consumer acceptance of mobile advertising within a social contract
Post on 12-Sep-2021
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF MOBILE ADVERTISING WITHIN A
SOCIAL CONTRACT FRAMEWORK
_______________
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
San Diego State University
_______________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Communication
with a Concentration in
Mass Communication and Media Studies
_______________
by
Kelly E. Campbell
Summer 2011
iii
Copyright © 2011
by
Kelly E. Campbell
All Rights Reserved
iv
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS
Consumer Acceptance of Mobile Advertising within a SocialContract Framework
byKelly E. Campbell
Master of Arts in Communication with a Concentration in MassCommunication and Media StudiesSan Diego State University, 2011
Despite the promise of mobile advertising as an emerging marketing channel, themedia has yet to gain adoption as a mainstream advertising source in the United States. Moststudies support a positive relationship between contextual, permission-based mobileadvertisements and consumer acceptance. However, little research has examined drivers ofconsumer acceptance from a social contract perspective. This study presents a model basedon previous research regarding social contract theory and identifies key factors that mayaffect the mobile advertising social contract. The researchers posit that there are fourattributes consumers consider when determining acceptance of mobile advertising:permission, trust, relevance, and context. Using a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 full factorial design, the maineffects and interactions of permission (granted, not granted) trust (high, low), relevance(relevant content, not relevant content) and context (present, absent) are measured.Understanding drivers of consumer acceptance of mobile advertising have both practical andacademic applications. Consumers will benefit from receiving mobile advertisements that areperceived as personally valuable instead of intrusive; while the proposed model offers mobilemarketing researchers a framework for future study.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................1
Adoption of Mobile Advertising..............................................................................1
Acceptance of Mobile Advertising ..........................................................................3
Key Components of the Mobile Marketing Social Contract ...................................4
Social Contract Framework .....................................................................................6
2 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................11
Research Design.....................................................................................................11
Sample....................................................................................................................15
Data Analysis Procedure........................................................................................15
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..................................................................................17
Presentation of the Findings...................................................................................17
Discussion of the Findings.....................................................................................22
4 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................26
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................29
APPENDIX
A RANDOM ASSIGNMENT SURVEY SCENARIOS.................................................31
B FULL TABLE OF ANOVA RESULTS......................................................................37
vi
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1. Sixteen Experimental Cells Used in Advertising Scenarios......................................12
Table 2. Random Assignment Sample Size by Scenario.........................................................13
Table 3. Results from Factorial Analysis of Variance.............................................................18
Table 4. Estimated Marginal Means ........................................................................................19
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 1. Framework for consumer acceptance of mobile advertising......................................9
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
ADOPTION OF MOBILE ADVERTISING
According to the International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications
Industry, as of June 2010, 93% of the U.S. population owned a mobile phone and over 24%
of U.S. households used mobile phones exclusively in place of a land-line. The
pervasiveness of this technology and the ability to target advertising on an individual basis
has led marketers to believe for many years now that mobile advertising is the next great
frontier for interactive, one-to-one, target marketing. The ability to obtain detailed
demographic and psychographic information about the mobile phone subscriber allows
marketers to deliver personalized, relevant messages to the user. In addition, the fact that
phones are GPS enabled and are with consumers at almost all times, allows marketers to
deliver location-based, contextually relevant advertisements. Finally, as the technology
evolves, more and more consumers are carrying data enabled devices that allow them to
access the internet, view video, and download content. This allows marketers to serve rich-
media advertising similar to that on the web.
While marketers are in agreement as to the potential for this advertising, they also
acknowledge substantial risk. Marketers fear alienating their customer with ads that may be
perceived as an invasion of privacy. In her examination of privacy issues with mobile
advertising, Cleff (2007, p. 229) stated “it is important to consider that in the case of mobile
telephones, the perception of intrusion and invasion in the private sphere is greater than in the
case of other means of communication.” Cleff (2007, p. 229) goes on to state that “without
2
adequate privacy protection they have the potential to create an environment of profiles,
blacklists, and constant surveillance.”
Wireless network providers have demographic, psychographic, and geographic
information about their subscribers that can be shared with advertisers. This allows the
advertiser to send the mobile user more relevant, targeted ads. However, this can also elicit
feelings of privacy violation from the consumer who is not comfortable with their personal
information being shared or with the idea that an advertiser knows where they are at any
given time. Consumers may also be turned off to a brand that sends them an advertisement
when they are in an atmosphere where they are not expecting an interruption. Consumers
expect to see advertisements when they are watching TV or reading a newspaper, however
they do not expect to see an ad when they are in a meeting at work. Finally, consumers may
become irritated if they receive an ad from a brand they are not familiar with or did not give
explicit permission to send advertisements.
All of these concerns have kept mobile advertising from gaining mainstream adoption
by marketers and consumers. The Mobile Marketing Association (2010) offers “Consumer
Best Practices” guidelines but there is no formal policy or regulatory measure that dictates
mobile advertising. This research examines the findings from previous research on consumer
acceptance of mobile advertising. Then, combining the results of this examination within a
social contract framework, explores the attributes which may have the greatest influence on
consumer acceptance of mobile advertising while alleviating the perceived risk associated
with it.
3
ACCEPTANCE OF MOBILE ADVERTISING
Consumer attitudes toward advertising have been studied extensively across all media
and are often used to operationalize consumer acceptance toward advertisements. Within a
mobile marketing context, acceptance is imperative to the adoption of mobile advertising as a
mainstream marketing source. A positive attitude toward the medium leads to the behavioral
intention to adopt and use mobile marketing services (Bauer, Reichardt, Barnes, & Neumann,
2005). This research operationalizes acceptance of mobile advertising as the consumer’s
overall positive attitude toward receiving advertisements on their mobile phone, including
attitude toward the medium, attitude toward the advertisement, and willingness to receive
mobile advertisements.
