study deals with only one SNS is Facebook. There are a number of other SNS available on the internet which is not included in this study. So, future work can include a number of popular SNS to understand the factors influencing adoption of SNS more vividly.
Secondly, this study has been done in university in Ho Chi Minh City only. Further research should be done across different areas in Vietnam and comparisons can be made.
Consequently, the findings of this study should be further tested with a larger sample of internet users having membership in different SNS. Additional research work should identify other variables influencing the adoption of SNS.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1991). Theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ariyachandra, T., & Bertaux, N. (2009). Validating a comprehensive model for online social networking use: Initial results. Issues in Information Systems, 11(1), 696- 710.
Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F., & Urban, G. L. (2005). Are the drivers and role of online trust the same for all Web sites and consumers? A large–scale exploratory empirical study. Journal of Marketing, 69, 133–152.
Bartlett-Bragg, A. (2007). Reflections on pedagogy: Reframing practice to foster
informal learning with social software. Retrieved from
http://matchsz.inf.elte.hu/tt/docs/anne20bartlett-bragg.pdf.
Belanger, F., Hiller, J. S., & Smith, W. J. (2002). Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: The role of privacy, security, and site attributes. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 245–270.
Bouwman, M. E. (2011, December 31). Revising the TAM in hedonic information systems: The influence of the TAM, perceived enjoyment, innovativeness and extraversion on the use of location-based social networks. Retrieved from http://essay.utwente.nl/61532/.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: definition, history and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x.
Bryant, E., & Marmo, J. (2009). Relational Maintenance Strategies on Facebook.
Retrieved from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p366873_index.html.
Chakrabarti, A. K., & Santoro, M. D. (2004). Building social capital and learning environment in university–industry relationships. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 19–36.
Chen, C. F., & Chen, P. C. (2011). Applying the TAM to travelers’ usage intentions of GPS devices. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 6217-6221.
Chesney, T. (2006). An acceptance model for useful and fun information systems.
Human Technology, 2(2), 225-235.
Cheung, C. M. K., Chiu, P. Y., & Lee, M. K. O. (2010). Online social networks: Why do students use Facebook?. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1337-1343.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.028.
Clarke, R. A. (1988). Information technology and dataveillance. Communications of the ACM, 31(5), 498–512. doi:10.1145/42411.42413.
Danowski, J., & Zywica, J. (2008). The faces of Facebookers: Investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 14(1), 1-34.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Devaraj, S., Easley, R. F., & Crant, M. (2008). Research note - How does personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology. Information Systems Research, 19(1), 93-105.
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small- group-based virtual communities.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 241–263.
Dogruer, N., Menevis, L., & Eyyam, R. (2011). What is the motivation for using Facebook? Procedia – Social anf Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2642-2646. doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.162.
Ducoffe, R. H. (1996). Advertising Value and Advertising on the Web. Journal of Advertising Research, 36, 21 - 36.
Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, P. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Retrieved from http://csis.pace.edu/dwyer/research/DwyerAMCIS2007.pdf.
Ellison, N., Lampe, C., & Steinfield, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”:
Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. doi:0.1111/j.1083- 6101.2007.00367.x.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fornasier, S., Wilson, K., & White, K. M. (2010). Psychological Predictors of Young Adults’ Use of Social Networking Sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social, 13(2), 173-177. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0094.
George, D., & Malley, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and preference 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Golder, S. A., Wilkinson, D. M., & Huberman, B. A. (2007). Rhythms of social interaction: Messaging within a massive online network. Communities and Technologies 2007, (pp. 41-66). Springer London.
Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society (WPES '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 71-80.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., BaBin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). London: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Hargittai, E. (2008). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 276-297.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00396.x.
Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432-448. doi:10.1111/j.1540- 6237.2006.00389.x.
Hoekstra, H.A., Ormel, J., & De Fruyt, F. (2003). Handleiding NEO FFI, Big Five Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The Varimax Criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis.
Psychometrica, 23(3), 187-200.
Kamarulzaman, Y. (2007). Adoption of travel e-shopping in the UK. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(9), 703-19.
Kiesler, S., Kraut, R., Cummings, J., Boneva, B., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002).
Internet evolution and social impact. Retrieved from
http://homenet.hcii.cs.cmu.edu/progress/ebusinesspaper.pdf.
Kwon, O., & Wen, Y. (2010). An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 254-263.
Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Social networking websites and teens: An overview.
Pew Internet and American Life Project Report. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2007/01/07/social-networking-websites-and-teens/.
Lytras, M. D., & Garcia, R. (2008). Semantic web applications: A framework for industry and business exploitation – What is needed for the adoption of the Semantic web from the market and industry. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 4(1), 93–108.
