The data collected from 286 questionnaires has been scored and tabulated into a master data

sheet. The data has been analysed with the help of statistical package SPSS 21. The scores
arrived are put to various statistical analysis using various statistical tools in order to test the
research hypotheses. The statistical tools applied included Chi-Square test, independent t-test,
ANOVA, Factor Analysis, Regression, Rank Order Co-efficient etc.

The Data Analysis has been divided into:

i) Descriptive Analysis.

ii) Inferential Analysis.

(I) Descriptive Analysis - Descriptive statistics are used to study the basic features of
the data in a study. They provide simple summaries about the sample and the measures.
Descriptive analysis forms the base for inferential analysis. Descriptive analysis has been
performed on the demographic features of respondents and their responses.

(II) Inferential Analysis - Inferential analysis has been done to determine patterns in the data
collected to study our hypotheses. Inferential analysis helps to observe relationships between
factors as well as the strength of that relationship. Exclusive analysis has been done in this
chapter for the purpose of the research and the essence of the analysis has been presented.
4.1 Statistical Data Analysis using IBM SPSS Software 21

Section 1: Respondent Demographics

1. Gender wise distribution of respondents

To study the gender distribution of the respondents.

Number of Percentage
respondents
female 148 51.7
Valid Male 138 48.3
Total 286 100.0
Table 4.1: Distribution of respondents by demographic characteristic w.r.t Gender

Gender Distribution

Males

Females

Figure 4.1: Percentage of respondents by demographic characteristic w.r.t Gender

From the above table and pie chart we can assert that out of 286 respondents, 138(48.3%)
respondents are male and 148(51.7%) respondents are female. It is found from the analysis that
both genders have equally participated in the survey.
2. Age wise distribution of respondents

In order to study difference of factors based on age, the study classified age into five categories
viz., less than 20 years, 21-30 years, 31- 40 years, 40-50 years and above 50 years. The
distribution detail is given in the following table.

Number of Percentage
respondents
less than 20 years 65 22.7
20 to 30 years 80 28.0
30 to 40 years 51 17.8
Valid
40 to 50 years 45 15.7
more than 50 years 45 15.7
Total 286 100.0
Table 4.2: Distribution of respondents by demographic characteristic w.r.t Age

Age Distribution

Less than 20 years

20 - 30 years

30 - 40 years

40 - 50 years

More than 50 years

Figure 4. 2: Percentage of respondents by demographic characteristic w.r.t Age

From the above table and diagram, we can state that that majority of the population belong to
age group of 20-30 years followed by young Millennials who are less than 20 years of age. The
other three age groups are almost equal. A small inference can be drawn from this distribution
that youngsters are more active on social media and are forming a major section of consumers.
3. Education wise distribution of respondents

To study the variation among respondents based on education level, the following categories
are formed- Doctorate, Post Graduate, Graduate, senior Secondary(12th) or below. The
distribution detail is given in the following table.

Number of Percentage
respondents
Doctorate 35 12.2
Post-Graduate 87 30.4
Graduate 86 30.1
Valid
senior Secondary(12th) or 78 27.3
below
Total 286 100.0
Table 4. 3: Distribution of respondents by demographic characteristic w.r.t Education Qualification

Education Qualification Distribution

% Respondents

Education Qualification

Figure 4. 3: Percentage of respondents by demographic characteristic w.r.t Education Qualification

It can be verified from the above table that 12.2% of the respondents are holding doctoral
Degree. Respondents in the category of Post-Graduation and Graduation are almost equal with
30.4% and 30.1% of respondents whereas 27.3% of the respondents have attained education
up till Senior Secondary level. It is found from the analysis that most of the respondents are in
the graduate and post graduate category with 36.1%.

4. Employment sector wise Distribution of respondents

To study the variation among respondents based on employment sector, the following
categories are formed-government sector, private sector, self-employed/entrepreneur,
freelancer, student/unemployed and others. The distribution detail is given in the following
table.

Number of Percentage
respondents
government sector 46 16.1
Private sector 66 23.1
Self-employed/entrepreneur 49 17.1
Valid free lancer 14 4.9
student/unemployed 109 38.1
others 2 .7
Total 286 100.0
Table 4. 4: Distribution of respondents by demographic characteristic w.r.t employment sector
Figure 4. 4 Percentage of respondents by demographic characteristic w.r.t Employment Sector

It can be verified from the table and figure that majority of respondents are students or those
who are unemployed. This category is accounting for 38.1% of the total respondents. It is
important to be noted that house-makers are also following into this category. Following is the
private sector with 23.1%. There are few free lancers who are accounting for 4.9%. Further,
one respondent was working in the social sector one respondent was pursuing funded Ph.D.
T

5. Monthly Income wise Distribution of respondents

To study the variation among respondents based on monthly income, the following categories
are formed- Rs 0 to Rs 30,000, Rs 30,001 to Rs50,000, Rs 50,001 to Rs 80,000, Rs 80,001 to
Rs 1,00,000 and above Rs 1,00,000. The distribution detail is given in the following table.

Number of Percentage
respondents
Rs 0-Rs 30,000 132 46.2
Valid
Rs 30,001-Rs 50,000 41 14.3
 Rs 50,001-Rs 80,000 35 12.2
Rs 80,001-Rs 1,00,000 39 13.6
above Rs1,00,000 39 13.6
Total 286 100.0
Table 4. 5 Distribution of respondents by demographic characteristic w.r.t Monthly Income

Figure 4. 5: Percentage of respondents by demographic characteristic w.r.t Monthly Income

It can be verified from the table and figure that majority of respondents are falling in the first
category of Rs 0 to Rs 30,000. This is in correspondence to the majority of the respondents
falling in the employment category of student/unemployed. All the other income groups are
almost equally distributed.
Section 2: Awareness and usage of Social Media

1. Respondents were asked about the social media websites/apps that they are using/have
used in the past?

Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimu Maximu Mean Std.
m m Deviation
Number of Social 286 12.00 1.00 13.00 5.5804 2.51009
media used
Valid N (listwise) 286
Table 4. 6: Descriptive statistics of social media used.

From the above table we can understand that every respondent is using at least one (1) social
media app. The maximum number of social media websites/apps used by an individual is 13.
On an average each respondent is using 5 social media apps with standard deviation of 2.5.

Figure 4. 6: Percentage of usage of each social media website/app.

Following table will give better view of most preferred social media websites/apps among
people of NCT of Delhi.