Understanding what drives consumer acceptance of mobile advertising is the key to
adoption of this medium as a mainstream advertising source (Sharma, Herzog, & Melfi,
2008) and the key to conceptual models that attempt to explain levels of acceptance. A large
obstacle facing the adoption of mobile advertising is consumers’ fear of information privacy
violations (Bauer et al., 2005). Technology that enables marketer’s to send personalized,
targeted ads based on consumer location, interests, and behaviors, may raise privacy
concerns among consumers and thus increase their perceived risk associated with receiving,
opening, or responding to mobile advertising (Okazaki, Li, & Hirose, 2009). This hypothesis
was confirmed by Okazaki et al. (2009) when they found a positive relationship between
information privacy concerns and perceived risk in mobile advertising. However, the
research also found that trust in the advertiser actually decreases the consumer’s perceived
risk of mobile advertising. These findings suggest that information privacy concerns
associated with mobile advertising can be mitigated by other factors. Research also suggests
4
that consumers are willing to accept a certain degree of privacy loss if the social or economic
benefit of doing so outweighs the perceived cost (Milne & Gordon, 1993). An eMarketer
Research Report (2003) confirmed this finding within a mobile marketing context,
suggesting that approximately 65% of U.S. consumers are willing to provide personal
information about them in exchange for relevant mobile advertising. This research identifies
four key attributes that are hypothesized to positively influence the implied social contract
between those who send and receive mobile advertisements.
KEY COMPONENTS OF THE MOBILE MARKETING
SOCIAL CONTRACT
Permission: Well defined policies surrounding permission and email marketing are
already in place, however, less concrete guidelines exist with respect to permission and
mobile advertising. When an individual grants an advertiser explicit consent to send
promotional messages to his or her mobile phone, the advertiser has gained the receiver’s
permission (Tsang, Ho, & Liang, 2004). Previous research supports the concept that
permission is not only a key driver of consumer acceptance but also effectiveness of mobile
advertising. Kavassalis, Spyropoulou, Drossos, Mitrokostas, Gikas, and Hatzistamatiou
(2003) examined the emerging mobile market potential and proposed that a successful
industry structure requires that marketers gain permission from consumers before sending an
advertisement. An empirical study by Barwise and Strong (2002) found that advertisers who
gained permission prior to sending an ad had much better response rates than those who sent
unsolicited messages. In addition, in the absence of permission, ads were found to be
ineffective and to have a negative impact on a consumer’s attitude toward the brand.
Another empirical study that examined consumer attitudes found that permission had a
5
positive influence on attitudes toward mobile advertising (Tsang et al., 2004). These findings
were confirmed by Bamba and Barnes (2007) in their examination of permission specifically
related to SMS mobile advertising. Their research indicated that 87.8 percent of respondents
felt it was important that they give permission to an advertiser before receiving a text
message advertisement.
Trust: Any social contract between an advertiser and consumer requires a certain
level of trust. From a brand perspective, trust is achieved when there is a perceived
credibility toward the advertiser on the part of the consumer (Jevons & Gabbott, 2000). In
relation to mobile marketing, trust has also been found to decrease a consumer’s perceived
risk of mobile advertising (Okazaki, Katsukura, & Nishiyama, 2007). In their research
examining the role of trust in improving attitudes toward mobile advertising, Okazaki et al.
(2007) found that attitude toward the brand was a mediating variable for attitude toward
mobile advertising with regard to durable goods. In addition, a review of the literature
regarding factors that affect the use of mobile advertising suggested that the advertiser’s
brand influences the “credibility of the advertisement and the use of mobile advertising”
(Vatanparast & Asil, 2007, p. 27). Research examining consumer privacy concerns toward
mobile advertising found that higher levels of advertiser trust can reduce the level of a
mobile user’s perceived risk (Okazaki et al., 2009).
Relevance: The amount of personal data available regarding mobile users allows
marketers to send highly targeted mobile advertisements. Personalized ads aimed at an
individual’s interests and behaviors as opposed to a broader target audience are considered
highly relevant to the consumer (Kazienko & Adamski, 2007). Relevance is key to consumer
adoption of mobile advertising not only because consumers expect mobile ads to be
6
personally relevant but also because there is the potential for negative consumer reactions
towards advertisements that are not relevant (Barwise & Strong, 2002). An empirical study
of consumer acceptance of SMS mobile advertising found that acceptance was high when ads
were “relevant, highly targeted, personalised and of value-added content” (Maneesoonthorn
& Fortin, 2006, p. 71). Similar research that examined acceptance of SMS ads also measured
effectiveness and found that campaign relevance was strongly correlated with levels of
acceptance and that consumers were significantly more likely to take action as a result of
high campaign relevance (Rettie, Grandcolas, & Deakins, 2005).
Context: The GPS functionality of most mobile phones allows marketers to send
promotional messages and offers that are contextually relevant to an individual based on
proximity to the respective marketer’s products or services (Bruner, Gordon, & Kumar,
2007). The potential to reach consumers when they are in public and in a consumer-related
state of mind (shopping, buying, etc…) is very appealing to marketers and research shows is
perceived as useful by consumers (Banerjee & Dholakia, 2008). A focus group of
consumers’ willingness to receive text message advertisements found that most participants
liked the idea of location-based services and were willing to accept a certain feeling of
intrusion because the ads were highly relevant to their time and place (Bamba & Barnes,
2007). An empirical study by Merisavo et al. (2007) supported the importance of contextual
ads and found that utilization of contextual information was a strong positive driver of
consumer acceptance toward mobile advertising.
SOCIAL CONTRACT FRAMEWORK
Social contract theory from a marketing perspective focuses on the concept of
exchange between the organization and the consumer. An organization offers society a
7
benefit in exchange for the opportunity to make a profit (Donaldson, 1982). Milne and
Gordon (1993) first conceptualized advertising specifically as an implied social contract in
the direct marketing environment. They examined the relationship between the sender and
receiver of direct marketing advertisements and posited that consumers are willing to provide
information about themselves to direct marketers in exchange for social or economic
benefits. However, for this social contract to be perceived positively by the consumer, the
social or economic benefit must outweigh the risk associated with providing personal
information. If the benefits do not outweigh the risks, consumers feel their rights have been
violated. The difficult part of this social contract is that the relationship is not explicitly
articulated; instead, the terms of the contract are implied, leaving both advertiser and
consumer expectations somewhat subjective. In an effort to more clearly define the
expectations of this relationship, Milne and Gordon (1993) developed a Direct Marketing
Social Contract Framework. This Framework suggested there are four major attributes each
party must positively evaluate for the contract to be enacted. In the direct marketing
environment, these attributes were: targeting, volume, permission, and compensation. Milne
and Gordon (1993) found that consumers consider all these attributes to varying degrees
when determining satisfaction levels with the direct marketing social contract.
