The impact of social media on consumers. Do age and gender moderate the effect of social media on trust?

ISB-MBUS INFORMATION FORM Name: Nguyễn Thị Đoan Thanh Date of Birth: 30-Aug-1988 (Picture) Course year: MBUS 7.1 Mobile: 0908700476 Email: thanhntd3008@gmail.com _ Home address: 276/105/23 Thong Nhat, Ward 16, Go Vap, Ho Chi Minh Occupation: Sales Manager Position: Office name: UPM Raflatac Office location: Lot 1Pa4, Binh An Textile & Garment Industrial Zone, Binh Thang Ward, Di An District, Binh Duong Province 10 How have I changed after two years studying at ISB? ISB provides me chance to study relevant issues and intelligent insight on business trends, issues and the economy from a larger perspective Programs are designed to utilize case studies from a variety of sectors: human resource, supply chain, finance from Vietnam to some well-known multinational companies to solidify business knowledge More than that, I have very good friendship with my teammates Our group of people looks like a family, we support and share the good and bad times in life 11 What I want to share with the juniors is: Don’t try to meet traditional expectations of what your career and lives ought to look like after graduation You shouldn’t think that your MBA like an obligation but you should consider this is wonderful opportunity to develop yourself and expand your network Moreover, you should seize chances to study how people resolve their problems as well as what you learn from every subject then apply these valuable lessons to your daily work .Last but certainly not least, remember to expand and connect your instructors, classmates and seniors because connection and network are powerful, essential and far-yielding WISHING YOU EVERY SUCCESS IN YOUR CHOSEN PATH! CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM Độc lập – Tự – Hạnh phúc -o0o - BẢN CAM ĐOAN Họ tên học viên: Nguyễn Thị Đoan Thanh Ngày sinh : 30/08/1988 Nơi sinh : Vĩnh Long Ngày trúng tuyển đầu vào năm : 2016 Là tác giả đề tài luận văn : The impact of social media on consumers Do age and gender moderate the effect of social media on trust? Giáo viên hướng dẫn : Đoàn Anh Tuấn Ngành : Mã số : 22160043 Bảo vệ luận văn ngày : 12/11/2018 Điểm bảo vệ luận văn : Tôi cam đoan chỉnh sửa nội dung luận văn thạc sĩ kinh tế với đề tài trên, theo góp ý Hội đồng chấm luận văn thạc sĩ TP Hồ Chí Minh, ngày tháng năm Người cam đoan Chủ tịch Hội đồng chấm luận văn (Ký ghi rõ họ tên) (Ký ghi rõ họ tên) Nguyễn Thị Đoan Thanh Hội đồng chấm luận văn 05 (năm) thành viên gồm : Chủ tịch :…………………………………………………………………… Phản biện 1:………………………………………………………………… Phản biện 2: ………………………………………………………………… Thư ký : ……………………………………………………………………… Ủy Viên : …………………………………………………………………… CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM Độc lập – Tự – Hạnh phúc -o0o - BẢNG TỔNG HỢP NỘI DUNG CHỈNH SỬA LUẬN VĂN SAU BẢO VỆ THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON CONSUMERS DO AGE AND GENDER MODERATE THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON TRUST STT Nhận xét Hội đồng Nội dung điều chỉnh Check the grammar of the title of the thesis The impact of social media on consumers Do age and gender moderate the effect of social media on trust? In the introduction session, the Add more sentences to support the reason and research objectives author should discuss how could the research objectives/goals had been set The research objectives (on page 12) were given but not strongly link to the previous paragraphs Why does the author investigate Add more sentences to explain why the author investigate the the moderating effect of age and moderating effect of age and gender gender? Does the investigation fill a research gap? This should be more in the introduction section H2a and H2b need to be argued Separated H2a and then H2b At the same time, I also revised the separately H2a should show the hypotheses as below: direction of the moderating H2a: Relationship between social media and trust will be affected effect, negative or positive H2b should be stated more clearly Số trang luận văn and 12 12 22&23 I’m not sure what does “moderated by gender” mean by age H2b: Relationship between social media and trust will be affected by gender The author uses social network Add more sentences to support