Upload
lamhanh
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Student identity number: 0722219
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Innovation Management
First supervisor: dr. ing. J.P.M. Wouters
Second supervisor: dr. J.J.L. Schepers
Company Supervisor: S. Balkenende
Publishing date: 9th
of August, 2012
University: Eindhoven University of Technology
Faculty: Industrial Engineering & Innovation
Sciences
Department: Innovation, Technology,
Entrepreneurship and Marketing
(ITEM)
Effects of apps on consumer behavior of
smartphones and telecommunication
providers: Feature fatigue vs. mass
customization
by D.J. Agterhuis
2
Series Master Theses Innovation Management
Subject headings: Apps, Smartphones, Feature Fatigue, Mass Customization, Customer
Satisfaction, Technology Acceptance, Consumer Behavior,
Telecommunication
3
Abstract
The use of apps on smartphones raises questions about how apps affect usage and
satisfaction with the device and with telecom operators, and which of two concepts – feature
fatigue or mass customization – is applicable to model these effects. The number of apps
installed on the smartphone is proposed to predict three aspects of value: usefulness,
usability, and effort. In turn, this value in turn is proposed to predict usage of both the device
itself and of services provided by the operating company, and satisfaction with the device and
the operator.
The model is tested using survey results of 252 customers of a Dutch
telecommunication provider that are combined with objective usage data. Results indicate
that mass customization applies to the use of apps on smartphones since the number of apps
positively relates to usability. In turn, usability is related to utility, which affects mobile data
usage through the daily frequency of use of the smartphone. Satisfaction with the smartphone
is directly affected by the number of apps and through value. Implications are that a high
number of apps is not related to usability issues and that apps facilitate the transition in the
telecom world of voice and SMS services to mobile data.
4
Acknowledgements
Naturally, I would like to thank my first supervisor Joost Wouters of Eindhoven
University of Technology for guiding the search towards a suitable topic for graduation, for
steering the project into the right direction and for his thoughts on the theories, which were a
useful input. I want to thank my second supervisor Jeroen Schepers for his creative
contribution to the model, for answering my long e-mails and for his support in the statistical
analysis.
Much appreciation is also attributed to Sanne, Caspar, Frederieke, Jan Z., Joppe,
Michel, Nathalie and Unni for the fantastic and educating experience in the past six months at
the “large Dutch telecom company.” In particular, I would like to thank Sanne for her
contributions to the research. Also the funding of the market research and the access to the
customer database of the company deserves recognition.
Last but not least, much is obliged to Esmee, my family, “the sponsors down under”,
my friends and Douwe Egberts for the (mental) support and the mere reaching of the
graduation thesis, and for the creative discussions which definitely shaped it. Also many
thanks go out to Tim and Jan A. for their detailed reviews.
I hope you enjoy reading this report, and that you look differently at the palm of your
hand after reading it.
Dirk
5
Contents
SUMMARY 7
1 INTRODUCTION 10
2 THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT 11
2.1 THEORY AND RECENT RESEARCH 12
2.1.1 APPS AND SMARTPHONES: MODULES FOR MODULAR PRODUCTS 12
2.1.2 TOO MANY FEATURES: FEATURE FATIGUE 12
2.1.3 MASS CUSTOMIZATION: ADAPTING FUNCTIONALITY TO MEET SPECIFIC NEEDS 13
2.1.4 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 14
2.1.5 TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM) 14
2.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES 15
2.2.1 NUMBER OF APPS ON PERCEIVED VALUE AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 17
2.2.2 PERCEIVED EASE OF USE ON PERCEIVED USEFULNESS 19
2.2.3 ASPECTS OF VALUE ON USAGE OF THE SMARTPHONE, SERVICES PROVIDED
BY THE OPERATOR AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 19
2.2.4 USAGE OF THE SMARTPHONE ON USAGE OF TELECOMMUNICATION
PROVIDER SERVICES 20
2.2.5 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION OF THE SMARTPHONE ON CUSTOMER
SATISFACTION OF THE TELECOM PROVIDER 21
2.2.6 MODERATING VARIABLES 21
3 METHOD 22
3.1 DATA SAMPLE 22
3.2 MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT 23
3.3 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE 25
3.4 ANALYTICAL METHOD 25
4 RESULTS 27
4.1 SAMPLE AND DATA CHARACTERISTICS 27
4.1.2 COMMON METHOD BIAS 28
4.1.3 MISSING DATA, OUTLIERS AND MULTIVARIATE ASSUMPTIONS 28
4.2 MEASUREMENT MODEL 29
4.2.1 CONSTRUCT RELIABILITY 29
4.2.2 CONSTRUCT VALIDITY AND MULTICOLLINEARITY 30
4.3 STRUCTURAL MODEL 30
4.3.2 MODERATING VARIABLES 33
6
4.3.3 CONTROL VARIABLES 34
4.4 POST-HOC ANALYSES 34
4.4.2 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OPERATING SYSTEMS 36
5 DISCUSSION 37
5.1 FINDINGS 38
5.2 SCHOLARLY IMPLICATIONS 41
5.3 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS 41
5.4 LIMITATIONS AND AVENUES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 43
6 REFERENCES 45
6.1 LITERATURE REFERENCES 45
6.2 WEB REFERENCES 49
APPENDIX A: MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT 50
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE 51
APPENDIX C: DATA MANIPULATION 56
APPENDIX D: GENERALIZATION OF THE SAMPLE 58
APPENDIX E: DATA EXPLORATION: OUTLIERS AND NORMALITY 59
APPENDIX F: FACTOR LOADINGS AND CROSS LOADINGS OF THE
FIRST CFA 61
APPENDIX G: FACTOR LOADINGS AND CROSS LOADINGS OF THE
DEFINITE CFA 62
APPENDIX H: STATISTICAL VALIDITY OF THE BASE MODEL 63
APPENDIX I: POST-HOC MEDIATION ANALYSIS 64
APPENDIX J: MANOVA POST-HOC ANALYSIS 65
7
Summary
The revolution of apps and smartphones demands insights in how these apps affect
customer satisfaction and usage behavior of smartphone consumers with respect to the device
itself and usage of services offered by telecommunication providers such as voice, SMS and
mobile data. Two concepts compete in modeling these effects: feature fatigue and mass
customization. Apps are assumed to be features since the use of apps offers functionality in
addition to the hard technical specifications of smartphones. Consumers suffering from
feature fatigue have purchased a feature-packed product which is high in utility but low in
usability because of that high number of features (Thompson et al., 2005). Because
consumers can modulate the functionality of their device by adding or deleting apps, it is
interesting to assess whether the phenomenon is suitable to model effects of apps on
consumer behavior of smartphones. A competing concept is mass customization, stating that
manufacturers meet market needs by allowing consumers to adapt the functionality of
products until the latest possible moment in the supply chain (Chase et al., 2006). For
smartphones, this can be done with apps even after purchase of the device.
This study contributes by adding to the sparse body of research in smartphones and
apps. Moreover, because of the potential negative effects of feature fatigue, it is useful for
managers to know whether this phenomenon applies to smartphones. Studying the effects of
apps on smartphone usage & satisfaction is also deemed useful for practitioners in the
telecom industry due to the transition of voice and SMS to mobile data usage.
Theory and conceptual framework
A literature review was conducted, revealing (recent) research on smartphones and
apps, feature fatigue, customer satisfaction and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).
The basis for the theoretical framework is that apps affect the value of the smartphone as
perceived by consumers, which in turn affects usage and satisfaction. For modeling customer
satisfaction, a transaction-specific and postpurchase view of customer satisfaction is used in
combination with the comparison-standards paradigm in which perceived value is an
experience-based standard for comparison (Cadotte et al, 1987).
Customers’ perceived value of the smartphone is a tradeoff between benefits and
sacrifices perceived by consumers (Eggert & Ulaga, 2002), in which the benefits are adopted
from the Technology Acceptance Model: perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. In
the TAM, perceived ease of use and perceived utility are the main variables that indirectly
explain the actual use of a product. The sacrifice is consumers’ perceived effort exerted to
install, update and to learning to use the apps.
These aspects of value were hypothesized to be predicted by the number of apps on
the smartphone of a consumer. In turn, these aspects of value predict the usage of a
smartphone and of services provided by the telecommunication operator. Usage of the
smartphone was broken down into daily frequency of use, daily duration of use and the
perceived usage level. Services of the telecom provider that were adopted in the model were
voice, SMS and mobile data. The number of apps installed on the smartphone and the aspects
of value were also predicted to affect customer satisfaction with both the smartphone and the
telecom provider.
8
Moderating effects were also proposed, which were adopted from the consumer
decision making process: consumers hedonic or utilitarian attitude towards smartphones, the
brand image as perceived by consumers and the subjective knowledge about smartphones
were all expected to moderate the relation between the number of apps installed on the device
and the aspects of perceived value.
Method
The model is tested with an online survey among 252 customers of a Dutch
telecommunication provider. The customers in this population were postpaid smartphone
users in possession of a smartphone of the brand Apple, Blackberry, HTC or Samsung in the
consumer segment. Results of the survey are combined with objective data of voice, SMS and
mobile data usage. The measurement instrument used to measure the concepts in the
hypothesized model was based on prior research. Control variables are age, gender,
education, duration of smartphone possession, number of smartphones owned, smartphone
brand and type of use (business or consumer. The model was tested using Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) with Partial Least Squares (PLS) as estimation method.
Results
The data sample appeared to reflect the customer base of the telecom operator. After
deletion of a low number of items with insufficient loadings and cross-loading items, the
constructs in the model were measured reliably and convergent and discriminant validity
were warranted. Most variables or constructs have an R2 which is moderate to high for
consumer behavior studies, but the perceived effort, SMS usage and voice usage were weakly
explained.
Of the 40 hypotheses in the base model, 13 were confirmed. The number of apps on
consumers’ smartphones was positively related to the perception of usability of the device
and satisfaction with the device, but negatively to the effort perceived to download, update
and learning how to use the apps. Perceived usability was positively related to the perception
of usefulness of the smartphone. Regarding the aspects of value, all three constructs were
positively related to the perceived usage level, but only the perceived usefulness of the
smartphone was positively associated to the daily frequency of use of the smartphone. In turn,
consumers that use their device more often per day, often have a higher mobile data usage.
Moreover, consumers perceiving their smartphone useful, tend to have a lower SMS
usage, albeit that only 4% of the variance of SMS usage is explained. Besides the number of
apps, customer satisfaction with the smartphone was related negatively to the perceived
effort, but positively to the perceived usefulness and the perceived usability. In turn,
consumers that are satisfied with their smartphone are disposed to be satisfied with the
telecommunication company. Of the moderating effects, only a negative moderating effect of
subjective knowledge was confirmed on the relation between the number of apps installed
and the perceived usability of the smartphone.
The results gave rise to two post-hoc analyses: A one-way MANOVA for assessing
differences between operating systems, and the analysis of mediating effects of subjective
knowledge, utilitarian attitude, hedonic attitude and the perceived brand image. It appeared
9
that Blackberry users have less apps installed than users of other operating systems, and that
Apple users are generally more satisfied than Blackberry or Android users. Finally,
consumers’ utilitarian attitude mediates the effect of the number of apps on the perception of
usability.
Discussion
Because the number of apps installed on the smartphone positively related to the
perceived usability and negatively to the perceived effort for installing, updating and learning
to use apps, the concept of mass customization applies to apps on smartphones and no
support is found for feature fatigue. The utility of the smartphone as perceived by consumers
plays a key role in predicting the usage: it is directly associated with decreases in SMS usage,
and through an increased frequency of daily use it is positively related to mobile data usage.
The number of apps and all aspects of value related to satisfaction with the smartphone, the
only negative relation being the perceived effort. No direct effects of apps or value of the
smartphone predict satisfaction with the operator, albeit that users that are satisfied with their
smartphone do tend to be satisfied with their telecom provider. This implies that no cross-
over effects exist for the value of the smartphone or the number of apps towards the operating
company.
A main implication for scholars is that they can apply mass customization to model the
use of apps on smartphones , and that feature fatigue does not apply to modular products.
Integrating customer satisfaction and technology acceptance proved to provide a model with
which effects on apps could be adequately predicted. Managerial implications are that
managers need not worry about negative effects of a high number of apps. In particular,
usability issues are not associated with a high number of apps, on the contrary: mass
customization provides opportunities for app developers and for managers in the telecom
sector. Moreover, apps can be used as leverage in the transition from voice and SMS to data
usage due to the indirect negative associations with SMS usage and positive relations to
mobile data usage. To improve satisfaction, managers could consider automating the
updating process of apps on the device, and spend more effort on promoting Apple’s high end
devices since these customers are generally more satisfied. Finally, since expert users benefit
less from increases in perceived usability due to increases in the number of apps installed,
self-service programs should aim at usability issues for expert users.
Limitations of the study are that no distinction is made between different categories of
apps; the aggregation of all apps on the smartphone and satisfaction of the apps to a central,
absolute number of apps; the omitting of psychometric differences based on the moment of
adoption; a weak theoretical basis for the mediation analysis; and the fact that the study does
not differentiate between the number of apps installed and the number of apps actually used.
Research design-related issues are the sample size when considering the serious non-normal
distribution of the data, using single-item constructs, and the nature of the data which does
not allow causal inferences. These issues are directions for further research.
10
1 Introduction
With the convergence of communication technologies and innovative product features
in the past decade (Arruda-Filho et al., 2010) the smartphone has arisen: a combination of
handheld computers and mobile phones accommodated with a wide variety of features such
as camera’s, organizers, web browsers, media players and navigation. The smartphone has
“put the world in the palm of your hand” (Madison, 2011 on dailymail.co.uk). In the first
quarter of 2012, smartphones sales accounted for 34% of total mobile phone sales
(Gartner.com, 2012). In the Netherlands, smartphone penetration has reached 53% in January
2012 (Telecompaper, 2012). It is predicted that smartphone sales will approach one billion
units in 2015 (Idc.com, 2011).
With this revolution of smartphones, a new way of consuming software applications
has surfaced in the form of ‘apps.’ This study assumes that apps are features. In the context of
software, features are defined as a distinguishing characteristic of a software item such as
performance, portability or functionality (IEEE, 1998). Apps combine hard technical features
such as the camera and a connection to the internet in order to provide additional
functionality, which is the basis for the assumption. Since apps can be added and deleted, this
assumption results in viewing smartphones as modular products – products of which the
functionality can be altered (Stone, 2000).
The use of apps raises two important questions about the use of smartphones. For one,
what are the effects of the use of apps on the behavior of smartphone consumers? Two very
different concepts can be used for modeling the use of apps: feature fatigue and mass
customization. Consumers that suffer from feature fatigue have purchased a feature-packed
product that is complex in use, while they actually only want a simple, easy to use product
(Thompson et al., 2005). Concerns of the phenomenon have been even expressed for all-in-
one portable devices (Taliuaga et al., 2009 on rockresearch.com) and in particular for “app
fatigue” (Kendrick, 2011 on Zdnet.com, 2012). On the other hand, mass customization posits
that manufacturers can meet specific needs of consumers by providing flexible market
offerings (Anderson & Narus, 1998). Apps allow smartphones to be products of which the
functionality is customizable after purchase. This thesis provides an answer to the question
which of these theories is best applicable to model the effects of apps on behavior of
smartphone consumers. Additionally, it is interesting to assess whether external factors
influence the effects of apps on behavior of smartphone consumers.
A second question stemming from the use of apps is: What is the effect of apps on the
use of services offered by telecommunications providers? A transition is in process in which
the more traditional services provided by operator companies (or opco’s) such as voice
(calling) and SMS (short message service) are moving more towards the consumption of
mobile data (Tilson & Lyytinen, 2006). Apps facilitate this transition since apps exist that
replace the use of SMS and voice with the use of mobile data, such as ‘Whatsapp’ or ‘Skype’.
The aim of this research is to answer these two questions, thereby shedding light on
the effect of apps on the behavior of smartphone consumers. The answers to these questions
have both theoretical and practical implications. For scholars, this thesis adds to the existing
body of empirical research on smartphones and apps, which is sparse according to Peslak et
al. (2011). The research also adds smartphones and apps as a case study to the existing
11
research on consumer behavior, such as customer satisfaction research and technology
acceptance research, and it is assessed which of two concepts is applicable to modular
products such as smartphones and apps: mass customization versus feature fatigue. A final
unique aspect of this study is the use of objective data of usage of telecom operator services
in order to study effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones. Practically, it is
useful for managers to know whether feature fatigue is applicable to smartphones since the
phenomenon affects consumer behavior, with reductions in customer satisfaction levels and
usage levels as a consequence (Thompson et al., 2005). Along with the positive impact of
customer satisfaction on market performance indicators (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Fornell
et al, 1996; Szymanski & Henard, 2001), customer retention through customer satisfaction is
especially relevant in the telecommunications industry in which drop-out rates are high (Lee
et al., 2001). Therefore, cross-over effects of satisfaction of the smartphone to satisfaction of
the opco are also assessed. Moreover, practitioners working in the telecommunications
industry will gain insights in the effects of the use of apps on the use of services provided by
telecommunication providers, which is important in the context of the transition of voice and
SMS towards mobile data. Additionally, findings of this study are relevant for practitioners in
the telecommunications industry who want consumers to have an optimal experience with
their handset, which is a general strategic trend in telecommunications (Haverila, 2011b;
Ojiako & Maguire, 2009).
The remainder of this writing is organized as follows: In the following section,
theories and prior research of relevant concepts will be discussed, thereby elaborating upon
smartphones and apps, feature fatigue, mass customization, customer satisfaction and
technology acceptance. This is followed by the formulation of a conceptual framework and
the development of hypotheses. Section 3 will discuss the methodology that is used to
empirically test the model, followed by Section 4 in which the results of the empirical testing
will be presented. Finally, section 5 will discuss the findings, theoretical and practical
implications, and the limitations and directions for further research.
2 Theory and hypothesis development
This chapter will present results of a literature review, thereby elaborating on
concepts that are relevant to the construction of the conceptual framework with which the use
of apps and smartphones can be analyzed. The chapter starts by discussing smartphones and
smartphone apps, followed by a brief discussion of feature fatigue, mass customization,
customer satisfaction and the technology acceptance model (TAM). Subsequently, the
theoretical framework is presented and the hypotheses are developed.
The literature review was conducted according to the guidelines of Randolph (2009);
the focus was on research outcomes and theories and the goal was to develop a model with
which effects of apps on consumer behavior could be modeled. The covered literature was a
purposive sample of the available literature, and the review was conceptually organized.
Literature was searched by prompting (combinations of) key concepts into several academic
search engines such as Google Scholar, Wiley, JSTOR, ABI/Inform, ISI Web of Knowledge
and Sciencedirect. Literature was selected based on scanning titles and abstracts for
relevance, and was evaluated according to Google Scholar citations and appearance of the
publication source in the Harzing Journal Ranking (Harzing, 2011).
12
2.1 Theory and recent research
2.1.1 Apps and smartphones: modules for modular products
Various but similar definitions are used for the smartphone. This research uses the
following: ‘a smartphone is a mobile phone that includes software that a user is able to
modify and update” (Töyssy & Helenius, 2006, p. 110). Smartphone apps are computer
programs that can be installed on a smartphone. Different categories of smartphone
applications can be identified, such as communication, browsing, media playing,
productivity, system, gaming and map apps (Falaki et al., 2010). The apps result in numerous
possibilities for smartphone use such as in healthcare (Park & Chen, 2007), mobile commerce
(Chang & Chen, 2004), logistic services (Chen et al., 2007), mobile-based corporate intranet
systems (Funk, 2006) and sustainable technology (Pitt et al., 2011). Most smartphone users
have around 50 applications installed on their smartphone, while they use only 8-12
applications regularly and on a daily basis (Falaki et al., 2010).
An important assumption of this study is that apps are viewed as features because
apps provide additional functionality in addition to the hard technical features of
smartphones. In the context of software, features are defined as a distinguishing characteristic
of a software item such as performance, portability or functionality (IEEE, 1998).
Smartphones have hard features, such as a camera, which can in turn be used by software
(apps) in order to provide additional functionality. An example is the Sleep Cycle Alarm
Clock app, which uses the accelerometer and the microphone in order to analyze sleep
patterns and to wake you up in the lightest sleep phase within the half hour before you have
set the alarm (iTunes.apple.com, 2012). The author believes that this is an adequate example
of why apps can be assumed to be features.
The assumption leads to the observation that smartphones are modular products.
Modular products are machines, assemblies or components that accomplish an overall
function through combination of distinct building blocks or modules (Pahl & Beitz, 1998, in:
Stone, 2000). The number of hard technological features does not differ greatly between
different smartphone types because most smartphones have similar designs. However, in the
set of apps that users have installed in their device, variation can be expected, which supports
the need to assume that apps are features.
2.1.2 Too many features: Feature fatigue
As technology advances, it becomes more feasible to load products with a large
number of features or functions. Adding features makes products more appealing for
consumers due to increased expected utility of a product, which is in turn appealing for
businesses due to the predicted market share increase. However, too many features can make
a product overwhelming for consumers and difficult to use, resulting in consumers’
dissatisfaction with their purchase and a state of frustration which is called feature fatigue
(Thompson et al., 2005). The existence of this post-purchase phenomenon is underlined by an
increase in product returns for products that turn out not to have any technical malfunction
(Den Ouden et al., 2005).
Feature fatigue can be explained by a shift in consumer preferences before and after
the use of a product, illustrated in Figure 1. Before purchase, consumers believe each feature
13
Figure 1 Shift in preference for utility to usability.
Adapted from Gaigg (2012) on Michealgaigg.com
to add to the utility of a product, knowing that more features make products more difficult to
use. However, after having used the product, a shift occurs in consumer preferences towards
a simple product with basic functionality which is easy to use. This structural change can be
explained by different considerations being salient in expected and experienced utility (Hsee
et al., 2009; Thompson et al., 2005). Economic theory models consumers’ preferences with
an additive utility function (Lancaster, 1971 in: Thompson et al., 2005): adding attributes to a
product or service that consumers evaluate
as positive increases the perceived utility of
that product or service. Market research
techniques such as conjoint analysis or
discrete choice analysis model products as
bundles of attributes in which each attribute
has value (Srinivasan et al., 1997 in:
Thompson et al., 2005). Hence, products
are bundles of features, and each feature
adds value to the product’s utility. A
tradeoff is postulated between an increase
in this utility perception of consumers and
a decrease in the perceived usability.
Feature fatigue has been found to
affect consumer behavior, or more specific: satisfaction and usage (Thompson et al., 2005).
Consumer behavior “encompasses the acquisition, consumption, and disposition of goods,
services, time, and ideas by decision making units (e.g. individuals, families, organizations,
etc)” (Jacobi, 1978, p. 87). Various theories are used to model consumer behavior, varying
from consumer choice theories such as the Black Box model on the consumer decision
making process, to models on the adoption of innovations by consumers such as the
Technology Acceptance model (Davis, 1989) or other diffusion models and consumer
decision making models. Two major streams of research on consumer behavior are discussed
later in this chapter: Customer Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance.
2.1.3 Mass customization: adapting functionality to meet specific needs
By varying in the set of product features, each consumers’ specific desire in product
capability can be adhered to. Suppliers can meet these specific desires by providing flexible
market offerings (Anderson & Narus, 1998), which corresponds to mass customization.
Originally, mass customization has been interpreted to create value based on customer-
company interaction at the manufacturing and assembly stage of operations, thereby creating
customized products (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2006). However mass customization is more
recently conceptualized as postponing the task of differentiating a product for a specific
customer until the latest possible point in the supply network (Chase et al., 2006). This is
certainly the case for smartphones for which apps are obtained after purchase of the
smartphone. This interpretation is facilitated by the assumption that apps are features, also
since modularity is often viewed as a key factor for mass customization since modularity
provides the flexibility for quick and inexpensive customization (Feitzinger & Lee, 1997).
14
The concepts of mass customization and feature fatigue lead to two different
viewpoints of how consumers use the apps on their smartphone: applying mass customization
results in the view that consumers adapt the functionality of their device according to their
preferences. On the other hand, feature fatigue indicates that consumers install a large
number of apps because of the expected utility, but end up being frustrated because their
device is complex in use.
In the following sections, customer satisfaction and technology acceptance are
described, which are two types of consumer behavior that can be affected by apps on
smartphones.
2.1.4 Customer satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is an attitude judgment following a purchase act or a series of
consumer-product interactions (Yi, 1990 in: Fournier & Mick, 1999) and is often about
evaluation as a result of comparison (Cadotte et a., 1987; Oliver, 1993), which is the basis for
the comparison standards paradigm. In this paradigm, different norms are used by consumers
in order to form standards for comparison. Such norms can be expectations, experiences,
desires or equity (Cadotte et al., 1987; Eggert & Ulaga, 2002; Fournier & Mick, 1999;
Halstead, 1999).
Halstead (1999) offers a typology of customer satisfaction models based on 1) the
level of aggregation of the comparison standard; 2) the stage of the comparison process, and
3) the level of abstraction of the comparison. Customer satisfaction can be measured for
individuals per transaction, or all individual satisfaction levels of consumers over a series of
transactions can be aggregated to a cumulative level (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993). The stage
of the comparison process refers to the stages in the consumer decision process such as need
recognition or post-purchase evaluation. Finally, for assessing the level of abstraction of the
comparison, the hierarchy of value of Gardial et al. (1994) can be used, stating that
satisfaction studies focus on 1) satisfaction with product attributes; 2) satisfaction with
products overall; or 3) on global satisfaction of consumers.
Customer satisfaction is often a performance indicator for companies. Increased
satisfaction leads to positive word of mouth and increased customer loyalty, which is the
‘ultimate dependent variable’ of customer satisfaction because of its value for actual
customer retention and profitability (Johnson et al., 2001, p. 222).
2.1.5 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Originally introduced by Davis (1989), the Technology Acceptance Model posits that
external variables influence a technology’s ease of use (usability) and usefulness (utility) as
experienced by users of that technology. Both ease of use and usefulness influence
consumers’ attitude towards using a technology, which in turn affects the behavioral intention
to use it, which finally affects actual use of a technology and the continued use thereof
(Davis, 1989).
The TAM is based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). The TRA stems from
social psychology and states that one’s behavioral intention depends on the person’s attitude
about that behavior and subjective norms, and that if one intends to conduct a certain
15
behavior, it is likely that he or she will do so (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Later variations of
the TAM leave out the attitude construct (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
The theoretical foundation for using the perceived ease of use and usefulness as
predictors for usage behavior can be found in self-efficacy theory and the cost-benefit
paradigm. Self-efficacy is defined as “judgments of how well one can execute courses of
action required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122 in Davis, 1989).
The cost-benefit paradigm stems from behavioral decision theory and describes decision
making strategies in terms of a cognitive tradeoff between the effort required and the quality
of the resulting decision (Payne, 1982). Based on the cost-benefit paradigm and self-efficacy
theory, Davis (1989) distinguishes between outcomes judgments and self-efficacy judgments,
in which the outcomes relate to usefulness of using a technology, and self-efficacy relates to
how easy that technology is to use. Both these judgments, or perceptions, of consumers
determine the acceptance and usage of a technology by consumers.
The Technology Acceptance Model has been extensively tested in research and
numerous variations and extensions of the model have been developed. An overview of
several variations and extensions is provided by Venkatesh et al. (2003).
2.2 Conceptual framework and hypotheses This section will first describe the ‘theoretical lens’ with which the questions posed in
the introduction were approached, followed by a discussion of the concepts and the relations
between them. The conceptual model and the proposed hypotheses can be viewed in Figure 2.
It should be noted that, based on the initial literature review, an elaborate model was
developed initially. However, only part of that model is discussed here in order to present a
simplified model.
The framework in Figure 2 can be used to analyze the effects of apps on behavior of
smartphone consumers. The number of apps installed on the smartphone predicts the value
perceived by consumers. Derived from customer satisfaction research, value is a standard for
comparison which consumers use to assess their satisfaction. The majority of customer
satisfaction research focuses on expectations as standard for comparison, which is however
not relevant for post-purchase processes (Halstead, 1999) and durable goods (Churchill &
Surprenant, 1982). Since smartphones are durable goods and apps are acquired after purchase
of the smartphone, value as an experience-based norm is used as a standard of comparison.
Satisfaction models based on experience-norms use the confirmation/disconfirmation
paradigm in combination with brand attribute beliefs and the experience of using a product
(Cadotte et al., 1987). Moreover, satisfaction is viewed here as transaction-specific (and not
cumulative) since this view is more suitable for assessing individual differences between
consumers (Halstead, 1999).
Value is based on the exchange theory of marketing (Eggert & Ulaga, 2002), cognitive
psychology and economic theory (Thaler, 1985 in: Gallarza & Saura, 2006): perceived value
relates to consumer behavior based on the concept of value transaction (Gallarza & Saura,
2006). Value is defined as the benefits customers receive in relation to total costs or
‘sacrifice’ (McDougal & Levesque, 2000). Sacrifices can be monetary and non-monetary
(time and effort) costs associated with acquiring and using a product or service (Cronin et al.,
16
Figure 2: the hypothesized model
Usage of the smartphone
Usage Opco services
Satisfaction
Moderators
Customer
satisfaction
smartphone
Number of
apps
Perceived
usefulness
Perceived
usability
Perceived
effort
Telecom
provider
satisfaction
Mobile data
Perceived value of
the smartphone
H2(+)
Hedonic
attitude
Utilitarian
attiude
Subjective
knowledgeSMSVoice
Daily
frequency of
use
Daily usage
time
Perceived
usage
Perceived
brand
image
H1a-c
H9a-c H10a-cH8a-c
H1d,e(+)
H3a-g
H4a-h
H5a-f
H6a-i
H7(+)
H11a-c
2000). The benefits that a consumer perceives from product features are adopted from the
acceptance Model: perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, which both predict usage
(Davis, 1989). In the original TAM, the intention to use is an intermediate variable between
usefulness & usability, and usage behavior. However, the intention to use is not adopted in
the conceptual framework in order to simplify the model. As in a later extension of the TAM,
the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of a Technology (Venkatesh & Davis, 2003), also
the attitude towards using a technology is not adopted.
Perceived usefulness is defined as the belief that using a product or service positively
relates to job performance (Davis, 1989), which can be extended to performance in everyday
life for consumer products. Perceived ease of use is defined as the degree to which a person
believes that using a particular product or service would be free of effort (Davis, 1989), in
which effort is conceptualized to be a finite resource that a person may allocate to the various
activities that he or she is responsible for (Radner & Rothschild, 1975, in: Davis, 1989).
Outcomes of perceived value in this framework are actual usage levels and customer
satisfaction. Value and satisfaction are related since they are both evaluative judgments about
products or services (Woodruff, 1997). However, they are two distinct constructs due to
satisfaction being the result of an affective comparison process and value being the result of a
cognitive comparison process. In the model, satisfaction stems from value being an
experienced-based standard for comparison which consumers use to assess their satisfaction.
Usage is also related to value as it is the result of the value-variables perceived ease of use
and perceived usefulness in the Technology Acceptance Model. In the outcome variables
usage and satisfaction, distinction is made between the smartphone and the
telecommunication operator. For satisfaction, this means that customer satisfaction towards
both the telecom provider and the smartphone manufacturer is assessed. Usage is divided into
usage of the smartphone, and usage of services provided by the operating company: voice
17
(calling), SMS and mobile data. Usage of the smartphone is broken down into daily usage
time, daily frequency of use and the perceived usage level (Al-Gahtani & King, 1999).
Recent research has found that the frequency of use and the average duration of usage varies
greatly among users of smartphones (Falaki et al., 2010), which is why usage of the
smartphone is divided into three separate variables.
Finally, variables influencing the relations between the number of apps and the aspects
of value are derived from the consumer decision making process (Lamb et al., 2012). Klein
(1998) proposes that several characteristics of consumers shape the information-search phase
in this process. The following consumer characteristics are adopted in this study: subjective
knowledge, attitude towards the smartphone and the perception of the brand’s image in the
mind of the consumer. In the following sections, the proposed relations between the concepts
are described.