There is an absence of theoretical and empirical work on the mobile advertising social
contract. However, the work by Milne and Gordon (1993) provides a basis for pursing work
in this area, given the similarities between direct marketing and mobile marketing. Similar to
the direct marketing environment, mobile advertising is highly targeted and personalized to
the receiver. However, because mobile phones are considered such personal devices there is
even greater risk associated with sending and receiving mobile advertisements. Marketer’s
8
are concerned that unsolicited advertisements on mobile phones will be perceived as SPAM
and have a negative effect on consumer’s attitudes toward both the advertiser and mobile
advertising in general (Merisavo et al., 2007).
The framework presented in this research is an adaption and extension of the Milne
and Gordon (1993) framework. An original model is presented which (based on prior
research) identifies key factors that may affect the mobile advertising social contract. The
model is provided in Figure 1. The solid lines represent the exchange of mobile user
information and advertisements on a mobile phone. The dashed lines represent the third
party organizations that influence mobile advertising policy and information privacy. The
bold lines indicate the four attributes that the thesis posits consumers consider when
determining acceptance of mobile advertising: (a) permission, (b) trust, (c) relevance, and (d)
context. The dotted line represents the level of consumer acceptance based on the attributes
present in an advertising scenario. Perceived risk is an intervening variable that can affect
consumer acceptance levels and is influenced by two of the attributes, permission and trust.
The model shows that wireless network providers have information about mobile
users that can be provided to mobile advertisers. They also control the advertising platform
and can dictate when and how advertisements are served to mobile users. The government
regulates policy and guidelines for consumer privacy and can stipulate what information
wireless providers are allowed to disclose to advertisers. Consumers themselves can provide
the advertiser with personal information in exchange for receiving advertisements on their
mobile phones. This exchange is based on each party’s evaluation of the attributes of the
social contract. Two of the attributes, permission and trust, are given by the consumer to the
advertiser. The other two attributes, relevance and context, are provided by the advertiser to
9
Figure 1. Framework for consumer acceptance of mobile advertising.
the consumer. The model posits that a consumer’s response to the four attributes in the
framework will significantly affect the level of acceptance toward mobile advertising. Since
there are privacy violation concerns associated with organizations obtaining personal
information about a consumer’s demographic, psychographic, and geographic information,
perceived risk is considered an intervening variable affecting the consumer’s acceptance
level. If the consumer feels the social or economic benefits of receiving a mobile ad
outweigh the risks associated with privacy loss, then the perceived risk is mitigated and
acceptance is higher. In the case of this framework, when permission and trust are present,
perceived risk is lower. Based on the framework presented, this study seeks to answer the
following research questions:
R1: What is the effect of permission on consumer acceptance of mobile advertising?
R2: What is the effect of brand trust on consumer acceptance of mobile advertising?
R3: What is the effect of personal relevance on consumer acceptance of mobileadvertising?
10
R4: What is the effect of location-based context on consumer acceptance of mobileadvertising?
R5: Does the presence of permission (opt-in) reduce the consumer’s perceived riskassociated with mobile advertising?
R6: Does the presence of advertiser brand trust reduce the consumer’s perceived riskassociated with mobile advertising?
11
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH DESIGN
This study utilized an online survey to examine the influence of permission, trust,
relevance, and context on consumer acceptance levels toward mobile advertising.
Specifically, the research used a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 full factorial design with main effects of
permission (granted, not granted), trust (high, low), relevance (relevant content, not relevant
content), and context (present, absent). Table 1 represents each of the 16 experimental cells.
PsychData’s services were used to deploy an online survey with random stimulus
assignment so that each participant was assigned to one of the 16 cells. Sample size per cell
ranged between 18 and 34 based on random assignment of all qualified respondents. A
breakdown of the sample size for each scenario is presented in Table 2.
Each scenario represented the specific conditions of its factorial cell. Scenarios were
constructed out of a common set of elements representing each factor in the research design.
For example, a scenario in the “permission granted” condition contained the sentence “You
gave the (name of advertiser) permission to send promotional advertisements to your mobile
phone.” While the scenario in the “permission not granted” condition contained the sentence
“You did not give the (name of advertiser) permission to send promotional advertisements to
you.” Appendix A includes a full list of each scenario presented to respondents.
Key measures addressed attitudes toward the mobile advertisement and perceived
risk. Attitude measures are widely used in forecasting acceptance and the most popular
approach within the realm of marketing research utilizes direct self-report by asking survey
12
Table 1. Sixteen Experimental Cells Used inAdvertising Scenarios
Per
mission
T
rust
Re
levance
C
ontext
1 - - - -
2 + - - -
3 - + - -
4 - - + -
5 - - - +
6 + + - -
7 + - + -
8 + - - +
9 - + + -
10 - + - +
11 - - + +
12 + + + -
13 + + - +
14 + - + +
15 - + + +
16 + + + +
respondents a series of questions (Aaker & Day, 1983). Specifically, attitude measures for
this research included attitude toward the advertisement, attitude toward the medium, and
willingness to receive advertisements on a personal mobile device. Scales to measure each of
these constructs were garnered from previous research. Attitude toward the advertisement
was measured using a 3 item scale adapted from Xu, Oh, and Teo (2009). The index had a
Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of .938.
13
Table 2. Random Assignment Sample Size by Scenario
Scenario
Sample
Size
1
2
5
2
3
2
3
2
3
4
2
7
5
2
8
6
2
1
7
2
4
8
1
8
9
2
4
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
9
1
2
2
2
1
3
3
1
1
4
2
2
1
5
3
4
1
6
2
2
14
7 point agree/disagree
I would find this mobile advertisement useful
I would find this mobile advertisement valuable
I would find this mobile advertisement interesting
Attitude toward the medium was measured using a 3 item scale adapted from
Merisavo et al. (2007). The index had a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of .885.
7 point agree/disagree
I feel positively about receiving mobile advertising
I am willing to receive mobile advertising messages in the future
I would read all the mobile advertising messages I receive in the future
Intention to use or respond to the advertisement was measured using a 2 item scale
adapted from Banerjee and Dholakia (2008). The index had a Cronbach alpha reliability
coefficient of .679.
7 point likely/unlikely
After receiving this advertisement I would consider responding to the ad
After receiving this advertisement I would consider sharing it with a friend or familymember
The intervening variable of perceived risk was measured using a 4 item scale adaptedfrom Merisavo et al. (2007). The index had a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficientof .873.
