Hypothesis testing for qualitative and quantitative data using SPSS, Factor analysis using SPSS, Testing for Data normalcy, Validity and Reliability Test, and test for Common Method Bias

1. 1
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
Tests for Association between consumers’ desires, SMI Power, SMI`s
credibility and Consumer Decision
Name
Department, Institutional Affiliation
Course
Instructor
Date

2. 2
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
H1: Consumer Desire is directly impacting the consumer attitudes of Purchase Decision.
Desire to purchase product recommended by Social Media Influencer. * I intend to purchase
this product/brand in the future. Cross tabulation
Count
I intend to purchase this product/brand in the future.
Total
Strongl
y
Disagr
ee
Disagr
ee
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Desire to purchase
product recommended by
SMI.
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 1 2 3
Disagree 0 0 1 3 6 10
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
1 0 3 9 4 17
Agree 3 5 8 78 19 113
Strongly Agree 1 5 2 32 27 67
Total 5 10 14 123 58 210
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 28.246a
16 .030
Likelihood Ratio 28.385 16 .028
Linear-by-Linear Association .075 1 .784
N of Valid Cases 210
a. 17 cells (68.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .07.
Since the p-value is less than our chosen significance level α = 0.05 that (X2
(1) = 28.246, p <
0.03), we can reject the null hypothesis, and conclude that there is an association between
Consumer Desire to purchase product recommended by Social Media Influencer and Consumer
intention to purchase the product or brand in the future. Based on the results, we can state the
following: There was a significant association between Consumers who desired to purchase the

3. 3
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
product recommended by Social Media Influencer and the Consumers’ intention to purchase the
product or brand in the future.
H2: E-WOM is mediates the relationship between SMI`s credibility and the consumer attitudes
of Purchase Decision.
Social media influencers appear informed to me. * I intend to purchase this product/brand in the future.
Cross tabulation
Count
I intend to purchase this product/brand in the future.
Total
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Social media influencers
appear informed to me.
Strongly Disagree 0 0 3 0 0 3
Disagree 0 0 2 0 1 3
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
2 2 2 10 7 23
Agree 3 4 4 79 27 117
Strongly Agree 0 4 3 34 23 64
Total 5 10 14 123 58 210
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 74.819a
16 .000
Likelihood Ratio 40.639 16 .001
Linear-by-Linear Association 7.856 1 .005
N of Valid Cases 210
a. 17 cells (68.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .07.
Since the p-value is less than our chosen significance level α = 0.05 that (X2
(1) = 74.819, p <
0.00), we can reject the null hypothesis, and conclude that there is an association between Social
media influencers appearing informed to the consumer and the consumer’s intention to purchase

4. 4
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
the product/brand in the future. Based on the results, we can state the following: There was a
significant association between Social media influencers appearing informed to the consumer
and the consumer’s intention to purchase the product/brand in the future.
H3: E-WOM is directly impacts the consumer attitudes of Purchase Decision.
I share my experience with brands endorsed by this social media personality with my friends on social
media. * I intend to purchase this product/brand in the future.
Cross tabulation
Count
I intend to purchase this product/brand in the future.
Total
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
I share my experience
with brands endorsed by
this social media
personality with my
friends on social media.
Strongly Disagree 0 0 1 2 0 3
Disagree 0 0 2 9 7 18
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
0 1 3 15 5 24
Agree 4 5 7 60 24 100
Strongly Agree 1 4 1 37 22 65
Total 5 10 14 123 58 210
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 15.030a
16 .522
Likelihood Ratio 16.906 16 .392
Linear-by-Linear Association .071 1 .789
N of Valid Cases 210
a. 17 cells (68.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .07.
Since the p-value is less than our chosen significance level α = 0.05 that (X2
(1) = 15.03, p <
0.522), we can reject the null hypothesis, and conclude that there is an association between the
consumer sharing his/her experience with brands endorsed by the social media personality with

5. 5
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
his or her friends on social media and him or her intending to purchase the product/brand in the
future.
Based on the results, we can state the following: There was a significant association between the
consumers who were willing to share their experience with brands endorsed by the social media
personality with their friends on social media through electronic word of mouth and the intention
they had had to purchase the product/brand in the future.
H4: SMI Power is directly impacting the consumer attitudes of Purchase Decision.
When I buy a product, influencer review makes me confident in purchasing the product. * I intend
to purchase this product/brand in the future.
Cross tabulation
Count
I intend to purchase this product/brand in the future.
Total
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
When I buy a product,
influencer review makes
me confident in
purchasing the product.
Strongly Disagree 0 0 1 2 1 4
Disagree 0 1 2 7 5 15
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
0 2 6 21 9 38
Agree 4 4 5 60 17 90
Strongly Agree 1 3 0 33 26 63
Total 5 10 14 123 58 210