Social Media websites/apps No of Respondents Percentage of Rank

used Respondents.
Facebook 228 80% III

Instagram 168 58.9% IV

YouTube 242 84.9% II

WhatsApp 270 94.7% I

Twitter 94 33% VIII

Snapchat 109 28.2% IX

LinkedIn 117 41.1% VI

Pinterest 76 26.7% X

Google+ 143 50.2% V

Quora 99 34.7% VII

Reddit 32 11.2% XI

Others 6 2% -

Table 4. 7: Percentage and ranks based on usage of each social media website/app

From the above figure and table, we can assert that the most commonly used social media app
is WhatsApp which is used by 270 respondents out of 286 respondents. WhatsApp accounts
for 94.7% of the total sample. Next most preferred social media website is YouTube with
84.9% of respondents using it. Facebook which is used by 228 respondents accounting for 80%
of total usage of all social media websites, stands third in the order. Instagram and Snapchat
are more popular among millennials. Quora is gaining popularity. Almost 50% respondents use
Quora to resolve their problems and seek advises.

2. Approximate time spent on social media sites/apps per day?

To study the variation of time spent by users of social media websites/ apps
 Number of Percentage
respondents
less than 1 hour 55 19.2
1-2 hours 82 28.7
2-3 hours 73 25.5
Valid
3-4 hours 42 14.7
more than 4 hours 34 11.9
Total 286 100.0
Table 4. 8: Distribution of respondents w.r.t time spent on social media website/apps

Figure 4. 7: Percentage of respondents spending time on social media websites/apps.

It can be verified from the table and figure that majority of the respondents are spending 1-2
hours on social media, accounting for 28.7% i.e. 82 respondents. Further, 25.5% of respondents
are surfing on social media for about 2-3 hours. 19.2% of respondents spend less than an hour
on social media. These are about 12% respondents who spend a big chunk of their daily time
on social media i.e. they regularly spend more than 4 hours on social media.

3. Purpose of use of social media websites/apps.

media for various purposes-

strongly strongly
Usage of social media websites/apps disagree disagree neutral agree agree

I use social media to stay up to date with my 21 20 55 98 92

social circle. (7.34%) (6.99%) (19.23%) (34.26%) (32.16%)

I use social media for networking, i.e. 12 29 58 121 66

connecting with people. (4.19%) (10.13%) (20.27%) (42.3%) (23.07%)
35 44 71 82 54
I use social media for posting pictures/videos (12.23%) (15.38%) (24.82%) (28.67%) (18.88%)
I use social media for collecting material for 22 31 58 96 79
education/business/job related work. (7.69%) (10.83%) (20.27%) (33.56%) (27.62%)
I use social media for sharing 24 52 63 93 54
information/inviting people to events. (8.39%) (18.18%) (22.02%) (32.51%) (18.88%)
I use social media for reading reviews and 19 39 60 112 56
ratings about products. (6.64%) (13.63%) (20.97%) (39.16%) (19.58%)
I use social media for checking out
deals/promotions/sales on products that I am 27 47 61 101 50
interested in. (9.44%) (16.43%) (21.32%) (35.31%) (17.48%)

I generally follow a particular page on social

media when I see advertisement of that 38 68 76 73 31
product. (13.28%) (23.77%) (26.57%) (25.52%) (10.83%)
Please indicate the degree to which you find
the information in social media ads useful in 34 76 67 58 51
your evaluation of products. (11.88%) (26.57%) (23.42%) (20.27%) (17.83%)
Figure 4. 8 Purpose of use of social media

From the above table we can assert that majority of respondents agree that they use
social media for networking i.e. connecting with new respondents with 42%
Second favorite utility of social media is to stay updated with social circle with 32%.
18.8% respondents strongly agree that they use social media for posting their pictures
27% respondents strongly agree that social media is a good platform for them to find
work/education related material
32.5% respondents agree to use social media for sharing information/inviting
respondents to events
 Around 40% respondents agree to use social media for reading reviews and ratings
about products
35% respondents go online and search for deals/promotions/sales on products of their
interest
Only 10% respondents strongly agree that they follow a particular page after seeing an
advertisement
Overall, 18% of respondents are strongly agree that the information provided in social
media advertisements are useful to them in evaluation of the products

Chi-square Analysis

Objective- To study the association between time spent with various demographic factors.

Age and time spent

H0- There is no significant association between age of respondents and time spent on social
media websites/apps.

H1- There is a significant association between age of respondents and time spent on social
media websites/apps.

Time Spent Total

less than 1 1-2 2-3 3-4 more than 4
hour hours hours hours hours
Count 6 9 22 16 12 65
less than 20
% within 9.2% 13.8% 33.8% 24.6% 18.5% 100.0%
years
age
Count 12 26 18 12 12 80
20 to 30
% within 15.0% 32.5% 22.5% 15.0% 15.0% 100.0%
years
age
Age Count 7 15 17 6 6 51
30 to 40
% within 13.7% 29.4% 33.3% 11.8% 11.8% 100.0%
years
age
Count 14 14 8 6 3 45
40 to 50
% within 31.1% 31.1% 17.8% 13.3% 6.7% 100.0%
years
age
Count 16 18 8 2 1 45
 more than 50 % within 35.6% 40.0% 17.8% 4.4% 2.2% 100.0%
years age
Count 55 82 73 42 34 286
Total % within 19.2% 28.7% 25.5% 14.7% 11.9% 100.0%
age
Table 4. 9: Distribution of respondents based on age and time spent on social media websites/apps

From the above figure we can derive following facts-

Out of total respondents below the age of 20 years, 9.2% respondents are spending less
than 1 hour, 13.8% are spending 1 2 hours, 33.8% respondents are spending their time
on social media for 2-3 hours, 24.6% respondents are spending 3-4 hours and 18.5%
respondents are spending more than 4 hours

Out of respondents in the age group of 20 to 30 years, 15% are spending less than 1 hour,
32.5% are spending 1-2 hours, 22.5% respondents are spending 2-3 hours, 15%
respondents are spending 3-4 hours and 15% respondents are spending more than 4 hours
on social media

Within the age group of 30-40 years, 13.7% are spending less than 1 hour, 29.4% are
spending 1-2 hours, 33.3% respondents are spending 2-3 hours, 11.8% respondents are
spending 3-4 hours and more than 4 hours respectively on social media

Respondents within the age group 40 50 years are spending lesser time online; 60% are
spending less than 2 hours, 17.8% respondents are spending 2-3 hours, 13.3% respondents
are spending 3-4 hours and only 6% are spending more than 4 hours on social media

Out of respondents above 50 years of age, more than 70% are spending less than 2 hours
on daily basis.

Chi-Square Test

Value Degree of Asymp.

freedom Significance
Pearson Chi-Square 42.880a 16 .000
Table 4. 10 Age vs. Time spent chi-squared calculation
The value of chi-square is found to be less than the significant value and the result is significant
at 95 percent confidence level. So
on social media advertisement are not associated, does not hold good. From the analysis, it is
concluded that there is a close significant relationship between the age of the respondents and
time spent on social media websites/apps.

Gender and time spent

H0- There is no significant association between gender of respondents and times spent on
social media websites/apps.