Madden, M., & Raine, L. (2003). American online pursuits. Pew Internet and American
Life Project Report. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2003/12/22/americas-online-pursuits/.
Matkar, A. (2012). Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for standard of customer service in Maharashtra state cooperative bank. IUP Journal of Bank Management, 11(3), 89-95.
Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educaitonal usage of Facebook.
Computers & Education, 55, 444-453.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. California: Saga Publications Inc.
Moon, J. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context.
Information & Management, 38(4), 217-230.
Neelotpaul, B. (2013). Identifying the factors influencing users’ adoption of social networking websites—A study on Facebook. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 5(6), 109-121. doi: 10.5539/ijms.v5n6p109.
Norris, M., & Lecavalier, L. (2010). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in developmental disability psychological research. Journal of Autism and Development Disorders, 40(1), 8-20. doi:10.1007/s10803-009-0816-2.
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y. F. (2000). Measuring the customer experience in online environments: A structural modeling approach. Marketing Science, 19 (1), 22-42.
Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual. A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). Australlia: Allen & Unwin.
Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes.
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12(6), 729-733. doi:10.1089/cpb.2009.0003.
Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyber Psychology &
Behavior, 11(2), 169-174.doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0056.
Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 134-140. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.002.
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009).
Personality and motivati ons associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (2), 578-586. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024.
Sheehan, K., & Hoy, M. G. (1999). Flaming, complaining, abstaining: How online users respond to privacy concerns. Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 37–51. doi:
10.1080/00913367.1999.10673588.
Shin, D. H. (2010). The effects of trust security and privacy in social networking: A security based approach to understand the pattern of adoption. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 428-438. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2010.05.001.
Stern, L. A., & Taylor, K. (2007). Social networking on Facebook. Journal of the Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of NorthDakota, 20, 9-20.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.).
Boston: Pearson Education
Thongmark, M. (2013). Social Network System in Classroom: Antecedents of Edmodo
© Adoption. Journal of e-Learning and Higher Education, 2013 (2013). doi:
10.5171/2013.657749.
Van der Heijden, H. (2003). Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in the Netherlands. Information & Management. 40(6), 541–549.
doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00079-4.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695-704. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25148660.
Van Duijn, M. A. J., Zeggelink, E. P. H., Huisman, M., Stokman, F. N., & Wasseur, F.
W. (2003). Evolution of sociology freshmen into a friendship network. The
Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 27(2-3), 153 - 191. doi:
10.1080/00222500305889.
Van Dyke, T. P., Midha, V., & Nemati, H. (2007) .The Effects of Consumer Privacy Empowerment on Trust and Privacy Concerns in e-Commerce . Electronic Markets, 17(1), 68-81. doi: 10.1080/10196780601136997.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
Watkins, S. C. (2009). The young and the digital: What the migration to social network sites, games, and anytime, anywhere media means for our future. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
QUESTIONAIRE
My name is Truong Thi Hoang Ngoc who is graduated students of International School Business (ISB)-University of Economics TPHCM City. I am currently researching the topic "Antecedents Of The Adoption Of Social Network Sites The Case Of Facebook In Vietnam". I look forward to receiving your support by answering a questionnaire survey below. The objective of the yours answers has great significance in scientific research purposes.
1. You are:...
2.What year are you student?
3.Do you have Facebook account?
(If answer “No”, not answer question 4, 5, 30)
4. How many year do you have Facebook account?
5. How many times do you access in Facebook per day?
Please mark “X” in the appropriate number with your comments below (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
N.o Question Criteria
1 2 3 4 5
1 I believe that using Facebook enables me to connect and socialize with new persons
2 I believe that using Facebook enables me to stay in touch with friends
3 I believe that using Facebook enables me to communication with friends and family
4 I believe that using Facebook enables me to share information with friends and family
5 I believe that the personal information that I provide on the Facebook is secure.
6 I believe that Facebook does not use unsuitable methods to collect my personal data.
7 I believe that Facebook does not ask for irrelevant personal information.
8 I believe that Facebook does not apply my personal information for other purposes.
9 I believe that Facebook provides multiple ways to protect my account
10 I believe that using Facebook enables me to be entertained
11 I believe that using Facebook enables me to play 12 I believe that using Facebook enables me to relax
13 I believe that using Facebook enables me to pass the time away when bored
14 I believe that using Facebook gives me a lot of pleasure.
15 I like to have a lot of people around me 16 I laugh easily
17 I don’t see myself as a happy and cheerful person 18 I really enjoy talking to people
19 I like to be at places where something is going on 20 I am not a cheerful optimist
21 I am a very active person
22 I would usually prefer to do thing alone 23 I often feel like I am bursting of energy
24 I would rather go my own way than I would give guidance to others
25 I live a hectic life
26 I am a cheerful and lively person 27 I will adopt Facebook site in the future.
28 I expect to adop Facebook in the near future.
29 I intend to adopt Facebook
30. How many percent do you read other people write or do you write to other people read?
– 10% writing.
