## 4 Results
### Multiple-Group Analysis  
The current study performed a multiple-group analysis in order to test the moderating role of novelty seeking in the relationship between perceived risks and AT. The data (\(n=314\)) from this study was distinguished into two groups according to the average value of novelty seeking: (1) consumers with a high level of novelty seeking (\(n=159\)) and (2) consumers with a low level of novelty seeking (\(n=155\)). The nested model comparisons test was conducted before multiple-group analysis, and the result satisfied the threshold that the \(\Delta\)CFI between the unconstrained and measurement weights is lower than 0.01 [87]. The chi-square difference (\(\Delta\chi^{2}\)) between the unconstrained and constrained models was used in order to identify the moderating effect, and \(\Delta\chi^{2}\) should be greater than 3.84 to support it, for which the result is shown in Table 6. The results indicated that \(\Delta\chi^{2}\) in the unconstrained and constrained models were found to be statistically significant at the 0.05 level in the relationship between psychological risk and attitude (\(\Delta\chi^{2}=11.237\)), so H6a was supported. However, the other relationships, which included quality risk--attitude, financial risk--attitude, and time risk--attitude, revealed that their \(\Delta\chi^{2}\) are less than 3.84, so H6b, H6c, and H6d were rejected. The results of the current paper are summarized in Figure 3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **Mean (SD)** & **AVE** & **(1)** & **(2)** & **(3)** & **(4)** & **(5)** & **(6)** & **(7)** & **(8)** \\ \hline (1) Quality risk & 2.60 (1.51) & 0.89 & **0.96**\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.54 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.25 & 0.43 & 0.27 & 0.09 & \(-0.22\) & \(-0.35\) \\ (2) Financial risk & 3.71 (1.49) & 0.90 & 0.26 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & **0.96**\({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.38 & 0.50 & \(-0.27\) & 0.05 & \(-0.06\) & 0.22 \\ (3) Time risk & 4.69 (1.42) & 0.79 & 0.06 & 0.14 & **0.92** & 0.55 & \(-0.06\) & \(-0.07\) & \(-0.15\) & \(-0.11\) \\ (4) Psychological risk & 4.08 (1.42) & 0.78 & 0.19 & 0.25 & 0.30 & **0.91** & \(-0.12\) & \(-0.10\) & \(-0.22\) & \(-0.23\) \\ (5) Attitude & 5.80 (1.09) & 0.77 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.00 & 0.01 & **0.91** & 0.39 & 0.41 & 0.65 \\ (6) Subjective norm & 4.44 (1.30) & 0.86 & 0.00 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.15 & **0.95** & 0.44 & 0.49 \\ (7) Perceived behavior control & 5.04 (1.26) & 0.63 & 0.00 & 0.05 & 0.02 & 0.05 & 0.17 & 0.19 & **0.84** & 0.76 \\ (8) Behavior intentions & 5.28 (1.08) & 0.79 & 0.05 & 0.12 & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.42 & 0.24 & 0.58 & **0.92** \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline  & Goodness-of-fit statistics: \(\chi^{2}(221)\) = 484.627, \(p<0.001\), \(\chi^{2}/df\) = 2.193, IFI = 0.963, CFI = 0.963, TLI = 0.953, and RMSEA = 0.062. Notes 1: SD = Standard deviation, AVE = Average variance extracted, IFI = Incremental fit index, CFI = Comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker–Lewis index, and RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation. Notes 2: \({}^{\text{a}}\) composite reliabilities are along the diagonal, \({}^{\text{b}}\) correlations are above the diagonal, and \({}^{\text{c}}\) squared correlations are below the diagonal.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: CFA: items and loadings.