Analysis of Homophily and WOM Credibility

The provided assignment involves analyzing the relationships between homophily (shared interests), authority (trustworthiness), review ability (credibility of reviews), and WOM (word-of-mouth) credibility scores against all four variables. The results show significant associations between these factors, indicating that individuals who share similar interests (homophily) with others are more likely to have higher WOM credibility scores and engage in online behavior such as buying frequency. This analysis provides insights into how social media influences online behavior and purchasing decisions.

BUSINESS RESEARCH
METHODS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1............................................................................................................................................1
1. Arguments for application of positivist paradigm..................................................................1
2. Discussing target population and negotiation to access proper sample and safeguards for
insuring reliability of data...........................................................................................................1
3. Indicating key concepts in study and stating proper research hypothesis...............................1
PART 2............................................................................................................................................3
OBJECTIVE 1.................................................................................................................................3
Producing descriptive statistics of consumers with their purchase intention..............................3
Testing proportion of customers who intended to buy once at the shop is greater than 50%.....4
Report findings with use of classical research style reporting....................................................4
OBJECTIVE 2.................................................................................................................................4
Checking the internal reliability for the factor WOM credibility ..............................................4
Creating factor score and descriptive statistics of WO...............................................................5
Test if the average of overall scores for WOM credibility is significantly different to the
benchmark of 12..........................................................................................................................8
Test if there is a significant difference in the average overall score of WOM credibility based
on gender.....................................................................................................................................9
Test if there is a significant difference in the average score for WOM credibility based on
buying frequency.......................................................................................................................11
OBJECTIVE 3...............................................................................................................................13
Hypothesis 1..............................................................................................................................13
Hypothesis 2: Homophily is associated with buying frequency...............................................20
OBJECTIVE 4...............................................................................................................................22
Relationship 1................................................................................................................................22
WOM credibility scores against all of homophily, authority and review ability overall scores
...................................................................................................................................................22
Dummy variable gender............................................................................................................23

PART 1
1. Arguments for application of positivist paradigm
In the above scenario, positivist paradigm is used as it is basis for thought and knowledge
dependent on scientific method as it is all about entrepreneurial innovations in business students.
Its objective is to assess relationship among intention and attitudes of entrepreneurship as it has
both positive and negative aspects. This is highly relied on quantitative data and trustworthy and
gives objective information used for making scientific assumptions. It had also followed well
defined structure along with set laws and rules followed. On the contrary, it believed on
objective inferences and conclusions reach with performed observation is objective and emotions
are disregarded. Apart from this, it leads to inflexible as per their belief every thing is calculated
and measurable but disregard unexplained phenomena.
2. Discussing target population and negotiation to access proper sample and safeguards for
insuring reliability of data
In this study, for analysing entrepreneurial intentions of University students as population
in which its sample comprises undergraduates students who had registered themselves for
business courses. They might be replicated as potential entrepreneurs with approach of career
decision point where they may either create employment or seek self employment. In the
particular case, actualization of entrepreneurship should await with simultaneous occurrence of
motivation, opportunity and mean. Thus, interest is solely with context to intention for behaving
entrepreneurially at later point in duration. It is replicated as fundamental aspect of storage
security and reliability as maintenance and assure accuracy and consistency of data in whole life
cycle.
3. Indicating key concepts in study and stating proper research hypothesis
The key concepts of the study are desirability, feasibility and propensity to act as
desirability is operationalised by extracting attractiveness to find idea of starting own venture. In
simple words, it is degree of personal attraction for creating company as it equally interest for
issue of resilience due to perfectly stating ability for re-conquer self esteem. The feasibility is
degree of belief of individual which are capable and resourceful for creating company. This has
been emphasized with perceived availability of financial support and availability of supports like
advice, education and consultation to make act of creation of venture feasible to potential
entrepreneur. It reflects about level of confidence related to skills and capabilities for initiating
1

the business. Furthermore, propensity to act as personal disposition for act as per owns decisions
and depends on different perceptions of control of consequences related to behaviour over
context and environment.
Hypothesis
H1: There is significant relationship in gender of student and perception of desirability of
initiating new venture.
H2: There is significant relationship in gender of student and perception of feasibility of
initiating new venture.
H3: There is significant relationship in gender of student and serious intention of creating new
venture.
Questionnaire
Name:
Gender:
 Male
 Female
 Others
Age
1. Do you have desire for creating new firm?
 Yes
 No
2. According to you, is it easier or difficult to create new firm at current state in past decades?
 Easier
 More difficult
 Neither easy nor difficult
3. Did you have any serious thought to create new business?
 No, Never
 No, I have plan for joining family business
 Yes, seriously
 Yes, vaguely
 Yes, with intention to create own firm
4. Which attribute reflects image of entrepreneur?
2

 Dynamic persons
 Good organizational skills
 Good financial and management skills
 Innovative
 Professionally well prepared
PART 2
OBJECTIVE 1
Producing descriptive statistics of consumers with their purchase intention
Descriptive Statistics
N Ran
ge
Mini
mum
Maxi
mum
Mean Std.
Deviati
on
Vari
ance
Skewness Kurtosis
Stati
stic
Stati
stic
Statis
tic
Statis
tic
Stati
stic
Std.
Error
Statistic Stati
stic
Stati
stic
Std.
Error
Stati
stic
Std.
Error
Gender of the
customer 153 2 1 3 1.67 .044 .548 .300 .004 .196 -.69
9 .390
Age of the
customer 153 2 1 3 1.97 .066 .811 .657 .048 .196
-
1.47
6
.390
Occupation
of the
customer
153 2 1 3 2.03 .067 .827 .684 -.04
9 .196
-
1.53
7
.390
Marital status
of the
customer
153 2 1 3 1.93 .066 .812 .659 .133 .196
-
1.47
0
.390
Buying
frequency
per year
153 2 1 3 2.04 .067 .834 .696 -.07
4 .196
-
1.56
1
.390
Purchase
intention 153 1 1 2 1.60 .040 .491 .241 -.41
8 .196
-
1.85
0
.390
Valid N
(listwise) 153
3

Testing proportion of customers who intended to buy once at the shop is greater than 50%.
Null hypothesis: H0- The proportion of customers intended to purchase at shop is not greater
than 50%.
Alternative hypothesis: H1- The proportion of customers intended to purchase at shop is greater
than 50%.
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Purchase intention 153 1.60 .491 .040
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0.5
t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Purchase
intention 27.731 152 .000 1.101 1.02 1.18
Report findings with use of classical research style reporting
Its significance value is less than 0.05 as 0.001 so alternative hypothesis is true, so it
could be stated that proportion of customers intended to purchase at shop is greater than 50%.
OBJECTIVE 2
Checking the internal reliability for the factor WOM credibility
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items
N of Items
.864 .864 4
The reliability for factor WOM credibility 0.864 which shows high level of internal
consistency for this scale with the above table.
Creating factor score and descriptive statistics of WO
4

Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative %
1 2.842 71.060 71.060 2.842 71.060 71.060
2 .455 11.378 82.438
3 .375 9.365 91.802
4 .328 8.198 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Eigenvalue with at least 1 is selected as 1st component and rest all are below 1 as with
low quality scores. This component is replicates as scree as replicated in below chart.
5

Component Matrixa
Component
1
Online shoes reviews are generally made by experienced
customers [W4] .857
I identify strongly with shoes bloggers and virtual
communities[W1] .853
Online shoes reviews on social media are generally made by
credible consumers [W3] .835
Online shoes reviews on social media are reliable [W2] .827
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.
Descriptive statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic
I identify
strongly with
shoes
bloggers and
virtual
communities
[W1] 153 1 5 3.11 0.109 1.35
Online shoes
reviews on
social media
are reliable
[W2] 153 1 5 3.11 0.1 1.233
Online shoes
reviews on
153 1 5 3.12 0.101 1.253
6

social media
are generally
made by
credible
consumers
[W3]
Online shoes
reviews are
generally
made by
experienced
customers
[W4] 153 1 5 3.25 0.101 1.248
Valid N
(listwise) 153
The online shoes reviews generally made through experienced customers are best as W4
and and W1 and W2 are at similar level in worst category.
Test if the average of overall scores for WOM credibility is significantly different to the
benchmark of 12.
Null hypothesis: H0- There is no significant difference in average of overall scores for WOM
credibility with 12 benchmark.
Alternative hypothesis: H1- There is significant difference in average of overall scores for
WOM credibility with 12 benchmark.
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
I identify strongly with shoes
bloggers and virtual
communities[W1]
153 3.11 1.350 .109
Online shoes reviews on
social media are reliable
[W2]
153 3.11 1.233 .100
7

Online shoes reviews on
social media are generally
made by credible consumers
[W3]
153 3.12 1.253 .101
Online shoes reviews are
generally made by
experienced customers [W4]
153 3.25 1.248 .101
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 12
t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
I identify strongly
with shoes
bloggers and
virtual
communities[W1]
-
81.431 152 .000 -8.889 -9.10 -8.67
Online shoes
reviews on social
media are reliable
[W2]
-
89.167 152 .000 -8.889 -9.09 -8.69
Online shoes
reviews on social
media are
generally made by
credible
consumers [W3]
-
87.620 152 .000 -8.876 -9.08 -8.68
Online shoes
reviews are
generally made by
experienced
customers [W4]
-
86.773 152 .000 -8.752 -8.95 -8.55
In the above scenario, significance value is less than 0.05 so alternative hypothesis is
accepted so, it could be elaborated about significant difference in average of overall scores for
WOM credibility with 12 benchmark.
8

Test if there is a significant difference in the average overall score of WOM credibility based on
gender
Null hypothesis: H0- There is no significant difference in the average overall score of WOM
credibility based on gender.
Alternative hypothesis: H1- There is significant difference in the average overall score of WOM
credibility based on gender.
Gender of the customer * I identify strongly with shoes bloggers and virtual
communities[W1]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 27.729a 8 .001
Likelihood Ratio 29.431 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 9.796 1 .002
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 5 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .90.
The significance value is 0.001 which is less than 0.05 so null hypothesis is rejected as it
could be elaborated that significant difference in the average overall score of WOM credibility
(W1) based on gender.
Gender of the customer * Online shoes reviews on social media are reliable [W2]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 25.147a 8 .001
Likelihood Ratio 27.997 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 13.448 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 5 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .63.
The significance value is 0.001 which is less than 0.05 so null hypothesis is not true as it
could be elaborated that significant difference in the average overall score of WOM credibility
(W2) based on gender.
9

Gender of the customer * Online shoes reviews on social media are generally made by
credible consumers [W3]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 23.983a 8 .002
Likelihood Ratio 24.804 8 .002
Linear-by-Linear Association 14.472 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 5 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .78.
The significance value is 0.002 which is less than 0.05 so null hypothesis is rejected as it
could be elaborated that significant difference in the average overall score of WOM credibility
(W3) based on gender.
Gender of the customer * Online shoes reviews are generally made by experienced
customers [W4]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 17.305a 8 .027
Likelihood Ratio 17.653 8 .024
Linear-by-Linear Association 11.365 1 .001
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 5 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .67.
The significance value is 0.027 which is less than 0.05 so null hypothesis is rejected as it
could be elaborated that significant difference in the average overall score of WOM credibility
(W4) based on gender.
Test if there is a significant difference in the average score for WOM credibility based on buying
frequency.
Null hypothesis: H0- There is no significant difference in the average score for WOM credibility
based on buying frequency.
Alternative hypothesis: H1- There is significant difference in the average score for WOM
credibility based on buying frequency.
10

Buying frequency per year * I identify strongly with shoes bloggers and virtual
communities[W1]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 125.749a 8 .000
Likelihood Ratio 141.007 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 81.467 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.07.
In the above scenario, its decision is with context of significance value which is less than
0.05 so null hypothesis is not accepted. It could be elaborated that presence of significant
difference in the average score for WOM credibility (W1) based on buying frequency.
Buying frequency per year * Online shoes reviews on social media are reliable [W2]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 104.416a 8 .000
Likelihood Ratio 115.556 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 82.716 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 1 cells (6.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.92.
Its significance value is less than 0.05, so null hypothesis is rejected as it could be
elaborated that about significant difference in the average score for WOM credibility (W2)
based on buying frequency.
Buying frequency per year * Online shoes reviews on social media are generally made by
credible consumers [W3]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 112.985a 8 .000
11

Likelihood Ratio 121.181 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 75.887 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.14.
Its significance value is less than 0.05, so null hypothesis is rejected as it could be
elaborated that about significant difference in the average score for WOM credibility (W3)
based on buying frequency.
Buying frequency per year * Online shoes reviews are generally made by experienced
customers [W4]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 88.679a 8 .000
Likelihood Ratio 96.799 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 70.219 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.22.
Its significance value is less than 0.05, so null hypothesis is rejected as it could be
elaborated that about significant difference in the average score for WOM credibility (W4)
based on buying frequency.
OBJECTIVE 3
Hypothesis 1
Null Hypothesis: H0- There is no significant association in homophily with every demographic
variable.
Alternative Hypothesis: H1- There is significant association in homophily with every
demographic variable.
Gender of the customer * I feel I belong when browsing through shoe virtual
communities/blogs [H1]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.230a 8 .249
12

Likelihood Ratio 11.126 8 .195
Linear-by-Linear Association 4.820 1 .028
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 5 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .55.
In the above scenario, the significance value is more than 0.05 so, null hypothesis is
accepted which could be elaborated about no significant association in homophily (H1) with
every gender.
Gender of the customer * Virtual shoes communities represent people with similar interest
to me [H2]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.298a 8 .614
Likelihood Ratio 6.736 8 .565
Linear-by-Linear Association .752 1 .386
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 5 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .67.
In the above scenario, the significance value is more than 0.05 so, null hypothesis is
accepted which could be elaborated about no significant association in homophily (H2) with
every gender.
Gender of the customer * Online shoes review sites on social media is representative [H3]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 23.701a 8 .003
Likelihood Ratio 27.428 8 .001
Linear-by-Linear Association 5.721 1 .017
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 5 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .63.
13

In the above scenario, the significance value is less than 0.05 so, null hypothesis is
rejected which could be elaborated about significant association in homophily (H3) with every
gender.
Gender of the customer * I prefer to communicate on social media with people with the
same ideas [H4]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 22.438a 8 .004
Likelihood Ratio 23.738 8 .003
Linear-by-Linear Association 7.653 1 .006
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 5 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .75.
In the above scenario, the significance value is less than 0.05 so, alternative hypothesis is
accepted which could be elaborated about significant association in homophily (H4) with every
gender.
Age of the customer * I feel I belong when browsing through shoe virtual
communities/blogs [H1]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.953a 8 .763
Likelihood Ratio 5.039 8 .753
Linear-by-Linear Association .838 1 .360
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 3 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.39.
The table shows association as the significance value is more than 0.05 so, null
hypothesis is accepted which could be elaborated about no significant association in homophily
(H1) with age of customer.
14

Age of the customer * Virtual shoes communities represent people with similar interest to
me [H2]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.860a 8 .552
Likelihood Ratio 6.995 8 .537
Linear-by-Linear Association .233 1 .629
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.33.
The table shows association as the significance value is more than 0.05 so, null
hypothesis is accepted which could be elaborated about no significant association in homophily
(H2) with age of customer.
Age of the customer * Online shoes review sites on social media is representative [H3]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.010a 8 .757
Likelihood Ratio 4.819 8 .777
Linear-by-Linear Association .644 1 .422
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.02.
The table elaborates association as the significance value is more than 0.05 so, null
hypothesis is accepted which could be elaborated about no significant association in homophily
(H3) with age of customer.
Age of the customer * I prefer to communicate on social media with people with the same
ideas [H4]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.978a 8 .760
Likelihood Ratio 5.228 8 .733
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.675 1 .196
N of Valid Cases 153
15

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.96.
The table shows association as the significance value is more than 0.05 as 0.760 so, null
hypothesis is accepted which could be elaborated about no significant association in homophily
(H4) with age of customer.
Occupation of the customer * I feel I belong when browsing through shoe virtual
communities/blogs [H1]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.480a 8 .963
Likelihood Ratio 2.508 8 .961
Linear-by-Linear Association .001 1 .971
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 3 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.48.
The table shows association as the significance value is more than 0.05 as 0.963 so, null
hypothesis is accepted which could be elaborated about no significant association in homophily
(H1) with occupation of the customer.
Occupation of the customer * Virtual shoes communities represent people with similar
interest to me [H2]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.240a 8 .835
Likelihood Ratio 4.132 8 .845
Linear-by-Linear Association .041 1 .840
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.44.
16

The table is stating association as the significance value is more than 0.05 as 0.963 so,
null hypothesis is accepted which could be elaborated about no significant association in
homophily (H2) with occupation of the customer.
Occupation of the customer * Online shoes review sites on social media is representative
[H3]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.307a 8 .613
Likelihood Ratio 6.407 8 .602
Linear-by-Linear Association .112 1 .738
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.12.
The table shows association as the significance value is more than 0.05 as 0.613 so, null
hypothesis is accepted which could be elaborated about no significant association in homophily
(H3) with occupation of the customer.
Occupation of the customer * I prefer to communicate on social media with people with the
same ideas [H4]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 8.266a 8 .408
Likelihood Ratio 8.669 8 .371
Linear-by-Linear Association .109 1 .741
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.08.
The table shows association as the significance value is more than 0.05 as 0.408 so, null
hypothesis is accepted which could be elaborated about no significant association in homophily
(H4) with occupation of the customer.
Marital status of the customer * I feel I belong when browsing through shoe virtual
communities/blogs [H1]
Chi-Square Tests
17

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 9.499a 8 .302
Likelihood Ratio 9.517 8 .301
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.057 1 .304
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 2 cells (13.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.12.
The above scenario is depicting association as the significance value is more than 0.05 as
0.302 so, null hypothesis is accepted which could be elaborated about no significant association
in homophily (H1) with marital status of the customer.
Marital status of the customer * Virtual shoes communities represent people with similar
interest to me [H2]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.106a 8 .525
Likelihood Ratio 7.152 8 .520
Linear-by-Linear Association .001 1 .975
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.00.
The above scenario is showing association as the significance value is more than 0.05 as
0.525 so, null hypothesis is accepted which could be elaborated about no significant association
in homophily (H2) with marital status of the customer.
Marital status of the customer * Online shoes review sites on social media is representative
[H3]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 8.618a 8 .376
Likelihood Ratio 8.657 8 .372
Linear-by-Linear Association 4.313 1 .038
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 1 cells (6.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.71.
18

The above scenario is showing association as the significance value is more than 0.05 as
0.376 so, null hypothesis is accepted which could be elaborated about no significant association
in homophily (H3) with marital status of the customer.
Marital status of the customer * I prefer to communicate on social media with people with
the same ideas [H4]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.914a 8 .657
Likelihood Ratio 6.155 8 .630
Linear-by-Linear Association .408 1 .523
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.59.
The above scenario is showing association as the significance value is more than 0.05 as
0.657 so, null hypothesis is accepted which could be elaborated about no significant association
in homophily (H4) with marital status of the customer.
Hypothesis 2: Homophily is associated with buying frequency.
Null Hypothesis: H0- There is no significant association in homophily with buying frequency.
Alternative Hypothesis: H1- There is significant association in homophily with buying
frequency.
Buying frequency per year * I feel I belong when browsing through shoe virtual
communities/blogs [H1]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 57.039a 8 .000
Likelihood Ratio 58.574 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 44.213 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 2 cells (13.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.30.
19

The above table is showing association as the significance value is 0.001 as less than 0.05
so, null hypothesis is rejected which could be elaborated about significant association in
homophily (H1) with buying frequency.
Buying frequency per year * Virtual shoes communities represent people with similar
interest to me [H2]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 59.771a 8 .000
Likelihood Ratio 63.267 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 47.830 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.22.
The above table is showing association as the significance value is 0.001 as less than 0.05
so, null hypothesis is rejected which could be elaborated about significant association in
homophily (H2) with buying frequency.
Buying frequency per year * Online shoes review sites on social media is representative
[H3]
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 57.260a 8 .000
Likelihood Ratio 60.231 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 44.411 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 1 cells (6.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.92.
The above table is showing association as the significance value is 0.001 as less than 0.05
so, null hypothesis is rejected which could be elaborated about significant association in
homophily (H3) with buying frequency.
Buying frequency per year * I prefer to communicate on social media with people with the
same ideas [H4]
Chi-Square Tests
20

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 56.479a 8 .000
Likelihood Ratio 59.865 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 45.617 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 153
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.84.
The above table is showing association as the significance value is 0.001 as less than 0.05
so, null hypothesis is rejected which could be elaborated about significant association in
homophily (H4) with buying frequency.
OBJECTIVE 4
Relationship 1
WOM credibility scores against all of homophily, authority and review ability overall scores
Null hypothesis: H0- There is no significant relationship in WOM credibility scores against all of
homophily, authority and review ability overall scores.
Alternative hypothesis: H1- There is significant relationship in WOM credibility scores against
all of homophily, authority and review ability overall scores.
Correlations
W1 W2 W3 W4 H1 H2 H3 H4 A1 A2 A3 A4 R1 R2 R3 R4
W1
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tion
1 .58
1**
.64
5**
.64
4**
.54
6**
.60
6**
.54
4**
.59
8**
.47
9**
.44
9**
.48
1**
.34
4**
.33
5**
.55
7**
.62
6**
.37
0**
Sig.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
21

W2
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tion
.58
1** 1 .57
4**
.64
1**
.53
9**
.48
8**
.50
9**
.57
6**
.49
4**
.47
9**
.54
5**
.41
9**
.45
2**
.51
7**
.51
4**
.26
1**
Sig.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
1
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
W3
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tion
.64
5**
.57
4** 1 .59
9**
.57
5**
.57
1**
.55
6**
.60
1**
.48
5**
.51
7**
.57
0**
.37
2**
.39
2**
.57
2**
.52
1**
.23
3**
Sig.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
4
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
W4
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tion
.64
4**
.64
1**
.59
9** 1 .61
9**
.53
0**
.50
9**
.50
8**
.51
0**
.49
7**
.61
3**
.51
1**
.43
5**
.57
7**
.54
5**
.30
6**
Sig.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
WOM credibility's significance value is less than 0.05, so null hypothesis is rejected as
there is significant relationship WOM credibility score with homophily, authority and review
ability.
22

Dummy variable gender
Correlations
W1 W2 W3 W4 H1 H2 H3 H4 A1 A2 A3 A4 R1 R2 R3 R4 G
e
n
d
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
23

W1
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
1 .58
1**
.64
5**
.64
4**
.54
6**
.60
6**
.54
4**
.59
8**
.47
9**
.44
9**
.48
1**
.34
4**
.33
5**
.55
7**
.62
6**
.37
0**
.25
4**
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
2
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
W2
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.58
1** 1 .57
4**
.64
1**
.53
9**
.48
8**
.50
9**
.57
6**
.49
4**
.47
9**
.54
5**
.41
9**
.45
2**
.51
7**
.51
4**
.26
1**
.29
7**
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
1
.00
0
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
W3
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.64
5**
.57
4** 1 .59
9**
.57
5**
.57
1**
.55
6**
.60
1**
.48
5**
.51
7**
.57
0**
.37
2**
.39
2**
.57
2**
.52
1**
.23
3**
.30
9**
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
4
.00
0
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
24

W4
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.64
4**
.64
1**
.59
9** 1 .61
9**
.53
0**
.50
9**
.50
8**
.51
0**
.49
7**
.61
3**
.51
1**
.43
5**
.57
7**
.54
5**
.30
6**
.27
3**
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
1
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.54
6**
.53
9**
.57
5**
.61
9** 1 .49
0**
.49
7**
.44
2**
.45
8**
.37
0**
.47
6**
.35
6**
.30
6**
.44
3**
.50
1**
.25
6**
.17
8*
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
1
.02
8
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.60
6**
.48
8**
.57
1**
.53
0**
.49
0** 1 .51
1**
.37
2**
.34
4**
.37
1**
.47
0**
.24
9**
.37
2**
.39
5**
.38
6**
.32
8**
.07
0
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
2
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.38
8
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
25

Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.54
4**
.50
9**
.55
6**
.50
9**
.49
7**
.51
1** 1 .38
9**
.40
6**
.28
0**
.34
9**
.22
8**
.32
1**
.36
2**
.37
8**
.18
5*
.19
4*
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
5
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.02
2
.01
6
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.59
8**
.57
6**
.60
1**
.50
8**
.44
2**
.37
2**
.38
9** 1 .38
1**
.38
8**
.41
3**
.35
8**
.34
9**
.55
8**
.46
1**
.23
8**
.22
4**
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
3
.00
5
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.47
9**
.49
4**
.48
5**
.51
0**
.45
8**
.34
4**
.40
6**
.38
1** 1 .60
0**
.61
3**
.47
2**
.24
2**
.39
1**
.40
0**
.18
0*
.19
7*
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
3
.00
0
.00
0
.02
6
.01
5
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
26

Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.44
9**
.47
9**
.51
7**
.49
7**
.37
0**
.37
1**
.28
0**
.38
8**
.60
0** 1 .59
0**
.45
5**
.30
6**
.45
4**
.36
7**
.23
7**
.10
5
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
3
.19
6
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
W1
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.48
1**
.54
5**
.57
0**
.61
3**
.47
6**
.47
0**
.34
9**
.41
3**
.61
3**
.59
0** 1 .55
7**
.42
5**
.43
8**
.37
3**
.22
1**
.17
7*
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
6
.02
9
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
W2
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.34
4**
.41
9**
.37
2**
.51
1**
.35
6**
.24
9**
.22
8**
.35
8**
.47
2**
.45
5**
.55
7** 1 .25
6**
.31
1**
.36
7**
.17
0*
.11
1
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
2
.00
5
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
1
.00
0
.00
0
.03
6
.17
4
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
27

W3
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.33
5**
.45
2**
.39
2**
.43
5**
.30
6**
.37
2**
.32
1**
.34
9**
.24
2**
.30
6**
.42
5**
.25
6** 1 .39
4**
.27
9**
.32
8**
.09
4
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
3
.00
0
.00
0
.00
1
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.24
7
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
W4
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.55
7**
.51
7**
.57
2**
.57
7**
.44
3**
.39
5**
.36
2**
.55
8**
.39
1**
.45
4**
.43
8**
.31
1**
.39
4** 1 .54
8**
.46
8**
.20
2*
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.01
2
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.62
6**
.51
4**
.52
1**
.54
5**
.50
1**
.38
6**
.37
8**
.46
1**
.40
0**
.36
7**
.37
3**
.36
7**
.27
9**
.54
8** 1 .33
7**
.17
0*
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.03
5
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
28

Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.37
0**
.26
1**
.23
3**
.30
6**
.25
6**
.32
8**
.18
5*
.23
8**
.18
0*
.23
7**
.22
1**
.17
0*
.32
8**
.46
8**
.33
7** 1 -.0
46
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
0
.00
1
.00
4
.00
0
.00
1
.00
0
.02
2
.00
3
.02
6
.00
3
.00
6
.03
6
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.57
6
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
Gen
der
of
the
cust
ome
r
Pea
rso
n
Cor
rela
tio
n
.25
4**
.29
7**
.30
9**
.27
3**
.17
8*
.07
0
.19
4*
.22
4**
.19
7*
.10
5
.17
7*
.11
1
.09
4
.20
2*
.17
0*
-.0
46 1
Sig
.
(2-
tail
ed)
.00
2
.00
0
.00
0
.00
1
.02
8
.38
8
.01
6
.00
5
.01
5
.19
6
.02
9
.17
4
.24
7
.01
2
.03
5
.57
6
N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
29