7 point agree/disagree
I would feel a loss of control if I received this type of mobile advertisement
I would feel a loss of privacy if I received this type of mobile advertisement
I would feel annoyed if I received this type of mobile advertisement
I would feel as if the distinction between home, work, and leisure had been blurred ifI received this mobile advertisement
15
SAMPLE
Recruitment of survey respondents was conducted through Facebook, LinkedIn, and
email. A brief description of the study along with a link to the online survey was emailed to
the researcher’s co-workers, school colleagues, and personal network. In addition, the
description and link were also posted on the researcher’s Facebook and LinkedIn pages to
recruit additional respondents.
Selection for survey respondents included three main criteria: (a) respondents must
own a mobile phone, (b) respondents must send and receive text messages at least once a
week, and (c) respondents must be at least 18 years of age. These selection criteria were
important because the study demonstrates a relationship between mobile advertising,
attitudes, and acceptance. To obtain relevant data that demonstrates a correlation,
respondents must already have a personal connection to their mobile device and be familiar
with how to send and receive text messages. Also, certain questions are based on scenarios
and require previous knowledge of the technology to answer them appropriately.
Of the 457 respondents recruited, 392 met the eligibility requirements of the survey.
The sample was comprised of approximately 31% male and 69% female respondents.
Approximately 8% of respondents were between the ages of 18 and 25, 41% were 26 – 34,
27% were 35 – 45, 13% were 46 – 55, and 12% were over 55. 83% of all respondents
described themselves as non-Hispanic white.
DATAANALYSIS PROCEDURE
SPSS was used to conduct statistical analysis on the data collected from an online
survey. A 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 factorial analysis of variance was used to measure the effects of the
16
presence or absence of each attribute (permission, trust, relevance, and context) on attitudes
toward mobile advertising and also mitigation of perceived risk.
17
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS
The model posited the effect of four variables on individuals’ reactions to mobile
advertising. The first four research questions focused on these variables and their effects.
Overall, it appears that the model correctly predicted the influence of each variable; however
the range of influence varied across outcome measures.
R1: What is the effect of permission on consumer acceptance of mobile advertising?
Permission exerted the greatest influence. As shown in Table 3, there was a
significant main effect for permission in relation to all three acceptance measures: (1) attitude
toward the advertisement [F (1/379) = 24.90, p < .001], (2) attitude toward the medium [F
(1/378) = 6.46, p = .011], and (3) intention to act on the ad [F (1/373) = 9.65, p = .002]. An
examination of the mean scores (see Table 4) indicates that this effect was in a positive
direction, that is, across all three outcome measures respondents were more positive toward
mobile advertising and more likely to act when permission was present versus when it was
absent.
R2: What is the effect of brand trust on consumer acceptance levels of mobile
advertising? Trust also exerted an important (but versus permission a more limited)
influence on the outcome measures. As shown in Table 3, there was a significant main effect
for trust in relation to two of the acceptance measures: (1) attitude toward the ad [F (1/379) =
24.49, p < .001], and (2) intention to act on the ad [F (1/373) = 6.24, p = .013]. An
examination of the mean scores (see Table 3) indicates that this effect was in a positive
18
Table 3. Results from Factorial Analysis of Variance
Permission
Measure dfMean
Square F Sig
Attitude toward ad 1 64.572 24.898 0.000
Attitude toward medium 1 15.939 6.458 0.011
Intention to act on ad 1 23.581 9.654 0.002
Perceived risk 1 269.311 124.088 0.000
Trust
Measure dfMean
Square F Sig
Attitude toward ad 1 63.515 24.49 0.000
Intention to act on ad 1 15.24 6.239 0.013
Perceived risk 1 13.346 6.149 0.014
Relevance
Measure dfMean
Square F Sig
Attitude toward ad 1 18.406 7.097 0.008
Context
Measure dfMean
Square F Sig
Attitude toward ad 1 44.12 17.012 0.000
Intention to act on ad 1 36.805 15.068 0.000
Trust and Context
Measure dfMean
Square F Sig
Attitude toward medium 1 22.443 9.093 0.003
19
Table 4. Estimated Marginal Means
Permission
Measure
Present Absent
Mean Std. Error Mean Std. Error
Attitude to ad 4.13 0.115 3.308 0.118
Attitude to medium 3.032 0.112 2.623 0.115
Intention to act on ad 3.299 0.112 2.799 0.115
Percieved risk 3.315 0.105 4.992 0.108
Trust
Measure
Present Absent
Mean Std. Error Mean Std. Error
Attitude to ad 4.126 0.117 3.312 0.115
Intention to act on ad 3.25 0.114 2.848 0.113
Percieved risk 3.967 0.107 4.34 0.106
Relevance
Measure
Present Absent
Mean Std. Error Mean Std. Error
Attitude to ad 3.938 0.116 3.5 0.117
Context
Measure
Present Absent
Mean Std. Error Mean Std. Error
Attitude to ad 4.058 0.115 3.38 0.118
Intention to act on ad 3.361 0.112 2.737 0.115
direction, that is, respondents were more positive toward the ad and showed greater intention
to act when trust was present versus when it was absent.
R3: What is the effect of personal relevance on consumer acceptance of mobile
advertising?
Versus permission and trust, personal relevance showed a more limited role in
influencing the outcome measures. As shown in Table 3, there was one significant main
effect for relevance [F (1/379) = 7.10, p = .008] in relation to the acceptance level for attitude
20
toward the ad. Similar to the other measures, an examination of the mean scores (see Table
4) indicates that this effect was in a positive direction, that is, respondents were more positive
the ad when relevance was present versus when it was absent.
R4: What is the effect of location-based context on consumer acceptance of mobile
advertising?
Similar to trust, location-based context showed an important role in influencing
reactions to mobile advertising. As shown in Table 3, there was a significant main effect
observed for context with two of the acceptance measures: (1) attitude toward the ad [F
(1/379) = 17.01, p < .001] and (2) intention to act on the ad [F (1/373) = 15.07, p < .001]. An
examination of the mean scores (see Table 4) indicates that this effect was in a positive
direction, that is, respondents were more positive toward the ad and showed greater intention
to act when location-based content was present versus when it was absent.
Research questions 5 and 6 focused on the model’s assumed relationship between
permission, brand trust and perceived risk.
R5: Does the presence of permission reduce the consumer’s perceived risk associated
with mobile advertising?
Permission does influence perceived risk [F (1, 373) = 124.08, p <.001]. As shown in
Table 3, perceived risk is lower when permission is present versus when it is absent.
R6: Does the presence of brand trust reduce the consumer’s perceived risk associated
with mobile advertising?