2.2.1 Number of apps on perceived value and customer satisfaction
A central predictor in the model for the value of the smartphone as perceived by
consumers is the number of apps. Based on the assumption that apps are features, this study
focuses on the number of apps installed on the smartphone as the number of features. The
number of apps is proposed to predict value and satisfaction. Two competing theories, each
leading to a different set of hypotheses, are used to predict the relations between the number
of apps and the aspects of value: feature fatigue and mass customization.
According to feature fatigue, each additional feature is expected to increase perceived
usefulness, to decrease usability, and to increase perceived sacrifice. Due to the added utility
of each app, apps are expected to increase perceived usefulness. Moreover, each additional
feature is “one more thing to learn, one more thing to possibly misunderstand, and one more
thing to search through when looking for the thing you want” (Nielsen, 1993, p. 155 in
Thompson et al., 2005). Therefore, a negative relation is expected between the number of
apps and the perceived usability. This increase in utility and decrease in usability due to an
increase in the number of apps corresponds to feature fatigue. Then there is the cost-aspect of
value: applications require resources in the form of time and effort to install and update the
applications and to learn to use the applications effectively. Barriers for customer satisfaction
of software products that have been found in previous research are effort for installation and
maintenance (Kekre et al., 1995) which correspond to the effort of customers required to
install and maintain (update) apps. Because a large number of applications is offered free of
charge and because the price of apps differs per operating system, monetary costs are not
adopted in the model. However, apps are expected to require effort and time since users are to
download, install and regularly update the apps and since users are to learn how to use the
apps on their smartphone. Therefore, based on the perspective of feature fatigue, smartphone
users with a high number of apps are expected to be more likely to perceive a high degree of
effort.
On the other hand, the concept of mass customization contradicts the expectations that
are based on feature fatigue regarding usability and effort. The modular property of
smartphones can be considered an anomaly of feature fatigue: consumers can modify the
functionality of their device after purchase by adding or deleting apps according to their
preferences. Based on this anomaly, mass customization is proposed as a theory competing
18
with feature fatigue as an explanation of the effects of apps on behavior of smartphone
consumers. Applying mass customization creates value (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2006) which
can be attributed to the increased added utility of each app or feature and also to increased
perceptions of usability (Kamis et al., 2008). A positive relation can be proposed between the
number of apps and usability based on mass customization: smartphone users with a high
number of apps have customized the utility of their smartphone and are also expected to have
customized the usability of their smartphone, e.g. by configuring different home-screens and
shortcuts that make their device more easy to use. The number of apps installed on
consumers’ smartphone may well contribute to a users control over the functionality and
usability of their device. Therefore, based on the view of mass customization, a positive
association between the number of apps and the perception of usability can be expected.
Also, a negative association between the number of apps and the effort perceived by
consumers is expected: based on mass customization, it can be expected that users of modular
products adapt the functionality of their device according to their preferences. Those users
will associate a higher number of apps on their smartphone with a desirable degree of effort
exerted into downloading, updating and learning how to use those apps. Moreover, a learning
curve can be expected in which consumers that have a high number of apps, perceive less
effort for the high number of apps because they are have developed an aptitude for using the
apps. This lower perception can be especially expected when they have installed a number of
apps conform to their need and have customized their product.
Moreover, the number of apps is expected to relate to customer satisfaction directly,
which is in line with previous research findings of products attributes and customer
satisfaction: according to the hierarchy of value by Gardial et al. (1994), customer
satisfaction stems from product attributes. In the context of this research, smartphone users
with a high number of apps are expected to be more likely to be satisfied with their
smartphone, based on this hierarchy of value. Additionally, cross-over effects are expected
between the number of apps on the smartphone and the satisfaction with the
telecommunication provider. Mittal et al. (1998) find that users of consumption systems (a
combination of products and services) attribute satisfaction of products to service providers
over time. Since telecommunication operators deliver smartphones to consumers and provide
the services necessary to operate smartphones, they form a consumption system and
consumers can be expected to relate their satisfaction with their handset to their satisfaction
with the operating company.
The following relations are hypothesized between the number of applications that
consumers have installed on their smartphone, and the aspects of value and customer
satisfaction (note that the original hypotheses reflect feature fatigue and that the alternative
hypotheses reflect mass customization): H1a-e The number of apps installed on the smartphone is (a) positively related to perceived
usefulness, (b) negatively related to perceived usability, (c) positively related to perceived
effort and is positively related to customer satisfaction of (d)the smartphone and (e) the
telecom provider
H1b,c,alt The number of apps installed in the smartphone is (b,alt) positively related to perceived
usability and (c,alt) negatively related to perceived effort
19
2.2.2 Perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness
Extensive empirical evidence has been generated in previous research for the relation
between perceived usability and perceived usefulness, which is why this relation is not
widely elaborated. The underlying explanation is that products that are easy to use increase
the utility that consumers perceive to enjoy from the product in use (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh
& Davis, 2000). Consumers are more likely to perceive a product as useful when they
perceive that product to be easy to use, than when they experience difficulties in operating the
product. This is especially true for products in the information systems category (Venkatesh
et al., 2003), such as smartphones. The following relation is hypothesized: H2 Perceived usability is positively related to perceived usefulness
2.2.3 Aspects of value on usage of the smartphone, services provided by the
operator and customer satisfaction
In the Technology Acceptance Model and variants thereof, perceived usefulness and
perceived usability are positively related to (attitude towards) usage (e.g. Davis, 1989;
Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Smartphone consumers that believe their device is useful are
expected to indicate to 1) use it for more hours per day 2) more often per day, 3) and also to
actually say to use it more, when compared to users that perceive their device to be useless.
This is expected because they see more purposes for using their smartphone. Additionally,
users that perceive their device as easy to use are also expected to use it longer, more often
and to perceive to use it more: when the smartphone is easy to handle, there are less barriers
to use the device for a longer period of time or more frequent, which also explains why those
users believe they have a high degree of usage. Also users that perceive to exert a high degree
of effort into their smartphone for installing, updating and learning how to use the apps on
their smartphone are expected to use it more often, longer and to perceive a higher degree of
usage. This expectation is a direct consequence from the concept of effort, i.e. people that
perceive to spend time on updating, installing and learning how to use the apps on their
smartphone probably tend to use it more.
Besides the positive associations expected between the value aspects of the smartphone
and the usage aspects of the smartphone, associations are also expected between the value
aspects of the smartphone and the usage of the services provided by telecommunication
providers: SMS and voice services and mobile data. Usability and usefulness are expected to
relate negatively to SMS and voice usage, but positively to data usage, based on the
following rationale: people that perceive their device as easy to use have low barriers to using
the apps on their device. Moreover, if consumers believe that their smartphone is useful, they
will be expected to use more apps in order to make use of the full potential of their device.
Since the barriers to use their smartphone is low and they use more apps, consumers are also
expected to use more mobile data since many apps require a connection to the internet.
However, with the transition of SMS and voice usage towards mobile data usage in mind, it
may be expected that apps which use mobile data are replacements for the more traditional
phone services. Therefore, it is expected that consumers that perceive their device as useful,
make less use of voice and SMS. The same relation is expected for usability because of the
lower barriers for the interaction with the smartphone: consumers that consider that
20
interaction as easy, have more interactions with the apps on their smartphone and
consequently often use more mobile data and use less traditional telecom services.
Finally, the effort that consumers perceive to have put into the smartphone’s apps are
only expected to relate positively to mobile data usage, since this is the only service provided
by opco’s that is needed to use apps.
The value perceived by consumers is also expected to relate to the degree of
satisfaction with both the smartphone and the provider since in the model it is the standard
that consumers use to assess their satisfaction. Customer perceived value has been found to
directly affect satisfaction (Eggert & Ulaga, 2002; McDougal & Levesque, 2000; Spiteri &
Dion, 2004) and especially usability has been found to be an important driver of overall
customer satisfaction for software products (Flavian et al, 2005; Kekre et al., 1995).
Consumers that perceive their smartphone as useful and easy to use are expected to rate their
satisfaction level with the smartphone as higher than consumers who believe otherwise. On
the other hand, effort is a negative aspect of value, and therefore effort is expected to be
negatively related to satisfaction. Based on the cross-over effects between products and
services (Mittal et al., 1998) discussed in section 2.2.1, the aspects of value are also expected
to be associated with the satisfaction that customers assign to the provider of the services that
are needed to use their smartphones. Based on the above, the following relations are
hypothesized: H3a-c Perceived usefulness is negatively related to (a) SMS usage and (b) voice usage but is
positively related to (c) mobile data usage
H3d-f Perceived ease of use is negatively related to (d) SMS usage and (e) voice usage but is
positively related to (f) mobile data usage
H3g Perceived effort is positively related to mobile data usage
H4a-c Perceived usefulness is positively related to (a) daily usage duration, (b) daily frequency of
usage and (c) perception of usage
H4d-f Perceived usability is positively related to (d) daily usage duration, (b) daily frequency of
usage and (c) perception of usage
H4g-h Perceived effort is positively related to (a) daily usage duration, (b) daily frequency of
usage and (c) perception of usage.
H5a, b Perceived usefulness is positively related to customer satisfaction of (a) the smartphone and
(b) the telecom provider
H5c,d Perceived ease of use is positively related to customer satisfaction of (a) the smartphone
and (b) the telecom provider
H5e,f Perceived effort is negatively related to customer satisfaction of (a) the smartphone and (b)
the telecom provider
2.2.4 Usage of the smartphone on usage of telecommunication provider services
The aspects of usage of the smartphone are expected to be associated with the usage of
the services provided by telecom operators. The top three features that are used on phones are
the phone, SMS and internet (Haverila, 2011b). For making calls and for texting messages,
smartphone users have to make use of the services provided by telecom operators. However,
it is expected that smartphone users make less use of the traditional telecommunication
services for texting and calling, which is based on the transition in the telecoms industry from
these traditional services to mobile data (Tilson & Lyytinen, 2006). Therefore, users that
indicate to use their smartphone more often or longer per day, and/or perceive to have a high
level of usage are expected to make more use of mobile data and less use of SMS and voice
services. For use of mobile internet services, this relation is less straightforward since heavy
21
users of apps can use a WiFi network, thereby circumventing the costs associated with using
mobile data provided by their operator. Nevertheless, consumers that say to be heavy users of
smartphones, that use it often and for a long duration on a daily basis, are expected to make
more use of mobile data. The following associations are expected: H6a-c The daily usage duration of the smartphone is negatively related to (a) SMS usage and (b)
voice usage but (c) positively to mobile data usage
H6d-f The daily frequency of use of the smartphone is negatively related to (a) SMS usage and
(b) voice usage but (c) positively to mobile data usage
H6g-i The perception of the usage level of the smartphone is positively negatively related to (a)
SMS usage and (b) voice usage but (c) positively to mobile data usage
2.2.5 Customer satisfaction of the smartphone on customer satisfaction of the
telecom provider
The telecommunication provider is a value added reseller of the smartphone because it
often provides the handset itself and the services that are necessary to use the smartphone
and, such as mobile internet. Again, cross-over effects can be expected between satisfaction
that the users of smartphones attribute to their device, and the satisfaction that they attribute
to the provider of the device and the services necessary to operate it. For instance, if a
customer is in possession of a smartphone that frequently drops calls because of an error in
the design of the antenna, it is likely that his or her dissatisfaction with the device is also
projected on the provider of the services necessary to make the call. Therefore, it is expected
that customer satisfaction with the smartphone and customer satisfaction with the operator are
related: H7 Customer satisfaction of the smartphone is positively related to customer satisfaction of the
telecommunication provider
2.2.6 Moderating variables
Finally, variables that influence the relation between the number of apps on consumers’
smartphones and the perception of value are discussed. These are subjective knowledge,
hedonic attitude or utilitarian attitude towards the smartphone and perceived brand image.
However, the directions of the moderating effects are not established in the hypotheses
because these are differential, depending on which of the either concepts of feature fatigue or
mass customization is supported.
Consumers that are knowledgeable about smartphones have been found to be better
able to exploit mobile services (Deng et al., 2010). Consumers’ subjective knowledge is
defined as “a consumer’s perception of the amount of information they have stored in their
memory” (Flynn & Goldsmith, 1999, p. 59), which describes the consumer’s knowledge
associated with the product in general. It is plausible to believe that users that consider
themselves adequate users of smartphones have a different perception of the usability and
utility of their smartphone than novice users. It is also likely that experienced users will
benefit more from increases in usefulness and usability, and will suffer less from decreases in
perceived usability and increases of sacrifice which are related to the number of apps. The
latter can be expected because they take less time and effort to install, learn to use and
maintain applications, when compared to average or beginning users of applications.
In the TAM, a consumer’s attitude towards a product or technology has been adopted
as a moderating variable (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Consumers can have different attitudes
22
towards products in which two major categories can be distinguished: a utilitarian and a
hedonic attitude (Childers et al., 2001). Consumers with a hedonic attitude find pleasure in
using a product, while consumers with a utilitarian attitude use a product to achieve certain
outcomes (Batra & Athola, 1990). Based on these different attitudes that consumers can have
towards smartphones as a product category, differences in the perception of value are
expected because people that experience smartphone as hedonic are more likely to enjoy the
range of functionality offered by different applications. On the other hand, consumers with an
utilitarian attitude can be expected to be more fatigued by functionality of their smartphone
which they do not make use of. It should be noted that consumers could also have both
attitudes towards smartphones and that they are not mutually exclusive.
The perception of the brand by consumers is expected to affect the extent to which
they perceive the aspects of value, e.g. consumers that are biased by a positive brand
perception are expected to be positively inclined from functionality of applications and
negatively biased from perceived effort increases. Conversely, consumers with a low brand
perception could be prone to being irritated from decreases in usability from the high number
of apps or perceive more effort required for installing, updating and learning to use apps.
The following relations are hypothesized: H8a-c Consumers’ subjective knowledge moderates the relation between the number of apps and
(a) perceived usefulness, (b) perceived usability and (c) perceived effort
H9a-d Consumers’ hedonic attitude towards the smartphone moderates the relation between the
number of apps and (a) perceived usefulness (b) perceived usability and (c) perceived effort
H10a-d Consumers’ Utilitarian attitude towards the smartphone moderates the relation between the
number of apps (a) perceived usefulness, (b) perceived usability and (c) perceived effort
H11a-c Consumers’ perception of the image of the smartphone brand moderates the relation
between the number of apps and (a) perceived usefulness, (b) perceived usability and (c)
perceived effort
The model that has been developed in this section should provide an adequate basis
for answering the research questions posed in the introduction about the effects of apps on
consumer behavior of smartphones and telecommunication provider services. In the
following section, the methods used to empirically test the model will be addressed.
3 Method
The model that is developed in the previous section was tested with an online survey.
This section will discuss the data sample, the measurement instrument, the data collection
procedure and the methods used to analyze the data and to test the model.
3.1 Data sample Data was collected from customers of a telecommunication provider in the
Netherlands. The respondents had to be in possession of a smartphone of the brands Apple,
Blackberry, HTC or Samsung. These brands accounted for 90.6% of smartphone sales in
March 2012 (GfK, 2012). Only postpaid consumers (i.e. with a monthly subscription) were
approached because smartphone apps have a higher penetration rate among postpaid users
compared to prepaid users (Telecompaper, 2011). In addition, the respondents were to have a
subscription at the operator under focus for at least one month in order to ensure that their
smartphone is “out of the box” and in use. Finally, a selection criterion was that the
23
respondents were to have installed at least one app themselves such that they could answer
questions about perceived effort of apps.
3.2 Measurement instrument
Several variables in the conceptual model are measured with multiple items.
Measuring constructs with multiple items can capture the complexity of a theoretical
construct or a latent variable that is not directly measurable (Fornell et al., 1996). To facilitate
construct validity and face validity, the constructs were measured with items from previous
studies (Flavian et al., 2005; Hair et al., 2010).
The variables and constructs in the conceptual model were measured with the
measurement instrument in Appendix A. Information on usage of services offered by the
telecom provider were extracted from the customer database. The other constructs and
variables were measured with an online survey. This survey, which was in Dutch, can be
found in Appendix B. The design of the website for the online survey was such that it could
easily be completed on desktop or laptop PC’s, smartphones and tablets. The answer options
of the questions of the online survey appeared in a random order. The survey and the
translation were reviewed by a marketing analyst at the telecom operator and two assistant
professors of Marketing at Eindhoven University of Technology. It was also pre-tested by
five people.
