Carl Westin

52 First empirical insights X Z X Z 100 80 60 40 20 0 Acceptance rate (%) CX high CX low (a) Complexity X Z 100 80 60 40 20 0 Acceptance rate (%) Rejected Accepted Conformal Nonconformal (b) Conformance F IGURE 3-6: Acceptance rate (percentage), by complexity (a) and conformance (b). ticipants accepted 74.6% and 57.0% of advisories under high and low complexity conditions, respectively. Conformance showed a nearly identical effect with partici- pants accepting 75.0% and 56.6% of advisories under conformal and nonconformal conditions, respectively. A significant main effect on acceptance was found for both complexity ( F (l,15) = 11.14, p = .004) and for conformance ( F (l,15) = 10.6, p = .005). Overall, participants tended to show higher acceptance for conformal solu- tions, especially in high complexity conditions. 3-4-2 Agreement with advisories Regardless of whether a given advisory was accepted or rejected, participants were instructed to indicate (on a scale of 1-100) their agreement with the advisory im- mediately after each scenario. Standardized agreement ratings showed a signif- icant main effect of both complexity ( F (l,15) = 7.7, p = .014) and conformance ( F (l,15) = 18.1, p = .001). Figure 3-7(a) shows that agreement was significantly higher under complex conditions (with average z scores of +.157 and -.157 under high and low complexity, respectively). Figure 3-7(b) shows that agreement ratings 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 CX high CX low Agreement rating (z-score) (a) Complexity 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 cfY cfN Agreement rating (z-score) (b) Conformance 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 CX high CX low cfY cfN Agreement rating (z-score) 0.32 0.15 -0.01 -0.46 (c) Interaction F IGURE 3-7: Standardized agreement rating, by complexity (a), conformance (b), and their interaction (c)