Brand trust also influences perceived risk [F (1, 373) = 13.346, p <.01]. As shown in
Table 3, perceived risk is lower when permission is present versus when it is absent.
21
Finally there was one significant interaction effect observed between trust and context
in relation to the acceptance measure attitude toward the medium [F (1/378) = 9.09, p =
.003].
To allow for further exploration of the key attributes in the model, additional data was
collected. Respondents were asked to rate their overall reaction to the ad they received in the
scenario. Crosstabulation was used to uncover the relationship between positive reaction and
attributes present. This crosstabulation reinforced the prior findings and demonstrated the
effects of each of the four variables. The prior findings indicated that permission and trust
exerted the greatest overall effect. Here, of those respondents who had trust, relevance, and
context present but permission absent in their scenario, only 53.1% rated their reaction as
positive or very positive. Of those respondents who had permission, relevance, and context
present, but trust absent, only 50% rated their reaction as positive or very positive. The
absence of the remaining two variables (as would be predicted by the prior findings) showed
more limited effect. Of those respondents who had permission, trust, and context present, but
relevance absent, fully 81.5% rated their reaction as positive or very positive. Finally, of
those respondents who had permission, trust, and relevance present but context absent, fully
71.4% rated their reaction as positive or very positive. These outcomes are statistically
significant. The Chi-Square statistic equals 102.07 with 15 degree of freedom and a
significance level of <.01 (x2 = 102.07, d.f. = 15; p<.01).
Please reference Appendix B to see a full table of the Anova results for those findings
that were not statistically significant.
22
DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
The conceptual framework presented in Figure 1 suggested that four attributes,
permission, trust, relevance, and context, when present, increase consumer acceptance levels
toward mobile advertising. In addition, permission and trust, when present, decrease the
perceived risk associated with receiving mobile advertisements. The findings presented here
support the framework and suggest that all attributes positively influence consumer
acceptance levels of mobile advertising to a varying degree.
Permission has the greatest overall influence on acceptance levels and positively
influenced all three acceptance measures. When consumers provide the advertiser with
explicit permission to send them mobile advertisements, their acceptance levels are higher.
That is, they have a more positive attitude toward the ad and toward the medium as well as a
greater intention to act on the ad. In addition, when permission is present in an advertising
scenario, the perceived risk associated with receiving mobile advertising is also mitigated.
This seems intuitive given societal norms and legislation already in place around opt-in and
permission based email advertising. Since consumers are already familiar with permission
marketing in the email medium, they consider it a “ticket to play” in the mobile marketing
context as well. This confirms previous research surrounding permission-based advertising
on mobile phones. The findings also suggest that if marketers only have one attribute present
in their mobile advertising scenario, that attribute should be permission. It has the greatest
overall positive effect on the consumer’s acceptance of mobile advertising.
Trust was also found to influence consumer acceptance levels of mobile advertising,
although to a slightly lesser degree than permission. When consumers trust the brand they are
receiving an ad from, their attitude toward the ad is more positive and their intention to act on
23
the ad is greater. In addition, when brand trust is present, the consumer’s perceived risk
associated with receiving mobile advertising is lowered, as the model posited. These
findings are significant on two levels. First, from a social contract perspective, the research
presented here suggests that consumers are willing to give up a certain level of privacy if
they trust an advertiser, regardless of whether they gave the advertiser permission to send
them ads. Second, from a practitioner perspective, this speaks to the importance of brand
equity and the deep significance the consumer places on brand trust. If an advertiser is
unable to gain permission to send mobile advertising, they should only target those customers
who are loyal to the brand. Therefore, mobile advertising campaigns are better suited for
customer retention versus customer acquisition.
Context is the third most influential attribute in the model that positively influences
consumer acceptance of mobile advertising. When ads are relevant to a consumer’s time or
place, they have a more positive attitude toward the ad and are more likely to act on the ad.
This finding was supported by anecdotal feedback from respondents when asked what aspect
of the scenario contributed to their positive response:
Being near a Macy’s when I received the text message. If I was at home orlunch or something I would be irritated.
I was already shopping at the mall at the time I received the text and it wasfrom a store I actually shop at. It boils down to the text’s timing: if I received it atwork or while busy doing something else I would have been irritated.
The efficiency of receiving the message while shopping at a location near aMacy’s. (Survey conducted by author, April 2011)
These findings suggest that delivery of the ad in the “right place” is more important
than the personalized content. That is, context has more influence than relevance. This may
be because of the nature of the medium itself. Mobile phones offer instant gratification to the
user and location-based advertising allows consumers to receive ads when they are most
24
timely. Respondents seemed less concerned with whether the ad was relevant to what they
were shopping for and more concerned with whether the store they were receiving the
discount for was close by. These findings are somewhat contrary to the old marketing adage
that successful ads are a combination of the right offer, to the right person, at the right time.
The unique combination of the mobile phone being such a personal device but also such a
targeted advertising medium most likely contributes to this difference.
Relevance was also found to positively influence consumer acceptance of mobile
advertising. However, this attribute has the smallest effect out of the four attributes in the
model. When consumers receive an advertisement on their mobile phone that is personally
relevant, their attitude toward the ad is more positive. This finding is contrary to much of the
previous research on acceptance of mobile advertising which suggests relevance is the main
driver of consumer acceptance. Although it is a significant attribute, it is the least influential
out of the four. One of the key attributes surrounding mobile advertising that make it so
appealing to advertisers is the ability to serve ads that are highly relevant. Because
advertisers are able to access demographic and psychographic infomation about mobile
subscribers, they can serve them highly targeted ads. However, based on the findings
presented here, the attribute that makes this medium so appealing to marketers is actually the
least important to consumer acceptance of mobile advertising.
Contrary to the researchers’ expectations, there was only one significant interaction
effect among the attributes and it was between trust and context. When trust and context are
present in a mobile advertising scenario, attitude toward the medium is more positive. This
is significant for those advertisers who have not gained consumer permission to send mobile
advertisements. The findings suggest that the benefits of the ad outweigh the risk of having
25
not given permission. This finding is significant from a social contract perspective as it
appears that if the ad is timely for the consumer and the consumer has trust in the advertiser,
the benefit of the ad outweighs the feeling of privacy loss experienced from having an
advertiser know one’s location.
26
CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The mobile phone is still a relatively new medium that advertisers have yet to fully
leverage. Unique properties of the medium make it especially appealing to marketers who
wish to send personalized, relevant, and timely advertisements to their target audience.
