Data Analysis (SPSS)

T-test

Group Statistics

GENDER N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

MALE 49 3.8571 .69402 .09915

Consumer Purchase
Intention FEMALE 101 3.7485 .80382 .07998

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence

(2- Difference Difference Interval of the
tailed) Difference

Lower Upper

Equal
variances 1.463 .228 .810 148 .419 .10863 .13404 -.15625 .37351
Consumer Purchase assumed
Intention Equal
variances not .853 108.706 .396 .10863 .12739 -.14385 .36111
assumed

Table 1.0

In the table 1.0, analysis independent sample T-test from the table we can conclude the
˳:
hypothesis whereby H μ1= μ2, H 1: μ1 ≠ μ2 where 1= Male and 2= Female. Based on
levene’s test shown p-value is 0.228. If we compare p-value with significance level 0.05, p-
value (0.228) > 0.05 therefore we need to use the equal variances assumed. After that, we
need to check the equality of means results. If the p-value less than significance level then we
˳
need to reject null hypothesis (H ). Based on analysis, p-value (0.419) > α = 0.05 then we do
˳
not to reject H . The conclusion that we can make from this analysis is at 0.05 significance
level, there is no difference in consumer purchase intention across the male and female
[t (148) = 0.810].
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) - One way

ANOVA (Occupation)

Consumer Purchase Intention

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 1.139 3 .380 .637 .592

Within Groups 86.982 146 .596

Total 88.122 149

Table 1.1

From table 1.1, we can identify the appropriate null and alternative hypothesis which is H ˳:
μ1= μ2= μ3= μ4 , H 1: Not all μare equal when 1 = occupation 1, 2 = occupation 2, 3= occupation

3, 4 = occupation 4. Based on analysis, we do not reject the null hypothesis (H ). It is ˳

because the value of p-value is more than significance level (0.05) whereby p-value (0.592) >
α (0.05). At the 0.05 significance level, there is no significance difference in consumer
purchase intention among the four occupation. [F (3,146) = 0.637].

Multiple Regression.

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Square Estimate

1 .737a .543 .537 .48762

a. Predictors: (Constant), Consumer Purchase Intention, Social

Network Marketing

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 41.565 2 20.782 87.404 .000b

1 Residual 34.953 147 .238

Total 76.518 149

a. Dependent Variable: Consumer Engagement

b. Predictors: (Constant), Consumer Purchase Intention, Social Network Marketing
 Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) .311 .256 1.212 .227

Social Network Marketing .483 .076 .436 6.364 .000

1
Consumer Purchase
.366 .064 .392 5.728 .000
Intention

a. Dependent Variable: Consumer Engagement

Table Anova presents the results of the hypotheses testing which is H˳: β 1=β 2=β 3 = 0
whereby there is no any linear relationship between independent variable (IV) and dependent
variable (DV). H 1: at least one β i ≠ 0 which means at least one independent variable
significantly affects dependent variable. For these data, the R2 value indicates the model
provides a good fit to the data. R2= 0.543 shows that 54% of the variation in consumer
engagement is explained by variation in consumer purchase intention, and social network
marketing. In anova table, p-value (0.001) < α(0.05) therefore reject the null hypothesis (H˳).
It indicates that at least one of the independent variable will significantly effect on consumer
engagement [F (2,147) = 87.404] at the significance level of 0.05. In coefficients table, p-
value less than α(0.05), indicates that consumer purchase intention and social network
marketing significantly predict consumers engagement. A standardized β for social network
marketing (β= 0.436) and consumer purchase intention (β= 0.392) implied a positive
relationship and significance on consumer engagement. If we compared between two
independent variable, social network marketing (β= 0.436) is the strongest predictor. Besides,
the equation to shows their related is

Y= 0.543+ 0.483 (Social network marketing) + 0.366 (Consumer purchase intention)