All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Why Do People Play Social Network Games?
Unformatted Document Text:  Table 4 Fit indices for the measurement model and structural model Fit statistics Measurement model Overall model Recommended value X 2/ df 2.741 2.733 < 5 GFI 0.907 0.905 >0.90 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988) AGFI 0.842 0.824 > 0.80 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) RMSEA 0.057 0.059 < 0.06 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996) RMR 0.052 0.065 <0.08 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988) CFI 0.932 0.962 > 0.90 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996) NFI 0.941 0.924 > 0.90 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) NNFI 0.939 0.947 > 0.90 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988) 5.2. Structural paths and hypotheses tests In order to test the structural relationships, the hypothesized causal paths were estimated. Eight hypotheses were supported while two hypotheses were rejected. Table 5 shows these results, which generally support the proposed model and illustrate the key roles of hedonic and utilitarian values in the model. The results stress the vital roles of playfulness and security in determining users’ intentions to play SNGs. PP showed the greatest effect on PE ( β =0.61, t=4.001), followed by PS ( β =0.58, t=3.232). The model shows that PU has an insignificant effect on attitude, rejecting H7. In the same manner, we found that PS has a significant effect on attitude, supporting H9. Figure 2 also illustrates the explanatory powers of constructs. The model finds that the combination of PU, PE, PS and PP explain 45% of the variance in attitude. The combination of attitude, PE, PU and flow, explained 39% of the variance of intention. The 39% R 2 , a relatively low indicator, implies other possible hidden paths in the model. Table 5 Summary of hypothesis tests Hypothesis Path coefficient t-value Support H1: Attitude Intention 0.43** 5.120 Yes H2: PE  Intention 0.49** 4.021 Yes H3: PE  Attitude 0.22 0.336 No H4: PP PE 0.61** 4.001 Yes H5: PP Attitude 0.47** 2.459 Yes 16

Authors: Shin, Dong-Hee. and Kim, Tae-Yang.
first   previous   Page 16 of 31   next   last



background image
Table 4
Fit indices for the measurement model and structural model
Fit statistics
Measurement model
Overall model
Recommended value
X
2/
df
2.741
2.733
< 5
GFI 
0.907
0.905
>0.90 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988)
AGFI 
0.842
0.824
> 0.80 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)
RMSEA 
0.057
0.059
< 0.06 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996)
RMR 
0.052
0.065
<0.08 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988)
CFI 
0.932
0.962
> 0.90 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996)
NFI
0.941
0.924
> 0.90 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)
NNFI
0.939
0.947
> 0.90 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988)
5.2. Structural paths and hypotheses tests
In order to test the structural relationships, the hypothesized causal paths were estimated. Eight 
hypotheses were supported while two hypotheses were rejected. Table 5 shows these results, which 
generally support the proposed model and illustrate the key roles of hedonic and utilitarian values in the 
model. The results stress the vital roles of playfulness and security in determining users’ intentions to play 
SNGs. PP showed the greatest effect on PE (
β
=0.61, t=4.001), followed by PS (
β
 =0.58, t=3.232). The 
model shows that PU has an insignificant effect on attitude, rejecting H7. In the same manner, we found 
that PS has a significant effect on attitude, supporting H9. Figure 2 also illustrates the explanatory powers 
of constructs. The model finds that the combination of PU, PE, PS and PP explain 45% of the variance in 
attitude. The combination of attitude, PE, PU and flow, explained 39% of the variance of intention. The 
39% R
2
, a relatively low indicator, implies other possible hidden paths in the model. 
Table 5
Summary of hypothesis tests
Hypothesis
Path coefficient
t-value
Support
H1: Attitude Intention
0.43**
5.120
Yes
H2: PE  Intention
0.49**
4.021
Yes
H3: PE  Attitude
0.22
0.336
No
H4: PP PE
0.61** 
4.001
Yes
H5: PP Attitude
0.47**
2.459
Yes
16


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 16 of 31   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.