The mediating effect of perceived trend line on the association between graph format and investment intensity
| Judgment accuracy | Investment intensity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LB 95% CI | UB 95% CI | |||
| Graph format (direct effects) | −0.53 | −0.17 | ||
| Age | 0.02 | 0.07 | ||
| Gender | −0.35 | 0.01 | ||
| LB 95% CI | UB 95% CI | |||
| Judgement accuracy | −1.41 | −0.16 | ||
| LB 95% CI | UB 95% CI | |||
| Graph format (indirect effects) | 0.01 | 0.55 | ||
| Judgment accuracy | Investment intensity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LB 95% CI | UB 95% CI | |||
| Graph format (direct effects) | −0.53 | −0.17 | ||
| Age | 0.02 | 0.07 | ||
| Gender | −0.35 | 0.01 | ||
| LB 95% CI | UB 95% CI | |||
| Judgement accuracy | −1.41 | −0.16 | ||
| LB 95% CI | UB 95% CI | |||
| Graph format (indirect effects) | 0.01 | 0.55 | ||
Note(s): Bootstrapped estimates using STATA of the indirect effects of aggregated vs disaggregated graph format through the perceived trend line
The dependent variable is the likelihood of intensifying a marketing campaign investment after visualizing a graph with sales historical data, measured using a 7-point Likert scale (“1” = extremely unlikely, to “7” = extremely likely)
Judgment accuracy is a dichotomous variable that equals one if the perception of the trend line is upward and zero otherwise
Graph Format is equal to 0 when aggregated and 1 when disaggregated
The analysis reported is a structural equation model (SEM) using the variance–covariance method
The reported test of the indirect effect presents bias-corrected confidence intervals based on the results of a 1,000-repetition bootstrapping procedure
Reported p-values are two-sided
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.