## 5 Results
### Effects of Information Source and Recommender Type  
To test Hypothesis 3s, independent sample t-tests were conducted to compare the effects between the two information sources. Before the main analyses, we checked statistical assumptions for the t-tests, specifically, the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality and the Levene test for homogeneity of variance. These showed that all the assumptions were satisfied: normality for perceived diversity (\(W\) = 0.960, \(p\) = 0.251) and information quality (\(W\) = 0.972, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **B** & **Boot S.E.** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Boot LLCI** \\ **(95\%)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Boot ULCI** \\ **(95\%)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Perceived diversity \(\rightarrow\) Information quality \(\rightarrow\) Intention to use Perceived diversity \(\rightarrow\) Perception playfulness \(\rightarrow\) Intention to use & 0.249 & 0.107 & 0.062 & 0.485 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of the mediation analyses of the indirect effects of two mediating variables. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **B** & **S.E.** & \(t\) & **LLCI** & **ULCI** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Perceived Diversity} & Information quality & 0.331 & 0.140 & 2.224 * & 0.026 & 0.597 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\(F\) = 4.944 *, \(R^{2}\) = 0.134} \\ \cline{2-6}  & Perceived playfulness & 0.387 & 0.151 & 2.552 * & 0.078 & 0.695 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\(F\) = 6.515 *, \(R^{2}\) = 0.169} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results of the mediation analyses of the effects of perceived diversity on two mediating variables for H1a and H1b. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **B** & **S.E.** & \(t\) & **LLCI** & **ULCI** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Perceived Diversity} & Information quality & 0.799 & 0.219 & 3.647 ** & 0.352 & 1.246 \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{1.041} & 0.154 & 6.766 ** & 0.727 & 1.355 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\(F\) = 0.01, *** \(p\) < 0.001.} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results of the mediation analyses of the effects of information quality and perceived playfulness on intention to use for H2a and H2b. \(p=0.512\)), and homogeneity of variance for perceived diversity (F = 1.874, \(p=0.181\)) and information quality (F = 0.0104, \(p=0.919\)). For the H3a, the t-test results indicated that the information source did not show significant effects on perceived diversity (\(t\) = 0.065, \(p=0.949\)) at the 0.05 significance level. Specifically, there was no difference between participants in the influencer condition (M = 5.194, SD = 1.133) and those in the online-friend condition (M = 5.172, SD = 0.865). For H3b, the t-test results showed that the information source did not show a significant effect on perceived information quality (\(t\) = 0.961, \(p=0.344\)) at the 0.05 significance level. There was no difference between the influencer condition (M = 5.333, SD = 0.868) and the online-friend condition (M = 5.052, SD = 0.834). Thus, Hypotheses 3a and 3b were rejected (see Table 5). To test Hypothesis 4s, independent sample t-tests were conducted to compare the effects between the two recommender types. Before the main analyses, we checked statistical assumptions for the t-tests, specifically, the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality and the Levene test for homogeneity of variance. These showed that all the assumptions were satisfied: normality for perceived diversity (\(W\) = 0.956, \(p=0.186\)) and information quality (\(W\) = 0.978, \(p=0.710\)), and homogeneity of variance for perceived diversity (F = 0.111, \(p=0.741\)) and information quality (F = 1.193, \(p=0.283\)). For the H4a, the t-test results indicated that perceived diversity was not significantly different (\(t\) = 1.074, \(p=0.291\)) between participants in the algorithm condition (M = 5.000, SD = 1.031) and those in the human condition (M = 5.367, SD = 0.965).