The constructs and variables that are measured by the instrument are the following:
Number of apps installed on the smartphone –The number of installed apps was used
to measure the number of features that consumer’s have installed on their smartphone. The
consumers were asked for the total number of apps on their smartphone, including pre-
installed features, in intervals of 10 applications. Above 100 apps, the answer option was
open such that the scale could be extended if need be. The pre-installed applications were
required because all applications that consumers had installed on their smartphone could
provide functionality that pre-installed applications also offer.
Perceived usefulness – This measure was adapted from a study assessing a product for
business use and was adapted such that the usage situation reflected situations in everyday
life. The item “Using this technology improves my job performance” was not adopted, since
smartphones were assessed for consumer use and since translating the job performance to
performance in everyday life could lead to ambiguity when the other three items are taken
into consideration.
Perceived ease of use – Is measured by asking respondents for the clearness and
understandability of the interaction with the smartphone, the degree of mental effort required
for operation, the easiness of use and the degree to which consumers can get their device to
do what they want it to do, as in Venkatesh & Davis (2000).
Perceived effort and perceived monetary costs – In previous research the sacrifice
aspects of value were measured under one construct: perceived sacrifice. In this research
however, only the perceived effort or time was measured because the price paid for
applications is different for different smartphone operating system, i.e. numerous apps that
are freely available in the Android app market are charged for in Apple’s Appstore. Because
24
of possible confusion of effort with the construct perceived ease of use, the effort was
measured in perceived time. The measures were adopted from Deng et al. (2010).
Usage of the Smartphone – Previous studies have measured usage with the self-
reported items daily duration of use, daily frequency of use, the number of applications used
and the perceived usage (Al-Gahtani & King, 1999; Kim, 2008). Since the present study
focused on usage and satisfaction of smartphones stemming from the number of applications
in use, the number of applications were dropped. Because this study expected differential
effects for frequency of use, duration of use and perception, these aspects were not used as
items but as variables. Previous studies such as Kim (2008) divided the frequency of
interaction and hours of use per time period in prefixed time intervals which are probably
different for smartphones. Therefore, the daily usage and frequency of interaction were stated
as open questions and recoded afterwards. The process of recoding is described in Appendix
C. Recoding the frequency and duration of use into ordinal scales should have resulted in
more reliable answers since the self-reported measures can be expected to be inaccurate.
SMS, Voice and Mobile data usage – Information on SMS, voice and mobile data
usage was an objective measure that was extracted from the operator’s customer database and
is the average usage per month between December 2011 and February 2012. It should be
noted that data usage over WiFi networks cannot be registered by telecom providers. People
can use internet on their smartphone solely over their home WiFi network but not have a
mobile data subscription, meaning that they can be heavy users of internet on their
smartphone without using the mobile data services offered by operators.
Customer satisfaction – Almost all studies that use a self-measurement of customer
satisfaction show a negatively skewed distribution of this variable (Peterson & Wilson,
1992), i.e. overall, customers are more satisfied than dissatisfied. Turel & Serenko (2006) use
a ten-point Likert scale to avoid skewness problems because it enables respondents to make
better discriminations (Andrews, 1984 in Turel & Serenko); this approach was adopted in the
measurement instrument with an eleven point likert scale in order to allow for a middle
answer option, which is coherent with the 7-point Likert scales used for the other items. A
single-item was used to measure customer satisfaction directly. Using single-item scales for
measuring customer satisfaction may decrease the quality of measurement (LaBarbera &
Mazursky, 1983 in: Mittal et al., 1998). Nevertheless, Bergkvist & Rossiter (2007) suggest
that single item constructs can be used in marketing for concrete objects and attributes such
as customer satisfaction. Using single-item constructs also decrease the completion time of
the survey.
Subjective knowledge – One item was deleted from Flynn & Goldsmith (1999) since
the translation in Dutch language offered too little differentiation from another item
measuring the same construct. The measure then consisted of the items knowing much about
smartphones, how to operate them, whether the respondent believes that other people think he
or she is an expert. The respondent is also asked to compare him/herself to others regarding
smartphone knowledge.
Utilitarian and hedonic attitude towards smartphones – The two dimensions of
attitude towards smartphones are adopted from Voss et al. (2003) who develop measurement
scales for the two dimensions of attitude towards product categories. The scales consist of 5
25
items per dimension regarding the hedonic and utilitarian attitude, and are adapted to relate to
enjoyment of smartphones and the utility of smartphones in general.
Perceived brand image – The perception of the brand’s image by consumers is
measured by asking respondents for the attractiveness, reliability and quality of the brand, as
in Low & Lamb (2000). Low & Lamb (2000) find support for distinguishing between brand
image, brand attitude and perceived quality as three types of brand associations.
Control variables – Age, gender, the education level, the number of smartphones
owned, the duration of smartphone possession, the smartphone’s brand, type of use (business
or consumer) and the device on which the survey was completed were measured as control
variables. The motivation for including each of these variables is discussed in the final
section of this chapter.
It should be noted that all the latent constructs are reflective constructs for which the
items are “caused” by the constructs, as opposed to formative constructs which are formed by
the items measuring the constructs (Hair et al., 2010, Ch. 12).
3.3 Data collection procedure The request to complete the online survey was administered via e-mail to 2446
consumer of the Dutch operator. The extraction of the respondents from the customer
database of the operator was at random except for the criteria discussed in Section 3.1. Data
collection, graphic design of the online survey and the contacting of the consumers was
conducted by a marketing research agency. As an incentive to boost the response rate, five
vouchers for an online store with a value of €20 were raffled among the respondents. The
survey request was issued on April 17th
2012. A reminder was issued after 4 days, and the
survey was closed on the 28th
of April and hence was available for 15 days.
8 invitations were ‘bounced’ – a non-delivery notification was received due to e.g. a
non-existing e-mail address. 18 people accessed the link of the survey, but did not start the
survey and 71 potential respondents started the survey without finishing it. A total of 271
surveys were fully completed, a response rate of 11.1%. On average, people took 11:34
minutes to complete the survey.
The manipulation of the original dataset is described in Appendix C. Three respondents
were deleted from the database because they had a completion time of four minutes or less
and because it was suspected that the answering of the questions was conducted at random.
Of the remaining 271 respondents, 19 did not meet the criteria of the data sample since four
respondents were not customers of the operator and 15 respondents did not download apps.
These respondents were deleted from the dataset, which left 252 usable respondents (10.3%).
3.4 Analytical method The dataset was delivered in Microsoft Excel 2010. SPSS 18 was used for the initial
processing of the data. A non-response analysis was conducted using a one-way MANOVA
for comparing early and late respondents. To test for common method bias, Harman’s one
factor test was applied using principal components analysis in SPSS.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is used to test the model developed in Section 2.
SEM consists of two steps: the confirmation of the measurement model and the estimation of
26
the path model or structural model. When the measurement model is analyzed, it is assessed
how well the different directly measured items reflect the indirectly measured constructs.
Subsequently, in the path analysis, it is assessed whether the predicted relations between the
latent constructs exist and to what extent (Hair et al., 2010, Ch. 11).
Structural equation models can be estimated by Maximum Likelihood (ML)
estimation or by Partial Least Squares (PLS) estimation methods, of which the former is a
covariance based approach and well known through software applications such as LISREL or
AMOS. The latter is a less-known, variance-based approach (Haenlein & Kaplan, 2004).
PLS is used as estimation technique for several reasons. Compared to other multivariate
techniques, PLS is robust to violations of distributional assumptions such as normality and
smaller sample sizes can be used (Fornell & Bookstein, 1982). In addition, PLS is less
sensitive to multicollinearity problems (Hair et al., 2010, Ch. 12), and more information of
the data is retained since PLS uses covariance instead of correlation, which is the
standardized covariance (Ringle et al., 2005 on smartpls.de). Finally, PLS is more suitable for
prediction rather than confirmation of existing theory (Hair et al., 2011).
The software package that was used for PLS is SmartPLS 2.0 M3 (Ringle et al., 2005
on Smartpls.de, 2012). An abort criterion of 10-5
was used to assure the PLS algorithm’s
convergence while minimizing computational requirements (Hair et al., 2011). A maximum
of 300 iterations was permitted. Cutoff values and test approaches for validity and reliability
are according to Hair et al. (2011). Bootstrapping with 500 resamples was used as a reactive
Monte Carlo resampling strategy in order to assess the significance of the estimates. In
bootstrapping, parameters’ values and standard errors are compared to repeated random
samples drawn with replacement from the original observed sample data, in order to assess
the significance of the estimated parameters (Marcoulides & Saunders, 2006). Effects were
deemed significant if the probability of erroneously detecting an effect was smaller than .05 .
Moderating effects were analyzed based on the product indicator approach (Henseler
& Fassot, 2010). For assessing the moderator effects in SmartPLS, the indicator values were
standardized (recomputed to have to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1) before
multiplication. Hypotheses regarding moderating effects were significant if the coefficient of
the interaction term was significant (Henseler & Fassot, 2010). The strength of the
moderating effects was determined by calculating the effect size ƒ2 which is an indicator for
the change in R2 due to adding the interaction term of the moderator.
1 Effect sizes of
respectively .02, .15 and .35 are weak, moderate and strong (Henseler & Fassot, 2010). The
moderator analysis was conducted separately per moderating effect, using 500 resamples for
the bootstrapping procedure.
To ensure correct model estimation, several control variables were included in the
model. Preferences for different features and the satisfaction caused by features have been
found to differ by demographic variables, such as age, gender and education (Haverila,
2011a, 2011b). In addition, the time of owning a smartphone and the number of smartphones
owned are also used because people that have owned multiple smartphones or that have
owned a smartphone for a long time may be more experienced with and knowledgeable about
1 ƒ
2
(Cohen, 1988 in: Henseler & Fassot, 2010)
27
smartphones. The brand of the device used by the consumer is controlled for as well since
the different brands make use of different operating systems, have different apps available to
them and have different interfaces, leading to possible differences in e.g. the perception of
usability between the users of different smartphone brands. Finally, the type of use of the
smartphone (business, pleasure or both) is controlled for, since users that use their
smartphone for business purposes do not use it entirely voluntarily, and therefore the
evaluations of the device and the apps may differ from the evaluations offered by consumers.
Dummy variables were used for categorical variables with more than two categories (i.e.
smartphone brand, survey method and type of use). The coding of dummy variables is
described in Appendix C. As in prior research using PLS, age, number of smartphones
owned, usage time and education were treated as ordinally scaled variables (e.g. Venkatesh &
Davis, 2000).
4 Results
This section will present the results of the data collection and the statistical analyses.
First, the sample will be described, followed by a non-response analysis and the cleaning of
the data. Subsequently, the measurement model will be tested, followed by several tests of
the structural model: the base model, moderating effects and control variables. The results
induced two post-hoc analyses which are also described: a comparison between the different
operating systems and the analysis of mediating variables.
4.1 Sample and data characteristics Several characteristics of the data sample (N=252) can be viewed in Table 1 (note that
this table was reconstructed after the deletion of outliers in section 4.1.3). Corresponding
characteristics of other customer groups and the Dutch population can be viewed in Appendix
D. The distribution of males and females in the population seems to be relatively even,
although the fraction of females is slightly higher than the fraction of males. This is also the
case for other customer groups and the Dutch population. The distribution of the different
types of education in the sample does not accurately reflect the average Dutch population in
the sense that the average Dutch population seems lower educated. Regarding age, the sample
does appear to reflect the operators’ customer base, which consists of younger people when
compared to the Dutch population.
Regarding the representation of the smartphone brands of the sample to the operator’s
customer base, Blackberry and Samsung users seem slightly underrepresented as opposed to
HTC users, which are overrepresented. Regarding the respondents, an equal proportion of the
four brands was present in the 2446 invitees, which is not the case for the actual sample:
more HTC and Samsung users responded than Apple and Blackberry users.
The majority of the respondents indicated to use their smartphone for consumer
purposes only while about one-third uses their smartphone for both business and consumer
purposes. Only one respondent indicated to use his or her smartphone solely for business,
which makes sense because the survey was issued to consumer users. Finally, the majority of
the respondents indicated that their current smartphone was their first, and the majority of the
respondents has owned a smartphone for less than two years.
28
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of control variables
Variable Label Frequency Percentage Variable Label Frequency Percentage
Gender Male 123 48.8 % Smartphone Brand
Apple 47 18.7 % Female 129 51.2 % Blackberry 34 13.5%
Age 15-25 46 18.3 % HTC 81 32.1%
26-35 46 18.3 % Samsung 86 34.1 % 36-45 63 25.0 % Other 4 1.6 %
46-55 64 25.4 % Type of use Consumer 160 63.5 %
56-65 26 10.3 % Business 1 0.4 % 66-75 3 1.2 % Both 91 36.1 %
75+ 2 0.8 % Number of
Smartphones owned
1 smartphone 153 60.7%
Education None 1 0.4 % 2 smartphones 44 17.5% Primary 1 0.4 % 3 smartphones 39 15.5%
VMBO/MBO1 30 11.9 % 4 or more smartphones 16 6.3%
HAVO/VWO 29 29 % Usage Time 0-8 months 52 20.6%
MBO 2-4 71 28.2 % 8-19 months 89 35.3%
HBO 79 31.3 % 19-31 months 41 16.3%
WO 34 13.5 % 31-43 months 27 10.7%
Other 7 2.8% 43-54 months 16 6.3%
More than 54 months 27 10.7%
4.1.1 Non-response analysis
Extrapolation is used for assessing non-response. The early and late respondents are
compared, since late respondents and non-respondents are both ‘less readily’ in their response
(Scott Armstrong & Overton, 1977). The first and last quartile of respondents are compared
(n=63). A one-way MANOVA was conducted in SPSS with the response group as the
predictor variable and the measured constructs used in the structural model (as calculated by
SmartPLS) are used as the dependent variables. In the calculation of these variables, the items
that are deleted in section 4.2 are not used. The MANOVA revealed no significant
multivariate main effects for response group at the p < .05 level, Wilks’ λ = .868, F(16;105) =
1.000, partial eta squared = .132. Power to detect the effect was .631. Given the low power to
detect the effect (under .80), the tests of between subject effects were assessed for further
differences between the different response groups on the metric variables, but no significant
effects were observed. Based on these findings, it is concluded that there are no significant
differences between early and late respondents and that in turn it is not likely that there is a
non-response bias.
4.1.2 Common method bias
Harman’s one factor test was used to test for common method bias. Using principal
component analysis, eight factors were extracted with an eigenvalue exceeding 1.0 (the
Kaiser criterion), accounting for 69.0% of the variance. The first and largest factor of the
unrotated solution accounted for 30.5% of the variance, indicating that common method bias
is probably not an issue since this is not the majority of the variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
4.1.3 Missing data, outliers and multivariate assumptions
The data did not contain missing values, which is because the online survey tool
required the respondents to answer every question. Univariate outliers were detected visually
by examining boxplot diagrams and by assessing which variables have a standardized value
exceeding ± 4.0 (Hair et al., 2010, Ch. 2). The variables that were measured with a Likert
scale or the customer satisfaction variables are not assessed for univariate outliers since
univariate outliers are plausible for these variables and were not to be deleted. The outliers
29
can be viewed in Appendix E, as well as the actions following from this analysis. For 11
cases, values were deleted. Multivariate outliers were detected using the Mahalanobis
distance, calculated in SPSS. The distance is calculated using all items in the base model (36)
in which no values of the D2/df exceeded 2.78. Hence, no multivariate outliers are detected
(Hair et al., 2010, Ch. 2).
Four multivariate assumptions can be tested on the metric variables which potentially
affect every multivariate statistical technique (Hair et al., 2010, Ch. 2): normality,
homoscedasticity, linearity and the absence of correlated errors. Regarding the normality
assumption, the data is not normally distributed since out of the 40 variables, 31 proved
significantly skewed and 20 proved to be significantly platykurtic or leptokurtic (Appendix
E). Fortunately, the impact of non-normal distributions of variables in sample sizes exceeding
200 effectively diminishes (Hair et al., 2010, Ch. 2; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), while
departures from the normal distribution often occur with large sample sizes (Pallant, 2005).