how to check legitimacy of the to invite informants to sample (9 rows) participate in the survey using a convenient approach How can we check the legitimacy of the sample? The sample and results of Remove office staff, students, household and manager During qualitative pilot study is a bit interview in person with respondents, the author also upload the link vague It should be stated clearer in Facebook Within short time (12 hours) more respondents in the opinions of 30 respondents Facebook answered questions than interview directly (office staff, students, household, manager) The author should discuss the Add sentence to predict the implication withdraw from the sample sample characteristics What is characteristics the potential implication withdrawn from the sample characteristics The unsupported moderating Add more sentence to discuss hypotheses are not wellexplained The author should add more discussion on this result Why age and gender not Add more sentences to discuss moderate the effect of social media on trust? 33 31 40 49 52&53 10 Some typos and incorrect citations still exist in the thesis social media is for people connection social media are for people connection “activities, practices, and behaviors among communities of people who gather online to share information, knowledge, and opinions using conversational media”incorrect citationremove “ ” social media is defined as a internet-based applicationssocial media are defined Constantinides and Fountain (2008) recommend classifying social media into five categories “(i) blogs, (ii) social network sites (for instance, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter and Google+), (iii) content communities (for example, YouTube and Wikipedia), (iv) e-forums, and (v) content aggregators”incorrect citationremove “ ” Whilst social media is offer pull marketing Whilst social media are offering pull marketing Moreover, trust is consider as the source Moreover, trust is considering as the source “higher means for group-in-self and entertainment Negative collective self-esteem links with social compensation, propound that those who felt negatively about their social group used SNS as an alternative to communicating with other group members Males are more possibly than females to commentate negative collective self-esteem and use SNSs for social compensation” incorrect citationremove “ ” “has been socialized to believe we live in a materialistic orientation society”incorrect citationremove “ ” “N>50+8m (where N is the number of sample size and m is number of independent variables)” incorrect citation remove “ ” 10 “Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Cronbach’s Alpha and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)”, “significant impact on the influence of the dependent variables towards the independent variable”, “ranging from 0.70 to 0.95 A low value of alpha could be due to a low number of questions, low inter-relation between items or heterogeneous 10 16 16 16 17 19 21 23 32 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 52 constructs”, “if this correlation was equal 0.40 or above the item would be probably correlated with most of the other items and make a good element of this summated rating scale If the item – total correlation was negative or too low (less than 0.30)”, it was compulsory to pay more attention on “the item for wording problems and conceptual fit by modifying or deleting such items”, “in terms of its fit to the hypothesized population model”; its indices could be created to “help with model interpretation” , “insight into the relationships among independent variables in their prediction of the dependent measurement”, “linear relationship between each of the predictor variables”, the “suggested cutoff for the tolerance value was 10 (or equivalent to VIF of 10.0), which corresponds to a multiple correlation of 95 with the other independent variables”, “correlation of each specific item with total of the other items in the scale (Corrected ItemTotal correlation)”, “better recovery of factor structure than shorter tests, and when the correlation between the factors was very great”, “the items and factor loading for rotated factors with loading”, according to (McCloskey, 2006) age effects the initial