6. 6
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 24.642a
16 .076
Likelihood Ratio 27.431 16 .037
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.909 1 .167
N of Valid Cases 210
a. 17 cells (68.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .10.
Since the p-value is less than our chosen significance level α = 0.05 that (X2
(1) = 28.246, p <
0.03), we can reject the null hypothesis, and conclude that there is an association between when
the consumers who bought a product, influencer review which made consumers confident in
purchasing the product and the consumers’ intentions to purchase this product/brand in the
future. Based on the results, we can state the following: There was a significant association
between the consumers who bought a product, the influencer review which made consumers
confident in purchasing the product and the consumer’s intention to purchase this product/brand
in the future.
H5: Trust moderates the impact of Consumer Desire on the consumer attitudes of Purchase
Decision.

7. 7
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
The product reviewed by Social Media Influencer is trustworthy. * I intend to purchase this
product/brand in the future.
Cross tabulation
Count
I intend to purchase this product/brand in the future.
Total
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
The product reviewed by
SMI is trustworthy.
Strongly Disagree 0 1 0 5 2 8
Disagree 0 1 1 2 6 10
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
0 2 5 13 5 25
Agree 1 4 5 73 18 101
Strongly Agree 4 2 3 30 27 66
Total 5 10 14 123 58 210
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 36.536a
16 .002
Likelihood Ratio 34.319 16 .005
Linear-by-Linear Association .247 1 .619
N of Valid Cases 210
a. 17 cells (68.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .19.
Since the p-value is less than our chosen significance level α = 0.05 that (X2
(1) = 36.536, p <
0.02), we can reject the null hypothesis, and conclude that there is an association between
consumer belief that the product reviewed by Social Media Influencer is trust worthy and his/her
intention he/she had to purchase this product/brand in the future. Based on the results, we can
state the following: There was a significant association between consumer belief that the product
reviewed by Social Media Influencer is trust worth and his/her intention to purchase this
product/brand in the future.

8. 8
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
H6: Trust moderates the impact of SMI`s credibility and E-WOM on the consumer attitudes of
Purchase Decision.
I share my experience with brands endorsed by this social media personality with my friends
on social media. * The product reviewed by Social Media Influencer is trustworthy.
Cross tabulation
Count
The product reviewed by SMI is trustworthy.
Total
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
I share my experience
with brands endorsed
by this social media
personality with my
friends on social
media.
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 1 2 3
Disagree 1 0 2 10 5 18
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
0 1 6 10 7 24
Agree 2 5 12 56 25 100
Strongly Agree 5 4 5 24 27 65
Total 8 10 25 101 66 210
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 18.958a
16 .271
Likelihood Ratio 19.909 16 .224
Linear-by-Linear Association .201 1 .654
N of Valid Cases 210
a. 15 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .11.
Since the p-value is less than our chosen significance level α = 0.05 that (X2
(1) = 18.958, p <
0.271), we can reject the null hypothesis, and conclude that there is an association between the

9. 9
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
customer who shared their experience with brands endorsed by the social media personality with
his/her friends on social media with their belief that the product reviewed by Social Media
Influencer was trustworthy. Based on the results, we can state the following: There was a
significant association between the customers who shared their experience with brands endorsed
by the social media personality and his/her friends on social media with their belief that the
product reviewed by Social Media Influencer was trustworthy.
H7: Trust moderates the impact of SMI power on the consumer attitudes of Purchase Decision
Social media influencers appear well-trained to me. * The product reviewed by SMI is
trustworthy.
Cross tabulation
Count
The product reviewed by SMI is trustworthy.
Total
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
Social media influencers
appear well-trained to
me.
Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 2 1 3
Disagree 0 0 0 5 2 7
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
0 1 6 13 7 27
Agree 3 6 12 53 27 101
Strongly Agree 5 3 7 27 29 71
Total 8 10 25 100 66 209

10. 10
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 14.132a
16 .589
Likelihood Ratio 16.232 16 .437
Linear-by-Linear Association .150 1 .699
N of Valid Cases 209
a. 17 cells (68.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .11.
Since the p-value is less than our chosen significance level α = 0.05 that (X2
(1) = 18.958, p <
0.271), we can reject the null hypothesis, and conclude that there is an association between the
consumers who believed that the Social media influencers appear well-trained and their belief
that the product reviewed by Social Media Influencer was trustworthy. Based on the results, we
can state the following: There was a significant association between the consumers who believed
that the Social media influencers appear well-trained and their belief that the product reviewed
by Social Media Influencer was trustworthy.