H1- There is a significant association between gender of respondents and times spent on
social media websites/apps.

Time Spent Total

less than 1 1-2 2-3 3-4 more than
hour hours hours hours 4 hours
Count 26 37 34 27 24 148
female % within 17.6% 25.0% 23.0% 18.2% 16.2% 100.0%
gender
gender
Count 29 45 39 15 10 138
Male % within 21.0% 32.6% 28.3% 10.9% 7.2% 100.0%
gender
Count 55 82 73 42 34 286
Total % within 19.2% 28.7% 25.5% 14.7% 11.9% 100.0%
gender
Table 4. 11: Distribution of respondents based on Gender vs. Time Spent

Out of the total female respondents, 17.6% are spending less than 1 hours, 25% are
spending 1-2 hours, 23% are spending 2-3 hours, 16.2% are spending 3-4 hours and
16% are spending more than 4 hours on Social Media
Out of the total male respondents, 21% are spending less than 1 hours, 32.6% are
spending 1-2 hours, 28.3% are spending 2-3 hours, 11% are spending 3-4 hours and
only 7.2% are spending more than 4 hours on Social Media
Chi-Square Test

Value Degree of Asymp.

freedom Significance
Pearson Chi-Square 10.143a 4 .038
Table 4. 12 Gender vs Time spend chi-squared distribution

The value of chi-square is found to be less than the significant value and the result is significant

spent on social media advertisement are not associated, does not hold good. From the analysis,
it is concluded that there is a close significant relationship between the gender of the
respondents and time spent on social media websites/apps.

Education Qualification and time spent

H0- There is no significant association between education qualification of respondents and

times spent on social media websites/apps.

H1- There is a significant association between education qualification of respondents and

times spent on social media websites/apps.

Time_Spent Total
less 1-2 2-3 3-4 more
than 1 hours hours hours than 4
hour hours
Count 12 9 9 4 1 35
Doctorate % within 34.3% 25.7% 25.7% 11.4% 2.9% 100.0%
edu_qual
Count 21 29 18 9 10 87
Post-Graduate % within 24.1% 33.3% 20.7% 10.3% 11.5% 100.0%
edu_qual
edu_qual
Count 7 33 19 13 14 86
Graduate % within 8.1% 38.4% 22.1% 15.1% 16.3% 100.0%
edu_qual
Count 15 11 27 16 9 78
 senior 19.2% 14.1% 34.6% 20.5% 11.5% 100.0%
% within
Secondary(12th) or
edu_qual
below
Count 55 82 73 42 34 286
Total % within 19.2% 28.7% 25.5% 14.7% 11.9% 100.0%
edu_qual
Table 4. 13 Distribution of respondent by Gender and time spent on social media

From the above table we can conclude that-

Out of the total number of doctorates, 60% are spending less than 2 hours, and only
14% are spending more than 3 hours on Social Media
Out of total post-graduates, 24% are spending less than 1 hours, 33% are spending 1-2
hours, 21% are spending 2-3 hours, 10% are spending 3-4 hours and 11% are spending
more than 4 hours on Social Media
Out of total graduates, only 8% are spending less than 1 hours, 38% are spending 1-2
hours, 21% are spending 2-3 hours, 15% are spending 3-4 hours and 16% are spending
more than 4 hours on Social Media
Out of senior secondary respondents, 19% are spending less than 1 hours, 14% are
spending 1-2 hours, 34% are spending 2-3 hours, 20% are spending 3-4 hours and 11%
are spending more than 4 hours on Social Media

Chi-Square Test

Value Degree of Asymp.

freedom Significance
Pearson Chi-Square 30.797a 12 .002
Table 4. 14 Education qualification vs time spent chi-squared distribution

The value of chi-square is found to be less than the significant value and the result is significant

respondents and the time spent on social media advertisement are not associated, does not hold
good. From the analysis, it is concluded that there is a close significant relationship between
the Education qualification of the respondents and time spent on social media websites/apps.
 Employment sector and time spent

H0- There is no significant association between employment of respondents and times

spent on social media websites/apps.
H1- There is a significant association between employment of respondents and times
spent on social media websites/apps.

Time_Spent Total
less 1-2 2-3 3-4 more
than hours hours hours than
1 4
hour hours
Count 15 15 7 4 5 46
government sector % within 32.6% 32.6% 15.2% 8.7% 10.9% 100.0%
employment
Count 12 20 22 8 4 66
Private sector % within 18.2% 30.3% 33.3% 12.1% 6.1% 100.0%
employment
Count 8 22 11 5 3 49
Self-
% within 16.3% 44.9% 22.4% 10.2% 6.1% 100.0%
employed/entrepreneur
employment
employment
Count 3 6 1 1 3 14
free lancer % within 21.4% 42.9% 7.1% 7.1% 21.4% 100.0%
employment
Count 16 18 32 24 19 109
student/unemployed % within 14.7% 16.5% 29.4% 22.0% 17.4% 100.0%
employment
Count 1 1 0 0 0 2
others % within 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
employment
Count 55 82 73 42 34 286
Total % within 19.2% 28.7% 25.5% 14.7% 11.9% 100.0%
employment
Table 4. 15: Distribution of respondents by employment status and Time spent
From the above table we can conclude that-

Out of respondents working in government sector, 32.6% are spending less than 1
hours, 32% are spending 1-2 hours, 15% are spending 2-3 hours, 8% are spending 3-4
hours and 11% are spending more than 4 hours on Social Media
Out of respondents working in government sector, 32.6% are spending less than 1
hours, 32% are spending 1-2 hours, 15% are spending 2-3 hours, 8% are spending 3-4
hours and 11% are spending more than 4 hours on Social Media
Out of self-employed respondents, 16% are spending less than 1 hours, 45% are
spending 1-2 hours, 22% are spending 2-3 hours, 10% are spending 3-4 hours and 6%
are spending more than 4 hours on Social Media
Out of respondents who are freelancers, 21.4% are spending less than 1 hours, 43% are
spending 1-2 hours, 7% are spending 2-3 hours, 7% are spending 3-4 hours and 21%
are spending more than 4 hours on Social Media
Out of students and unemployed respondents, 15% are spending less than 1 hours,
16.5% are spending 1-2 hours, 30% are spending 2-3 hours, 22% are spending 3-4 hours
and 17% are spending more than 4 hours on Social Media

Chi-square Test

Value Degree of Asymp.

freedom Significance
Pearson Chi-Square 39.460a 20 .006
Table 4. 16: Employment status vs time spent chi-squared distribution

The value of chi-square is found to be less than the significant value and the result is significant

and the time spent on social media advertisement are not associated, does not hold good. From
the analysis, it is concluded that there is a close significant relationship between the
employment status of the respondents and time spent on social media websites/apps.
 Monthly income and time spent

H0- There is no significant association between monthly income of respondents and times
spent on social media websites/apps.
H1- There is a significant association between monthly income of respondents and times
spent on social media websites/apps.

