## 4 Empirical Results
### Results of Hypotheses Testing  
Table 5 is the results of hypotheses testing using the anti-oxidant effect as an independent variable. Based on F-values, both models are statistically significant (\(p<0.05\)). The anti-oxidant effect positively affected both healthiness (\(\beta=1.216\), \(p<0.05\)) and intention to purchase (\(\beta=0.236\), \(p<0.05\)). Additionally, intention to purchase is positively influenced by healthiness (\(\beta=0.661\), \(p<0.05\)). Anti-oxidant effect \(\times\) nutrition disclosure appeared significantly to account for healthiness (\(\beta=-0.185\), \(p<0.05\)). Thus, all the hypotheses are supported. Figure 3 shows the slope of nutrition disclosure. The magnitude of the low-nutrition disclosure group is the strongest (\(\beta=0.659\), \(p<0.05\)), while the magnitude of the high-nutrition disclosure group is the weakest (\(\beta=0.334\), \(p<0.05\)) for the impact of the anti-oxidant effect on healthiness. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** \\ \hline
1. Anti-oxidant effect & 0.828 & & & & \\
2. Brand trust & 0.601 * & 0.820 & & & \\
3. Healthiness & 0.667 * & 0.618 * & 0.861 & & \\
4. Nutrition disclosure & 0.533 * & 0.661 * & 0.596 * & 0.914 & \\
5. Intention to purchase & 0.560 * & 0.660 * & 0.684 * & 0.533 * & 0.914 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: * \(p<0.05\), Diagonal is the square root of average variance extracted, and SD stands for standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Correlation matrix and discriminant validity. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Model 1** & **Model 2** \\  & **Healthiness** & **Intention to Purchase** \\ \cline{2-4}  & \(\beta\) & **t Value** & \(\beta\) & **t Value** \\ \hline Constant & \(-2.077\) & \(-2.83\) * & 0.408 & 1.90 \\ \hline Anti-oxidant effect & 1.216 & 6.85 * & 0.236 & 3.39 * \\ \hline Nutrition disclosure & 1.068 & 3.27 * & & \\ \hline Interaction & \(-0.185\) & \(-2.59\) * & & \\ \hline Healthiness & & & 0.661 & 10.10 * \\ \hline F-value & 122.04 * & & 143.45 * & \\ \hline R2 & 0.5488 & & 0.4872 & \\ \hline Conditional effect of & & & & \\ the focal predictor & & & & \\ \hline Nutrition disclosure & & & & \\
3.00 & 0.659 & 10.69 * & & \\
3.75 & 0.520 & 10.77 * & & \\
4.75 & 0.334 & 4.74 * & & \\ \hline Index of mediated & & & & \\ moderation & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{\(-0.1228\) *} & \(-0.2131\) & \(-0.0519\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: * \(p<0.05\); interaction: anti-oxidant effect \(\times\) nutrition disclosure (test of interaction: F = 13.11 *).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Results of hypotheses testing focusing on the anti-oxidant effect. Table 6 presents the results of hypothesis testing with brand trust as the independent variable. Based on the F-values, both models are statistically significant (\(p<0.05\)). Brand trust has a positive effect on both healthiness (\(\beta=1.216\), \(p<0.05\)) and intention to purchase (\(\beta=0.236\), \(p<0.05\)). Furthermore, intention to purchase is positively influenced by healthiness (\(\beta=0.528\), \(p<0.05\)). The interaction term brand trust \(\times\) nutrition disclosure also shows a significant impact on healthiness (\(\beta=-0.130\), \(p<0.05\)). Therefore, all hypotheses are supported.