This content requires Adobe Flash Player version
or later.
Either you do not have Adobe Flash Player installed,
or your version is too old,
or there is a problem with your Flash installation and we were unable to detect it.
TABLE 3: TEST FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS: MOBILE COMMERCE ACCEPTANCE DIMENSIONS AND GENDER (TAIWANESE VERSUS SOUTH AFRICAN SAMPLES)
Construc t
Sample
COHEN’S STATISTIC
d
Effect size
PI Taiwan
South Africa
PEOU Taiwan
South Africa
PE Taiwan
South Africa
SN Taiwan
South Africa
PU Taiwan
South Africa
PC Taiwan
South Africa
ATT Taiwan
South Africa
.022 .043
.199 .281
.576 .541
.091 .080
.201 .178
.443 .398
.399 .420
None ‘D’ MALE Mean SD FEMALE Mean SD TEST FOR DIFFERENCES F t
Sig (‘p’
value) 5.420 5.124 Small 5.028 4.092 Large 4.287 4.185 None 4.519 4.264 Small 5.654 5.106
Medium 4.951 4.795
Medium 5.887 5.421
1. * Significance at p<0.05; ** Significance at p<0.01.
2. Sub-scales were measured on a scale using Minimum value (1= strongly disagree) and Maximum Value (7=strongly agree) 3. Cohen’s D measure indicates practical significance (relationship with gender)
Independent t-tests were also computed in order to explore the possible existence of any gender- based differences in the two samples along the identified m-commerce dimensions. Furthermore, to make qualitative judgement in order to assess the size of the correlation coefficients, practical significance was computed using Cohen’s d-statistic with a view to establish effect sizes (small, medium and large). These results are highlighted on Table 3. The following guideline, as suggested by Cohen (1988), was used to measure effect sizes:
• d= .10 to .29 (small effect) • d= .30 to .49 (medium effect) • d= .50 and greater (large effect)
In terms of the perceived ease of using m-commerce platforms, statistically significant differences were observed among male and female consumers for the Taiwanese sample (F=0.385; t=2.778; p<0.05) as well as the South African sample (F=0.783; t=2.735; p<0.05). Female consumers seem to consider perceived ease of use of m-commerce technologies to be more important than their
.791 .655 .617 .600 .784 .767 .849 .734
.618 7
.514
.784 .654
.699 .840
5.2 55
4.0 26
5.0 67
5.7 51
5.5 55
5.3 86
5.4 23
5.7 34
4.9 58
4.5 68
.648 .544 .700 .661 .791 .508 .805 .539 .766 .487
5.997 .689 5.416
5.829 .784 .692 5.402 .752
6.528 7.958
1.102 .965
5.651 5.630
1.729 1.719
.041* .017*
.003** .000**
1.416 .778
2.009 2.265
.000** .004**
.798 1.866
.874 .750
1.382 1.954
2.549 2.893
.023* .000**
.091 .084
.666 .692
.385 .783
2.814 1.337
2.778 2.735
.109 .704
.046* .025*
THE LINKAGE BETWEEN M-COMMERCE ACCEPTANCE DIMENSIONS AND USAGE FREQUENCY: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE 1084