# Determinants of Memory Encoding of Altruistic Messages: M-Delphi and F-DEMATEL Approach
## 5 Results  
Equations (1), (2), and (8) were used to obtain the initial direct relation matrix, normalized direct relation matrix, and the fuzzy total relation matrices, respectively. The fuzzy total relation matrix is shown in Table 2. After obtaining the fuzzy total relation matrix, the indices of each defuzzification criterion were attained using Equations (9) and (10). After that, prominence [\(D_{i}+R_{i}\)] and cause and effect relationships [\(D_{i}-R_{i}\)] were obtained by summing and subtracting values obtained from Equations (11) and (12). The cause and- effect diagram [Figures 2 and 3] was developed based on prominence and cause and effect values. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **EM1** & **EM2** & **EM3** & **EM4** & **EM5** & **EM6** & **EM7** & **EM8** & **EM9** & **EM10** & **EM11** & **EM12** \\ \hline  & & & & & & & u’ij & & & & & & \\ \hline EM1 & 0.020 & 0.049 & 0.053 & 0.051 & 0.052 & 0.051 & 0.052 & 0.052 & 0.051 & 0.051 & 0.046 & 0.053 \\ \hline EM2 & 0.059 & 0.022 & 0.059 & 0.058 & 0.058 & 0.059 & 0.058 & 0.059 & 0.057 & 0.055 & 0.052 & 0.057 \\ \hline EM3 & 0.056 & 0.052 & 0.022 & 0.053 & 0.054 & 0.056 & 0.056 & 0.058 & 0.054 & 0.054 & 0.050 & 0.053 \\ \hline EM4 & 0.057 & 0.054 & 0.058 & 0.022 & 0.058 & 0.059 & 0.056 & 0.057 & 0.055 & 0.054 & 0.052 & 0.057 \\ \hline EM5 & 0.052 & 0.053 & 0.056 & 0.056 & 0.022 & 0.056 & 0.055 & 0.057 & 0.056 & 0.053 & 0.049 & 0.055 \\ \hline EM6 & 0.057 & 0.053 & 0.057 & 0.055 & 0.056 & 0.022 & 0.058 & 0.059 & 0.059 & 0.057 & 0.054 & 0.057 \\ \hline EM7 & 0.048 & 0.044 & 0.047 & 0.046 & 0.047 & 0.048 & 0.019 & 0.048 & 0.049 & 0.046 & 0.043 & 0.047 \\ \hline EM8 & 0.048 & 0.047 & 0.048 & 0.048 & 0.050 & 0.053 & 0.050 & 0.021 & 0.050 & 0.048 & 0.046 & 0.050 \\ \hline EM9 & 0.058 & 0.055 & 0.058 & 0.058 & 0.058 & 0.059 & 0.059 & 0.024 & 0.056 & 0.054 & 0.059 \\ \hline EM10 & 0.048 & 0.049 & 0.049 & 0.051 & 0.050 & 0.049 & 0.051 & 0.052 & 0.050 & 0.019 & 0.046 & 0.053 \\ \hline EM11 & 0.059 & 0.058 & 0.060 & 0.058 & 0.060 & 0.060 & 0.058 & 0.058 & 0.057 & 0.058 & 0.022 & 0.059 \\ \hline EM12 & 0.053 & 0.053 & 0.055 & 0.052 & 0.055 & 0.052 & 0.054 & 0.053 & 0.052 & 0.048 & 0.020 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: EM1 = Argument quality, EM2 = Emotional appeal, EM3 = Source expertise, EM4 = Trust, EM5 = Social factors, EMG = Social proof, EM7 = Outcome desirability to self, EM8 = Outcome desirability to others, EM9 = Personal experience, EM10 = Homophily, EM11 = Personal experience, EM12 = Atmosphere.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._  
Figure 2: F\(-\)DEMATEL Scatter Diagram. Note: A1 = Argument quality, A2 = Emotional appeal, A3 = Source expertise, A4 = Trust, A5 = Interpersonal information, A6 = Social proof, A7 = Outcome desirability to self, A8 = Outcome desirability to others, A9 = Personal experience, A10 = Homophily, A11 = Personal interest, A12 = Atmosphere. The F-DEMATEL data were analyzed following the F-DEMATEL analysis procedure outlined in Section 3.3. The detailed analysis procedure is explained in the Supplementary File S1. Based on their \(D_{i}\) and \(R_{i}\) values, the factors were organized in two ways. First, they were organized based on their degree of importance [\(D_{i}+R_{i}\)] and whether they were cause or effect factors [\(D_{i}-R_{i}\)]. The results indicated that social proof [A6] had the highest degree of importance [\(D_{i}+R_{i}=0.876\)]. The rest of the factors, from the smallest to largest degree of influence, were A2, A9, A11, A4, A5, A3, A12, A1, A8, A7, and A10. The factors were also categorized into cause and effect factors. A cut-off point [\(\alpha\) = 0.035] was set by calculating the average of the mean values of \(L_{ij}\), \(M_{ij}\), and \(U_{ij}\). All \(D_{i}-R_{i}\) values with absolute values greater than 0.035 were deemed as significant, whereas those with absolute values less than 0.035 were considered insignificant.