– 30% writing.
– 50% writing – 70% writing – 90% writing
BẢNG CÂU HỎI
Tôi tên là Trương Thị Hoàng Ngọc là học viên cao học của Viện Đào Tạo Quốc Tế (ISB)-Trường Đại Học Kinh Tế TPHCM. Hiện tôi đang nghiên cứu đề tài “ Tiền đề của việc chấp nhận càc trang mạng xã hội- Facebook”. Tôi rất mong nhận được sự hỗ trợ của bạn bằng cách trả lời bảng câu hỏi khảo sát bên dưới. Các câu trả lời khách quan của bạn có ý nghĩa rất lớn trong mục đích nghiên cứu khoa học.
Chân thành cảm ơn bạn!
Trương Thị Hoàng Ngọc!
Xin vui đánh dấ ựa chọn:
1. Xin cho biết giới tính của bạn? ữ 2. Xin vui lòng cho biết bạn là sinh viên năm mấy?
3. Hiện nay bạn có tài khoản Facebook không?
(Nếu bạn chưa có tài khoản thì không cần trả lời câu hỏi 4, 5,30) 4. Bạn có tài khoản Facebook được mấy năm ?
- -
5. Số lần đăng nhập vào Facebook trong 1 ngày?
ầ -3 lầ -4 lần) ần).
Xin vui lòng đánh dấu X vào ô sô phù hợp với ý kiến của bạn dưới đây (1=
Hoàn toàn không có ý kiến, 2 = Không đồng ý, 3 = Không có ý kiến (Trung hòa), 4 = Đồng ý, 5 = Hoàn toàn đồng ý)
S T T
Nội Dung Câu Hỏi
Thang Đo
1 2 3 4 5
1 Tôi cho rằng sử dụng FB giúp tôi kết nối với những người bạn mới
2 Tôi cho rằng sử dụng FB giúp tôi giữ liên lạc với bạn
bè
3 Tôi cho rằng sử dụng FB giúp tôi thông tin liên lạc với bạn bè và gia đình
4 Tôi cho rằng sử dụng FB giúp tôi chia sẻ thông tin với bạn bè và gia đình
5 Tôi cho rằng các thông tin cá nhân mà tôi cung cấp trên FB được bảo đảm an toàn
6 Tôi cho rằng FB không sử dụng những phương tiện không thích hợp để thu thập dữ liệu cá nhân của tôi.
7 Tôi cho rằng FB không yêu cầu những thông tin cá nhân không liên quan
8 Tôi cho rằng FB không sử dụng thông tin cá nhân của tôi cho mục đích khác.
9 Tôi cho rằng FB cung cấp những cách khác nhau để bảo vệ tài khoản của tôi
10 Tôi cho rằng sử dụng FB giúp tôi được giải trí 11 Tôi cho rằng sử dụng FB giúp tôi vui chơi
12 Tôi cho rằng sử dụng FB giúp tôi cảm thấy thoải mái 13 Tôi cho rằng sử dụng FB giúp tôi giết thời gian khi
buồn chán
14 Tôi cho rằng sử dụng FB cho tôi nhiều nềm vui 15 Tôi muốn có rất nhiều người xung quanh tôi 16 Tôi dễ dàng cười
17 Tôi không coi mình là 1 người hạnh phúc và vui vẻ 18 Tôi thực sự thích nói chuyện với mọi người
19 Tôi thích được ở những nơi náo nhiệt 20 Tôi không phải là người lạc quan vui vẻ 21 Tôi là một người rất năng động
22 Tôi thường thích làm mọi thứ một mình
23 Tôi thường cảm thấy như tôi đang bùng nổ năng lượng 24 Tôi thích làm theo cách của riêng tôi hơn làm theo
hướng dẫn của người khác 25 Tôi sống một cuộc sống bận rộn 26 Tôi là một người vui vẻ và sống động
27 Tôi sẽ (vẫn) mở tài khoản Facebook trong tương lai.
28 Tôi muốn (vẫn) có Facebook trong thời gian sớm 29 Tôi có ý định ( vẫn) sử dụng Facebook
30. Xin cho biết tỷ lệ bạn đọc của người khác viết và viết cho người khác đọc như thế nào?
ọc của người khác viết – 10% viết cho người khác đọc.