Wireless network providers have a wealth of demographic and psychographic data about
their subscribers that can be used to send highly targeted ads. In addition, GPS capabilities
allow advertisers to send location-based ads that are contextually relevant to the consumer.
However, consumers consider their mobile phones to be very personal devices and marketers
walk a fine line between providing value to the consumer and irritating or even offending the
consumer. This research presented a framework that suggests four attributes, permission,
trust, relevance, and context, when present in the mobile advertising scenario, increase
consumer acceptance levels of mobile advertisements. The framework also posits that
permission and trust, when present, mitigate the perceived risk that is inherent in the implied
social contract between advertiser and consumer. Based on the findings from this research, it
is clear that all four attributes positively influence consumers’ attitudes toward mobile
advertisements to varying degrees. In addition, the presence of consumer permission or
advertiser trust mitigates the perceived risk inherent in this new medium. These findings
suggest that when developing a mobile advertising campaign, the most influential attribute is
permission. The second most influential attribute is trust. Context is the third most
27
influential attribute and relevance is the least influential attribute. Marketers should strive to
gain permission from their customer’s before sending mobile advertisements. However, if
permission is not possible, it is important for marketers to target those customers who are
already loyal to their brand. Most importantly, the findings presented in this research
confirm that those attributes most important in traditional advertising transcend mediums and
are applicable in mobile advertising as well.
While the findings from this research suggest the mobile phone is a viable new
medium for advertisers, there are limitations to the study. The sample used in this research
was a convenience sample, rather homogenous, and heavily female. Future studies should
attempt to gain a more random and representative sample of the mobile phone subscriber
population. The study also did not control for those respondents who may be comfortable
sharing private information. In this age of social networks, many people are more at ease
making private information public and may have less concern with privacy issues
traditionally associated with mobile advertising. In addition, the scale used to measure
intention to respond to the ad had a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of only .679.
Future research should attempt to use measures that more accurately predict consumer
intentions. The study also asked respondents to imagine themselves in a given scenario and
then answer questions about their attitudes based on self-report. This may have been difficult
for respondents since they were not actually in the situation and did not view a real
advertisement. Future studies should use an experimental design instead of survey
methodology to replicate this research in a “real-world” setting and serve ads to mobile
phone users. In addition, future researchers may benefit from understanding how adoption
rates of mobile phone use affect acceptance of mobile advertisements. There may be some
28
correlation between those who use their phone heavily for web browsing or apps and those
who have higher acceptance levels of mobile advertisements. It may also be beneficial to
understand if the content of the ad influences consumer acceptance levels. For example, if
the ad offers a specific monetary discount or simply builds brand awareness. In addition, this
research was limited to SMS text advertisements. However, there are many other ways to
serve targeted mobile advertisements including on the mobile web, in mobile gaming, and
through mobile apps. Researchers may benefit from understanding if there are differences in
acceptance levels based on the mobile advertisement type. Future research may also
consider the framework from the advertiser or wireless network point of view.
Understanding drivers of consumer acceptance of mobile advertising is the key to leveraging
this new medium as a powerful tool that is mutually beneficial to the advertiser and
consumer.
29
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A., & Day, G. S. (1983). Marketing research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Bamba, F., & Barnes, S. J. (2007). SMS advertising, permission and the consumer: A study.Business Process Management Journal, 13(6), 815-829.
Banerjee S., & Dholakia, R. R. (2008). Mobile advertising: Does location-based advertisingwork? International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 3(2), 68.
Barwise, P., & Strong, C. (2002). Permission-based mobile advertising. Journal ofInteractive Marketing, 16(1), 14-24.
Bauer, H. H., Reichardt, T., Barnes, S. J., & Neumann, M. M. (2005). Driving consumeracceptance of mobile marketing: A theoretical framework and empirical study.Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6(3), 181-191.
Bruner II, Gordon C., & Kumar, A. (2007). Attitude toward location-based advertising.Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7(2), 1.
Cleff, Evelyn B. (2007). Privacy issues in mobile advertising. International Review of LawComputers and Technology, 21(3), 225-236.
Donaldson, T. (1982). Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
eMarketer Research Report. (2003). SMS marketing yields strong results. United Kingdom:eMarketer.
International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry. (n.d.). “WirelessQuick Facts.” Retrieved fromhttp://www.ctia.org/media/industry_info/index.cfm/AID/10323.
Jevons, C., & Gabbott, M. (2000). Trust, brand equity and brand reality in internet businessrelationships: An interdisciplinary approach. Journal of Marketing Management,16(6), 619-634.
Kavassalis, P., Spyropoulou, N., Drossos, D., Mitrokostas, E., Gikas, G., & Hatzistamatiou,A. (2003). Mobile permission marketing: Framing the market inquiry. InternationalJournal of Electronic Commerce, 8(1), 55-79.
Kazienko, P., Adamski, M. (2007). AdROSA – Adaptive personalization of web advertising.Information Sciences, 177(11), 2269–2295.
Maneesoonthorn, C., & Fortin, D. (2006). Texting behaviour and attitudes toward permissionmobile advertising: An empirical study of mobile users' acceptance of sms formarketing purposes. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 1(1), 66-72.
Merisavo, M., Kajalo, S., Karjaluoto, H., Virtanen, V., Salmenkivi, S., Raulas, M., &Leppäniemi., M. (2007). An empirical study of the drivers of consumer acceptance ofmobile advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7(2), 1.
30
Milne, G. R., & Gordon, M. (1993). Direct mail privacy-efficiency trade-offs within animplied social contract framework. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12(2), 206-215.
Mobile Marketing Association. (2010, June). U.S. consumer best practices guidelines.Retrieved from http://mmaglobal.com/bestpractices.pdf.
Okazaki, S., Katsukura, A., & Nishiyama, M. (2007). How mobile advertising works: Therole of trust in improving attitudes and recall. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(2),165-178.
Okazaki, S., Li, H., & Hirose, M. (2009). Consumer privacy concerns and preference fordegree of regulatory control: A study of mobile advertising in Japan. Journal ofAdvertising, 38(4), 63-77.
Rettie, R., Grandcolas, U., & Deakins, B. (2005). Text message advertising: Response ratesand branding effects. Journal of Targeting, Measurement & Analysis for Marketing,13(4), 304-312.
