## 3 Materials and Methods
### Statistical Processing Methods for Hypothesis Testing
#### 3.3.2 Assessment of Structural Model  
The effect of exogenous variables on the endogenous variables is shown in Table 5. An R\({}^{2}\) value higher than 0.10 indicates sufficient variance explanation in an endogenous construct [106]. R\({}^{2}\) values of 0.19, 0.33, and 0.67 represent weak, moderate, and substantial levels of predictive accuracy, respectively [107]. In this study, the R\({}^{2}\) values (adjusted R\({}^{2}\) values) for parasocial interaction (PSI), trust (TRS), and continuance intention to use (CUI) were 0.399 (0.388), 0.365 (0.356), and 0.308 (0.303), respectively. The Q\({}^{2}\) values were all above zero, indicating that the model possesses predictive validity across these variables [108]. Furthermore, effect sizes (f\({}^{2}\)) above 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 represent small, medium, and large effects of an exogenous construct on an endogenous construct, respectively, evaluating the strength of the statistical relationships [109].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Constructs** & **PAI** & **PAM** & **PAD** & **IPR** & **PSI** & **TRS** & **CUI** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Intimacy \\ Morality \\ Dependency \\ \end{tabular} } & 0.855 & 0.547 & 0.545 & 0.419 & 0.363 & 0.465 & 0.423 \\  & 0.374 & 0.846 & 0.562 & 0.473 & 0.353 & 0.426 & 0.582 \\  & \(-\)0.372 & \(-\)0.404 & 0.835 & 0.485 & 0.442 & 0.484 & 0.525 \\  & \(-\)0.406 & \(-\)0.447 & 0.369 & 0.825 & 0.425 & 0.499 & 0.453 \\  & 0.477 & 0.441 & \(-\)0.395 & \(-\)0.434 & 0.821 & 0.457 & 0.423 \\  & 0.539 & 0.397 & \(-\)0.319 & \(-\)0.431 & 0.519 & 0.817 & 0.411 \\  & 0.371 & 0.407 & \(-\)0.312 & \(-\)0.363 & 0.477 & 0.490 & 0.828 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Source(s): Table by the Author. Note: Shaded diagonal values represent the AVE’s square root; Off-diagonal values are correlations, with the Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) above the main diagonal and the Formell–Lacker criterion below the main diagonal; Abbreviations: PAI = Perceived Anthropomorphism–Intimacy; PAM = Perceived Agency–Morality; PAD = Perceived Agency–Dependency; IPR = Perceived Risk–Information Privacy Risk; PSI = Parasocial interaction; TRS = Trust; CUI = Continuance usage intention.  
\end{table}
Table 4: Discriminant validity (Fornell–Lracker criterion and HTMT).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Endogenous Variables** & **R Square (R\({}^{2}\))** & **R Square Adjusted** & **Q\({}^{2}\)** & **Exogenous Variables** & **f\({}^{2}\)** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Parasocial Interaction \\ (PSI) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{4}{*}{0.399} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.388} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.264} & PAI & 0.032 \\  & & & PAM & 0.029 \\  & & & PAD & 0.023 \\  & & & IPR & 0.019 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Trust \\ (TRS) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{4}{*}{0.365} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.356} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.240} & PAI & 0.181 \\  & & & PAM & 0.025 \\  & & & PAD & 0.002 \\  & & & IPR & 0.041 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Continuance Usage Intention \\ (CUI) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{4}{*}{0.308} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.303} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.204} & PSI & 0.098 \\  & & & TRS & 0.116 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Source(s): Table by the Author. Note: R\({}^{2}\); variance explained; Q\({}^{2}\): predictive relevance (Q\({}^{2}\) = 1 \(-\) SSE/SSO); \(\mathcal{P}\): effect size of each exogenous variable; Abbreviations: PAI = Perceived Anthropomorphism–Intimacy; PAM = Perceived Agency–Morality; PAD = Perceived Agency–Dependency; IPR = Perceived Risk–Information Privacy Risk; PSI = Parasocial interaction; TRS = Trust; CUI = Continuance usage intention.  
\end{table}
Table 5: The validity of the structural model.