Time_Spent Total
less 1-2 2-3 3-4 more
than 1 hours hours hours than 4
hour hours
Count 18 27 37 27 23 132
Rs0-
% within 13.6% 20.5% 28.0% 20.5% 17.4% 100.0%
Rs30,000
monthly_income
Count 8 16 9 4 4 41
Rs30,001-
% within 19.5% 39.0% 22.0% 9.8% 9.8% 100.0%
Rs50,000
monthly_income
Count 11 11 7 4 2 35
Rs50,001-
monthly_income % within 31.4% 31.4% 20.0% 11.4% 5.7% 100.0%
Rs80,000
monthly_income
Count 9 20 6 3 1 39
Rs-80,001-
% within 23.1% 51.3% 15.4% 7.7% 2.6% 100.0%
Rs1,00,000
monthly_income
Count 9 8 14 4 4 39
above
% within 23.1% 20.5% 35.9% 10.3% 10.3% 100.0%
Rs1,00,000
monthly_income
Count 55 82 73 42 34 286
Total % within 19.2% 28.7% 25.5% 14.7% 11.9% 100.0%
monthly_income
Table 4. 17: Distribution of respondents by monthly income and time spent

From the above table we can conclude that-

Out of respondents earning Rs 30,000 or less, 14% are spending less than 1 hours,
20.5% are spending 1-2 hours, 28% are spending 2-3 hours, 20.5% are spending 3-4
hours and 17% are spending more than 4 hours on Social Media
 Out of respondents earning between Rs 30,000- Rs50,000, 20% are spending less than
1 hours, 39% are spending 1-2 hours, 22% are spending 2-3 hours, 10% are spending
3-4 hours and 10% are spending more than 4 hours on Social Media
Out of respondents earning between Rs 50,000-Rs80,000, 31% are spending less than
1 hours, 31% are spending 1-2 hours, 20% are spending 2-3 hours, 11% are spending
3-4 hours and 6% are spending more than 4 hours on Social Media
Out of respondents earning between Rs 80,000-Rs1,00,000, 23% are spending less than
1 hours, 51% are spending 1-2 hours, 15% are spending 2-3 hours, 7% are spending 3-
4 hours and 2% are spending more than 4 hours on Social Media
Out of respondents earning above Rs 100,000, 23% are spending less than 1 hours,
20% are spending 1-2 hours, 36% are spending 2-3 hours, 10% are spending 3-4
hours and 10% are spending more than 4 hours on Social Media

Chi-Square Test

Value degree of Asymp.

freedom Significance
Pearson Chi-Square 35.579a 16 .003
Table 4. 18: monthly income vs time spent chi-squared calculation

The value of chi-square is found to be less than the significant value and the result is significant

time spent on social media advertisement are not associated, does not hold good. From the
analysis, it is concluded that there is a close significant relationship between the Income of the
respondents and time spent on social media websites/apps.

Conclusion

From the chi-square analysis for the demographics, we can conclude that all the demographic
factors age, gender, income, educational qualification, and employment status have a
significant impact on the number of hours spent on social media
Section 3: Factor analysis

Exploratory Factor Analysis

It is a statistical method used to develop factors from a large number of measurable variables.
This technique is usually followed when the researcher has no a priori hypothesis about
factors or patterns of measured variables. Exploratory factor analysis helps in identifying a set
of latent constructs underlying the measured variables. Once the grouping of variables has been
done by the software, the task of a researcher is to name the groups as factors and segregate
independent and dependent variables. In simple terms, this technique can be understood as a
data reduction technique in SPSS, which takes a large set of variables to be reduced or
summarized using a smaller set of factors or components (Cappelleri & Gerber, 2013; de
Winter, Dodou, & Wieringa, 2009; Hayton, Allen, & Scarpello, 2004).
The three purposes for which factor analysis can be used are (1) empirically creating a theory
factored entities
(e.g., variables) cluster in a theoretically expected way (e.g., construct validity evaluation), and
(3) estimating latent variables scores (i.e., factor scores) that are then used in subsequent
statistical analyses (e.g., MANOVA, descriptive discriminant analysis) in place of the
measured factored entities (e.g., variables)(Bruce Thompson, 2007).

Data Suitability
Once the factors are obtained through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), it is important to
check the sustainability or validity of the scale.
Sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) helps in
validating the scale of factors so obtained.

Test of Sphericity
is considered to be significant when p<0.05. If this condition
is fulfilled only then the factor analysis is considered to be appropriate (Tabachnick and Fidell,
st of Sphericity for this study is found to be p= 0.000,
thus we can conclude that Exploratory Factor Analysis is appropriate, depending upon the
outcome of the KMO sampling adequacy.
 KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling .917
Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square 8394.950
Bartlett's Test of
Df 990
Sphericity
Sig. .000
Table 4. 19: KMO and Bartlett's Tests

Sufficient correlation was found between all the variables with help of KMO Value.
To test the sampling adequacy, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was
calculated which is found to be 0.917. This value indicates that the sample is good enough
for sampling.
The overall significance of correlation matrices is tested with Barlett Test of Sphericity
which provided support for the validity of the factor analysis of the data set.

KMO is a sampling adequacy index which ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values (above 0.6)
indicates that Exploratory Factor Analysis is appropriate (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Since,

of Sphericity is appropriate, thus we can confer that the test results provide sufficient evidence
to support the appropriate use of Exploratory Factor Analysis on the scale items for this study.

Factorization
Once the suitability of data for factor analysis has been identified, next Principal Components
Analysis (PCA) is employed for extracting the data, which lets determining the factors

data, components that have an eigen value of 1 or more have to be identified from the Total
Variance Explained extracted using Principle Component Analysis (Pallant, 2007). This
determines the number of factors extracted from the data (Kaiser, 1960).
Further, loading on factors can be positive or negative. A positive loading indicates that the
variables have direct relationship with the rest of the factors. Th importance of factor depends
upon the numerical value. The higher the loading value the more important is the factor. For
this study we have taken value of 0.50. So, any variable with a loading of less than 0.5 have
been rejected. The Components Matrix has been rotated using Varimax Rotation to assist
interpretation of its results (Malhotra, 2007).
Generally, loadings above 0.44 are considered salient. All the loadings in this study are found
to be positive.

After running EFA on the data collected, six factors have been identified, each having Eigen
value exceeding 1. The percentage of total variance indicates how well the total factor solution
accounts for what the variables together represent. The index for present solution accounted
for 61.298% of the total variations towards buying intention in relation to social media
advertisement. Few of the variables have been lost during extraction which accounted for
38.702% information content for buying intention. The details of variance explained have
been presented in the tables below. The proportion of variance in any one of the original
variables, which is being captured by the extracted factor, is known as communality
(Nargundkar, 2002).

