Assessing the influence of mobile direct social media advertising on consumer attitudes: a study of Kuwaiti consumers

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research conceptual model.

Table 1. List of measures.

Variable	Questionnaire item
Intention (Taylor & Todd, 1995)	1. I will use mobile advertising on social media to consume whenever I have a chance.
	2. I intend to use mobile advertising for shopping after I receive it.
	3. I expect to use mobile advertising to purchase after receiving it.
Attitude (Taylor & Todd, 1995)	4. Using mobile advertising is a good idea and helps make a better decision when finalizing the purchase.
	5. Using mobile advertising is a wise idea.
Entertainment (Tsang et al., 2004)	6. I feel that receiving mobile advertising is enjoyable and entertaining.
	7. To me, it is amusing to receive mobile advertising.
	8. I feel that receiving mobile advertisements is pleasant.
Informativeness (Tsang et al., 2004)	9. I feel that mobile advertising is a good source of timely information.
	10. Mobile advertising provides the information I need.
Irritation (Tsang et al., 2004)	11. I feel mobile advertising is irritating.
	12. I feel that notification ads on mobile are often annoying.
Credibility (Tsang et al., 2004)	13. I use personalized mobile advertising as a reference for purchasing.
	14. I trust mobile advertising.
	15. The content provided by mobile advertising is credible.
Personalization (Chellappa & Sin, 2005; Mittal & Lassar, 1996)	16. I feel that mobile advertising displays a personalized message to me.
	17. I feel that mobile advertising is personalizing my usage.
	18. Contents in social media advertising are personalized.

Figure 2. Age groups.

Figure 3. Education groups.

Table 2. Means in different age and education groups.

Variable	Mean per Gender			Mean per Education Level
	Female	Male	t-test	Secondary	College	Postgrad	ANOVA
Intention	3.28	3.26	0.947	3.37	3.17	3.44	0.274
Attitude	3.39	3.37	0.923	3.52	3.22	3.68	0.056
Entertainment	2.90	2.80	0.654	2.92	2.75	3.19	0.184
Informativeness	3.29	3.36	0.712	3.36	3.19	3.59	0.164
Irritation	3.63	3.90	0.137	3.86	3.71	3.38	0.126
Credibility	2.80	2.62	0.278	2.80	2.68	2.95	0.349
Personalization	3.54	3.63	0.537	3.44	3.54	3.83	0.137

Figure 4. Consumer’s attitudes based on perception of personalization.

Table 3. Means in different personalization groups.

Variable	Negative perception of Personalization	Neutral Perception of personalization	Positive perception of personalization	Sig. ANOVA
Intention	2.51	2.93	3.49	< 0.001**
Attitude	2.36	3.42	3.56	< 0.001**
Entertainment	1.92	2.77	3.07	< 0.001**
Informativeness	2.24	3.30	3.50	< 0.001**
Irritation	3.10	3.76	3.79	0.012*
Credibility	2.06	2.59	2.93	< 0.001**
Personalization	2.02	3.00	3.96	< 0.001**

Note. [* 0.05] significance level; [** 0.01] significance level.

Table 4. Cronbach’s alpha reliability test.

Variables	Cronbach’s alpha
Intention (items 1-3)	0.84
Attitude (items 4, 5)	0.86
Entertainment (items 6-8)	0.93
Informativeness (items 9, 10)	0.78
Irritation (items 11, 12)	0.80
Credibility (items 13-15)	0.76
Personalization (items 16-18)	0.81

Table 5. Measurement properties.

Variable	Item	Loading	Std. Deviation	t-value
Intention	1	0.87	0.02	35.93
CR = 0.84, AVE = 0.75	2	0.89	0.02	43.57
	3	0.84	0.04	23.59
Attitude	4	0.94	0.01	79.27
CR = 0.86, AVE = 0.87	5	0.93	0.02	58.16
Entertainment	6	0.93	0.02	63.34
CR = 0.93, AVE = 0.87	7	0.94	0.02	63.99
	8	0.93	0.02	43.63
Informativeness	9	0.92	0.02	49.55
CR = 0.78, AVE = 0.82	10	0.89	0.03	28.32
Irritation	11	0.87	0.24	4.13
CR = 0.80, AVE = 0.81	12	0.79	0.21	3.84
Credibility	13	0.83	0.04	22.66
CR = 0.76, AVE = 0.67	14	0.86	0.03	26.46
	15	0.75	0.08	10.11
Personalization	16	0.88	0.03	25.77
CR = 0.81, AVE = 0.73	17	0.89	0.02	36.52
	18	0.78	0.08	10.14

Table 6. Discriminant validity analysis: average variance extracted and correlations between variables.

	Intention	Attitude	Entertainment	Informativeness	Irritation	Credibility	Personalization
Intention	0.868
Attitude	0.639	0.935
Entertainment	0.691	0.645	0.933
Informativeness	0.675	0.548	0.724	0.904
Irritation	−0.130	−0.120	−0.256	−0.102	0.898
Credibility	0.548	0.536	0.682	0.655	−0.103	0.819
Personalization	0.420	0.421	0.364	0.434	0.245	0.399	0.854

Note. Diagonal elements are square roots of the average variance extracted.

Figure 5. Partial least squares analysis results.

Table 7. Results of stepwise regression.

Factor	Standardized Coefficients (beta)	R Square	Adjusted R Square	R Square Change	t-value	Sig
Entertainment	0.409	0.474	0.471	0.474	5.276	< 0.001
Informativeness	0.321	0.539	0.533	0.065	4.006	< 0.001
Personalization	0.130	0.552	0.544	0.013	2.183	0.030

Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.144

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tsang, M. M., Ho, S. C., & Liang, T. P. (2004). Consumer attitudes toward mobile advertising: An empirical study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(3), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2004.11044301

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chellappa, R. K., & Sin, R. G. (2005). Personalization versus privacy: An empirical examination of the online consumer’s dilemma. Information Technology and Management, 6(2-3), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-005-5879-y

 Google Scholar

Mittal, B., & Lassar, W. M. (1996). The role of personalization in service encounters. Journal of Retailing, 72(1), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(96)90007-X

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar