CHAPTER FOUR

ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the results of the analysis performed with the use of SPSS and Partial Least

Square (PLS) 3.2.8 path modeling. Besides, initial data screening and preliminary analysis are

discussed that includes missing value analysis and common method bias/variance test.

Subsequently, the results of the current study are presented in three different forms: the

descriptive statistics, results obtained from the measurement model, and the results of structural

model which represents the hypothesized structural paths. Lastly, the result of complementary

PLS-SEM analysis, meant to examine the moderating effects in the structural model, are also

elaborated.

4.2 Response Rate

A total of 535 sets of questionnaires were distributed to the users of online food delivery

applications in Karachi. Table 4.1 shows the response rate of the users within the city. The

questionnaires returned were 365, representing a valid response rate of 68.22%. The response

rate was relatively high because of the use of a self-administered questionnaire (Farouk, Abu

Elanain, Obeidat, & Al-Nahyan, 2016).

Before proceeding to PLS-SEM analyses, a preliminary examination of the collected data is

essential (Hair, 2007), to avoid any possible violation of the key underlying assumptions of the

application of multivariate techniques. This study proceeded with the first step of preliminary

screening by coding and entering the responses followed by SPSS.

Table 4.1 Responses
Response Frequency/Rate
Distributed Questionnaires 535
Returned Questionnaires 365
Not returned Questionnaires 170
Response Rate 68.2%

Because of the way the data were collected personally by the researcher, testing nonresponse

bias could not be carried out because all participants were given two weeks to fill in the

questionnaires after which the researcher personally collected them. In this manner, the

difference between those who responded earlier and later was a non-issue.

4.3 Demographic Analysis

Table 4.2 describes the profile of the participants the majority of the participants fell within the

age 25-30 years 30.4%, about 21.4% fell within the age of 31-40 years, 24.7% were less than 25

years, and 15.1% were between 41 and 50 years old and the remaining 8.5% were Above 50

years old. Male participants dominated the response rate (52.1%) as compared to 47.9% Female

counterparts. Concerning marital status, most participants were married. Moreover, the salaried

participants are 25.2% is in the range of 25,001 – 45,000, 31% lies within 45,001 – 60,000,

25.5% and 18.4% were 60,001 – 75,000 and above 75,000 respectively. The growth of E-

commerce is on rise, so the online purchases uses more often and the respondents measuring

30.7% uses 3 times, 27.1% uses 2 times,% and 24.4% and 17.8% use above 4 times and one time

respectively.

Table 4.2 Profile of Participants

Demographic Variables Category Frequency %age
Gender Male 190 52.1
 Female 175 47.9
Marital Status Single 174 47.7
Married 191 52.3
Age Group Below 25 90 24.7
25-30 111 30.4
31-40 78 21.4
41-50 55 15.1
Above 50 31 8.5
Salary 25,001 – 45,000 92 25.2
45,001 – 60,000 113 31
60,001 – 75,000 93 25.5
Above 75,000 67 18.4
Order Per Month 01 time 65 17.8
02 times 99 27.1
03 times 112 30.7
04 and Above 89 24.4

4.4 Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive analysis was run to obtain the descriptive scores where the maximum and minimum

scores, standard deviation, and the mean of all variables were assessed.

As mentioned earlier in chapter three, a five-point Likert scale was used that ranged from “1 =

strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree” Table 4.4 exhibits the mean scores of the variables

ranging from 2.205 to 3.695 and the standard deviation scores are ranging from 0.90381 to

1.10381 as shown in Table 4.4 below.

Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics

VARIABLE N MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN STD.
DEVIATION
OIBB 365 1.00 5.00 3.3872 1.10381
UTBI 365 1.00 5.00 3.1326 0.90381
CCU 365 1.00 5.00 3.0932 0.92290
MA 365 1.00 5.00 3.1333 0.99688
COD 365 1.00 5.00 3.2926 0.95554
EOU 365 1.00 5.00 3.3568 0.94230
USE 365 1.00 5.00 3.2973 0.96041
ENT 365 1.00 5.00 3.2694 1.05389
4.5 Assessment of PLS-SEM Path Model

Henseler and Sarstedt (2013) postulated that the goodness of fit index is not an appropriate tool

to validate a research model. Henseler and Sarstedt (2013)) also opposed the goodness of fit

index as an appropriate tool to validate a research model. Based on the recent progress about

PLS path modeling in model validation unsuitability, a two-step process was adopted in this

study as suggested by Henseler et al. (2009), Chin (1998), and Henseler et al. (2009) to evaluate

the PLS-SEM path (see Figure 4.1). The first step was to assess the measurement model for

reliability and validity of the constructs used in this study. In the second step, the structural

model was assessed for the hypothesized structural relationships. Confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) was performed to validate the measurement model (outer model) by examining the

relationship between items/indicators and their respective underlying constructs, using PLS-SEM

by using software known as Smart PLS 3.2.8 developed by Ringle, Wende, and Will (2005).

4.6 Measurement Model

According to Hair et al. (2011); Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2013), when determining the internal

consistency reliability, the individual item’s reliability content validity, discriminant validity, and

convergent validity must be ascertained. To ensure the validity and reliability of the model, the

study in hand following the recommendations of (Vinzi et al., 2010), who stressed that outer

loadings of the individual items and the average variance extracted value should be at least.

Hence, the items that had lower loading were deleted to improve the data quality (Hair et al.,

2011, 2013).

4.6.1 Convergent Validity

To determine the convergent validity, loading and cross-loadings of the variables were examined

first, as pre-requisite for assessing the outer model. In line with the criteria suggested by the

Joseph F Hair, Rolph E Anderson, Barry J Babin, and William C Black (2010b); Hair, Sarstedt,

Hopkins, and G. Kuppelwieser (2014), convergent validity is attained by meeting the criteria that

factor loading of each item is above 0.6 and no single loading of an item from other construct is

higher than the construct being measured. Table 4.4 shows that these items had loading between

0.704 and 0.885.

Internal consistency reliability is the extent to which all items on a particular subscale measure

the same concept (McCrae, Kurtz, Yamagata, & Terracciano, 2011). The acceptable value for

composite reliability defined in the literature (Hair et al., 2011) should not be lower than the

threshold value of 0.7, and the average variance extracted (AVE) acceptable value should be at

least 0.5. The table 4.5 shows that all the variables were highly reliable, and the AVE value of

each variable was above than the cutoff point of 0.50, which shows that the measurement model

was reliable for further analyses. The Cronbach’s alpha (α) was also calculated to validate the

internal consistency of the constructs. As per the rule of thumb given by George and Mallery

(2003), the value of greater than 0.9, 0.8 and 0.7 were classified as excellent, good and

acceptable respectively. Table 4.5 below shows the AVE, Cronbach’s alpha, and composite

reliability scores of all variables.

Table 4.4 Construct Reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability, and AVE of Latent
Variables
Construct Items Loading Cronbach’s CR AVE
Alpha
Usefulness 0.877 0.915 0.730
USE1 0.839
USE2 0.846
USE3 0.860
USE4 0.871
 Ease of Use 0.868 0.872 0.717
EOU1 0.804
EOU2 0.868
EOU3 0.857
EOU4 0.855
Money Availability 0.716 0.841 0.638
MA1 0.824
MA2 0.777
MA3 0.794

Cash on Delivery 0.813 0.870 0.573

COD1 0.727
COD2 0.739
COD3 0.773
COD4 0.790
COD5 0.754
Entertainment 0.833 0.900 0.749
ENT1 0.871
ENT2 0.858
ENT3 0.867
Urge to Buy 0.886 0.916 0.686
Impulsively
UTBI1 0.847
UTBI2 0.841
UTBI3 0.844
UTBI4 0.854
UTBI5 0.753
Use of Credit Card 0.883 0.915 0.685
UOCC1 0.791
UOCC2 0.885
UOCC3 0.875
UOCC4 0.870
UOCC5 0.704
Online Impulse Buying 0.833 0.900 0.750
Behavior
OIBB1 0.875
OIBB2 0.846
OIBB3 0.875

4.6.2 Discriminant Validity

According to Farrell and Rudd (2009), discriminant validity is the extent to which a particular

latent variable is different from other latent variables. In this study, discriminant validity was

predicted by the AVE values, the criteria proposed by (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminant

validity was obtained by evaluating the correlation between the latent variables along with the

square root of AVE (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommended the use

of AVE of 0.50 or greater to assess discriminant validity. They also recommended that the

square root of AVE should be above the value of the latent variables. To examine discriminant

validity, this study examined the model’s external consistency and compared the value of AVE

of all latent variables. The table 4.5 shows that the ‘square root’ of AVE was greater than the

correlation among the latent variables, indicating adequate discriminant validity (Fornell &

Larcker, 1981). After performing CFA, none of the variables were dropped even the deletion of

some items. However, Hair et al. (2013), argued that a variable with two items should not be

subject to removal.

Table 4.5 Discriminant Validity Matrix (Fornell-Larcker Criterion)

  COD ENT EOU MA OIBB_ UOCC USE UTBI
COD 0.757              
ENT 0.479 0.866            
EOU 0.581 0.608 0.847          
MA 0.187 0.261 0.310 0.799        
OIBB_ 0.628 0.648 0.685 0.338 0.866      
UOCC 0.498 0.548 0.675 0.483 0.689 0.828    
USE 0.458 0.479 0.533 0.232 0.594 0.508 0.854  
UTBI 0.581 0.619 0.627 0.354 0.737 0.679 0.574 0.828

Additionally, the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT), which is the estimation tool

to estimate the factors correlation, was used (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015; Pittino et al.,

2018). The HTMT is a newly developed method for the PLS-SEM to evaluate discriminant

validity. The HTMT criterion approach significantly outclasses the old approaches to determine
the discriminant validity for instance, the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion and also (partial)

cross-loadings, that are generally incompetent to notice the lack of discriminant validity. The

discrimination among the latent constructs and the HTMT values were less than one as shown in

Table 4.6. Therefore, following the HTMT criteria, all variables achieved discriminant validity.

In addition to HTMT ratios’ evaluation, the HTMT values were assessed via the PLS algorithm

procedure. The results obtained were significantly lower than 1, signifying that all the latent

constructs attained discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). The results suggested that

discriminant validity was established at HTMT 0.90, which means that the values for inter-

construct ratio were below 0.90 and that the confidence intervals did not contain the value of 1.0

(Henseler et al., 2015).

Table 4.6 Discriminant Validity Matrix, Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)

  COD ENT EOU MA OIBB_ UOCC USE UTBI
COD                
ENT 0.581              
EOU 0.690 0.714            
MA 0.243 0.339 0.395          
OIBB_ 0.762 0.777 0.803 0.437        
UOCC 0.582 0.638 0.764 0.609 0.798      
USE 0.540 0.558 0.608 0.292 0.694 0.576    
UTBI 0.679 0.716 0.709 0.441 0.853 0.769 0.646  
Figure 4.1 Results of Measurement Model (PLS-algorithm)

4.7 Structural Model

According to Hair et al. (2013), the paths with non-significant or signs of opposite direction to

the hypothesized relationships do not accept the hypotheses, while significant paths empirically

provide statistical evidence of causality of the relationships in the model. Before the mediating

effect was tested, bootstrapping with a resample of 500 was run to get the t-value to assess if

direct relationships exist.

This segment deals with the results obtained from the analysis of the structural model, once the

measurement model was established for reliability and validity. According to Hair, Black, Babin,

Anderson, and Tatham (2006), a structural model addresses the hypothesized structural

relationships in a research model. PLS - structural equation modeling estimates the inner model

for the direct hypothesized structural relationships among the constructs by exhibiting the t-

values of each structural path as coefficients. The path coefficients are same like beta values in

regression line analysis, where the value of the beta represents the coefficients of regressions and

t-values decide the significance level of the relationship path (Henseler et al., 2009). The t-value

of 1.645 for one-tailed and 1.967 or greater for 2-tailed are considered as significant (J. J. Hair et

al., 2014).

The basic purpose of the study under focus was to examine the direct relationships between the

dependent variable (Online Impulse Buying Behavior) and mediating variable (Urge to Buy

Impulsively), and secondly, to assess the hypothesized relationships among the constructs

through a structural model. A total of 07 direct relationships with Online Impulse Buying

Behavior (dependent variable) were tested in this study. Six (06) of the total hypothesis were

supported. Further, a total number of five (05) direct relationships with Urge to Buy Impulsively

(mediating variable) were tested in which all hypotheses supported (see Table 4.8 and Table 4.9).

Figure 4.3 displays the path coefficients, t-values, p-values along with the standard deviation

values. Based on these results, decision was made to support or reject a hypothesis. The t-values

were obtained from bootstrapped procedure (with 500 sampling iterations for 365 cases

observations). Hair et al. (2013) argued that bootstrapping serves as a proxy of parameters for

standard error. As Hair et al. (2013) explained, the paths that are non-significant or showing

signs the opposite direction to the hypothesized do not support prior hypotheses while significant
paths empirically support the proposed causal relationship. Before the mediating effect was

tested, bootstrapping with a resample of 500 was run to get the t-value to assess if the direct

relationships were significant. The detailed results are as follows:

4.7.1 Direct relationships in Structural Model

4.7.1.1 Direct relationships with Online Impulse Buying Behavior

Hypothesis 1: COD is positively related to OIBB

The result from the output of the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping showed a positive significant

association between Cash on Delivery and OIBB (β = 0.178, t = 4.151). Therefore, Hypothesis 1

supported.

Hypothesis 2: ENT is positively related to OIBB

The result from the output of the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping showed a positive significant

association between Entertainment and OIBB (β = 0.167, t = 3.579). Therefore, Hypothesis 2

supported.

Hypothesis 3: EOU is positively related to OIBB

The result from the output of the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping showed a positive significant

association between Ease of Use and OIBB (β = 0.131, t = 2.542). Therefore, Hypothesis 3

supported.

Hypothesis 4: MA is positively related to OIBB

The result from the output of the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping showed a positive significant

association between Money Availability and OIBB (β = 0.017, t = 0.440). Therefore, Hypothesis

4 was not supported.

Hypothesis 5: UOCC is positively related to OIBB

The result from the output of the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping showed a positive significant

association between Use of Credit Card and OIBB (β = 0.181, t = 2.973). Therefore, Hypothesis

5 supported.

Hypothesis 6: USE is positively related to OIBB

The result from the output of the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping showed a positive significant

association between Usefulness and OIBB (β = 0.125, t = 3.305). Therefore, Hypothesis 6

supported.

Hypothesis 7: UTBI is positively related to OIBB

The result from the output of the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping showed a positive significant

association between Usefulness and OIBB (β = 0.248, t = 4.412). Therefore, Hypothesis 7

supported.

Table 4.9 Results of Hypothesis Testing: Direct Relationship with OIBB

Hypothesis Relationship Beta SE t value P Values Decision
Hypothesis 1 COD -> OIBB 0.178 0.043 4.151 0.000 Supported
Hypothesis 2 ENT -> OIBB 0.167 0.047 3.579 0.000 Supported
Hypothesis 3 EOU -> OIBB 0.131 0.051 2.542 0.011 Supported
Hypothesis 4 MA -> OIBB 0.017 0.038 0.440 0.660 Not Supported
Hypothesis 5 UOCC -> OIBB 0.181 0.061 2.973 0.003 Supported
Hypothesis 6 USE -> OIBB 0.125 0.038 3.305 0.001 Supported
Hypothesis 7 UTBI -> OIBB 0.248 0.056 4.412 0.000 Supported
4.7.1.2 Direct relationships with Urge to Buy Impulsively

Hypothesis 8: Cash on Delivery is positively related to UTBI.

The result from the output of the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping showed a positive significant

association between Cash on Delivery and UTBI (β = 0.228, t = 3.800). Therefore, Hypothesis 8

supported.

Hypothesis 9: Entertainment is positively related to UTBI.

The result from the output of the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping showed a positive significant

association between Cash on Delivery and UTBI (β = 0.262, t = 4.641). Therefore, Hypothesis 9

supported.

Hypothesis 10: Ease of Use is positively related to UTBI.

The result from the output of the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping showed a positive significant

association between Ease of Use and UTBI (β = 0.177, t = 3.378). Therefore, Hypothesis 10

supported.

Hypothesis 11: Money Availability is positively related to UTBI.

The result from the output of the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping showed a positive significant

association between Ease of Use and UTBI (β = 0.138, t = 3.378). Therefore, Hypothesis 11

supported.
Hypothesis 12: Usefulness is positively related to UTBI.

The result from the output of the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping showed a positive significant

association between Ease of Use and UTBI (β = 0.218, t = 4.880). Therefore, Hypothesis 12

supported.

Table 4.10 Results of Hypothesis Testing: Direct Relationship with UTBI

Hypothesis Relationship Beta SE t value P Values Decision

Hypothesis 8 COD -> UTBI 0.228 0.060 3.800 0.000 Supported
Hypothesis 9 ENT -> UTBI 0.262 0.057 4.641 0.000 Supported
Hypothesis 10 EOU -> UTBI 0.177 0.052 3.378 0.001 Supported
Hypothesis 11 MA -> UTBI 0.138 0.039 3.502 0.001 Supported
Hypothesis 12 USE -> UTBI 0.218 0.045 4.880 0.000 Supported

Figure 4.2 Results of Structural Model (Bootstraping)

4.7.2 Mediation Effect Results (SIR)

As Hair et al. (2014) stated that a mediation test is done to know whatever a mediating variable

enhance the impact of an independent variable on a dependent variable. Several techniques can

be used for mediation test such as Baron and Kenny (Baron & Kenny, 1986), Sobel test (Sobel,

1982), and bootstrapping (Preacher & Hayes, 2004, 2008). The re-sampling mediation technique

(bootstrapping) was used in this study to test the indirect effect of each potential variable because

this is one of the most rigorous and powerful procedures for testing the mediation effect (Hayes,

2009; Zhao et al., 2010). According to Hair et al. (2014), bootstrapping for mediation analysis is

best suited for PLS-SEM because it can be applied to small sample size.
To perform bootstrapping, the path coefficients were determined first followed by the t-values to

assess the direct relationships between the independent variables and the dependent variable

before testing the mediation effect.

Once the direct relationships had been tested, the test of the mediation effect was performed.

According to (Hayes, 2009), there are several steps in assessing the relationship. First, a

researcher needs to fit a model through SEM to estimate the relationship between the predictor

and the mediator variables where path “a” is the relationship between the mediator and the

criterion variable and path “b” is the relationship of the three variables. Then, the t-values were

identified. Third, the standard errors (SE) of all indirect effects were determined. From the

structural model assessment of this study, it was found that three variables were significantly

related to Urge to Buy Impulsively and Online Impulse Buying Behavior (see Table 4.10). The

detailed results are as follows:

Table 4.10 Mediation Effect Results (Confidence Interval, t-Value, p-Value, and Standard
Deviation)
Hypothesis Relationship Beta SE t value P Values Decision
Hypothesis 13 COD -> UTBI -> OIBB_ 0.057 0.018 3.206 0.001 Supported
Hypothesis 14 ENT -> UTBI -> OIBB_ 0.065 0.021 3.076 0.002 Supported
Hypothesis 15 EOU -> UTBI -> OIBB_ 0.044 0.016 2.694 0.007 Supported
Hypothesis 16 MA -> UTBI -> OIBB_ 0.034 0.014 2.359 0.019 Supported
Hypothesis 17 USE -> UTBI -> OIBB_ 0.054 0.017 3.092 0.002 Supported
4.7.1.3 Structural Model with Moderator

Hypothesis 13: Customer Orientation Moderates the Relationship between.

As shown in Table 4.11, Use of Credit Card (moderating variable) showed a t-value of 4.75,

which was more than the cutoff value of 1.967, indicating that the result was statistically

significant. Thus, the result showed credible evidence of the moderating effect of customer

orientation on the relationship between UTBI and OIBB (β = 0.130, t = 4.751, p = 0.000). Hence,

hypothesis 13 was supported.

Table 4.11 Results of Hypothesis Testing: Moderating Effect of UOCC

Hypothesis Relationship Beta SE t value P Values Decision

Hypothesis 13 UOCC * UTBI -> OIBB 0.130 0.128 4.7551 0.000 Supported
4.8 R2 of the Constructs

Once the goodness of the path model had been established, the next step was to examine the

hypotheses. By running PLS-SEM (PLS algorithm and bootstrapping), structural model was

assessed (Chin, 2010). First, the predictive power of the structural model was evaluated by the

coefficient of determination (R2 values) of the endogenous construct (Chin, 2010; Henseler et al.,

2009) and the significance level of the path coefficients was determined (Henseler et al., 2014).

The R2 value is the representation of the proportionate variation that can be explained by one or

more predictor variables (Elliott & Woodward, 2007; Hair et al., 2010b). Falk and Miller (1992),

and Hair et al. (2010b) recommended a minimum acceptable threshold of an R2 value of 0.10.

Chin (1998) suggested the R2 values assessment criteria 0.19 as weak 0.33 as moderate and 0.67

as substantial respectively. Table 4.7 illustrates the R 2 of each endogenous latent variable where

R2 of the OIBB was 0.713 and R2 of UTBI was 0.579.

Table 4.12 R2 of Endogenous Latent Constructs

Construct R Square Result
Online Impulse Buying Behavior 0.713 Substantial
Urge to Buy Impulsively 0.579 Substantial

4.9 Predictive Relevance (Q2)

To evaluate the criterion of predictive accuracy, the Stone-Geisser’s Q 2 value was utilized

(Geisser, 1974) cited in (Henseler et al., 2014). The blindfolding procedure was performed to

obtain the value of Q2. Generally, there are two different approaches to calculate Q2. They are the

cross-validated redundancy and cross-validated communality. The cross-validated redundancy

approach develops the path model estimate of both the structural model (scores of the predictor

constructs) and the measurement model (the endogenous construct) of data prediction.

Alternatively, the cross-validated communality approach presents only the construct scores
estimated for the target endogenous construct (excluding the information about the structural

model) to anticipate the eliminated data points.

Table 4.13 Summary of the Predictive Relevance of the Endogenous Latent Constructs (Q2)
Constructs Q² Predictive Relevance
Online Impulse Buying Behavior 0.518  Yes
Urge to Buy Impulsively 0.391  Yes

4.10 Summary

This chapter reported the findings of the study. SPSS was used to describe the participants’

profile. However, PLS-SEM analysis was employed to test the reliability and validity of the

measures. The technique of bootstrapping in PLS-SEM analysis was used to test the research

hypotheses. In general, the result indicated that the measurement model was deemed acceptable

based on sufficient evidence of reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. After

the measurement model was assessed, and the structural model was tested. The following chapter

discusses the findings, accompanied by implications to practice, future research, and limitations

of the study.