Communalities
Initial Extraction
Ques9.1 1.000 .607
Ques9.2 1.000 .624
ques9.3 1.000 .517
ques9.5 1.000 .599
ques9.6 1.000 .644
ques9.7 1.000 .610
ques9.9 1.000 .495
ques10.3 1.000 .434
ques10.5 1.000 .607
ques10.6 1.000 .688
ques10.7 1.000 .708
ques10.8 1.000 .674
ques10.9 1.000 .536
ques11.3 1.000 .588
ques11.5 1.000 .474
ques11.6 1.000 .592
ques11.7 1.000 .498
ques11.8 1.000 .443
ques11.9 1.000 .587
ques11.10 1.000 .619
ques11.11 1.000 .676
ques11.13 1.000 .632
ques11.14 1.000 .668
ques11.15 1.000 .560
ques13.2 1.000 .513
ques13.3 1.000 .619
ques13.4 1.000 .681
ques13.5 1.000 .670
ques13.6 1.000 .654
ques13.8 1.000 .564
ques13.10 1.000 .669
ques13.11 1.000 .706
ques13.12 1.000 .648
ques13.13 1.000 .536
ques13.14 1.000 .677
ques13.15 1.000 .702
ques13.16 1.000 .621
ques13.17 1.000 .695
ques13.18 1.000 .563
ques14.1 1.000 .526
ques14.2 1.000 .641
ques14.3 1.000 .748
ques14.4 1.000 .722
ques14.5 1.000 .718
ques14.6 1.000 .630
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
Table 4. 20 Communality of factors
 Total Variance Explained
Comp Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
onent Loadings Loadings
Total % of Cumulativ Total % of Cumulativ Total % of Cumulativ
Variance e% Variance e% Variance e%
1 14.521 32.270 32.270 14.521 32.270 32.270 6.602 14.671 14.671
2 4.826 10.723 42.993 4.826 10.723 42.993 6.018 13.373 28.044
3 2.577 5.727 48.720 2.577 5.727 48.720 4.466 9.925 37.969
4 2.325 5.167 53.888 2.325 5.167 53.888 3.647 8.105 46.074
5 1.772 3.938 57.826 1.772 3.938 57.826 3.516 7.814 53.888
6 1.563 3.472 61.298 1.563 3.472 61.298 3.335 7.410 61.298
7 1.127 2.505 63.803
8 1.056 2.347 66.151
9 .979 2.175 68.326
10 .910 2.022 70.348
11 .796 1.769 72.117
12 .779 1.731 73.848
13 .729 1.619 75.468
14 .701 1.558 77.025
15 .692 1.539 78.564
16 .613 1.361 79.925
17 .553 1.230 81.155
18 .528 1.174 82.329
19 .501 1.113 83.442
20 .465 1.034 84.475
21 .464 1.030 85.506
22 .438 .973 86.478
23 .404 .898 87.376
24 .398 .884 88.260
25 .386 .857 89.118
26 .375 .833 89.950
27 .360 .799 90.750
28 .346 .768 91.518
29 .319 .710 92.228
30 .311 .691 92.919
31 .306 .681 93.600
32 .288 .640 94.240
33 .276 .614 94.854
34 .264 .586 95.440
35 .250 .556 95.995
36 .245 .544 96.540
37 .234 .519 97.059
38 .211 .469 97.528
39 .199 .441 97.969
40 .190 .422 98.391
41 .178 .397 98.787
42 .167 .371 99.159
43 .142 .315 99.473
44 .120 .267 99.740
45 .117 .260 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 4. 21: Total variance Explained

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
ques11.14 .806
ques11.11 .799
ques11.13 .781
ques11.10 .768
ques11.6 .752
ques11.9 .743
ques11.3 .710
ques11.15 .655
ques11.7 .645
ques11.5 .624
ques11.8 .599
ques13.15 .776
ques13.11 .773
ques13.17 .758
ques13.12 .737
ques13.14 .726
ques13.16 .715
ques13.10 .701
ques13.18 .589
ques13.8 .556
ques13.13 .515
Ques9.1 .754
Ques9.2 .749
ques9.5 .710
ques9.6 .678
ques9.3 .647
ques9.7 .630
ques10.3 .549
ques9.9
ques14.4 .766
ques14.5 .763
ques14.3 .749
ques14.6 .745
ques14.2 .649
ques14.1 .536
ques13.5 .741
ques13.4 .720
ques13.3 .679
ques13.6 .671
ques13.2 .604
ques10.7 .749
ques10.6 .738
ques10.8 .716
ques10.5 .675
ques10.9 .544
Table 4. 22: Rotated component matrix

Interpretation and Factors:

Each factor needs to be assigned a name or label to characterize it and aid its interpretation
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Each of the factors that have been extracted via Principle
Component Analysis in the EFA process, Varimax with Kaiser Normalization method of
rotation is applied. It took 7 iterations to converge. The names have been allocated to each
factor based on their characteristics and prior literature knowledge: -

Factor 1: Attractiveness of the social media advertisements.

The first factor has been named as Attractiveness as it is incorporating all alluring aspects of
an advertisement. Attractiveness is impacting the social media advertisements on buying
intention with a total variance explained 14.67% and 11 statements with the following factors.

Summary Table

Factor No 1: Attractiveness % of Variance Explained

Item Items Factor Extraction Rotation

Codes Loadings Sums of Sums of
Squared Squared
Loadings Loadings

11.14 Usage of melodious music in 0.806 32.270 14.710

advertisement

11.11 0.799
brand in the advertisement

11.13 Usage of attractive catchy taglines 0.781

 11.10 Background and picturization of the 0.768
advertisement

11.6 Humour appeal 0.752

11.9 Emotional appeal 0.743

11.3 Models/brand ambassadors associated 0.71

with the advertisement

11.15 Create mystery matter to generate gossip, 0.655

speculation and new stories in the
market.

11.7 Sex appeal 0.645

11.5 Visual appeal 0.624

11.8 Self enhancement appeal 0.599

Table 4. 23: Factor 1: Attractiveness

Factor 2: Credibility of the social media advertisements.

