# Improving User Experience with Recommender Systems by
## 4 Analysis and Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Hypothesis** & **Dependent Variable** & **Independent Variable** & **Result** & **Estimate** \\ \hline H1 & Problem specificity & Information sufficiency & Supported & 0.30 *** \\ \hline H2 & Problem specificity & Information transparency & Supported & 0.18 *** \\ \hline H3 & Solution specificity & Information sufficiency & Supported & 0.37 *** \\ \hline H4 & Solution specificity & Information transparency & Supported & 0.14 *** \\ \hline H5 & Text styling & Information sufficiency & Not supported & 0.02 \\ \hline H6 & Text styling & Information transparency & Not supported & 0.17 \\ \hline H7 & Information sequence & Information sufficiency & Not supported & 0.03 \\ \hline H8 & Information sequence & Information transparency & Not supported & 0.06 \\ \hline H9 & Situational complexity & Information sufficiency & Not supported & 0.06 \\ \hline H10 & Situational complexity & Information transparency & Not supported & 0.19 \\ \hline H11 & Text styling & Perceived ease of use & Not supported & 0.13 \\ \hline H12 & Information sequence & Perceived ease of use & Not supported & 0.04 \\ \hline H13 & Information sufficiency & Perceived usefulness & Supported & 1.61 *** \\ \hline H14 & Information transparency & Perceived ease of use & Supported & 1.34 *** \\ \hline H15 & Information transparency & Confidence recommendation & Supported & 1.07 *** \\ \hline H16 & Perceived ease of use & Perceived usefulness & Supported & 0.99 *** \\ \hline H17 & Perceived ease of use & Satisfaction & Supported & 1.22 *** \\ \hline H18 & Perceived usefulness & Satisfaction & Supported & 1.77 *** \\ \hline H19 & Perceived usefulness & Confidence system & Supported & 1.54 *** \\ \hline H20 & Perceived usefulness & Confidence recommendation & Supported & 0.91 *** \\ \hline H21 & Confidence recommendation & Acceptance intention & Supported & 1.72 *** \\ \hline H22 & Confidence recommendation & Confidence system & Supported & 1.86 *** \\ \hline H23 & Confidence system & Trust & Supported & 1.40 *** \\ \hline H24 & Confidence system & Acceptance intention & Supported & 1.56 *** \\ \hline H25 & Trust & Satisfaction & Supported & 1.71 *** \\ \hline H26 & Satisfaction & Use intention & Supported & 1.58 *** \\ \hline HB1 & Problem specificity & Decision-making time & Supported & 0.03 * \\ \hline HB2 & Solution specificity & Decision-making time & Supported & 0.04 ** \\ \hline HB3 & Text styling & Decision-making time & Not supported & \(-\)0.04 \\ \hline HB4 & Information sequence & Decision-making time & Partially supported & \(-\)0.04(All); \(-\)0.06 * \\  & & & (_Accept_); \(-\)0.02 (_Details_) \\ \hline HB5 & Situational complexity & Decision-making time & Not supported & 0.02 \\ \hline HB6 & Problem specificity & Recommendation acceptance & Supported & 0.30 *** \\ \hline HB7 & Solution specificity & Recommendation acceptance & Supported & 0.40 *** \\ \hline HB8 & Text styling & Recommendation acceptance & Not supported & 0.14 \\ \hline HB9 & Information sequence & Recommendation acceptance & Not Supported & 0.01 \\ \hline HB10 & Situational complexity & Recommendation acceptance & Not supported & 0.04 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note.* significant at 0.05 level; ** significant at 0.01 level; *** significant at 0.001 level.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Summary table of all the hypotheses and their results. RQ4. What Is the Effect of Message DESIGN (characteristics) on a User's Behaviors with Respect to Decision-Making Time and the Likelihood of Accepting System-Generated Recommendations? Problem specificity had a significant positive effect on decision-making time (HB1: b = 0.0337, \(p<0.05\)), as did solution specificity (HB2: b = 0.03746, \(p<0.01\)).