Confirmatory factor analysis is also relatively robust to violations of normality under
sufficient sample size (Gorsuch, 1983 in: Floyd & Widaman, 1995). However, PLS is
sensitive to asymptotic data (Vinzi et al., 2009), which is why a third root transformation was
applied to mobile data usage and SMS usage, and a fourth root transformation was applied to
voice usage, since these variables has long tails in the distribution.
Problems in homoscedasticity are often a result of violation of normality (Hair et al.,
2010, Ch. 2). Homoscedasticity and linearity can be assessed by studying scatter plots
between two variables. Linearity and homoscedasticity were not assessed because doing so
was not pragmatic considering the high number of variables.
The absence of correlated errors applies to data collection in groups and time series
data (Hair et al., 2010, Ch. 2) due to e.g. a nested data structure. The research design of this
study does not encompass these methods, thereby decreasing the probability of correlated
errors. Therefore this assumption was not checked.
4.2 Measurement model
4.2.1 Construct reliability
Reliability was assessed by examining factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha and
composite reliability. The factor loadings and cross-loadings of the initial measurement
model including all directly measured items can be viewed in Appendix F. All individual
factor loadings exceeded .70 except for Perceived usability2 (.217) and Utilitarian attitude4
(.575), which were deleted from the model. Cross-loading items were Hedonic atttiude5 with
the construct Utilitarian attitude (.719) and Utilitarian Attitude2 with Hedonic attitude (.704).
In order to ensure sufficient discriminant validity, these items were deleted from the analysis
which can be justified since sufficient items remain to measure hedonic and utilitarian
attitude. After these deletions, the model was tested again. The corresponding factor loadings
and cross-loadings are illustrated in Appendix G. All items had loadings exceeding .70 on the
corresponding constructs and no cross-loadings could be observed. Cronbach’s alpha for the
multi-item constructs ranged from .84-92 and composite reliability ranged from .88-.97, as
displayed in Table 2. Hence, construct reliability is warranted for the latent constructs. It
should be noted that reliability values and the average variance extracted for single item
30
Table 2 Measurement properties
constructs equals 1.00 because the items that load on the constructs have a factor loading of
1.00 , which is because the constructs are measured directly. These values are not depicted in
Table 2.
4.2.2 Construct validity and multicollinearity
Both convergent validity and discriminant validity were assessed. For sufficient
convergent validity, values for the average variance extracted (AVE) should exceed .50,
which indicates that the latent variable explains more than half of its indicators’ variance
(Hair et al., 2011). In Table 2 it can be viewed that the lowest value for the AVE of multi-
item constructs was .72 for perceived effort, meaning that convergent validity is sound.
Regarding discriminant validity, the Fornell-Larcker criterion was employed and in
the previous section, cross-loading items were deleted. When the Fornell & Larcker criterion
is met, a latent construct shares more variance with the indicators loading on the construct
under scope than with other latent variables in the model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In other
words, the square root of the AVE should exceed the correlation with any other latent
construct. As can be seen in Table 3, this was the case for all multi-item constructs.
Therefore, based on the Fornell-Lacker criterion and the absence of cross-loading items, the
discriminant validity of the latent constructs in the measurement model is acceptable.
Regarding the single-item constructs, no correlations approached 1.00, which is also an
indication of the discriminant validity of the single-item constructs.
Finally, Multicollinearity was not an issue since no value for the variance inflation
factor (VIF) above 5.0 could be detected (Hair et al., 2010), as can be seen in table 2.
4.3 Structural model For the base model, the significance of the standardized effects sizes are assessed. This
is followed by the analysis of moderator variables and control variables.
Variable Mean St. dev. Cronbach's
Alpha Composite Reliability
AVE R2* R2** VIF
Apps 4.08 2.61 - - - - - 1.25
Cust. Sat. Smartphone 7.65 2.20 - - - .44 .44 2.46 Daily Usage Time 3.77 1.49 - - - .05 .05 1.61
Frequency Of Use 2.78 1.38 - - - .10 .10 1.68
Hedonic Attitude 5.41 1.06 .88 .92 .74 - - 2.11 Mobile Data Usage 5.25 1.89 - - - .14 .14 1.32
Perceived Brand Image 5.46 1.34 .95 .97 .91 - - 2.50
Perceived Effort 2.93 1.29 .81 .88 .72 .04 .10 1.26 Perceived Usability 5.52 1.13 .92 .95 .86 .12 .52 2.54
Perceived Usefulness 5.25 1.13 .84 .91 .76 .33 .47 2.05
Perceived Usage 5.65 1.24 - - - .35 .35 1.97
Subjective Knowledge 4.49 1.32 .92 .94 .80 - - 1.61
SMS Usage 3.33 1.30 - - - .04 .04 1.06
Telco Cust. Sat. 7.27 1.52 - - - .12 .12 1.18 Utilitarian Attitude 5.94 0.80 .91 .94 .84 - - 2.13
Voice Usage 2.80 0.70 - - - .01 .01 1.10
*R2 of the base model without the direct effect of the moderating variables **R2 of the model including the direct effects of the moderating variables
31
Table 3 Correlation matrix of latent variables and Fornell-Larcker test
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
1. Apps 1.00*
2. Cust. Sat. Smartphone .32 1.00
3. Daily Usage Time .06 .04 1.00
4. Frequency Of Use .15 .18 .49 1.00
5. Hedonic Attitude .17 .11 .3 .29 .86
6. Mobile Data Usage .18 .11 .22 .31 .13 1.00
7. Perceived Brand Image .25 .68 .03 .15 .27 .07 .95
8. Perceived Effort -.2 -.32 .06 -.02 -.07 -.08 -.26 .85
9. Perceived Usability .35 .62 .14 .26 .36 .23 .64 -.33 .93
10. Perceived Usefulness .27 .49 .19 .3 .37 .25 .58 -.15 .57 .87
11. Perceived Usage .23 .34 .41 .42 .39 .3 .4 -.04 .51 .52 1.00
12. Subjective Knowledge .3 .14 .19 .34 .47 .31 .26 -.04 .37 .41 .4 .89
13. SMS Usage -.03 -.02 -.01 .05 0 .08 0 .03 .01 -.13 -.03 .04 1.00
14. Telco Cust. Sat. .03 .31 .02 .01 .14 -.03 .26 -.16 .19 .22 .08 0 -.02 1.00
15. Utilitarian Attitude .22 .22 .23 .27 .68 .15 .35 -.08 .47 .46 .46 .37 -.03 .19 .92
16. Voice Usage -.06 .09 -.02 .04 -.04 .12 0 -.01 -.01 -.04 .02 -.02 .03 .08 -.05 1.00
*Diagonal elements in bold are square roots of the AVE values for latent constructs.
4.3.1 Base model
The base model includes the main concepts without the direct effects of moderators.
The explained variance or the R2
of the dependent variables in the base model can be found in
Table 2. The R2 must be evaluated for individual studies (Backhaus et al., 2003 in: Götz et
al., 2010). Hair et al. (2010) states that R2 values of respectively .25, .50 and .75 can be
described as weak, moderate and substantial as a rule of thumb for marketing research
studies. However, the author believes this study could be placed in the category of consumer
behavior studies, of which Hair et al. (2011) states that in this specific discipline, R2 values of
.20 can be considered as high. A meta-analysis of Arts et al. (2011) on consumer adoption
considers that an explained variance of .10 for actual adoption behavior explains variance “to
a lesser extent” (Arts et al., 2011). The dependent variables of which the highest amount of
variance was explained was customer satisfaction towards the smartphone (.44), perceived
usage (.35) and perceived usefulness (.33). Moderately explained variables were mobile data
usage (.14), perceived usability (.12), telecommunication company customer satisfaction
(.12) and frequency of use (.10). Finally, weakly explained variables were daily usage time
(.05), perceived effort (.04), SMS usage (.04) and voice usage (.01).
The results of the testing of the hypotheses can be viewed in Table 4. Hypotheses
were supported if the predicted direction of the effect was correct and if the effect was
significant at the .05 level. Of the 40 hypotheses in the base model, 13 hypotheses were
confirmed, 24 effects were non-significant at the .05 level and 2 effect sizes were significant
but the effect size was in a direction contradictory to the hypothesis. The following
statements can be made about the confirmed hypotheses:
Consumers that have more apps are more likely to perceive their smartphone to be
more easy to use (H1b,alt, β = .35, t = 6.41), to perceive less effort (H1c,alt, β = -.20, t =
2.97) and to be more satisfied about their smartphone (H1d, β = .09, t = 2.30). In turn,
customers who perceive their smartphone as useful are disposed to have a lower degree of
SMS usage (H3a, β = -.22, t = 2.69), to use their smartphone more frequently (H4b, β = .22, t
= 2.55), to perceive to use it more (H4c, β = .34, t = 3.78) and to be more satisfied with their
smartphone (H5a, β = .20, t = 2.68). In turn, perceived usability is positively associated with
perceived usefulness (H2, β = .54, t = 10.09), but also with consumers’ perception of their
32
Table 4 Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis Relation Β† T-Value Supported?
H1a (+) Apps → Perceived Usefulness .09 1.66* No
H1b (-) Apps → Perceived Usability .35 6.41*** No
H1b,alt (+) Apps → Perceived Usability .35 6.41*** Yes
H1c (+) Apps → Perceived Effort -.20 2.97*** No
H1c,alt (-) Apps → Perceived Effort -.20 2.97*** Yes
H1d (+) Apps → Cust. Sat. Smartphone .09 2.30** Yes
H1e (+) Apps → Telco Cust. Sat. -.10 1.38 No
H2 (+) Perceived Usability → Perceived Usefulness .54 10.09*** Yes
H3a (-) Perceived Usefulness → SMS Usage -.22 2.69*** Yes
H3b (-) Perceived Usefulness → Voice Usage -.06 0.87 No
H3c (+) Perceived Usefulness → Mobile Data Usage .08 1.04 No
H3d (-) Perceived Usability → SMS Usage .12 1.57 No
H3e (-) Perceived Usability → Voice Usage -.01 0.21 No
H3f (+) Perceived Usability → Mobile Data Usage .04 0.48 No
H3g (+) Perceived Effort → Mobile Data Usage -.05 0.85 No
H4a (+) Perceived Usefulness → Daily Usage Time .15 1.72* No
H4b (+) Perceived Usefulness → Frequency Of Use .22 2.55** Yes
H4c (+) Perceived Usefulness → Perceived Usage Level .34 3.78*** Yes
H4d (+) Perceived Usability → Daily Usage Time .10 1.14 No
H4e (+) Perceived Usability → Frequency Of Use .15 1.83* No
H4f (+) Perceived Usability → Perceived Usage Level .36 4.08*** Yes
H4g (+) Perceived Effort → Daily Usage Time .12 1.26 No
H4h (+) Perceived Effort → Frequency Of Use .06 0.86 No
H4i (+) Perceived Effort → Perceived Usage Level .13 2.76*** Yes
H5a (+) Perceived Usefulness → Cust. Sat. Smartphone .20 2.68*** Yes
H5b (+) Perceived Usefulness → Telco Cust. Sat. .12 1.65* No
H5c (+) Perceived Usability → Cust. Sat. Smartphone .44 5.86*** Yes
H5d (+) Perceived Usability → Telco Cust. Sat. -.06 0.65 No
H5e (-) Perceived Effort → Cust. Sat. Smartphone -.12 2.14** No
H5f (+) Perceived Effort → Telco Cust. Sat. -.09 1.29 No
H6a (-) Daily Usage Time → SMS Usage -.03 0.42 No
H6b (-) Daily Usage Time → Voice Usage -.06 0.78 No
H6c (+) Daily Usage Time →Mobile Data Usage .06 0.74 No
H6d (-) Frequency Of Use → SMS Usage .11 1.49 No
H6e (-) Frequency Of Use → Voice Usage .07 1.10 No
H6f (+) Frequency Of Use → Mobile Data Usage .19 2.40** Yes
H6g (-) Perceived Usage Level→ SMS Usage 0 0.06 No
H6h (-) Perceived Usage Level→ Voice Usage .05 0.72 No
H6i (+) Perceived Usage Level→ Mobile Data Usage .14 1.62 No
H7 (+) Cust. Sat. Smartphone → Telco Cust. Sat. .29 3.66*** Yes
*:P<.1. **:P<.05, ***:P<.01 (Two Tailed); † Effect Sizes Are Standardized
usage level (H4f, β = .36, t = 4.08) and customer satisfaction of the smartphone (H5c, β = .44,
t = 5.86). As the final aspect of value in the model, perceived effort is positively associated
with consumers’ perception of the usage level (H4i, β = .13, t = 2.76), but negatively with
customer satisfaction towards the smartphone (H5e, β = -.12, t = 2.14). Finally, customers
that use their smartphone more often on a daily basis, tend to use more mobile data (H6f, β =
.19, t = 2.40), and customer that are satisfied with their smartphone are more often satisfied
with their telecommunication provider (H7, β = .29, t = 3.66).
As in Turel & Serenko (2006), the statistical validity of the significant linkages was
assessed by deleting the insignificant effects from the model. Comparison of β’s, t-values and
R2 values can be viewed in Appendix H. The deletion of the insignificant relations in the base
model did not result in major changes of the R2’s, the largest change being a small to medium
decrease in the R2 of mobile data usage from .14 to .09 (with a small effect size ƒ
2 of -.05; see
33
the next section for the calculation of the effect size). The largest change in path coefficients
was for frequency of use → mobile data usage, of β = .19 to β = .31 . No relations changed
from being significant to being insignificant on the .05 level. Based on these results, the
statistical validity of the significant relations was further confirmed.
4.3.2 Moderating variables
The results of the moderator analysis can be found in Table 5. Seven direct effects of
moderators have been detected: of subjective knowledge about smartphones on the perceived
usability (β = .11, t = 1.97) and on perceived usefulness (β = .18, t = 2.78); of consumers’
utilitarian attitude towards smartphones on perceived usability (β = .23, t = 3.41) and on the
perceived usefulness of the smartphone (β = .18, t = 2.50). Finally, perceived brand image
was directly associated with all three aspects of value: negatively with perceived effort (β = -
.25, t = 3.03), but positively to perceived usability (β = .50, t = 9.87) and perceived usefulness
(β = .34, t = 4.03). Consumers’ hedonic attitude towards smartphones did not have any direct
effects.
Only one moderating effect was found to be significant: the effect of subjective
knowledge on the relation between the number of apps and the perception of usability (H8b,
β = -.12, t = 2.00), which weakly increases the explained variance of perceived ease of use (ƒ2
= .02). The negative value of the coefficient of the interaction term indicates that consumers’
subjective knowledge diminishes the positive effect of the number of apps on the perceived
ease of use, i.e. consumers who believe they are more knowledgeable about smartphones
believe their smartphone is less easy to use when they have more applications, than
consumers who believe they are less knowledgeable about smartphones. The other
hypotheses on moderators could not be confirmed.