The second factor has been named as Credibility as it is probing questions to ascertain
aspects of trust and reliability of social media advertisement. Credibility is impacting the
social media advertisements on buying intention with a total variance explained 13.37% and
10 statements with the following factors.
Summary table

Factor No 2: Credibility % of Variance Explained

Item Items Extraction Rotation

Codes Sums of Sums of
Factor Squared Squared
Loadings Loadings Loadings
13.15 Do you agree that social media provides 10.723 13.373
an effective and powerful platform for 0.776
consumers to communicate with each
other and with the companies?
13.11 Social media provides me a platform to
inquire and clear my doubts about a 0.773
product before buying it.
13.17 Do you think social media is an effective
way to reach you as customers and 0.758
influence your buying decision?
13.12 Do positive comments and reviews about 0.737
a product impact your attitude towards it?
13.14 Do you think that social media has a
provided more effective platform to 0.726
introduce new products/services/brands?
13.16 Social media is a good platform to be
0.715
heard for grievances.
13.10 Social media makes me aware about new
0.701
products launching in the market.
13.18 Would you recommend your friends to
0.589
trust social media ads?
13.8 I am influenced to buy a product based on
the information I receive through a social 0.556
media.
13.13 Do you agree that your judgement
through social media advertisement about 0.515
a product/service is accurate?
Table 4. 24: Factor 2: Credibility

Factor 3: Usability of the social media advertisements.

The third factor has been named as Usability because it is putting light on various utilities of
social media. Usability is impacting the social media advertisements on buying intention with
a total variance explained 9.925% and 7 statements with the following factors.
Summary table

Factor No 3: Usability % of Variance

Explained
Item Items Extraction Rotation
codes Sums of Sums of
Factor Squared Squared
Loadings Loadings Loadings
9.1 I use social media to stay up to date with 0.754 5.725 9.925
my social circle.
9.2 I use social media for networking, i.e 0.749
connecting with people
9.5 I use social media for sharing 0.71
information/inviting people to events
9.6 I use social media for reading reviews and 0.678
ratings about products
9.3 I use social media for posting 0.647
pictures/videos
9.7 I use social media for checking out
deals/promotions/sales on products that I 0.63
am interested in.
10.3 Social media enables two-way
0.549
communication

Table 4. 25: Factor 3: Usability

Factor 4: Buying Intention towards social media advertisements.

The fourth factor has been named as Buying Intention because this scale has been identified
and adapted from academic literature Its total variance explained is 8.105% and 6 statements
with the following factors.
Summary Table

Factor No 4: Buying Intention % of Variance Explained

Item Items Extraction Rotation

Codes Sums of Sums of
Factor Squared Squared
Loadings Loadings Loadings
14.4 After seeing an advertisement on social media, 0.766 5.167 8.105
it is likely that I will buy that product.
14.5 If I were going to buy a product, I would
0.763
recall the social media advertisements.

14.3 There is a probability that I would consider

buying a product after seeing its advertisement 0.749
on social media
14.6 My willingness to buy the product increases
after watching an advertisement on social 0.745
media websites/apps.

14.2 If I were going to buy a product, the

probability of buying through a social media 0.649
platform is high
14.1 I would buy the product if I like the social
0.536
media advertisement is effective.
Table 4. 26: Factor 4: Buying Intention

Factor 5: Attitude of the social media advertisements.

The fifth factor has been named as Attitude because it is judging the attitude of respondents
towards social media advertisement. Attitude is impacting the social media advertisements on
buying intention with a total variance explained (7.814%) and 5 statements with the
following factors.
Summary Table

Factor No 5: Attitude % of Variance Explained

Item Items Extraction Rotation

Codes Sums of Sums of
Factor Squared Squared
Loadings Loadings Loadings
13.5 I find social media advertisements to 0.741 3.938 7.814
be fun and entertaining
13.4 I inquire more about a product after
seeing the advertisement on social 0.72
media

13.3 I have a positive reaction to the

advertisements that I see on social 0.679
media
13.6 I feel involved when I watch am ad on
0.671
social media
13.2 The ads on social media grab my
0.604
attention

Table 4. 27: Factor 5: Attitude

Factor 6: Interactivity of the social media advertisements.

The sixth factor has been named as Interactivity because it is probing about the interactions
and information sharing by respondents through social media advertisement. Interactivity is
impacting the social media advertisements on buying intention with a total variance explained
7.414% and 5 statements with the following factors.
Summary Table

Factor No 6: Interactivity % of Variance Explained

Item Items Extraction Rotation

Codes Sums of Sums of
Factor Squared Squared
Loadings Loadings Loadings
10.7 Autonomous questions and discussions 3.472 7.414
about a product on social media platforms 0.749

effect my buying decision.

10.6 Comments and tweets about a product
0.738
effect my buying decision
10.8 Videos about hands-on experience of a
0.716
product effect my buying decision
10.5 User reviews and ratings given to a product
0.675
effect my buying decision
10.9 I contact the company after watching social
0.544
media advertisement
Table 4. 28: Factor 6: Interactivity

To sum up following factors have been identified

Attractiveness of SMA

Credibility of SMA

Usability of Social media websites/apps

Buying Intention impacted by SMA

Attitude towards SMA

Interactivity through social media advertisement

ANOVA
As the factors have been identified, the first objective of the study has been met.

Based on the factors, the following hypotheses will be tested w.r.t the demographic factors.

Hypotheses-1 To study the significant difference between age and factors of social media
advertisement.

H01-There is no significant difference between age of the respondents and the attractiveness
of social media advertisements

H11- There is significant difference between age of the respondents and the attractiveness of
social media advertisements

H02-There is no significant difference between age of the respondents and the credibility of
social media advertisements

H12-There is significant difference between age of the respondents and the credibility o
social media advertisements

H03-There is no significant difference between age of the respondents and usability of social
media platforms

H13-There is significant difference between age of the respondents and usability of social
media platforms

H04-There is no significant difference between age of the respondents and the attitude
towards social media advertisement

H14-There is significant difference between age of the respondents and the attitude towards
social media advertisement

H05-There is no significant difference between age of the respondents and the interactivity of
social media advertisement
H15-There is significant difference between age of the respondents and the interactivity of
social media advertisement

H06-There is no significant difference between age of the respondents and buying intention
towards social media advertisement.

H16-There is significant difference between age of the respondents and buying intention
towards social media advertisement

Factors of Social Media Significance F value

Advertisement
(p value)

Attractiveness .000 6.282

Credibility .925 .223

Usability .621 .659

Attitude .836 .361

Interactivity .112 1.891

Buying Intention .956 .164

Table 4. 29 Age and factors of social media advertisement

Assuming p value at 0.05, we can assert from the table that only attractiveness(p=.000) and
age are dependent of each other. All other factors of SMA-credibility, usability, attitude,
interactivity and buying intentions are not dependent on age.

Thus, null hypothesis H01 There is no significant difference between age of the respondents
and attractiveness of social media advertisement has been rejected and alternate hypothesis-
H11- There is significant difference between age of the respondents and attractiveness of social
media advertisement

All other null hypotheses-H02, H03, H04, H05, H06 cannot be rejected as there are not
significant evidence to reject them.
So, we can conclude that there is significant difference between the age of the respondents
and attractiveness of the Social media advertisements.

