Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 5 – uploaded by Muhammad U S S A M A Majeed

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 3: Discriminant Validity - HTMT Ratio Significance of Path coefficients

Table 3 Discriminant Validity - HTMT Ratio Significance of Path coefficients

Related Figures (7)

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework
Table 1: Respondents Profiles: Gender, Age, No of Social media Accounts Data Analysis
Table 1: Respondents Profiles: Gender, Age, No of Social media Accounts Data Analysis
Table 4: Significance of Path Coefficients The coefficient of determination (R2) value of 0.75, 0.50, or 0.25 for the dependent variable can be depicted as strong moderate, or weak, respectively. The coefficient of Determination (R2 Value) of the Perceived risk (PR) is 0.658, which i: viewed as a substantial impact as it is above 0.5 (moderate impact) and near 0.75 (substantial impact). While self-disclosure (SD) has a low value of 0.250 and consider as a weak effect. Whereas marketing discomfort (MD) has a value of 0.535 anc consider a moderate impact. After looking at the R Square Adjusted value, there is no remarkable difference, so we can sa} that model is parsimonious.
Table 4: Significance of Path Coefficients The coefficient of determination (R2) value of 0.75, 0.50, or 0.25 for the dependent variable can be depicted as strong moderate, or weak, respectively. The coefficient of Determination (R2 Value) of the Perceived risk (PR) is 0.658, which i: viewed as a substantial impact as it is above 0.5 (moderate impact) and near 0.75 (substantial impact). While self-disclosure (SD) has a low value of 0.250 and consider as a weak effect. Whereas marketing discomfort (MD) has a value of 0.535 anc consider a moderate impact. After looking at the R Square Adjusted value, there is no remarkable difference, so we can sa} that model is parsimonious.
Mediation Analysis Table 5: Coefficient of Determination (R? Value)
Mediation Analysis Table 5: Coefficient of Determination (R? Value)
Table 2: Internal Consistency Reliability Heterotrait monotrait ratio (HTMT) estimations that are less than 0.9 between the two constructs are viewed as critical about established discriminant validity (Hanafiah, 2020). The HTMT ratio calculation reflects that all the values range from 0.231 to 0.734. The information that appeared in the HTMT ratio assessment represents significant outcomes as all the values are below 0.9, which is considered the significant level, and discriminant validity is established. Collinearity issues are measured by using the Variance inflation factor (VIF). The tolerance value in PLS-SEM must be above 0.20, if the value is below 0.20, it shows an issue of collinearity. (Munir, 2018). VIF values range from 1.004 to 2.552. So, there is no issue of collinearity.
Table 2: Internal Consistency Reliability Heterotrait monotrait ratio (HTMT) estimations that are less than 0.9 between the two constructs are viewed as critical about established discriminant validity (Hanafiah, 2020). The HTMT ratio calculation reflects that all the values range from 0.231 to 0.734. The information that appeared in the HTMT ratio assessment represents significant outcomes as all the values are below 0.9, which is considered the significant level, and discriminant validity is established. Collinearity issues are measured by using the Variance inflation factor (VIF). The tolerance value in PLS-SEM must be above 0.20, if the value is below 0.20, it shows an issue of collinearity. (Munir, 2018). VIF values range from 1.004 to 2.552. So, there is no issue of collinearity.
DISCUSSION Table 6: Total indirect effect
DISCUSSION Table 6: Total indirect effect
Table 7: Results of Hypotheses Testing CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION, AND LIMITATION
Table 7: Results of Hypotheses Testing CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION, AND LIMITATION
Related topics:
Self-DisclosurePrivacy and Social Media
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved