram & Image & Animation \\ \hline Text & & 0.051 & 0.863 & 0.468 \\ Diagram & 0.051 & & 0.005 * & 0.000 * \\ Image & 0.863 & 0.005 * & & 0.909 \\ Animation & 0.468 & 0.000 * & 0.909 & \\ \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Preference**} \\ \hline Significance & Text & Diagram & Image & Animation \\ \hline Text & & 0.194 & 0.996 & 0.359 \\ Diagram & 0.194 & & 0.298 & 0.002 * \\ Image & 0.996 & 0.298 & & 0.242 \\ Animation & 0.359 & 0.002 * & 0.242 & \\ \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{* represents statistical difference; \(p\) < 0.05.} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Post-hoc test: interpretation accuracy, comprehension, and preference.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **Text** & **Diagram** & **Image** & **Animation** \\ \hline Affective valence & 6.10(1.97) & 4.77(1.61) & 6.07(1.80) & 7.03(1.65) \\ Arousal & 4.30(1.80) & 4.20(1.79) & 4.73(1.60) & 4.80(1.97) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Means and standard deviations for affective valence and arousal (standard deviation in parentheses; unit: points; nine-point Likert scale).  
**Affective valence:** A high score denoted high affective valence for health information. A review of the means showed that the respondents had the highest affective valence for the animation interface, followed by the text, image, and diagram interfaces (Figure 8). Analysis results showed that on average, respondents gave scores of less than five for the diagram interface, suggesting that they disliked it. By comparison, the other interfaces scored an average of six or higher, suggesting that the respondents found these interfaces to be more pleasing. ANOVA results indicated that the data achieved statistical significance. Post-hoc test results showed that the diagram interface scored significantly lower than the other three interfaces (\(p\) = 0.040 *, \(p\) = 0.048 *, \(p\) = 0.000 *). The results of the text, image, and animation interfaces failed to achieve significant differences (Table 8). The findings of this study indicated that diagram interfaces are less able than other interfaces to incite affective valence among users.  
**Arousal:** The respondents displayed the most evident emotional arousal when interpreting health information on the animation interface, followed by the image, text, and diagram interfaces. The means were between 4 and 5. ANOVA results indicated that the data failed to achieve statistical significance.