decision with regard to “whether to purchase on the internet, but not the subsequent behavior of e-shoppers, such as the number of transactions or the amount spent”, “status of experienced e-shoppers, their behavior is indistinguishable, independently of their age, gender or income level” (Hernández et al, 2011) incorrect citation remove “ ” HỌC VIÊN (Ký, ghi rõ họ tên) UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business Nguyen Thi Doan Thanh THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON CONSUMERS DO AGE AND GENDER MODERATE THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON TRUST? MASTER OF BUSINESS (HONOURS) Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2018 UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business Nguyen Thi Doan Thanh THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON CONSUMERS DO AGE AND GENDER MODERATE THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON TRUST? MASTER OF BUSINESS (HONOURS) SUPERVISOR: DR DOAN ANH TUAN Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2018 Contents List of figure List of table ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT Introduction Literature review and hypothesis 14 2.1 Technology acceptance model (TAM) and theory of planned behavior (TPB) 15 2.2 Social media and trust 16 2.3 Age and gender 20 2.4 Effect of trust on intention to buy and perceived usefulness 23 2.5 Perceived usefulness and intention to buy 26 2.6 Hypotheses 27 Research methodology 28 3.1 Research procedure 29 3.2 Measurement of the constructs 34 3.3 Data analysis and method 36 Measure validation 36 Cronbach’s alpha 36 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) 37 Multiple regression analysis 38 Data analysis and results 39 4.1 Sample characteristic 40 4.2 The reliability test 41 4.3 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) 41 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) result 44 4.5 Research hypotheses test 45 4.6 Results of Multi-group analysis 47 Discussion and implications, limitations and directions for future research 51 5.1 Discussion 51 5.2 The main results 53 Result contributions to theory 53 Result contributions to management practices 55 5.3 Limitations and directions for future research 57 5.4 Conclusion 58 Reference 58 Appendix 1: Primarily questionnaire 72 Appendix 2: Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability 77 Appendix 3: CFA results and regression 79 Appendix 4: SEM result 83 Appendix 5: Moderating role of gender 87 Appendix 6: Moderating role of age 89 11 Based on my experience with my favorite social networking site, I know it is honest Dựa kinh nghiệm với trang mạng xã hội yêu thích tơi, tơi biết trung thực 12 Based on my experience with my favorite social networking site, I know they care about Dựa kinh nghiệm tơi với trang mạng xã hội u thích tơi, biết họ quan tâm đến khách hàng IV INTENTION TO BUY Ý ĐỊNH MUA HÀNG 13 I am very likely to provide the online vendor with the information it needs to better serve my needs through my favorite social networking site Tơi có khả cung cấp cho nhà cung cấp trực tuyến thông tin cần thiết để phục vụ tốt nhu cầu thông qua trang web mạng xã hội ưa thích tơi 14 I am happy to use my credit card to purchase from an online vendor through my favorite social networking site Tơi vui sử dụng thẻ tín dụng để mua từ nhà cung cấp trực tuyến thơng qua trang web mạng xã hội ưa thích tơi 15 I am likely to pay for the membership if SNSs start charging fees Tơi trả phí thành viên trang mạng xã hội yêu thích bắt đầu tính phí 76 Appendix 2: Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Social media Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 846 Item-Total Statistics Scale Variance Scale Mean if if Item Item Deleted Deleted SM1 SM2 SM3 SM4 9.7907 9.7767 9.9256 9.9256 Corrected Item-Total Correlation 7.363 7.146 7.667 7.508 650 699 681 707 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted 820 799 806 795 Trust Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 893 Item-Total Statistics Scale Variance Scale Mean if if Item Item Deleted Deleted T1 T2 T3 T4 8.7814 9.0744 8.9070 8.6791 6.415 6.275 5.823 6.387 Corrected Item-Total Correlation 748 742 829 736 Perceived usefulness Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha 857 N of Items 77 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted 868 870 836 872 Item-Total Statistics Scale Variance Scale Mean if if Item Item Deleted Deleted PU1 PU2 PU3 6.8093 6.8140 6.6837 Corrected Item-Total Correlation 3.333 2.909 3.236 681 818 698 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted 845 715 831 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 776 Item-Total Statistics Scale Variance Scale Mean if if Item Item Deleted Deleted I1 I2 I3 6.1209 6.1628 6.4326 3.069 2.763 2.891 Corrected Item-Total Correlation 605 651 584 78 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted 707 655 731 Appendix 3: CFA results and regression Notes for Model (Default model) Computation of degrees of freedom (Default model) 05 Number of distinct sample moments: Number of distinct parameters to be estimated: Degrees of freedom (105 - 34): Result (Default model) Minimum was achieved Chi-square = 120.797 Degrees of freedom = 71 Probability level = 000 Estimates (Group number - Default model) Scalar Estimates (Group number - Default model) Maximum Likelihood Estimates Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Estimate 1.03 1.213 1.044 1.024 0.943 0.987 1.214 1.041 S.E C.R P 0.083 0.084 0.08 12.432 14.519 13.007 *** *** *** 0.1 0.091 0.093 10.268 10.33 10.656 *** *** *** 0.091 0.087 13.405 11.949 *** *** T1 T2 T3 T4 SM1 SM2 SM3 SM4 PU1 PU2 PU3 < < < < < < < < < < < - Trust Trust Trust Trust SM SM SM SM PU PU PU I1 < - Intention I2 < - Intention 1.109 0.115 9.616 *** I3 < - Intention 0.994 0.113 8.821 *** 79 Label Covariances: (Group number - Default model) Estimate 0.187 0.318 S.E 0.05 0.052 C.R 3.724 6.098 P *** *** Trust Trust < > < > SM PU Trust SM < > < > Intention PU 0.287 0.301 0.05 0.058 5.715 5.187 *** *** SM < > Intention 0.257 0.055 4.645 *** PU < > Intention 0.325 0.054 5.975 *** Variances: (Group number - Default model) Trust SM PU Intention e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 e13 e14 Estimate 0.519 0.678 0.545 S.E 0.077 0.115 0.085 C.R 6.765 5.898 6.427 P *** *** *** 0.473 0.304 0.34 0.186 0.286 0.564 0.525 0.431 0.392 0.369 0.164 0.356 0.377 0.393 0.532 0.082 0.036 0.04 0.032 0.035 0.069 0.066 0.055 0.054 0.044 0.038 0.044 0.052 0.058 0.065 5.743 8.486 8.59 5.917 8.176 8.188 7.906 7.825 7.31 8.389 4.357 8.111 7.27 6.723 8.223 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 80 Label Label Model Fit Summary CMIN DF 71 P CMIN/ DF 1.701 14 CMIN 120.797 1667.44 91 18.324 Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI Default model Saturated model Independence model 0.053 0.367 0.929 0.317 0.895 0.628 0.212 0.275 NFI Delta1 0.928 RFI rho1 0.907 IFI Delta2 0.969 TLI rho2 0.96 Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NPAR 34 105 RMR, GFI Baseline Comparisons Model Default model Saturated model Independence model Parsimony-Adjusted Measures Model Default model Saturated model Independence model PRATIO 0.78 PNFI 0.724 0 PCFI 0.756 0 NCP Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NCP 49.797 1576.44 LO 90 23.284 1447.60 81 HI 90 84.186 1712.6 68 CFI 0.968 FMIN Model Default model Saturated model Independence model FMIN 0.564 7.792 F0 0.233 7.367 LO 90 0.109 6.765 HI 90 0.393 8.003 RMSEA 0.057 0.285 LO 90 0.039 0.273 HI 90 0.074 0.297 PCLOSE 0.237 RMSEA Model Default model Independence model Execution time summary Minimization: Miscellaneous: Bootstrap: Total: 0.013 0.461 0.474 82 Appendix 4: SEM result Notes for Model (Default model) Result (Default model) Minimum was achieved Chi-square = 150.587 Degrees of freedom = 73 Probability level = 000 Trust PU Intention Intention T1 T2 T3 T4 SM1 SM2 SM3 SM4 PU1 PU2 PU3 I1 I2 I3 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - SM Trust PU Trust Trust Trust Trust Trust SM SM SM SM PU PU PU Intention Intention Intention Estimate 0.31 0.623 0.409 0.31 1.028 1.205 1.051 1.048 0.97 1.014 1.225 1.034 1.113 0.994 S.E 0.071 0.082 0.089 0.088 C.R 4.353 7.634 4.592 3.538 P Label 0.083 0.084 0.08 12.367 14.395 13.077 *** *** *** 0.104 0.096 0.097 10.034 10.134 10.417 *** *** *** 0.092 0.087 13.338 11.855 *** *** 0.117 0.113 9.539 8.766 *** *** *** *** *** *** Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Trust PU Intention Intention T1 T2 T3 T4 < < < < < < < < - 