Table 13: Mediating test of PC between DP and Aad Standardized Sig. R-square Coefficients, Beta DP => PC .603 *(p=.000) .369 PC => Aad -.368 *(p=.000) .147 DP => Aad -.070 *(p=.359) .006 DP+ PC => .205; -.493 *(p=.019); *(p=.000) .186 Aad Figure 17: Regression analysis Regression analysis (DV: Aad; IV: PC) SPSS output Figure 18: Regression analysis Regression analysis (DV: Aad; IV: DP) SPSS output Before we add privacy concern into our model, the relationship between degree of personalization and Aad was insignificant (P=0.359>0.05). Then we included PC in this model, the standardized coefficient beta of DP changed (from -0.078 to 0.231), and the coefficient also become significant (P=0.019<0.05). This means that privacy concern acted as a mediator between the relationship of DP and Aad. Furthermore, degree of personalization was statistically insignificant to attitude towards brand without the existence of PC, which means the relationship between DP and Aad was an indirect one. But the direction was opposite with we expected. The possible reason was that the negative impact that bring by PC was not strong enough to eliminate the positive impact bring by DP. The specific possible reason will be discussed in the next section. Table 14: Hypothesis summary H1: The higher the degree of personalization on SNA is, the Confirmed higher the brand recall rate will be. H2: Higher the degree of personalization on SNA, higher Confirmed the level of privacy concerns. users’ H3: As privacy concern increase, their attitude Confirmed users’ towards brand will get more negative. advertisers’ H4: Privacy concerns mediate the relationship between Not confirmed degree of personalization on SNA and attitude towards (significant, but in
Table 13: Mediating test of PC between DP and Aad Standardized Coefficients, Beta Sig. R-square DP => PC .603 *(p=.000) .369 PC => Aad -.368 *(p=.000) .147 DP => Aad -.070 *(p=.359) .006 DP+ PC => Aad .205; -.493 *(p=.019); *(p=.000) .186 Figure 17: Regression analysis Regression analysis (DV: Aad; IV: PC) SPSS output Figure 18: Regression analysis Regression analysis (DV: Aad; IV: DP) SPSS output Before we add privacy concern into our model, the relationship between degree of personalization and Aad was insignificant (P=0.359>0.05). Then we included PC in this model, the standardized coefficient beta of DP changed (from -0.078 to 0.231), and the coefficient also become significant (P=0.019<0.05). This means that privacy concern acted as a mediator between the relationship of DP and Aad. Furthermore, degree of personalization was statistically insignificant to attitude towards brand without the existence of PC, which means the relationship between DP and Aad was an indirect one. But the direction was opposite with we expected. The possible reason was that the negative impact that bring by PC was not strong enough to eliminate the positive impact bring by DP. The specific possible reason will be discussed in the next section. Table 14: Hypothesis summary H1: The higher the degree of personalization on SNA is, the higher the brand recall rate will be. Confirmed H2: Higher the degree of personalization on SNA, higher the level of users’ privacy concerns. Confirmed H3: As users’ privacy concern increase, their attitude towards advertisers’ brand will get more negative. Confirmed H4: Privacy concerns mediate the relationship between degree of personalization on SNA and attitude towards Not confirmed (significant, but in
Gu-W.-368921wg-.docx