Table 5 Moderator analysis results
Relation Including/excluding moderating effect
R2 ƒ2
Direct effect Moderator
direct effect
Interaction term
effect
β † T-value β† T-value β† T-value
Subjective Knowledge → (Apps → Perceived Effort) Excluding .10
.00 -.17 2.47*** .08 1.14
Including .10 -.19 2.82*** .08 1.09 .06 0.58
Subjective Knowledge → (Apps → Perceived Usability) Excluding .52
.02 .14 3.13*** .11 1.97**
Including .53 .17 3.41*** .22 3.28*** -.12 2.00**
Subjective Knowledge → (Apps → Perceived Usefulness) Excluding .47
.00 .03 0.57 .18 2.78***
Including .47 .03 0.58 .18 2.85*** -.02 0.25
Hedonic Attitude → (Apps → Perceived Effort) Excluding .10
.00 -.17 2.47** -.04 0.49
Including .10 -.17 2.64*** -.25 3*** .01 0.09
Hedonic Attitude → (Apps → Perceived Usability) Excluding .52
.00 .14 3.13*** 0 0.07
Including .52 .16 3.27*** -.01 0.2 -.08 1.38
Hedonic Attitude → (Apps → Perceived Usefulness) Excluding .47
.00 .03 0.57 0 0.02
Including .47 .03 0.49 0 0.02 .01 0.10
Utilitarian Attitude → (Apps → Perceived Effort) Excluding .10
.00 -.17 2.47** .04 0.39
Including .10 -.15 2.31** .02 0.17 -.07 0.69
Utilitarian Attitude → (Apps → Perceived Usability) Excluding .52
.00 .14 3.13*** .23 3.41***
Including .52 .15 2.88*** .22 3.07*** -.04 0.55
Utilitarian Attitude → (Apps → Perceived Usefulness) Excluding .47
.00 .03 0.57 .18 2.50**
Including .47 .03 0.56 .17 2.17** -.02 0.20
Perceived Brand Image → (Apps → Perceived Effort) Excluding .10
.00 -.17 2.47** -.25 3.03**
Including .10 -.17 2.43** -.24 2.93*** .02 0.20
Perceived Brand Image → (Apps → Perceived Usability) Excluding .52
.00 .14 3.13*** .5 9.87***
Including .52 .14 3.11*** .49 8.66*** -.02 0.38
Perceived Brand Image → (Apps → Perceived Usefulness) Excluding .47
.00 .03 0.57 .34 4.03***
Including .47 .03 0.56 .34 4.2*** -.03 0.45
*:p<.1. **:p<.05, ***:p<.01 (two tailed); † effect sizes are standardized
34
4.3.3 Control variables
The effects of control variables were tested by entering all control variables in the path
model simultaneously. The bootstrap procedure was conducted using 500 resamples. The
effects that were found to be significant at the .05 level can be found in Table 6.
From the path model including the control variables, it appears that older people tend
to be more satisfied with their smartphone (β = .10, t = 1.96), to use it for a shorter period of
time (β = -.29, t = 5.27) and less frequent (β = -.5, t = 4.09) on a daily basis, to have a lower
usage of mobile data (β = -.38, t = 7.01) and of text messages (β = -.14, t = 2.05), perceive to
use their smartphone less (β = -.18, t = 3.71), say to know less about smartphones (β = -.15, t
= 2.37) and perceive their smartphone as less useful (β = -.15, t = 2.88).
As opposed to male smartphone users, female smartphone users more often indicate
to have less apps installed on their device ( = -.16, t = 2.53) and to know less about
smartphones (β = -.23, t= 3.61). Higher educated people often use their smartphone for a
shorter period of time on a daily basis (β = -.13, t = 1.99).
Regarding the smartphone brands, Blackberry users seem to differ from Apple users
since they tend to have less apps on their smartphone (β = -.23, t = 4.53), to use less mobile
data (β = -.12, t = 2.17), to have a lower perception of the image of their smartphone’s brand
(β = -.28, t = 2.40), to spend more effort on installing, maintaining and learning to use the
apps on their Blackberry (β = . 19, t = 2.34) but appeared to use it longer on a daily basis (β =
.16, t = 2.26) and to perceive to use it more (β = .14, t = 2.07). The only other significant
difference between users of different smartphone brands was that Samsung users often have
more apps on their device than Apple users (β = .13, t = 2.02).
Respondents that completed the survey on a smartphone are more likely to spend
more time on their smartphone (β = .15, t = 2.25) and to use it more often (β = .13, t = 2.05)
per day, to perceive to use their smartphone more (β = .14, t = 2.78) and to perceive it as easy
to use (β = .10, t = 2.45). On the other hand, respondents having completed the survey on a
tablet are more likely to be satisfied with their smartphone (β = .08, t = 2.04). Another finding
is that consumers that use their smartphone for both business and consumer purposes tend to
use more mobile data (β = .15, t = 2.44), say more often that their smartphone is useful (β =
.09, t = 2.12) and state more often to know more about smartphones (β = .17, t = 3.29) than
consumers using their smartphone only for consumer use. Moreover, business and consumer
users tend to have a higher SMS usage (β = .17, t = 2.79). No significant differences were
detected for the number of smartphones that people have owned or the time that respondents
have owned a smartphone.
4.4 Post-hoc analyses Based on the findings of the initial results, two post-hoc analyses were conducted. The
motivation and findings are discussed of an analysis of mediating variables and a comparison
between the different operating systems that consumers use on their device.
4.4.1 Mediating variables
Only one weak moderating effect of subjective knowledge was found in the analysis of
moderating variables. Neither the hedonic nor utilitarian attitude of consumers towards
smartphones, nor the perception of the image of the smartphone brand appeared to influence
35
Table 6 Significant effects of control variables
Relation Of Control Variable Β† T-Value Relation Of Control Variable Β† T-Value
Age → Cust. Sat. Smartphone .1 1.96** Samsung → Apps .13 2.02**
Age → Daily Duration Of Use -.29 5.27*** Education → Daily Duration Of Usage -.13 1.99** Age → Frequency Of Usage -.25 4.09*** Female → Apps -.16 2.53***
Age → Mobile Data Usage -.38 7.01*** Female → Subjective Knowledge -.23 3.61***
Age → Perceived Usefulness -.15 2.88*** Survey On Smartphone → Daily Duration Of Usage .15 2.25** Age → Perceived Usage Level -.18 3.71*** Survey On Smartphone → Frequency Of Usage .13 2.05**
Age → Subjective Knowledge -.15 2.37** Survey On Smartphone → Perceived Usability .09 2.29**
Age → SMS Usage -.14 2.05** Survey On Smartphone → Perceived Usage Level .14 2.78*** Blackberry → Apps -.23 4.53*** Survey On Tablet → Cust. Sat. Smartphone .08 2.04**
Blackberry → Daily Duration Of Use .16 2.26** Business And Pleasure Use → Mobile Data Usage .15 2.44**
Blackberry → Mobile Data Usage -.12 2.17** Business And Pleasure Use → Perceived Usefulness .09 2.12** Blackberry → Perceived Brand Image -.28 2.4** Business And Pleasure Use → Subjective Knowledge .17 3.09***
Blackberry → Perceived Effort .19 2.34** Business And Pleasure Use → SMS Usage .17 2.79*** Blackberry → Perceived Usage Level .14 2.07**
**:P<.05, ***:p<.01 (two tailed); † effect sizes are standardized
Reference categories of dummy variables: ‘apple’ for smartphone brand, ‘male’ for gender, ‘pc/laptop’ for survey method
and ‘pleasure use only’ for type of use.
relations between the number of apps installed on the smartphone and the aspects of value.
However, direct effects were detected of perceived brand image, utilitarian attitude and
subjective knowledge. These direct effects give rise to the possibility that these constructs
could play a mediating role in the relation between the number of apps and the aspects of
perceived value, i.e. when adding these constructs in the model, they could very well reduce
the strength of the effects of installed apps on the aspects of value. Additionally, an analysis
of the possible mediating role of these variables could lead to the detection of spurious
relations between the number of apps and the aspects of value. In other words, the variables
that were initially proposed to moderate the relation between the number of apps and the
aspects of value, could also be confounding variables to the relations between the number of
apps and the aspects of value.
The analysis of mediating effects was conducted according to Baron & Kenny (1986):
1) the independent variable was to be a significant predictor of the dependent variable; 2) the
independent variable was to be a significant predictor of the mediator variable; and 3) the
mediating variable was to be a significant predictor of the dependent variable, while
controlling the mediator with the independent variable. In the last step, the effect of the
independent variable was to be smaller in absolute value than in the first step, for partial
mediation to exist. The significance of the mediating effect can be assessed with Sobel’s test2
using the unstandardized beta’s.3
In the base model, the number of apps on the smartphone was significantly related to
the perceived usability of the smartphone and the perceived effort required for installing,
updating and learning to use those apps. Therefore, these two relations qualify for being
mediated. The model that was used for testing the mediating effects was the model in which
the insignificant effects were deleted (‘the bare model’), described at the end of section 4.3.1.
2
where a and ss refer to the unstandardized coefficient and standard error of the relation
between the independent variable and the mediator, and b refers to those parameters of the relation between the
mediator and the dependent variable. 3 Calculated by multiplying the standardized coefficient by the standard deviation of the predicted variable and
dividing it by the standard deviation of the predictor variable (Bontis et al., 2007).
36
The R2 value for perceived brand image was .06, for hedonic attitude towards smartphones
the value was .03, .05 for utilitarian attitude and .09 for subjective knowledge.
As can be viewed in Appendix I, it appears that the number of apps is significantly
related to all four postulated mediating variables: hedonic attitude (β = .17, t = 3.01),
utilitarian attitude (β = .22, t = 4.01), perceived brand image (β = .25, t = 3.92) and subjective
knowledge (β = .30, t = 5.09). However, only three of the mediating variables had significant
effects on the predicted variables: perceived brand image on perceived effort (β = -.25, t =
3.22) and on perceived usability (β = .50, t = 10.08) and utilitarian attitude on perceived
usability (β = .23, t = 3.43). It also appeared that the coefficient of the relation between the
number of apps and perceived effort decreased slightly from β = -.20 in the bare model to β =
-.17 in the mediator model. Moreover, the coefficient of the relation between the number of
apps and the perceived usability of the smartphone decreased from β = .35 to β = .14. Hence,
the relations between the number of apps, and perceived effort & usability are partially
mediated.
The assessment of the significance of the partially mediating relations still remained.
One significant mediating relation was detected with a Sobel value corresponding to p < .05:
the relation between the number of apps and the perceived usability was partially mediated by
consumers’ utilitarian attitude towards the smartphone (Sobel z-value = 1.96). See Appendix
I for the calculation of these values.
4.4.2 Differences between operating systems
Another analysis that was conducted post-hoc was the assessment of differences
between the main variables in the model for the different operating systems that the
smartphones of different brands run on. Apple’s smartphones run on iOS, HTC & Samsung
devices operate with Android and Blackberry handsets use their own operating system, from
herewith referred to as BOS. The motivation of this analysis is as follows: in the assessment
of the control variables, differences were detected with Apple as the reference category.
However, no direct differences between Blackberry, HTC and Samsung were analyzed. To
assess these differences with SmartPLS with dummy variables would be time consuming.
Therefore the differences are analyzed using a one-way MANOVA in SPSS. Since HTC and
Samsung use the same operating system, these two brands have same user interface and the
same apps available, which is why no differences between brands are analyzed but
differences between operating systems. Moreover, the users the operating systems of the
smartphone are easier to target by mass-media advertising campaigns from
telecommunication operators than other segments based on the criteria such as age, gender or
education. Therefore, a MANOVA is conducted to assess differences between the three
operating systems and the main variables in the structural model, i.e. the number of apps,
customer satisfaction with the smartphone and the telecom provider, and the 6 usage
variables.
Before describing the results of the analysis it should be noted that the group sizes are
unequal: 47 for iOS, 34 for BOS, and 167 for Android. Also, the assumption of normality is
violated for customer satisfaction with the smartphone and the telecom operator, the number
of apps, daily usage time, frequency of use and the perceived usage level. However, mainly a
platykurtic distribution leads to reduced power (Hair et al., 2010, Ch. 8), which is not the case
37
Table 7 MANOVA results - Differences per operating system
Variable Degrees of freedom
F-value Partial eta squared Significance Power
Number Of Apps 2 15.32 .114 .000 .999
Cust. Sat. Smartphone 2 21.67 .155 .000 1.000
Daily Duration Of Use 2 15.59 .063 .000 .954 Frequency Of Daily Use 2 11.19 .01 .306 .259
Perceived Usage Level 2 3.26 .027 .040 .616
Mobile Data Usage 2 2.2 .018 .113 .446
SMS Usage 2 0.05 .000 .947 .058
Telecom Operator Cust. Sat 2 1.22 .010 .300 .265
Voice Usage 2 1.5 .013 .224 .319
for the variables that are assessed (see Appendix E). Moreover, the results of the analysis of
the control variables can be used to support findings of the MANOVA since PLS is robust to
violations of normality (Hair et al., 2010, Ch. 8). Additionally, Pillai’s trace was used as test
criterion because this statistic is robust to violations of normality and unequal group sizes.
Since Box’s M test proved significant at the .01 level, indicating unequal variances across
groups, Games-Howell test were used for the post-hoc analyses since this test offers the best
performance under unequal variances across groups and unequal sample sizes (Field, 2009).
The one-way MANOVA revealed a significant multivariate main effect for operating
system. Pillai’s Trace had a value of .375, F(18,460) = 5.90, p< .01, partial eta squared =
.188. The observed power to detect the difference was 1.00. For assessing which variables
significantly differed for the groups, a Bonferroni-adjustment was made by dividing the .05
significance by 9 since there were 9 independent variables. The significant univariate main
effects are illustrated in Table 7. It appeared that the number of apps, satisfaction with the
smartphone and the daily usage duration of the smartphone differed per operating system.
From post-hoc analyses on these three variables (see Appendix J), several significant
differences between the operating systems were observed for these variables. Regarding the
number of apps, Blackberry users (mean in the category 11-20 apps) had less apps than Apple
or Android users (means in the category 41-50 apps). Customer satisfaction with the device
differed significantly between Apple users on one hand, who had a mean score for
satisfaction of 9.05, and Android and Blackberry users on the other, which had mean scores
for customer satisfaction of 7.62 and 6.06, respectively. The post hoc analysis did not reveal
significant differences between the operating systems for daily duration of use.
Due to the differences in group sizes, it should be noted that these findings should be
interpreted with caution. Differences between brands that were detected in the control
variable analysis, but not in the MANOVA, were mainly between Apple and Blackberry
users for the variables daily duration of use, mobile data usage and the perceived usage level.
5 Discussion
This chapter will discuss the research questions posed in the introduction. The
discussion of the findings is accompanied by a reflection on the results and is followed by
implications for scholars and managers. Finally, the limitations of this study are discussed,
which offer directions for further research. The results are summarized in Figure 3.
38
Customer
satisfaction
smartphone
(44%)
Number of
apps
Perceived
usefulness
(33%)
Perceived
usability
(12%)
Perceived
effort
(4%)
Telecom
provider
satisfaction
(11%)
Mobile data
usage
(14%)
Utilitarian
attiude
(5%)
Subjective
knowledge
SMS usage
(4%)
Daily
frequency of
use
(10%)
Perceived
usage
(35%)
.09**
.35***
-.20***
.54***
-.22***
.22***
.34***
.36***
.13***
.20***.44***
-.12**
.19**
.29***
-.12**
.22*** .23***
5.1 Findings This writing was initiated in order to investigate the effects that the number of apps
installed on a smartphone can have on smartphone consumer behavior. Specifically, the
effects of apps on usage and satisfaction were assessed with regard to the smartphone, the
telecommunication operator and the services provided by the operating company. It was also
examined which of two competing concepts is most applicable to smartphone consumption:
feature fatigue or mass customization.
According to the results of this study, not feature fatigue but mass customization is
the appropriate concept to explain the effect of the number of apps on the aspects of value
perceived by consumers. Apps were not found to relate to utility, but did appear to be
positively related to usability and negatively to the perceived effort required to install, update
and learn how to use the apps. Since feature fatigue predicts that more features lead to
decreased usability but increased utility, the phenomenon is not applicable to smartphones.
The concept of mass customization is applicable though, with the underlying rationale that
consumers that alter the functionality of their device and have a high number of apps, often
have control over their device and perceive it as easy to use. Another explanation could be
that users with a high number of apps, also use more apps that improve the usability of the
device. It should be noted that the positive association between the number of apps and
usability probably has its limits, since a very high number of apps is likely to decrease the
processing speed of the smartphone, thereby retarding the device. Mass customization can
also be applied to explain the negative association between the number of apps and the effort
that the apps on the smartphone require. Although the degree of explained variance of effort
Figure 3 PLS results. Between brackets within the variables is explained variance. ** significant at the .05 level, ***significant
at the .01 level (two-tailed). Note that insignificant effects and effects that were significant at the .10 level were omitted for the
sake of overview. The narrow-dashed line represents a moderating effect, the broad-dashed line represents a mediating effect
39
was low, consumers that have a high number of apps seem to customize their device and
perceive a lower degree of effort than consumers that have less apps installed. This could be
because users can customize their device according to their own preferences. Doing so, they
adapt the number of apps to match their demand of effort they want to spend on installing,
updating and learning to use those apps and they perceive the degree of effort accordingly.
The relation could also be negative because consumers with more apps are more effective at
managing the apps on their device, and hence perceive a lower degree of effort.
The absence of a relation between the number of apps and perceived utility was
unexpected. This can probably lead to the conclusion that not each additional app necessarily
adds to the utility of the device, giving rise to the idea that distinction should be made
between different types of apps. This is further discussed in the limitations section.
One relation among the aspects of value is more or less traditional in technology
acceptance literature (e.g. Venkatesh & Davis, 2003): usability positively relates to utility.
Since usability is related to apps, utility is indirectly associated with the number of apps on
consumers’ smartphones.
Through value, apps affect the usage of the smartphone and services offered by
telecom operators. All aspects of value are positively related to the perception of the usage
level, which was the only aspect of usage of which the hypotheses were all correct and
therefore the effects are not surprising. However, none of the aspects of value was related to
the time that consumers spend daily on their smartphone, and only the utility of the
smartphone was associated to the frequency of daily use. It may be stated that increased
usability, usefulness and effort thus relate to the extent to which people say they use their
device, but that only the actual utility is related to how often people say to use their device on
a daily basis. This could indicate that apps that are actually perceived as useful, are used more
often, but not necessarily more in terms of daily duration.
The perceived utility of the device also plays a key role, and the only role, in
predicting increases or decreases in usage of services provided by operating companies.
Increases in utility explain a small degree of SMS usage in the sense that people who believe
their smartphone is useful, often have a lower SMS usage. Moreover, the frequency of daily
use which is predicted by utility, is the only form of usage that is related to usage of mobile
data. The number of calling minutes is not at all affected in the model, and the explained
variance was low. Apparently, consumers that believe their device is useful tend to use their
device more frequently, which leads to the use of mobile data. The decrease in SMS usage
and the increase in data usage, which both (in)directly relate to utility of the smartphone, fits
the transition in the telecommunications sector from SMS and voice usage to mobile data
(Tilson & Lyytinen, 2006). The absence of relations between usage of the smartphone and
voice usage could be explained by the measurement: the variables related to the use of the
smartphone that are measured in the survey reflect use without calling behavior, which could
be a reason why no relations were found between usage of the device and voice usage.
It can be concluded that only the utility of the smartphone plays a central role in
actual usage of the smartphone. However, the utility is not related to the number of apps
directly, but only through the perceived usability. Effort as a negative aspect of value does
not play an important role in the model when it comes to predicting usage. People that
perceive to spend a high degree of effort on installing, maintaining and learning to use those
40
apps do also perceive to use their phone more often, but the effort is not associated with self-
reported usage or actual usage of telecom services. The finding that effort only affects the
perceived usage indicates that the relation between effort and usage is mostly in the mind of
the consumers.
The discussion of the effects of apps on customer satisfaction remain. The number of
apps is directly and positively related to customer satisfaction with the device. Indirect effects
are also found: usability and usefulness are positively related to satisfaction, but effort is
negatively related. The relation between usability and satisfaction with the device is in line
with findings of Choi & Lee (2012). Based on these findings, the conclusion is that
smartphone users that customize their smartphone by adding apps, are often more satisfied
with their device for a number of reasons. Consumers welcome the utility and usability, but
despise the required effort for having apps. Fortunately, this effort perception is often lower
when consumers have a high number of apps installed on their handset. Satisfaction with the
smartphone is related to numerous variables in the model, but satisfaction with the operating
company that allows consumers to use their device anytime, anywhere is not affected.
Satisfied smartphone owners are generally more satisfied with their operator, but this
satisfaction is not directly affected by the number of apps or the value of the smartphone.
Apparently, consumers do not directly relate the value of their device to their satisfaction
with the provider of their handset and of the services necessary to operate it.
A moderating effect was detected for subjective knowledge about smartphones on the
relation between the number of apps and usability: increases in the number of apps installed
on the smartphone are associated with increases in the perceived usability of the device, but
this is less so for consumers that consider themselves knowledgeable about smartphones. The
direction of this moderating effect is contrary to expectations. This could be because
consumers that are knowledgeable smartphone users are better able to evaluate the usability
of products (Burson, 2007) and can provide a more accurate evaluation of the usability. It
was expected that this bias was to be in favor of usability. However, it seems that expert users
that can make better judgments on usability believe that their smartphone is not so easy to use
when compared to novice users, if they have a high number of apps.
Moreover, a partially mediating effect was found for the utilitarian attitude towards
smartphones, i.e. the relation between the number of apps and the perception of usability is
partly accounted for by consumers that believe that smartphones in general are useful
devices, since these consumers both often have more apps and often believe their smartphone
is easy to use. This is most likely because people who believe that the smartphone is a useful
piece of technology, try to make optimal use of its utility by having a large number of apps
installed, and that these consumers are biased to believe that the device is easy to use.
The effects of control variables are conform other studies regarding age (Haverila,
2011a) and gender (Haverila, 2011b). The difference of perceptions between Blackberry
users and other smartphone users could be because there are less apps for the Blackberry and
because apps for this device often appear later in the market, or because the interface of the
Blackberry differs greatly from iOS or Android, which are much more alike. This could also
explain the differences in satisfaction that exists for consumers using smartphones with
different operating systems that were detected with the post-hoc MANOVA, which also
supports the findings that Blackberry users have less apps on their device.
41
5.2 Scholarly implications The findings have several implications for scholars of consumer behavior or marketing.
First of all, feature fatigue is not applicable to modular products such as smartphones. The
shift in preferences of utility over usability before purchase, to usability over utility after use
is no issue for smartphones. Probably this also applies to similar products using apps such as
tablets or smart televisions. If consumers think their device is not usable because of the high
number of apps, these are easily deleted and consumers no longer have to be frustrated with
an unusable product with static functionality and usability. However, this does not necessarily
mean that users of devices that use apps cannot be ‘fatigued’ by a high number of apps, only
that the number of apps is not negatively related to decreases in usability. For instance,
consumers can be overwhelmed by product choice (Kamis et al., 2008), which could harm
their usage experience. Scholars wanting to study feature fatigue for smartphones or other
devices that use apps, should bear in mind that consumers could still be irritated by apps they
don’t use. As opposed to feature fatigue, mass customization is a concept that can be adopted
when studying effects of apps on smartphones: scholars are encouraged to predict that a high
number of apps is positively related to usability and less to effort, based on the concept of
mass customization. The same predictions could be made for other products using apps,
based on the findings of this study.
Secondly, the effects of the number of apps on usability and effort proved to be
relatively stable. Subjective knowledge weakly moderated the relation between the number of
apps and usability, and the same relation was partially mediated by consumers’ utilitarian
attitude. However, consumers’ hedonic attitude towards smartphones and the image of the
brand in consumers’ minds did not moderate or mediate the relations between the number of
apps and value. For scholars this implies that they should look for other possible spurious
relationships or that the relation between the number of apps and usability is stable except for
subjective knowledge and consumers’ utilitarian attitude.
Thirdly, the conceptual framework that was used proved useful for modeling the effects
of apps on consumer behavior for post-purchase processes. The integration of the Technology
Acceptance Model in a model of customer satisfaction with value as the standard for
comparison yielded moderate to high degrees of explained variance for satisfaction levels,
perceived usage, frequency of use and mobile data usage.
Finally, combining traditional survey data with objective usage data of
telecommunication services proved useful to study smartphone usage, which is in accordance
with scholarly implications of Verkasalo et al. (2010).
5.3 Managerial implications Several implications can be extracted from this research for managers. First of all,
managers need not worry about usability issues for devices that use apps, due to a high
number of apps. Apps are a relatively new but successful way of selling and consuming
software on smartphones, but also on tablet PC’s and more recently developed televisions.
The soon to be released Windows 8 will have an interface that looks much like the one
currently used on several smartphones and tablets. This study did not detect negative
consequences for usage or satisfaction of consumers that have a high number of apps for
issues such as usability. Therefore, managers should not worry that consumers that have
42
dozens of apps suffer from e.g. usability issues when it comes to the perception of value of
the smartphone and indirect usage and satisfaction.
In fact, it is the other way around: consumers that have a high number of apps tend to
perceive their device to be easy to use. Consumers can do almost everything with apps. For
example, by placing their smartphone on their mattress, they can use it to track either their
sleep cycle, but also their sex life, or even both, with the Sleep Cycle Alarm Clock and the
SexTrack app. The same device provides you with the best route through the supermarket
when doing groceries with an app of a Dutch supermarket. This example illustrates that
consumers with more apps, probably have more applications for using their smartphone, and
often believe that their omnipotent device is easy to use despite the diverse range of
applications. This effective form of mass customization is an important opportunity for app
developers, who should come up with even more creative applications for smartphones. Mass
customization is also an opportunity for managers in the telecom industry, who could ask
consumers what they want to do with their smartphone, and then could install those prior to
them receiving the device as an extension of their service. However, users should be able to
delete these apps if they desire to do so, which is in line with mass customization.
Secondly, in the context of the current transition in telecommunications from voice
and SMS to data (Tilson & Lyytinen, 2006), carriers should encourage the use of apps in
order to stimulate the use of mobile data. This is especially so for apps that promote more
frequent interaction with the smartphone, rather than longer interaction, since mobile data
usage is associated with frequency of use. Examples of such apps are Whatsapp, Facebook or
news apps, since these are probably frequently checked by smartphone users when compared
to game apps which probably demand longer interaction instead of more frequent interaction.
Moreover, marketers and managers should allocate effort and resources to promote the rich
collection of apps to consumers because of the positive associations of apps with the value of
the device and satisfaction. This is contrary to recent findings of Tan et al. (2012) who state
that manufacturers need not do so but should focus more on brand value.
Thirdly, managers should bear in mind the antecedents to satisfaction. Since
satisfaction affects customer loyalty and word-of-mouth (Szymanski & Henard, 2001) and
ultimately, profitability (Hallowell, 1996), managers should be aware that apps, usability and
usefulness positively influence satisfaction with the handset. However, the perceived effort
by consumers that is required to install, update and learn how to use the apps inhibits
satisfaction. Managers should consider to improve usability and usefulness perceptions and to
automate the updating of apps in order to facilitate satisfaction with the device. This is a
confirmation for Apple that their efforts to monitor the usability of the apps that are
distributed via their Appstore are justified and lead to increased satisfaction with the iPhone.
On the other hand, predictors to satisfaction with the handset are no predictors for
satisfaction with the carrier, who often provides the handset in question. Consumers do not
relate the number of apps or the value of the device to their satisfaction with the operating
company. However, customers that are satisfied with their device do tend to be more satisfied
with their carrier, which is why managers seeking to improve satisfaction with the telecom
provider should consider converting existing customers that use Android or Blackberry
devices to use Apple’s iPhone, or aim at providing new customers with iPhones. They could
also encourage manufacturers of smartphones operating on Android to improve the usability
43
of their devices. Not only do Apple users tend to be more satisfied, they also join Android
users in the number of apps they install on their device, when compared to Blackberry users.
Marketers should adapt their marketing efforts according to the satisfaction levels
experienced by customers of these handsets.
Finally, managers should design online self-services that aid expert users in usability
issues. This implication stems from the finding that expert users benefit less from increases in
usability that are often associated with increases in the number of apps. Several telecom
operators in the Netherlands offer start-up programs for new smartphone users in-store, but it
is likely that users that consider themselves smartphone experts will not use these services
because they already know how to use the device. Therefore, operators can design or improve
online self-service programs that solve usability issues, especially for expert users who do not
use these services in-store.
5.4 Limitations and avenues for further research Several limitations impair the findings of this study and can be used to indicate
directions for further research. For one, several aspects of the conceptual framework limit the
research. A major limitation is the assumption that each app is equal to a feature and the fact
that this research has not accounted for different categories of apps. The assumption is open
for discussion when it comes to different categories of apps such as game apps. The
discussion is whether a category of apps offer functionality, or whether each individual app
can be seen as a different feature, e.g. if a user has 50 games installed on his or her
smartphone, is each game experienced as a feature or is gaming as a category experienced as
a feature of the smartphone? Moreover, previous research has found that different types of
features for mobile phones are differently related to customer satisfaction (Haverila, 2011b).
In addition, Verkasalo et al. (2009) find that mobile phone services such as apps should be
addresses individually, instead of generalizing those services. Future research should
differentiate between categories of features or apps. It could be that satisfaction and usage of
apps and smartphones can be better explained per individual app and that each app purchase
is evaluated separately by consumers. This view allows the use of the expectation/
disconfirmation paradigm of customer satisfaction in which customers expect different levels
of value from different applications. Those expectations are then (dis)confirmed, leading to
(dis)satisfaction. The satisfaction and usage levels stemming from different apps could then
be assessed for apps individually, instead of aggregating the overall increases in satisfaction
or usage levels stemming from apps.
Another modeling issue is that feature fatigue can perhaps be used as a separate
variable, as in Steiner et al. (2009), and to use the number of apps as a predictor and
satisfaction and usage as a consequence of feature fatigue. Different models of customer
satisfaction can also be explored for assessing feature fatigue such as ambivalent models in
which customers can be both satisfied and dissatisfied (e.g. Olsen et al., 2005) or more
dynamic models in which temporal interactions of consumers with their smartphone are
adopted. Regarding the perception of value, future research could adopt monetary costs as
negative aspect of value which was omitted in this research.
Likewise, this research has not accounted for psychometric differences based on the
adoption of innovations. Moore (2005) posits that adopters of innovations can be segmented
44
based on their psychological profile and the moment of adoption of the innovation. However,
with smartphones having achieved about 53% penetration in the Netherlands in January 2012
(Telecompaper, 2012), not all psychological profiles are expected to be represented in
proportion in a random sample of smartphone users. When smartphone penetration reaches
higher levels, it can be interesting to examine whether adopters with different psycho-
graphical profiles differ in value perception, usage and satisfaction. Late adopters might
suffer from decreases in usability due to a high number of apps, as opposed to early adopters.
A conceptual weakness is also the post-hoc analysis of mediating effects. The analysis
of mediating or moderating effects should be motivated by a sound theoretical basis (Baron &
Kenny, 1986). This was not the case for the analysis of mediating effects, which was
motivated by direct effects of moderators that were detected in the analysis of moderating
effects. Future research could provide a sound theoretical basis for the mediating effect of
utilitarian attitude between the number of apps installed and the perceived usability.
A final conceptual issue is the use of the number of apps installed on consumers
smartphones. Most likely, different results would be obtained if the respondents were asked
to indicate how many apps they actually used frequently. A discrepancy between the number
of apps used frequently and the number of apps installed could then be a predictor for the
extent to which consumers are fatigued by apps they don’t use.
A second class of limitations is related to the research design. Although PLS is stated to
be robust to deviations from normality (Hair et al., 2010, Ch. 12), caution could be advised
when interpreting the results from variables which strongly deviate from the normal
distribution. When non-normal distributed data is used, a “markedly larger sample size is
needed despite the inclusion of highly reliable indicators in the model” (Marcoulides &
Saunders, 2006, p. vi). Although no undisputed guidelines exist to determine which violations
of normality can be countered with which increases in sample size, the analysis could be
carried out again with data that is more manipulated such that it better represents a normal
distribution, or with a “markedly” larger sample size.
Limiting aspects are also identified in the measurement model. For single item
constructs, the measured item directly reflects the construct, which is then not latent (Fuchs
& Diamantopoulos, 2009). Therefore, no measurement error is specified in the model. This
research assumed that constructs such as satisfaction are straightforward for consumers; an
assumption that is debatable. Future research on this topic could consider using multiple-item
constructs for the single-item constructs used here in order to allow for a more accurate
measurement. Regarding the measurement of the number of apps, it could be that
differentiation is needed between pre-installed apps and apps that consumers have
downloaded themselves; perhaps consumers experience these apps differently. Another
remark on the measurement model is the use of self-reported measures. Although inherent to
the use of a survey, the information provided by consumers about daily usage duration of the
smartphone and daily frequency of use could be seriously misspecified because those
measures are difficult to accurately estimate by respondents. Future research could ask
respondents to track their use with an app in order to obtain more accurate numbers.
