Analysis &

Interpretation
 Table 8 Demographic Profile of Respondents

Variable Category No. of Respondents Percentage

Gender Male 399 56.1%
Female 312 43.9%
  Total 711 100%
Age 16-20 Years 144 20.3%
21-25 Years 209 29.4%
26-30 Years 141 19.8%
31-35 Years 98 13.8%
36-40 Years 63 8.9%
More than 40 Years 56 7.9%
  Total 711 100%
Income (Monthly) Upto 10k 259 36.4%
11-25k 269 37.8%
26-50k 176 24.8%
51k-1 Lakh 7 1.0%
  Total 711 100%
Occupation Business/Self Employed 105 14.8%
Service/Job 228 32.1%
Student/Unemployed 280 39.4%
Non-Working/Retired/Housewife 98 13.8%
  Total 711 100%
 Gender and time spent behaviour in shopping mall

Variable   Gender      
    Male Female Total Chi Asymp.sig
value .

Time Spent Less than 1 hrs. 41 26 67 32.693 .000

  9.2% 6.1% 7.7%
1 hrs. - 3hrs. 170 96 266
  38.3% 22.6% 30.6%
3hrs.- 5hrs. 133 174 307
  30% 40.9% 35.3%
More than 5hrs. 100 129 229
  22.5% 30.4% 26.4%
  Total 444 425 869    
51.1% 48.9% 100%
 
Interpretation
Variables???.....Independent Variable? Dependent Variable
Hypothesis????
The comparison of male and female time spending behaviour in shopping mall, reveals that
(40.9%) female spend 3-5 hrs. and (30.4%) female spend more than five hours while (30%) to
their male counterpart spent less (3-5hrs) and (22.5%) spend more than five hrs. in shopping
mall.

Further statistical analysis revealed that there is a significant difference found between gender
in terms of time spent in mall, difference2 (3, N = 869)=32.693, p =.000. This reflects the
biological variation and different gender perspectives with regards the time spent in mall
 Gender and frequency of visit behaviour in shopping mall

Variable Gender      
Male Female Total Chi Asymp.sig.
value

Frequency of Up to 3 times 95 25 120 50.346 .0000

visit from last   21.4% 5.9% 13.8%
three month 141 99 240
4-8 times
  31.8% 23.3% 27.7%
5- 12 times 121 169 306
  27.2% 39.7% 35.2%
Above 12 times 87 116 203    
  19.6% 27.1% 23.3%

Total 444 425 869

51.1% 48.9% 100.0%
 Gender and mall patronage behaviour analysis

Mall patronage behaviour variables Gender N Means Mann Sig.

Whitney Z
statistic

Intention to revisit the shopping mall Male 444 374.11 -10.832 .000
Female 425 498.62
Buy from the mall in near future Male 444 349.90 -7.734 .000
Female 425 523.91
Recommend the shopping mall to his family Male 444 352.04 -10.543 .000
and friends Female 425 521.67
Interpretation
Study results showed that significant difference exists between male and female and their
patronage behaviour ascertained in terms of intention to revisit (Z= -10.832, P <.05), plan to buy
from the mall in near future (Z= -.7.734, P<.05)and intention to recommend the mall to family
and friends (Z= -10.543, p<.05).
There is a significant difference between the Mean rank of male and female (374.11, .498.62)
(349.90, 523.91) and (352.04, 521.67),with respect to their intention to revisit, future buying
intention & recommend to family & friends respectively
Hence the null hypothesis H01 is rejected
 Age and mall patronage behaviour analysis ( Kruskal Wallis test)
Mall patronage variables Age N Mean Kruskal- Df
Rank Wallis H
statistics
Intention to revisit the shopping mall Less than 16 3 724.50 349.41 5
16-25 yrs. 381 581.98
26-35 yrs. 180 402.39
36-45yrs. 149 357.53
46-55yrs. 110 191.88
55 yrs. above 46 158.66
Buy from the mall in near future Less than 16 3 723.50 356.88 5
16-25 yrs. 381 576.89
26-35 yrs. 180 433.40
36-45yrs. 149 345.30
46-55yrs. 110 209.55
55 yrs. above 46 146.46
Recommend the shopping mall to his family and Less than 16 3 624.00 333.79 5
friends 16-25 yrs. 381 676.76
26-35 yrs. 180 422.92
36-45yrs. 149 395.26
46-55yrs. 110 247.55
55 yrs. above 46 126.62
 
Interpretation
Study results showed that significant differences exist between different age groups and their
patronage behaviour in terms of intention to revisit 2(5) =349.41, p<0.05, buy from the mall in
near future 2(5) =3 56.88, p<0.05and recommend the mall to family and friends 2(5) =333.46,
p<0.05.This means that significant difference exist between different age groups and their mall
patronage behaviour. (See table)
The above table clearly indicates that the mean rank for the younger shoppers (16- 25 yrs.) is
the highest followed by the (26-35 yrs.), (36-45 yrs.), (46- 55 yrs.) and (above 55 yrs.). The
pattern is indicative of the fact that the younger shoppers have more positive attitude towards
the mall patronage behaviour. The older shoppers above 55 yrs. are apathetic or uninterested
and not showed intention towards mall patronage behaviour.
 Correlation with shopping motives and patronage
Correlation significant at the 0.01level (two tailed)

Sr. Shopping Intention to revisit Buy in future from Recommend the

no motives the mall mall mall to friends
factors
    Pearson Sig. Pearson Sig. Pearson Sig.
Correlatio correlation correlation
n
1. Hedonic .599** .000 .485** .000 .597** .000
motives
2. Utility motives -.140* .000 -.187* .000 .243** .000

Note ** shows positive association, * shows negative association, P= indicate the significance level, R= indicate the direction of
the relationship
Interpretation
The above correlation table showed that hedonic shopping motives have strong and positive
relationship all the patronage behaviour like intention to revisit ( r=.599, P< 0.01)future
intention to buy from the same mall in the near future (r = .485, P< 0.01) and recommend the
mall to friends ( r= . 597, P<.0.01).
Study rejected the null hypothesis (H011) that stated that hedonic motives have negative
influence on patronage behaviour.
In case of Utility motives, results show that there is a negative relationship with intention to
revisit the mall (r= -.140, P< 0.01) and Buy from the mall in near future (r=-.187, P<0.01). A
positive relationship (r= .243, P<.0.01) was found with willingness to recommend the mall to
family and friend.
 Table 18 Correlations between PI, PIQ, PEU and SMU

  Telepresence Perceived Interactivity Perceived Information Perceived Ease of Social Media

Quality Use Usage Intention

Telepresence 1 .698** .740** .692** .758**

  .000 .000 .000 .000

Perceived Interactivity .698** 1 .122** .125** .755**

.000   .000 .000 .000

Perceived Information .740** .122** 1 .282** .903**

Quality
.000 .000   .000 .000

Perceived Ease of Use .692** .125** .282** 1 .686**

.000 .000 .000   .000

Social Media Usage .758** .755** .903** .686** 1

Intention
.000 .000 .000 .000  

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation
H0 1: Telepresence (Perceived interactivity, perceived information quality and perceived ease
of use) of a social media website has no impact on social media usage intentions.

Ha 1: Telepresence (Perceived interactivity, perceived information quality and perceived ease of

use) of a social media website has a positive impact on social media usage intentions.
Variables?????
Management Problem???
Research Objectives
Interpretation
Interpretation
What are the website attributes that impact the social media usage?
Objective: To understand the relationship between Telepresence (PI,PIQ,PEU) and social media
usage.
we can see that constructs telepresence, perceived interactivity, perceived information quality
and perceived ease of use are highly correlated with social media usage intentions because
these correlation values (0.758, 0.755, 0.903, and 0.686) are more than 0.5.
Hence, we can say that hypothesis H 01 is rejected based on output and analysis.
 ANOVA
• A manager wants to raise the productivity at his company by increasing the speed at which his employees
can use a particular spreadsheet program. As he does not have the skills in-house, he employs an external
agency which provides training in this spreadsheet program.
• They offer 3 courses: a beginner, intermediate and advanced course. He is unsure which course is needed
for the type of work they do at his company, so he sends 10 employees on the beginner course, 10 on the
intermediate and 10 on the advanced course.
• When they all return from the training, he gives them a problem to solve using the spreadsheet program,
and times how long it takes them to complete the problem. He then compares the three courses
(beginner, intermediate, advanced) to see if there are any differences in the average time it took to
complete the problem.
ANOVA