11. 11
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
Factor Analysis
Indicator
Measurable
Variables
Factor
Loading
Consumer Desire
CD1 0.812
CD2 0.761
CD3 0.651
Social media influencers
Credibility
SMIC1 0.423
SMIC2 0.388
SMIC3 0.756
SMIC4 0.549
SMIC5 0.423
SMIC6 0.669
SMIC7 0.328
SMIC8 0.651
SMIC9 0.489
SMIC10 0.311
Electronic Word of Mouth
E_WOM1 0.455
E_WOM2 0.678
E_WOM3 0.651
Social Media Influencers’
Power
SMIP1 0.672
SMIP2 0.705
SMIP3 0.568
SMIP4 0.799
Trust
TR1 0.401
TR2 0.566
TR3 0.73
Purchase Decision
PD1 0.694
PD2 0.668
PD3 0.829
Variables of exploratory factor analysis, descriptive statistics, and confirmatory factor analysis.
Finally, this statistical measurement was tested with a confidence interval (CI) and Percentile
99% CI through the software (Amos). To satisfy the discriminant validity criteria, the square root
of a construct’s AVE must be greater than the correlations between the component and the others
in the research (Fornell, 1981). The diagonal items in Table are the square root values of AVEs,

12. 12
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
while the other components are Pearson correlation coefficients between the variables. As a
result, the measurement’s discriminant validity is satisfactory.
The Direct and Indirect Effects
The mediated hypotheses propose that factors of renewable energy (social media exposure,
relative advantage, awareness, cost, and ease of use) indirectly impact purchase intention through
attitude. Estimated results illustrated that attitude (β = 0.271, p < .001) has a significant positive
impact on purchase intention, so it is proven that there exists a mediation between social media
and purchase intention through attitude. The empirical outcomes supported the above
assumption, indicating that attitude would affect purchase decision. Additionally, this study
demonstrated that attitude mediates the relations between social media influencer and purchase
decision, while attitude has no mediating effect between relative advantage, awareness, and cost
and purchase decision. Therefore, producers should focus on Social Media Influencer to enhance
their consumer attitude to raise their purchase intention to satisfy their consumer needs.

13. 13
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
4.1. Data normalcy
Tests of Normality
Aspiration to purchase
product advertised by
SMI.
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
I would buy the product
recommended by SMI
rather than any other
brands available.
Strongly Disagree .294 11 .009 .840 11 .032
Disagree .322 44 .000 .805 44 .000
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
.234 20 .005 .826 20 .002
Agree .305 65 .000 .810 65 .000
Strongly Agree .309 70 .000 .819 70 .000
I am willing to recommend
others to buy the
product/brand reviewed by
SMI.
Strongly Disagree .257 11 .041 .821 11 .018
Disagree .268 44 .000 .842 44 .000
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
.252 20 .002 .797 20 .001
Agree .348 65 .000 .757 65 .000
Strongly Agree .294 70 .000 .782 70 .000
I intend to purchase this
product/brand in the
future.
Strongly Disagree .280 11 .016 .826 11 .021
Disagree .341 44 .000 .773 44 .000
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
.380 20 .000 .693 20 .000
Agree .324 65 .000 .797 65 .000
Strongly Agree .350 70 .000 .667 70 .000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

14. 14
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision

15. 15
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision

16. 16
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision

17. 17
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision

18. 18
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision

19. 19
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
The plot for normality test on data shows that the independent and dependent variables are
normally distributed.

20. 20
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
4.2. Common method bias
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.240 20.366 20.366 2.240 20.366 20.366
2 1.372 12.470 32.836 1.372 12.470 32.836
3 1.148 10.435 43.271 1.148 10.435 43.271
4 1.051 9.553 52.824 1.051 9.553 52.824
5 .943 8.575 61.399
6 .933 8.478 69.877
7 .787 7.152 77.029
8 .730 6.636 83.665
9 .676 6.142 89.807
10 .594 5.398 95.205
11 .527 4.795 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
From the findings illustrated by the figure above all the percentage Variance are below 60%
implying that there is no Common Method Bias in the data.