83 SM Trust PU Trust Trust Trust Trust Trust Estimate 0.348 0.607 0.439 0.325 0.794 0.784 0.89 0.819 SM1 SM2 SM3 SM4 PU1 PU2 PU3 I1 I2 I3 < < < < < < < < < < Variances: (Group number - Default model) SM e15 e17 e16 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 e13 e14 Estimate S.E C.R P 0.651 0.114 5.723 *** 0.455 0.069 6.638 *** 0.343 0.056 6.082 *** 0.249 0.05 5.005 *** 0.304 0.036 8.489 *** 0.343 0.04 8.614 *** 0.198 0.032 6.198 *** 0.28 0.035 8.096 *** 0.59 0.071 8.302 *** 0.521 0.067 7.784 *** 0.421 0.055 7.629 *** 0.383 0.054 7.076 *** 0.37 0.044 8.365 *** 0.153 0.039 3.948 *** 0.365 0.045 8.165 *** 0.379 0.052 7.227 *** 0.391 0.059 6.619 *** 0.532 0.065 8.189 *** Label 84 SM SM SM SM PU PU PU Intention Intention Intention 0.724 0.761 0.77 0.797 0.771 0.918 0.784 0.745 0.774 0.684 Squared Multiple Correlations: Estimate 0.121 0.369 0.472 0.467 0.599 0.555 0.614 0.842 0.595 0.636 0.592 0.578 0.525 0.671 0.792 0.614 0.63 Trust PU Intention I3 I2 I1 PU3 PU2 PU1 SM4 SM3 SM2 SM1 T4 T3 T2 T1 Model Fit Summary Model Default model Saturated model NPAR 32 105 Independence model 14 CMIN 150.587 1667.44 DF 73 P 91 CMIN/DF 2.063 18.324 RMR, GFI Model Default model Saturated model Independence model RMR 0.099 GFI AGFI 0.914 0.876 0.367 0.317 0.212 85 PGFI 0.635 0.275 Baseline Comparisons Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NFI RFI IFI TLI Delta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2 CFI 0.91 0.887 0.951 0.939 0.951 1 0 0 Parsimony-Adjusted Measures Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NCP Model Default model Saturated model Independence model PRATIO 0.802 PNFI PCFI 0.73 0.763 0 0 NCP LO 90 HI 90 77.587 46.27 116.672 0 1576.443 1447.605 1712.668 NCP Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NCP 77.587 1576.443 LO 90 46.27 1447.605 HI 90 116.672 1712.668 FMIN Model Default model Saturated model Independence model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90 0.704 0.363 0.216 0.545 0 0 7.792 7.367 6.765 8.003 RMSEA Model Default model Independence model RMSE A 0.07 0.285 LO 90 0.054 0.273 PCLO HI 90 SE 0.086 0.02 0.297 86 Appendix 5: Moderating role of gender CMIN Model Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model NPAR 92 64 238 56 CMIN 255.178 281.749 000 1798.974 NFI Delta1 858 843 1.000 000 RFI rho1 823 836 DF 146 174 182 P 000 000 CMIN/DF 1.748 1.619 000 9.884 Baseline Comparisons Model Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model IFI Delta2 934 934 1.000 000 000 TLI rho2 916 930 000 Parsimony-Adjusted Measures Model Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model PRATIO 802 956 000 1.000 PNFI 688 806 000 000 PCFI 748 892 000 000 NCP 109.178 107.749 000 1616.974 LO 90 68.659 65.753 000 1484.681 NCP Model Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model HI 90 157.558 157.659 000 1756.681 FMIN Model Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model FMIN 1.198 1.323 000 8.446 F0 513 506 000 7.591 LO 90 322 309 000 6.970 HI 90 740 740 000 8.247 87 CFI 932 933 1.000 000 RMSEA Model Unconstrained Structural weights Independence model RMSEA 059 054 204 LO 90 047 042 196 HI 90 071 065 213 PCLOSE 104 279 000 88 Appendix 6: Moderating role of age CMIN Model NPAR CMIN Unconstrained 92 256.793 46 Structural weights 64 287.007 74 Saturated model Independence model 238 56 000 1825.219 82 NFI Delta1 859 843 1.000 000 RFI rho1 825 836 F 000 P CMIN/DF 1.759 000 000 1.649 10.029 Baseline Comparisons Model Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model Parsimony-Adjusted Measures Model PRATIO Unconstrained 802 Structural weights 956 Saturated model 000 Independence model 1.000 000 IFI Delta2 934 932 1.000 000 PNFI 689 806 000 000 TLI rho2 916 928 000 CFI 933 931 1.000 000 PCFI 748 890 000 000 NCP Model Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model NCP 110.793 113.007 000 1643.219 FMIN Model Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model FMIN 1.206 1.347 000 8.569 RMSEA Model Unconstrained Structural weights RMSEA 060 055 LO 90 70.075 70.388 000 1509.881 F0 520 531 000 7.715 LO 90 047 044 HI 90 159.368 163.526 000 1783.966 LO 90 329 330 000 7.089 HI 90 072 066 HI 90 748 768 000 8.375 PCLOSE 093 220 89 Model Independence model RMSEA 206 LO 90 197 HI 90 215 PCLOSE 000 90