ọc cuẩ người khác viết – 30% viết cho người khác đọc.
ọc của người khác viết – 50% viết cho người khác đọc.
ọc của người khác viết – 70% viết cho người khác đọc.
ọc của người khác viết – 90% viết cho người khác đọc.
ọc của người khác viết – 70% viết cho người khác đọc.
Chân thành cảm ơn sự giúp đỡ của bạn!
APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Statistics
GENDER STUDENT ACCOUNT TIME ACCESS
PERCENT (READING- WRITING)
N Valid 279 279 279 252 252 252
Missing 0 0 0 27 27 27
Mean 1.5556 2.6165 1.0968 2.3929 2.3770 2.2579
Median 2.0000 3.0000 1.0000 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000
Mode 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00
Std. Deviation .49780 1.10584 .29618 .71997 1.00435 1.57196
Minimum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maximum 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 5.00
GENDER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 124 44.4 44.4 44.4
Female 155 55.6 55.6 100.0
Total 279 100.0 100.0
STUDENT
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Freshman 58 20.8 20.8 20.8
Sophomore 70 25.1 25.1 45.9
Junior 72 25.8 25.8 71.7
Senior 79 28.3 28.3 100.0
Total 279 100.0 100.0
ACCOUNT
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 252 90.3 90.3 90.3
No 27 9.7 9.7 100.0
Total 279 100.0 100.0
FACEBOOK MEMBERSHIP
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid < 1year 15 5.4 6.0 6.0
1<=--<=3 year 143 51.3 56.7 62.7
4<=...<= 5 year 74 26.5 29.4 92.1
> 5 year 20 7.2 7.9 100.0
Total 252 90.3 100.0
Missing System 27 9.7
Total 279 100.0
ACCESS
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 52 18.6 20.6 20.6
2<=...<= 3 times 98 35.1 38.9 59.5
4<=...<= 6 times 57 20.4 22.6 82.1
> 6 times 45 16.1 17.9 100.0
Total 252 90.3 100.0
Missing System 27 9.7
Total 279 100.0
PERCENT (READING-WRITING)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 90% reading – 10% writing. 120 43.0 47.6 47.6
50% reading – 50% wriring 61 21.9 24.2 71.8
10% reading – 90% writing 9 3.2 3.6 75.4
30% reading– 70% writing 10 3.6 4.0 79.4
70% reading – 30% writing. 52 18.6 20.6 100.0
Total 252 90.3 100.0
Missing System 27 9.7
Total 279 100.0
APPENDIX 2: CRONBACH'S APLPHA WITH FULL FOR EACH CONSTRUCTS
Variables
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Cronbach' s Alpha if
Item Deleted
RELATIONSHIP: Alpha = 0.724
RELATIONSHIP 1 11.49821 3.906 .386 .737
RELATIONSHIP 2 11.22939 3.688 .512 .663
RELATIONSHIP 3 11.37993 3.459 .594 .614
RELATIONSHIP 4 11.44086 3.492 .571 .627
PRIVACY: Alpha = 0.715
PRIVACY 1 12.7419 7.430 .407 .692
PRIVACY 2 12.3763 7.487 .422 .687
PRIVACY 3 12.0896 6.506 .553 .633
PRIVACY 4 12.1039 6.237 .591 .615
PRIVACY 5 12.0358 7.265 .395 .699
ENTERTAINMENT : Alpha = 0.819
ENTERTAINMENT 1 14.0287 8.114 .671 .766
ENTERTAINMENT 2 14.3226 8.111 .650 .772
ENTERTAINMENT 3 14.4409 7.967 .659 .769
ENTERTAINMENT 4 14.2509 8.282 .533 .808
ENTERTAINMENT 5 14.5842 8.309 .551 .801
INTENTON : Alpha = 0.768
INTENTON 1 7.7563 1.199 .626 .659
INTENTON 2 7.8136 1.167 .636 .647
INTENTON 3 7.6416 1.288 .542 .751
EXTRAVERSION: Alpha = 0.709
EXTRAVERSION 1 35.1900 26.867 .383 .685
EXTRAVERSION 2 34.9391 26.101 .484 .669
EXTRAVERSION 3 35.6523 30.148 .101 .722
EXTRAVERSION 4 34.8423 27.220 .443 .678
EXTRAVERSION 5 35.4910 24.452 .531 .658
EXTRAVERSION 6 35.8996 31.551 -.053 .747
EXTRAVERSION 7 34.9068 26.725 .490 .671
EXTRAVERSION 8 35.2258 29.046 .177 .715
EXTRAVERSION 9 35.4588 24.861 .673 .643
EXTRAVERSION 10 34.8817 29.903 .139 .716
EXTRAVERSION 11 35.2437 28.336 .293 .697
EXTRAVERSION 12 34.8423 26.205 .565 .662
APPENDIX 3: THE FIRST TIME RUNNING FACTOR ANALYSIS – EIGENVALUES (FOR INDEPENDENT VARIABLES) KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .776
