Table 6. Summary of hypothesis testing... | Emerald Publishing

Table 6.

Summary of hypothesis testing

Type of measure	Hypothesis	Result	Supported?	Interpretation	Post hoc explanation for unsupported findings
Outcome measure (holistic task)	H1a. Auditors encouraged to process information intuitively assess risks at a higher level of RoMM than auditors encouraged to process information deliberatively	p = 0.650	Partly supported, based on additional analysis for H1b	Intuitive information-processing results in a higher RoMM only in the linguistic presentation format	Intuitive-processing relies on familiar visuals (Jones, 2015). Auditors’ unfamiliarity with the visual format may have hindered intuitive processing, explaining the effect in the linguistic condition only Linguistic information requires greater processing capacity than visual–linguistic combinations (Mayer, 2005), which may have led auditors to benefit more from their intuition in the linguistic condition than in the visual condition
	H1b. Auditors encouraged to process information intuitively assess risks at a higher level of RoMM than auditors encouraged to process information deliberatively, especially when exposed to visual information	p = 0.041	Not supported	Intuitive information-processing is not supported by a visual presentation format

	Additional analyses:
	Linguistic presentation format	p = 0.03
	Visual presentation format	p = 0.20

Outcome measure (identification or recall of precise information)	H2a. Auditors encouraged to process information deliberatively report more risks and controls than auditors encouraged to process information intuitively		Supported	Deliberative information-processing results in more risks and controls being reported	N/A
	Risk factors	p < 0.000
	Control factors	p < 0.001
	H2b. Auditors encouraged to process the information deliberatively report more risks and controls than auditors encouraged to process information intuitively, especially when exposed to linguistic information		Not supported	However, this is not influenced by the presentation format	Speier (2006) found that task complexity moderates the effect of presentation format on JDM quality. As risk analysis is complex, presentation format may have had less impact than expected
	Risk factors	p = 0.060
	Control factors	p = 0.349
Processing measure	H3a. Auditors encouraged to process information intuitively complete the risk-assessment task faster than auditors encouraged to process information deliberatively	p < 0.001	Supported	Intuitive information-processing results in faster task performance	N/A
Processing measure	H3b. Auditors encouraged to process information intuitively complete the risk-assessment task faster than auditors encouraged to process information deliberatively, especially when exposed to visual information	p = 0.060	Not supported	However, this is not influenced by the presentation format	Unfamiliarity with the visual format may have hindered intuitive-processing and speed

Type of measure	Hypothesis	Result	Supported?	Interpretation	Post hoc explanation for unsupported findings
Outcome measure (holistic task)	H1a. Auditors encouraged to process information intuitively assess risks at a higher level of RoMM than auditors encouraged to process information deliberatively	p = 0.650	Partly supported, based on additional analysis for H1b	Intuitive information-processing results in a higher RoMM only in the linguistic presentation format	Intuitive-processing relies on familiar visuals (Jones, 2015). Auditors’ unfamiliarity with the visual format may have hindered intuitive processing, explaining the effect in the linguistic condition only Linguistic information requires greater processing capacity than visual–linguistic combinations (Mayer, 2005), which may have led auditors to benefit more from their intuition in the linguistic condition than in the visual condition
	H1b. Auditors encouraged to process information intuitively assess risks at a higher level of RoMM than auditors encouraged to process information deliberatively, especially when exposed to visual information	p = 0.041	Not supported	Intuitive information-processing is not supported by a visual presentation format

	Additional analyses:
	Linguistic presentation format	p = 0.03
	Visual presentation format	p = 0.20

Outcome measure (identification or recall of precise information)	H2a. Auditors encouraged to process information deliberatively report more risks and controls than auditors encouraged to process information intuitively		Supported	Deliberative information-processing results in more risks and controls being reported	N/A
	Risk factors	p < 0.000
	Control factors	p < 0.001
	H2b. Auditors encouraged to process the information deliberatively report more risks and controls than auditors encouraged to process information intuitively, especially when exposed to linguistic information		Not supported	However, this is not influenced by the presentation format	Speier (2006) found that task complexity moderates the effect of presentation format on JDM quality. As risk analysis is complex, presentation format may have had less impact than expected
	Risk factors	p = 0.060
	Control factors	p = 0.349
Processing measure	H3a. Auditors encouraged to process information intuitively complete the risk-assessment task faster than auditors encouraged to process information deliberatively	p < 0.001	Supported	Intuitive information-processing results in faster task performance	N/A
Processing measure	H3b. Auditors encouraged to process information intuitively complete the risk-assessment task faster than auditors encouraged to process information deliberatively, especially when exposed to visual information	p = 0.060	Not supported	However, this is not influenced by the presentation format	Unfamiliarity with the visual format may have hindered intuitive-processing and speed

Note(s):

See Appendix for variable details