Hypotheses-2-To study the significant difference between gender and factors of social
media advertisement.

H01-There is no significant difference between gender of the respondents and the

attractiveness of social media advertisements

H11- There is significant difference between gender of the respondents and the attractiveness
of social media advertisements

H02-There is no significant difference between gender of the respondents and the credibility
of social media advertisements

H12-There is significant difference between gender of the respondents and the credibility of
social media advertisements

H03-There is no significant difference between gender of the respondents and usability of

social media platforms

H13-There is significant difference between gender of the respondents and usability of social
media platforms

H04-There is no significant difference between gender of the respondents and the attitude
towards social media advertisements

H14-There is significant difference between gender of the respondents and the attitude
towards social media advertisements

H05-There is no significant difference between gender of the respondents and the

interactivity of social media advertisements
H15-There is significant difference between gender of the respondents and the interactivity of
social media advertisements

H06-There is no significant difference between gender of the respondents and buying

intention towards social media advertisements

H16-There is significant difference between gender of the respondents and buying intention
towards social media advertisements

Independent T-test

Factors Significance
(2-tailed)

Attractiveness .009

Credibility .489

Usability .315

Attitude .187

Interactivity .159

Buying Intention .575

Table 4. 30 Gender and factors of social media advertisement

Assuming p value at 0.05, we can assert from the table that only attractiveness(p=.009) and
gender are dependent of each other. Thus, null hypothesis H01 There is no significant
difference between gender of the respondents and attractiveness of social media advertisement has
been rejected and alternate hypothesis- H11- There is significant difference between gender of
the respondents and attractiveness of social media advertisement

All other null hypotheses-H02, H03, H04, H05, H06 cannot be rejected as there are not
significant evidence to reject them. Thus, we can say that all other factors of SMA- credibility,
usability, attitude, interactivity and buying intentions are not dependent on gender.

So, we can conclude that there is significant difference between the gender of the user and
attractiveness of the SMA.
Hypotheses-3- To study the significant difference between education qualification and
factors of social media advertisement.

H01-There is no significant difference between education qualification of the respondents

and the attractiveness of social media advertisements

H11- There is significant difference between education qualification of the respondents and
the attractiveness of social media advertisements

H02-There is no significant difference between education qualification of the respondents

and the credibility of social media advertisements

H12-There is significant difference between education qualification of the respondents and

the credibility of social media advertisements

H03-There is no significant difference between education qualification of the respondents

and usability of social media platforms

H13-There is significant difference between education qualification of the respondents and

usability of social media platforms

H04-There is no significant difference between education qualification of the respondents

and the attitude towards social media advertisements

H14-There is significant difference between education qualification of the respondents and

the attitude towards social media advertisements

H05-There is no significant difference between education qualification of the respondents

and the interactivity of social media advertisements

H15-There is significant difference between education qualification of the respondents and

the interactivity of social media advertisements
H06-There is no significant difference between education qualification of the respondents
and buying intention towards social media advertisements

H16-There is significant difference between education qualification of the respondents and

buying intention towards social media advertisements

Factors Significance F value

(p value)

Attractiveness .070 2.384

Credibility .178 1.652

Usability .443 .898

Attitude .019 3.390

Interactivity .270 1.314

Buying Intention .332 1.142

Table 4. 31 Education qualification factors of social media advertisement

From the above table, it is observed that so the null hypothesis

There is no significant difference between attractiveness towards Social media
advertisement and Education qualification of respondents is rejected and alternative
hypothesis- H11 There is significant difference between education qualification of the
respondents and the attractiveness of social media advertisements is accepted, so we can
conclude that attractiveness significantly differs with Education Qualification. In other word,
attractiveness and Education Qualification are dependent of each other.

It is also observed that so the null hypothesis there is no significant

difference between attitude towards Social media advertisement and Education qualification of
respondents is rejected and alternative hypothesis There is significant difference between
education qualification of the respondents and the attitude towards social media
advertisements is accepted, so we can conclude that attitude significantly differs with
Education Qualification. In other word, attitude and Education Qualification are dependent on
each other.
All other null hypotheses-H02, H03, H05, H06 cannot be rejected as there significant
evidence to reject them. Thus, we can say that all other factors of SMA- credibility, usability,
interactivity and buying intentions are not dependent on education qualification

Hypotheses-4-- To study the significant difference between employment sector and

factors of social media advertisement.

H01-There is no significant difference between employment sector of the respondents and the
attractiveness of social media advertisements

H11- There is significant difference between employment sector of the respondents and the
attractiveness of social media advertisements

H02-There is no significant difference between employment sector of the respondents and the
credibility of social media advertisements

H12-There is significant difference between employment sector of the respondents and the
credibility of social media advertisements

H03-There is no significant difference between employment sector of the respondents and

usability of social media platforms

H13-There is significant difference between employment sector of the respondents and

usability of social media platforms

H04-There is no significant difference between employment sector of the respondents and the
attitude towards social media advertisements

H14-There is significant difference between employment sector of the respondents and the
attitude towards social media advertisements

H05-There is no significant difference between employment sector of the respondents and the
interactivity of social media advertisements
H15-There is significant difference between employment sector of the respondents and the
interactivity of social media advertisements

H06-There is no significant difference between employment sector of the respondents and

buying intention towards social media advertisements

H16-There is significant difference between employment sector of the respondents and

buying intention towards social media advertisements

Factors Significance F value

(p value)

Attractiveness .409 1.015

Credibility .761 .520

Usability .932 .265

Attitude .335 1.149

Interactivity .397 1.036

Buying Intention .392 1.043

Table 4. 32 Employment sector factors of social media advertisement

From the above table, it is observed that all so the null hypotheses-H01, H02, H03,
H04, H05, H06 cannot be rejected and all alternative hypotheses are rejected. The null
hypotheses cannot be rejected as there significant evidence to reject them. Thus, we can
say that none of the factors of SMA- attractiveness, credibility, usability, attitude, interactivity
and buying intentions are dependent on employment sector.

Hypotheses-5- To study the significant difference between monthly income and factors
of social media advertisement.

