No extreme distinctions was basically found to possess accessibility, length of need, visit frequency, sex and age, whereas Bonferroni modification pairwise contrasting off estimated limited function expose the new factor between your next parameters
Facebook was utilized by the most participants (64.5 %) through one another Desktop and you will smart phone; over sixty per cent logged on to Twitter casual; invested you to (58.5 per cent) in order to a couple (twenty-two.8 percent) times for each and every log in; and most 72 per cent up-to-date its reputation no less than from weekly. New take to included hook most lady (54.8 per cent); and cultural teams precisely portrayed the brand new ethnicity of West Cape, along with mainly black (thirty five.dos per cent) and you may colored (36.4 %) cultural groups (Analytics SA, 2012).
Desk II has the benefit of a full post on using services and you can class out-of Millennials participants that use Twitter
As previously mentioned, the latest respondents’ behavioural attitude to the Twitter adverts was computed by the nine-product scales for every of your hierarchy response levels (Tables III and you can IV).
Cronbach’s https://datingranking.net/nl/bicupid-overzicht/ ? was 0.843 for the Facebook advertising intention-to-purchase scale (Table III) and 0.742 for the Facebook advertising purchase scale (Table IV), which indicated good internal consistencies. A non-parametric one-sample bi-nominal standardised test was utilised to determine if there was a significant difference. The test showed that for both of the nine-item scales, there was a significant difference at p < 0.001 and p < 0.05, with the exception of one item in the intention-to-purchase scale. Pearson's correlation coefficient analysis (Tables III and IV) showed a positive medium (r > 0.3) to strong (r > 0.5) relationship between a majority of the variables for the intention-to-purchase and purchase measurement scales, but there was weak positive correlation between a minority of the variables, especially in terms of the negatively reversed variables that were recoded.
This new GLM ANOVA, because discussed into the earlier text, was applied since research contains an alternative level of observations without a doubt independent parameters, that is viewed by large standard mistakes (an example of this is actually the reasonable amount of participants that logged on to Fb one or more times 1 month). Van Schalkwyk (2012) shows the GLM takes this into account and you may “normalises” the results. Dining tables V and you will VI reveal the effect regarding Wald ?2 sample, which is in accordance with the Bonferroni correction pairwise blog post hoc decide to try among the projected limited setting.
The Wald ?2 test revealed that there was a significant difference at p < 0.001 for intention-to-purchase (M=2.94, SD=0.805) because of Facebook advertising.
Log on duration (p < 0.001): respondents who logged on for ?1 hour (M=2.82, SE=0.033) resulted in lower intention-to-purchase levels in comparison to those who logged on for two hours (M=2.98, SE=0.039).
Profile update incidence (p < 0.001): respondents who updated their Facebook status daily (M=3.06, SE=0.041) resulted in greater intention-to-purchase compared to those who updated once a week (M=2.93, SE=0.044), two to four times a month (M=2.81, SE=0.050) and once a month (M=2.81, SE=0.042); those who updated their Facebook status two to four times a week (M=2.98, SE=0.043) showed an increase in intention-to-purchase compared to those who updated it two to four times a month (M=2.81, SE=0.050) and once a month (M=2.81, SE=0.042).
Ethnic group (p < 0.001): white respondents (M=2.79, SE=0.041) exhibited lower intention-to-purchase levels than black (M=3.01, SE=0.035) and coloured (M=2.96, SE=0.037) respondents.
The Wald ?2 test disclosed that there was a significant difference at p < 0.001 for purchase (M=2.94, SD=0.656), which was caused by Facebook advertising. No significant differences were found for access, length of usage, log on frequency, age, gender and race; however, Bonferroni correction pairwise comparisons of estimated ongst the following variables.