Sharma, C., Herzog, J., & Melfi, V. (2008). Mobile advertising: Supercharge your brand inthe exploding wireless market. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Tsang, M. M., Ho, S-.C., & Liang, T-.P. (2004). Consumer attitudes toward mobileadvertising: An empirical study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(3),65-78.
Vatanparast, R., & Asil, M. (2007). Factors affecting the use of mobile advertising.International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 2(2), 21.
Xu, H., Oh, L.B., & Teo, H. H. (2009). Perceived effectiveness of text vs. multimedialocation-based advertising messaging. International Journal of MobileCommunications, 7(2), 154 – 177.
31
APPENDIX A
RANDOM ASSIGNMENT SURVEY SCENARIOS
32
1. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new shirt. While you are shopping, you
receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store and
offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase. A couple weeks earlier, while on
Macy’s website, you gave the retailer permission to send you promotional advertisements to
your cell phone. The timing couldn’t be better because there happens to be a Macy’s at the
mall you are shopping at and they have a wide selection of shirts. You also trust Macy’s as a
retailer with fair prices, wide selection, and quality products.
2. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new shirt. While you are shopping, you
receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store and
offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase. You never gave Macy’s permission to
send promotional advertisements to your phone but the timing couldn’t be better because
there happens to be a Macy’s at the mall you are shopping at and they have a wide selection
of shirts. You also trust Macy’s as a retailer with fair prices, wide selection, and quality
products.
3. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new shirt. While you are shopping, you
receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store and
offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase. A couple weeks earlier, while on
Macy’s website, you gave the retailer permission to send you promotional advertisements to
your cell phone. The timing couldn’t be better because there happens to be a Macy’s at the
mall you are shopping at and they have a wide selection of shirts. However, because of a
recent negative shopping experience at Macy’s, they are no longer a retailer you trust for fair
prices, wide selection, or quality products.
4. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new computer. While you are shopping,
you receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store
and offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase. A couple weeks earlier, while on
Macy’s website, you gave the retailer permission to send you promotional advertisements to
your cell phone. The timing couldn’t be better because there happens to be a Macy’s at the
mall you are shopping at. You also trust Macy’s as a retailer with fair prices, wide selection,
33
and good quality products. However, you came to the mall to buy a new computer and
Macy’s does not sell computers.
5. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new shirt. While you are shopping, you
receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store and
offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase. A couple weeks earlier, while on
Macy’s website, you gave the retailer permission to send you promotional advertisements to
your cell phone. The timing couldn’t be better because Macy’s has a wide selection of shirts
and you trust Macy’s as a retailer with fair prices, wide selection, and good quality products.
However, there is not a Macy’s at the mall you are currently shopping at.
6. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new shirt. While you are shopping, you
receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store and
offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase. You never gave Macy’s permission to
send promotional advertisements to your phone but the timing couldn’t be better because
there happens to be a Macy’s at the mall you are shopping at and they have a wide selection
of shirts. However, because of a recent negative shopping experience at Macy’s, they are no
longer a retailer you trust for fair prices, wide selection, or quality products.
7. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new computer. While you are shopping,
you receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store
and offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase. You never gave Macy’s permission
to send promotional advertisements to your phone but the timing couldn’t be better because
there happens to be a Macy’s at the mall you are shopping at. You also trust Macy’s as a
retailer with fair prices, wide selection, and good quality products. However, you came to
the mall to buy a new computer and Macy’s does not sell computers.
8. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new shirt. While you are shopping, you
receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store and
offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase. You never gave Macy’s permission to
send promotional advertisements to your phone but the timing couldn’t be better because
34
Macy’s has a wide selection of shirts and you trust Macy’s as a retailer with fair prices, wide
selection, and good quality products. However, there is not a Macy’s at the mall you are
currently shopping at.
9. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new computer. While you are shopping,
you receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store
and offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase. A couple weeks earlier, while on
Macy’s website, you gave the retailer permission to send you promotional advertisements to
your cell phone. The timing couldn’t be better because there happens to be a Macy’s at the
mall you are shopping at. However, because of a recent negative shopping experience at
Macy’s, they are no longer a retailer you trust for fair prices, wide selection, or quality
products. You also came to the mall to buy a new computer but Macy’s does not sell
computers.
10. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new shirt. While you are shopping, you
receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store and
offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase. A couple weeks earlier, while on
Macy’s website, you gave the retailer permission to send you promotional advertisements to
your cell phone. The timing couldn’t be better because Macy’s has a wide selection of shirts.
You also trust Macy’s as a retailer with fair prices, wide selection, and quality products.
However, because of a recent negative shopping experience at Macy’s, they are no longer a
retailer you trust for fair prices, wide selection, or quality products. In addition, there is not a
Macy’s at the mall you are currently shopping at.
11. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new computer. While you are shopping,
you receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store
and offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase. A couple weeks earlier, while on
Macy’s website, you gave the retailer permission to send you promotional advertisements to
your cell phone. You trust Macy’s as a retailer with fair prices, wide selection, and quality
products. However, there is not a Macy’s at the mall you are currently shopping at and you
came to the mall to buy a new computer but Macy’s does not sell computers.
35
12. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new computer. While you are shopping,
you receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store
and offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase. You never gave Macy’s permission
to send promotional advertisements to your phone but the timing couldn’t be better because
there happens to be a Macy’s at the mall you are shopping at. However, because of a recent
negative shopping experience at Macy’s, they are no longer a retailer you trust for fair prices,
wide selection, or quality products. You also came to the mall to buy a new computer but
Macy’s does not sell computers.
13. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new shirt. While you are shopping, you
receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store and
offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase. You never gave Macy’s permission to
send promotional advertisements to your phone but the timing couldn’t be better because
they have a wide selection of shirts. However, because of a recent negative shopping
experience at Macy’s, they are no longer a retailer you trust for fair prices, wide selection, or
quality products. In addition, there is not a Macy’s at the mall you are currently shopping at.
14. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new computer. While you are shopping,
you receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store
and offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase. You never gave Macy’s permission
to send promotional advertisements to your phone but you trust them as a retailer with fair
prices, wide selection, and quality products. However, there is not a Macy’s at the mall you
are currently shopping at and you came to the mall to buy a new computer but Macy’s does
not sell computers.
15. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new computer. While you are shopping,
you receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store
and offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase. A couple weeks earlier, while on
Macy’s website, you gave the retailer permission to send you promotional advertisements to
your cell phone. However, because of a recent negative shopping experience at Macy’s, they
36
are no longer a retailer you trust for fair prices, wide selection, or quality products. In
addition, there is not a Macy’s at the mall you are currently shopping at and you came to the
mall to buy a new computer but Macy’s does not sell computers.
16. Imagine that you are at the mall shopping for a new computer. While you are shopping,
you receive a text message on your phone. The message is from Macy’s department store
and offers you a coupon for 20% off your next purchase but you never gave Macy’s
permission to send promotional advertisements to your phone. Also, because of a recent
negative shopping experience at Macy’s, they are no longer a retailer you trust for fair prices,
wide selection, or quality products. In addition, there is not a Macy’s at the mall you are
currently shopping at and you came to the mall to buy a new computer but Macy’s does not
sell computers.
37
APPENDIX B
FULL TABLE OF ANOVA RESULTS
38
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: INTENTV2 Intention to act on ad 2 variables
103.555a 15 6.904 2.826 .000
3515.110 1 3515.110 1439.042 .000
.294 1 .294 .120 .729
15.240 1 15.240 6.239 .013
36.805 1 36.805 15.068 .000
23.581 1 23.581 9.654 .002
.703 1 .703 .288 .592
4.342 1 4.342 1.777 .183
8.948 1 8.948 3.663 .056
.058 1 .058 .024 .878
.741 1 .741 .303 .582
1.380 1 1.380 .565 .453
.098 1 .098 .040 .841
.011 1 .011 .005 .946
.363 1 .363 .149 .700
1.781 1 1.781 .729 .394
.455 1 .455 .186 .666
911.117 373 2.443
4619.938 389
1014.673 388
SourceCorrected Model
Intercept
RELEVANC
TRUST
CONTEXT
PERMISSI
RELEVANC * TRUST
RELEVANC * CONTEXT
TRUST * CONTEXT
RELEVANC * TRUST *CONTEXT
RELEVANC * PERMISSI
TRUST * PERMISSI
RELEVANC * TRUST *PERMISSI
CONTEXT * PERMISSI
RELEVANC * CONTEXT* PERMISSI
TRUST * CONTEXT *PERMISSI
RELEVANC * TRUST *CONTEXT * PERMISSI
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
R Squared = .102 (Adjusted R Squared = .066)a.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: ATTTOAD Attitude toward the ad
226.733a 15 15.116 5.828 .000
5298.096 1 5298.096 2042.868 .000
18.406 1 18.406 7.097 .008
63.515 1 63.515 24.490 .000
44.120 1 44.120 17.012 .000
64.572 1 64.572 24.898 .000
.110 1 .110 .043 .837
.008 1 .008 .003 .955
4.181 1 4.181 1.612 .205
.039 1 .039 .015 .903
.298 1 .298 .115 .735
8.445 1 8.445 3.256 .072
3.979 1 3.979 1.534 .216
.076 1 .076 .029 .864
.223 1 .223 .086 .770
.004 1 .004 .002 .968
.449 1 .449 .173 .678
982.921 379 2.593
6667.889 395
1209.654 394
SourceCorrected Model
Intercept
RELEVANC
TRUST
CONTEXT
PERMISSI
RELEVANC * TRUST
RELEVANC * CONTEXT
TRUST * CONTEXT
RELEVANC * TRUST *CONTEXT
RELEVANC * PERMISSI
TRUST * PERMISSI
RELEVANC * TRUST *PERMISSI
CONTEXT * PERMISSI
RELEVANC * CONTEXT* PERMISSI
TRUST * CONTEXT *PERMISSI
RELEVANC * TRUST *CONTEXT * PERMISSI
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
R Squared = .187 (Adjusted R Squared = .155)a.
39
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: ATTTOMED Attitude toward the medium
63.427a 15 4.228 1.713 .046
3055.673 1 3055.673 1238.094 .000
2.224 1 2.224 .901 .343
.322 1 .322 .130 .718
.649 1 .649 .263 .608
15.939 1 15.939 6.458 .011
.036 1 .036 .015 .904
1.727 1 1.727 .700 .403
22.443 1 22.443 9.093 .003
6.267 1 6.267 2.539 .112
2.276 1 2.276 .922 .337
.007 1 .007 .003 .957
1.641 1 1.641 .665 .415
.130 1 .130 .052 .819
.270 1 .270 .109 .741
.147 1 .147 .059 .808
1.794 1 1.794 .727 .394
932.921 378 2.468
4073.000 394
996.348 393
SourceCorrected Model
Intercept
RELEVANC
TRUST
CONTEXT
PERMISSI
RELEVANC * TRUST
RELEVANC * CONTEXT
TRUST * CONTEXT
RELEVANC * TRUST *CONTEXT
RELEVANC * PERMISSI
TRUST * PERMISSI
RELEVANC * TRUST *PERMISSI
CONTEXT * PERMISSI
RELEVANC * CONTEXT* PERMISSI
TRUST * CONTEXT *PERMISSI
RELEVANC * TRUST *
CONTEXT * PERMISSI
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
R Squared = .064 (Adjusted R Squared = .027)a.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: PERCRISK Scale for Perceived Risk
315.531a 15 21.035 9.692 .000
6607.421 1 6607.421 3044.432 .000
1.382 1 1.382 .637 .425
13.346 1 13.346 6.149 .014
3.328 1 3.328 1.533 .216
269.311 1 269.311 124.088 .000
2.506 1 2.506 1.155 .283
2.832 1 2.832 1.305 .254
2.635 1 2.635 1.214 .271
.842 1 .842 .388 .534
.084 1 .084 .039 .844
2.408 1 2.408 1.109 .293
1.647 1 1.647 .759 .384
.851 1 .851 .392 .531
4.690 1 4.690 2.161 .142
.395 1 .395 .182 .670
.474 1 .474 .219 .640
822.555 379 2.170
7934.750 395
1138.086 394
SourceCorrected Model
Intercept
RELEVANC
TRUST
CONTEXT
PERMISSI
RELEVANC * TRUST
RELEVANC * CONTEXT
TRUST * CONTEXT
RELEVANC * TRUST *CONTEXT
RELEVANC * PERMISSI
TRUST * PERMISSI
RELEVANC * TRUST *PERMISSI
CONTEXT * PERMISSI
RELEVANC * CONTEXT* PERMISSI
TRUST * CONTEXT *PERMISSI
RELEVANC * TRUST *CONTEXT * PERMISSI
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
R Squared = .277 (Adjusted R Squared = .249)a.
top related