21. 21
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
4.3. Validity and reliability analysis
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
.737 .745 26
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Aspiration to purchase
product advertised by
SMI.
99.95 74.036 .021 .101 .753
Willingness to buy the
tourist product
recommended by SMI.
99.50 70.751 .351 .278 .725
Desire to purchase
product recommended by
SMI.
99.51 70.972 .311 .238 .727
Social media influencers
appear expert to me.
99.50 70.722 .317 .306 .726
Social media influencers
appear intelligent to me.
99.49 72.674 .214 .236 .732
Social media influencers
appear well-trained to
me.
99.51 72.597 .193 .211 .734
Social media influencers
appear informed to me.
99.48 70.934 .355 .295 .725
Social media influencers
appear competent to me.
99.60 73.213 .156 .199 .736
Social media influencers
cares about me.
99.73 67.411 .441 .358 .716
Social media influencers
have my interest at heart.
99.89 70.391 .290 .195 .728

22. 22
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
Social media influencers
are self- centered.
99.67 70.020 .341 .286 .724
Social media influencers
concerned with me.
99.67 69.615 .347 .307 .724
Social media influencers
are understanding.
99.64 69.231 .383 .279 .721
I share posts from this
social media personality
with my friends on social
media.
99.71 69.131 .350 .230 .723
I share my experience
with brands endorsed by
this social media
personality with my
friends on social media.
99.63 70.245 .312 .276 .726
I am willing to spread
word of mouth about
brands endorsed by this
social media personality
on social media.
99.65 71.757 .223 .187 .732
I often read influencer
review to know product
impression by others.
99.61 72.075 .201 .178 .734
To make sure I buy the
right product, I often read
influencer review.
99.60 71.702 .239 .187 .731
I frequently gather
information from
influencer review to help
me choose the right
product.
99.56 71.891 .274 .242 .729
When I buy a product,
influencer review makes
me confident in
purchasing the product.
99.69 70.790 .270 .209 .729
The product reviewed by
SMI has integrity.
99.60 71.184 .277 .159 .729
The product reviewed by
SMI is reliable.
99.58 69.985 .385 .311 .722

23. 23
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
The product reviewed by
SMI is trustworthy.
99.62 71.832 .198 .212 .734
I would buy the product
recommended by SMI
rather than any other
brands available.
99.69 72.158 .185 .172 .735
I am willing to
recommend others to buy
the product/brand
reviewed by SMI.
99.54 71.596 .224 .275 .732
I intend to purchase this
product/brand in the
future.
99.56 72.247 .212 .184 .733
All the items meet the reliability test since they would all have a lower figure than the Cronbach's Alpha
Based on Standardized Items which is 0.745. This implies that all the items are significant in model.

24. 24
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
4.4. Moderation analysis
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
I intend to purchase this
product/brand in the future.
4.04 .866 210
Aspiration to purchase
product advertised by SMI.
3.66 1.277 210
Willingness to buy the
tourist product
recommended by SMI.
4.11 .802 210
Desire to purchase product
recommended by SMI.
4.10 .844 210
I am willing to spread word
of mouth about brands
endorsed by this social
media personality on social
media.
3.96 .927 210
The product reviewed by
SMI is trustworthy.
3.99 .985 210
Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 .091a
.008 -.016 .873 .008 .344 5 204 .886
a. Predictors: (Constant), The product reviewed by SMI is trustworthy., I am willing to spread word of mouth about brands
endorsed by this social media personality on social media., Aspiration to purchase product advertised by SMI., Willingness
to buy the tourist product recommended by SMI., Desire to purchase product recommended by SMI.

25. 25
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1.309 5 .262 .344 .886b
Residual 155.305 204 .761
Total 156.614 209
a. Dependent Variable: I intend to purchase this product/brand in the future.
b. Predictors: (Constant), The product reviewed by SMI is trustworthy., I am willing to spread word
of mouth about brands endorsed by this social media personality on social media., Aspiration to
purchase product advertised by SMI., Willingness to buy the tourist product recommended by
SMI., Desire to purchase product recommended by SMI.
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.626 .517 7.008 .000
Aspiration to purchase
product advertised by SMI.
.029 .047 .042 .607 .545
Willingness to buy the tourist
product recommended by
SMI.
.073 .078 .068 .943 .347
Desire to purchase product
recommended by SMI.
-.044 .075 -.043 -.586 .558
I am willing to spread word
of mouth about brands
endorsed by this social
media personality on social
media.
.021 .066 .023 .322 .748
The product reviewed by
SMI is trustworthy.
.026 .061 .030 .428 .669
a. Dependent Variable: I intend to purchase this product/brand in the future.

26. 26
Hypothesis Testing for Social Media Influence of Consumer Decision
4.6. Control variables
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.626 .517 7.008 .000
Aspiration to purchase
product advertised by SMI.
.029 .047 .042 .607 .545
Willingness to buy the tourist
product recommended by
SMI.
.073 .078 .068 .943 .347
Desire to purchase product
recommended by SMI.
-.044 .075 -.043 -.586 .558
I am willing to spread word
of mouth about brands
endorsed by this social
media personality on social
media.
.021 .066 .023 .322 .748
The product reviewed by
SMI is trustworthy.
.026 .061 .030 .428 .669
a. Dependent Variable: I intend to purchase this product/brand in the future.