H01-There is no significant difference between monthly income of the respondents and the
attractiveness of social media advertisements
H11- There is significant difference between monthly income of the respondents and the
attractiveness of social media advertisements

H02-There is no significant difference between monthly income of the respondents and the
credibility of social media advertisements

H12-There is significant difference between monthly income of the respondents and the
credibility of social media advertisements

H03-There is no significant difference between monthly income of the respondents and

usability of social media platforms

H13-There is significant difference between monthly income of the respondents and usability
of social media platforms

H04-There is no significant difference between monthly income of the respondents and the
attitude towards social media advertisements

H14-There is significant difference between monthly income of the respondents and the
attitude towards social media advertisements

H05-There is no significant difference between monthly income of the respondents and the
interactivity of social media advertisements

H15-There is significant difference between monthly income of the respondents and the
interactivity of social media advertisements

H06-There is no significant difference between monthly income of the respondents and

buying intention towards social media advertisements

H16-There is significant difference between monthly income of the respondents and buying
intention towards social media advertisements
Factors Significance F value

(p value)

Attractiveness .027 2.785

Credibility .948 .182

Usability .898 .269

Attitude .722 .518

Interactivity .553 .759

Buying Intention .717 .526

Table 4. 33 Monthly income factors of social media advertisement

From the above table, it is observed that p(attractiveness) < 05), so the null hypothesis
There is no significant difference between attractiveness towards Social media
advertisement and monthly income of respondents is rejected and alternative hypothesis H11
There is significant difference between monthly income of the respondents and the
attractiveness of social media advertisements , so we can conclude that
attractiveness significantly differs with monthly income. In other word, attractiveness and
monthly income are dependent on each other.

All other null hypotheses-H02, H03, H04, H05, H06 cannot be rejected as there are not
significant evidence to reject them. Thus, we can say that all other factors of SMA- credibility,
usability, attitude, interactivity and buying intentions are not dependent on monthly income.

Impact of Social Media Advertising on Buying Intention MULTIPLE REGRESSION

ANALYSIS

In the following analysis, the strength of the relationship between the selected independent
variables of social media advertising and their impact on buying intentions is studied and the
regression results are discussed in the following tables.

Three relationships have been brought out by the researcher.

1. Model I

Dependent Variable Independent Variables

Buying Intention Attractiveness

Credibility

Usability

Interactivity

Table 4. 34 Dependent and independent variables for Model1

Coefficient of determination

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of

Square the Estimate

1 .631a .398 .389 4.20260

a. Predictors: (Constant), credibility, Attractiveness, Usability,

Interactivity

Table 4. 35 Model summary for Model I

R square denotes coefficient of determination which defines the percentage of variation in the
dependent variable due to the independent variable considered in the study. We observe r
square=0.398 which means that 39.8% of the variable in dependent variable has been explained
from the independent variables i.e. usability, interactivity, credibility, attractiveness.

ANOVA

ANOVAa

Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square

1 Regression 3280.138 4 820.035 46.430 .000b

 Residual 4962.984 281 17.662

Total 8243.122 285

a. Dependent Variable: BuyingIntention

b. Predictors: (Constant), credibility, Attractiveness, Usability, Interactivity

Table 4. 36 Significance table for Model I

Determination of coefficients

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 3.181 1.324 2.402 .017

Usability .086 .049 .113 1.738 .083

Interactivity .199 .060 .228 3.337 .001

1
Attractivenes .091 .026 .185 3.532 .000
s

credibility .146 .034 .264 4.353 .000

a. Dependent Variable: BuyingIntention

Table 4. 37 Regression table for Model I

Further, to test the global fitness of the model, we compute f-statistics. As significance level in
ANOVA is found to be 0.000 which is less than p value 0.05, thus it indicates that the model
is significant.

The following equation can be fit: -

Buying Intention = 3.181 +0.086(usability) +0.199(interactivity)

+0.091(attractiveness) +0.146(credibility)
The equation shows that one unit of buying intention towards social media advertisement will
be determined by the 0.086 unit of usability, 0.199 unit of interactivity, 0.091 unit of
attractiveness and 0.146 unit of credibility.

Usability

Attractiveness
Buying
Intentions
Credibility

Interactivity

Figure 4. 9 Model I

* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.000

2. Model II.

Dependent Variable Independent Variables

Attitude Attractiveness

Credibility

Usability

Interactivity

Table 4. 38 Dependent and independent variables for Model II

Coefficient of determination

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of

Square the Estimate

1 .669a .448 .440 3.17113

a. Predictors: (Constant), credibility, Attractiveness, Usability,

Interactivity

Table 4. 39 Model summary for Model II

We observe r square=0.448 which means that 44.8% of the variable in dependent

variable(attitude) has been explained from the independent variables i.e. usability, interactivity,
credibility, attractiveness.

ANOVA

ANOVAa

Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square

Regression 2290.479 4 572.620 56.943 .000b

1 Residual 2825.748 281 10.056

Total 5116.227 285

a. Dependent Variable: Attitude

b. Predictors: (Constant), credibility, Attractiveness, Usability, Interactivity

Table 4. 40 Significance table for Model II

Determination of coefficients

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 2.016 .999 2.017 .045

Usability .092 .037 .154 2.468 .014

Interactivity .040 .045 .058 .886 .376

1
Attractivenes .042 .019 .109 2.175 .030
s

credibility .207 .025 .474 8.163 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Attitude

Table 4. 41 Regression table for Model II

Further, to test the global fitness of the model we compute f-statistics. As significance level in
ANOVA is found to be 0.000 which is less than p value 0.05, thus it indicates that the model
is significant.

The following equation can be fit: -

Attitude = 2.01 +0.092(usability) + 0.040(interactivity) + 0.042(attractiveness) +

0.207(credibility)

The equation shows that one unit of attitude towards social media advertisement is determined by
0.092 unit of usability, 0.04 unit of interactivity, 0.042 unit of attractiveness and 0.207 unit of
credibility.
 Usability

Attractiveness
Attitude

Credibility

Interactivity

Figure 4. 10 Model II

* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.000, ns = not significant

3. Model 3

As already discussed, attitude is an important element to study buying intention, a relation

between attitude and buying intention can now be established.

Dependent Variable Independent Variables

Buying Intention Attitude

Table 4. 42 Dependent and independent variables for Model III

Coefficient of determination
Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of

Square the Estimate

1 .399a .159 .156 4.94024

a. Predictors: (Constant), Attitude

Table 4. 43 Model summary for Model III

We observe r square=0.159 which means that 15.9% of the variable in dependent variable
(buying intention) has been explained from the independent variables i.e. attitude.

Determination of Coefficients

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 12.793 1.128 11.343 .000

1
Attitude .506 .069 .399 7.331 .000

a. Dependent Variable: BuyingIntention

Table 4. 44 Significance table for Model III

Further, to test the global fitness of the model we compute f-statistics. As significance level in
ANOVA is found to be 0.000 which is less than p value 0.05, thus it indicates that the model
is significant.

The following equation can be fit: -

Buying Intention = 12.793 +0.506(attitude)

The equation shows that one unit of buying intention towards social media advertisement can be
determined by the 0.506 unit of attitude.

Attitude .399*** Buying

Intentions
Figure 4. 11 Model III

* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.000

To conclude all three models, we have a final outcome as follows-

Usability

Attitude

Attractiveness

Credibility

Purchase
Intention

Interactivity

Figure 4. 12 Model showing relationship between factors of Social Media Advertisement

* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.000, ns= non significant