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 989.549
Df 45
Sig. .000
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total
% of Variance
Cumulative
% Total
% of Variance
Cumulative
% Total
Cumulativ e %
1 3.98
8
39.878 39.878 3.988 39.878 39.878 2.807 28.073
2 1.35
6
13.565 53.443 1.356 13.565 53.443 2.154 49.610
3 1.22
7
12.272 65.714 1.227 12.272 65.714 1.610 65.714
4 .800 8.000 73.714
5 .690 6.899 80.613
6 .527 5.274 85.887
7 .444 4.444 90.331
8 .371 3.711 94.041
9 .362 3.625 97.666
10 .233 2.334 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
APPENDIX 4: THE SECOND TIME RUNNING FACTOR ANALYSIS –EIGENVALUES (FOR DEPENDENT VARIABLES)
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .685
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 220.284
Df 3
Sig. .000
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total
% of
Variance Cumulative % Total
% of
Variance Cumulative %
1 2.050 68.331 68.331 2.050 68.331 68.331
2 .552 18.407 86.737
3 .398 13.263 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
APPENDIX 5: THE THIRD TIME RUNNING FACTOR ANALYSIS- EIGENVALUES (FOR MODERATING VARIABLES) KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .799
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 583.876
Df 10
Sig. .000
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total
% of Variance
Cumulative
%
1 3.119 62.381 62.381 3.119 62.381 62.381
2 .682 13.634 76.015
3 .561 11.220 87.235
4 .353 7.060 94.295
5 .285 5.705 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
APPENDIX 6: HIGHT EXTRAVERSION
Model Summaryb
Model R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std.
Error of the Estimate
Change Statistics
Durbin- Watson R
Square Change
F Change
df 1 df2
Sig. F Change
1 .675a .456 .445 .42375 .456 41.110 3 147 .000 1.940 a. Predictors: (Constant), ENTERTAINMENT, RELATIONSHIP, PRIVACY
b. Dependent Variable: INTENTION
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 22.146 3 7.382 41.110 .000b
Residual 26.396 147 .180
Total 48.542 150
a. Dependent Variable: INTENTION
b. Predictors: (Constant), ENTERTAINMENT, RELATIONSHIP, PRIVACY
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Sta nda rdiz ed Coe ffici ents
t Sig.
Correlations
Collinearity Statistics
B
Std.
Error Bet
a
Zer o- ord
er Part
ial Part
Toler
ance VIF
1 (Constant) 1.420 .260 5.470 .000
RELATIONSHIP .123 .065 .125 1.904 .059 .351 .155 .116 .865 1.157
PRIVACY .114 .045 .167 2.538 .012 .393 .205 .154 .855 1.170
ENTERTAINMENT .435 .056 .537 7.743 .000 .646 .538 .471 .768 1.302
a. Dependent Variable: INTENTION
APPENDIX 7: LOW EXTRAVERSION
Model Summaryb
Model R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std.
Error of the Estimate
Change Statistics
Durbin - Watso
n R
Square Change
F Change
df 1 df2
Sig. F Chang
e
1 .663a .440 .426 .34329 .440 32.478 3 124 .000 1.870 a. Predictors: (Constant), ENTERTAINMENT, PRIVACY, RELATIONSHIP
b. Dependent Variable: INTENTION
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 11.483 3 3.828 32.478 .000b
Residual 14.614 124 .118
Total 26.096 127
a. Dependent Variable: INTENTION
b. Predictors: (Constant), ENTERTAINMENT, PRIVACY, RELATIONSHIP
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardize d Coefficients
Stand ardize d Coeff icient s
t Sig.
Correlations
Collinearity Statistics
B
Std.
Error Beta
Zero- order
Part
ial Part
Toler
ance VIF
1 (Constant) 2.136 .187 11.445 .000
RELATIONSHIP .159 .049 .263 3.243 .002 .530 .280 .218 .689 1.451 PRIVACY .102 .038 .200 2.656 .009 .446 .232 .178 .798 1.254 ENTERTAINMENT .238 .053 .365 4.516 .000 .580 .376 .303 .690 1.449
FIGURE 3: HISTOGRAM
FIGURE 4: REGRESSION STANDADIZED RESIDUAL
FIGURE 4: NORMAL P-P PLOT