Additionally, the data could also be collected in a cross-sectional and longitudinal
manner in order to further examine causality of the effects (Hair et al., 2010), which cannot
be done with the current dataset. For instance, the direction of the relations in the model are
45
not always straightforward and require further investigation: do users that believe their device
is easy to use install a great number of apps, or do people that have many apps on their device
therefore think it is also easy to use? Additionally, evidence of model stability and
generalizability can only come from performing the analysis on additional samples and
contexts such as other product categories (e.g. tablets), postpaid users, users across different
cultures, customers of different carriers and users of other brands of smartphones. The sample
seemed to reflect the operator’s population of smartphone users, but additional samples could
be used in order to further determine the generalizability of the results.
6 References
6.1 Literature references
Ajzen, I. (1991). “The theory of planned behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50 (2), pp. 179-211
Al-Gahtani, S.S., King, M. (1999). “Attitudes, satisfaction and usage: contributing to each in the acceptance of
information technology.” Behavior & Information Technology, 18 (4), pp. 277-297
Anderson, E.W., Sullivan, M.W. (1993). “The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for
firms.” Marketing Science 12 (2), pp. 125-143
Anderson, J.C., Narus, J.A. (1998). “Business marketing: Understand what customers value.” Harvard Business
Review, 76 (6), pp. 53-65
Andrews, F.M. (1984). “Construct validity and error components of survey measures: a structural modeling
approach.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, 48 (2), pp. 409-442, in: Turel, O., Serenko, A. (2006).
“Satisfaction with mobile services in Canada: an empirical investigation.” Telecommunications Policy,
30, pp. 314-331
Arruda-Filho, E.J.M., Cabusas, J.A., Dholakia, N. (2010). “Social behavior and brand devotion among iPhone
innovators.” International Journal of Information Management, 30, pp. 475-480
Arts., J.W.C., Frambach, R.T., Bijmolt, T.H.A. (2011). “Generalizations on consumer innovation adoption: A
meta-analysis on drivers of intention and behavior.” International Journal of Research in Marketing,
28, pp. 134-144
Athanassopoulos, A.D., Iliakopoulos, A. (2003). “Modeling customer satisfaction in telecommunications:
assessing the effets of multiple transaction points on the perceived overall performance of the
provider.” Production and Operations Management, 12 (2), pp. 224-245
Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., PLinke, W., Weiber, R. (2003). “Multivariate analysemethoden: eine
anwendungsorientierte einführung.” 10th
edition, Springer, Berlin in: Götz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K.,
Krafft, M. (2010). “Evaluation of structural equation models using the Partial Least Squares (PLS)
approach.” Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics,
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
Bandura, A. (1989). “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.” American Psychologist, 37 (2), pp. 122-147,
in: Davis, F.D. (1989). “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology.” MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), pp. 319-340
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A. (1986). “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychology research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51
(6), pp. 1173-1182
Batra, R., Ahtola, O. (1990). “Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes.” Marketing
Letters, 2 (2), pp. 159-170
Bayraktar, E., Tatoglu, E., Turkyilmaz, A., Delen, D., Zaim, S. (2011). “Measuring the efficiency of customer
satisfaction and loyalty for mobile phone brands with DEA.” Expert Systems with Applications, 39, pp.
99-106
Bergkvist, L., Rossiter, J.R. (2007). “The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the
same constructs.” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (2), pp. 175-184
Bontis, N., Booker, L.D., Serenko, A. (2007). “The mediating effect of organizational reputation on customer
loyalty and service recommendation in the banking industry.” Management Decision, 45 (9), pp. 1426-
1445
Brombacher, A.C. (2005). “Reliability in strongly innovative products; a threat or a challenge?” Reliability
Engineering and System Safety, 88 (2) , pp. 88-125.
46
Burson, K.A. (2007). “Consumer-Product Skill Matching: The effects of difficulty on relative self-assessment
and choice.” Journal of Consumer Research, 34, pp. 104-110
Cadotte, E.R., Woodruff, R.B., Jenkins, R.L. (1987). “Expectations and norms in models of consumer
satisfaction.” Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (3), pp. 305-314
Chang, Y., Chen, C.S. (2004). “Smart phone – the choice of client platform for mobile commerce.” Computer
Standards & Interfaces, 27, pp. 329-336
Chase, R.B., Jacobs, J.F., Aquilano, N.J. (2006). “Operations management for competitive advantage.” 11th
edition, New York: Mcgraw-Hill/Irwin
Chen, J.V., Ross, W., Huang, S.F. (2008). “Privacy, trust, and justice considerations for location-based mobile
telecommunication services.” Info, 10 (4), pp. 30-46
Chen, J.V., Yen, D.C., Chen, K. (2007). “The acceptance and diffusion of the innovative smart phone use: A
case study of a delivery service company in logistics.” Information & Management, 46, pp. 241-248
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J., Carson, S. (2001). “Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail
shopping behavior.” Journal of Retailing, 77 (4), pp. 511-535
Choi, J.H., Lee, H. (2012). “Facets of simplicity for the smartphone interface: a structural model.” International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70 (2), pp. 129-142
Churchill, G.A., Surprenant, C. (1982). “An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction.”
Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (4), pp. 491-504
Cohen, J. (1988). “Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.” Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum in:
Henseler, J., Fassot, G. (2010). “Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: an illustration of
available procedures.” Handbook of Partial Least Squares. Springer Handbooks of Computational
Statistics. Berlin Heidelberg.
Cooper, H. M. (1984). “The integrative research review: A systematic approach.” Applied social research
methods series, 2, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. In: Randolph, J.J. (2009). “A guide to writing the
dissertation literature review.” Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14 (13), pp. 1-13
Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K., Hult, G.T.M. (2000). “Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments.” Journal of Retailing, 76 (2),
pp. 193-218
Davis, F.D. (1989). “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology.” MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), pp. 319-340
Deng, Z., Lu, Y., Wei, K.K., Zhang, J. (2010). “Understanding customer satisfaction and loyalty: an empirical
study of mobile instant messages in China.” International Journal of Information Management, 30, pp.
289-300
Eggert, A., Ulaga, W. (2002). “Customer perceived value: a substitute for satisfaction in business markets?”
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17 (2/3), pp. 107-118
Falaki, H., Mahajan, R., Kandula, S., Lymberopoulos, D., Govindan, R., Estrin, D. (2010). “Diversity in
Smartphone usage.” MobiSys 2010: Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Mobile
Systems, Applications and Services, pp. 179-194
Feitzinger, E., Lee, H.L. (1997). “Mass customization at Hewlett-Packard: The power of Postponement.”
Harvard Business Review, January-February 1997, pp. 115-122
Field, A. (2009). “Discovering statistics using SPSS. Third edition, SAGE Publication Ltd., London. Chapter 10:
“Comparing several means: ANOVA (GLM1).”
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. (1975). “Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.”
Reading MA Addison-Wesley
Flavian, C., Guinalíu, M., Gurrea, R. (2005). “The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction and consumer
trust on website loyalty.” Information & Management, 43, pp. 1-14
Flynn, L.R., Goldsmith, R.E. (1999). “A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge.” Journal of Business
Research, 46 (1), pp. 56-66
Fornell, C. (1992). “A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience.” Journal of
Marketing, 56, pp. 6-21
Fornell, C., Bookstein, F.L. (1982). “Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer
exit-voice theory.” Journal of Marketing Research, 19, pp. 440-452
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Chan, J., Everitt Bryant, B. (1996). “The American Customer
Satisfaction Index: nature, purpose and findings.” Journal of Marketing, 60 (4), pp. 7-18
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F. (1981). “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error.” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), pp.39-50
Fournier, S., Mick, D.G. (1999). “Rediscovering satisfaction.” The Journal of Marketing, 63 (4), pp. 5-23
Fuchs, C., Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). “Using single-item measures for construct measurement in management
research – conceptual issues and application guidelines. Die Betriebswirtshchaft, 69 (2), pp. 195-210
47
Funk, J.L. (2006). “The future of mobile phone-based internet applications: A view from Japan.” Technovation,
26, pp. 1337-1346
Gallarza, M.G., Saura, I.G. (2006). “Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: an
investigation of university students’ travel behavior.” Tourism Management, 27, pp. 437-452
Gardial, S.F., Clemons, D.S., Woodruff, R.B., Schumann, D.W., Burns, M.J. (1994). “Comparing consumers’
recall of prepurchase and postpurchase product evaluation experiences.” Journal of Consumer
Research, 20 (4), pp. 548-560
GfK (2011). “B2B.” Presentation on sectoral trends of GfK Retail and Technology
GfK (2012). “Local Charts Smartphones Netherlands 2012 03.” GfK Retail and Technology Sales Figure Report
Gorsuch, R.L. (1983). “Factor analysis.” 2nd
edition, Hillsdale, NJ: Erblaum in: Floyd, F.J., Widaman, K.F.
(1995). “Factor analsis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments.”
Psychological Assessment, 7 (3), pp. 286-299
Haenlein, M., Kaplan, A.M. (2004). “A beginner’s guide to Partial Least Squares analysis.” Understanding
statistics, 3 (4), pp. 283-297
Hair, J.F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E. (2010). “Multivariate Data Analysis.” 7th
edition, Pearson.
Chapter 2: “Cleaning and transforming data.” Chapter 3: “Factor analysis.” Chapter 8: “ANOVA and
MANOVA.” Chapter 11: “SEM: An introduction.” Chapter 12: Applications of SEM.”
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. (2011). “PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet.” Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, 19 (2), pp. 139-151
Halstead, D. (1999). “The use of comparison standards in customer satisfaction research and management: a
review and proposed typology.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7 (3), pp. 13-26
Harzing, A. (2011). “Journal quality list.” 42nd
edition, 16 October 2011
Haverila, M. (2011a). “What do we want specifically from the cell phone? An age related study.” Article in
press for Telematics and Informatics
Haverila, M. (2011b). “Mobile Phone feature preferences, customer satisfaction and repurchase intent among
male users.” Australasian Marketing Journal, 19, pp. 238-246
Henseler, J., Fassot, G. (2010). “Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: an illustration of available
procedures.” Handbook of Partial Least Squares. Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics.
Berlin Heidelberg.
Hirschman, A.O. (1970). “Exit, voice, and loyalty – responses to decline in firms, organizations and states.”
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, in: Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T.W.,
Lervik, L., Cha, J. (2001). “The evolution and future of national customer satisfaction index models.”
Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, pp. 217-245, and in: Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W.,
Chan, J., Everitt Bryant, B. (1996). “The American Customer Satisfaction Index: nature, purpose and
findings.” Journal of Marketing, 60 (4), pp. 7-18
Hsee, C.K., Yang, Y., Gu, Y., Chen, J. (2009). “Specification seeking: how product specifications influence
consumer preference.” The Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (6), pp. 952-966
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (1998). “IEEE Standard for software and system test
documentation.” Standard 829-1998
Jacobi, J. (1978). “Consumer research: how valid and useful are all our consumer behavior findings? A state of
the art review.” The Journal of Marketing, 42 (2), pp. 87-96
Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T.W., Lervik, L., Cha, J. (2001). “The evolution and future of
national customer satisfaction index models.” Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, pp. 217-245
Kamis, A., Koufaris, M., Stern, T. (2008). “Using an attribute-based decision support system for user-
customized products online: An experimental investigation.” MIS Quarterly, 32 (1), pp. 159-177
Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M. (2006). “Towards a parsimonious definition of traditional and electronic mass
customization.” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23 (2), pp. 168-182
Keijzers, J., Ouden, E. den, Lu, Y. (2008). “Usability benchmark study of commercially available smartphones:
Cell Phone type platform, PDA type platform and PC type platform.” Procedings of the 10th
International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 265-
272
Kekre, S., Krishnan, M.S., Srinivasan, K. (1995). “Drivers of customer satisfaction for software products:
implications for design and service.” Management Science, 41 (9), pp. 1456-1470
Kim, S.H. (2008). “Moderating effects of job relevance and experience on mobile wireless technology
acceptance: adoption of a smartphone by individuals.” Information & Management, 45, pp. 387-393
Klein, L.R. (1998). “Evaluating the potential of interactive media through a new lens: Search versus experience
goods.” Journal of Business Research, 41 (3), pp. 195-203
LaBarbera, P.A., Mazursky, D. (1983). “A longitudinal assessment of consumer satisifaction/dissatisfaction: the
dynamic aspect of the cognitive process.” Journal of Marketing Research, 20, pp. 393-404, in: Mittal.,
V., Ross Jr., W.T., Baldasare, P.M. (1998). “The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-
48
level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions.” The Journal of Marketing, 62 (1),
pp. 33-47
Lamb, C.W., Hair, J.F., McDaniel, C. (2012). “Essentials of marketing.” South-Western Cengage Learning,
Mason USA
Lancaster, K. (1971). “Consumer demand: A new approach.” New York: Columbia University Press, in:
Thompson, D.V., Hamilton, R.W., Rust, R.T. (2005). “Feature fatigue: when product capabilities
become too much of a good thing.” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (4), pp. 431-442
Liao, C., Chen, J.L., Yen, D.C. (2007). “Theory of planning behavior (TPB) and customer satisfaction in the
continued use of e-service: An integrated model.” Computers in Human Behavior, 23, pp. 2804-2822
Low, G.S., Lamb jr., C. W. (2000). “The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations.” Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 9 (6), pp. 350-368
Marcoulides, G.A., Saunders, C. (2006). “PLS: a silver bullet?” MIS Quarterly, 30 (2), pp. iii-ix
McDougall, G.H.G., Levesque, T. (2000). “Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived value into the
equation.” Journal of Services Marketing, 14 (5), pp. 392-410
Mitchell, A.A., Dacin, P.A. (1996). “The assessment of alternative measures of consumer expertise.” Journal of
Consumer Research, 23, pp. 219-239
Mittal., V., Ross Jr., W.T., Baldasare, P.M. (1998). “The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-
level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions.” The Journal of Marketing, 62 (1),
pp. 33-47
Moore, Geoffrey A. (2006). “Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling disruptive products to mainstream
customers.” Collins Business Essentials
Muthukrishnan, A.V., Weitz, B.A. (1991). “Role of product knowledge in evaluation of brand extension.”
Advances in Consumer Research, 18, pp. 407-413
Nielsen, J. (1993). “Usability Engineering.” San Diego: Academic Press, in: Thompson, D.V., Hamilton, R.W.,
Rust, R.T. (2005). “Feature fatigue: when product capabilities become too much of a good thing.”
Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (4), pp. 431-442
Ojiako, U., Maguire, S. (2009). “Seeking the perfect customer experience: a cause study of British telecom.”
Strategic Change, 18, pp. 179-193
Oliver, R.L. (1993). “Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of the satisfaction response.” Journal of Consumer
Research, 20 (3), pp. 418-430
Oliver, R.L. (1999). "Whence Customer Loyalty?" The Journal of Marketing, 63, pp. 33-44
Olsen, S.O., Wilcox, J., Olsson, U. (2005). “Consequences of ambivalence on satisfaction and loyalty.”
Psychology & Marketing, 22 (3), pp. 247-269
Ouden, E. den, Yuan, L., Sonnemans, P.J.M., Brombacher, A.C. (2005). “Quality and Reliability problems from
a consumer’s perspective: an increasing problem overlooked by business?” Quality and Reliability
Engineering International, 22, pp. 821-838
Oulasvirta, A., Wahlström, M., Ericsson, K.A. (2011). “What does it mean to be good at using a mobile device?
An investigation of three levels of experience and skill.” International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 69, pp. 155-169
Pahl, G., Beitz, W. (1998). “Engineering design: A systematic approach. Springer-Verlag in: Stone, R.S. (2000).
“A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures.” Design Studies, 21, pp. 5-31
Pallant, J. (2005). “SPSS Survival Manual.” 12th
version. Allen & Unwin.
Park, Y., Chen, J.V. (2007). “Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of smartphone.” Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 107 (9), pp. 1349-1365
Payne, J.W. (1982). “Contingent decision behavior.” Psychological Bulletin, 92 (2), pp. 382-402
Peslak, A., Shannon, L., Ceccucci, W. (2011). “An empirical study of cell phone and smartphone usage.” Issues
in Information Systems, 12 (1), pp. 407-417
Peterson, R.A., Wilson, W.R. (1992). “Measuring customer satisfaction: fact and artifact.” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 20 (1), pp. 61-71
Pitt, L.F., Parent, M., Junglas, I., Chan, A., Spyropoulou, S. (2011). “Integrating the smartphone into a sound
environmental information systems strategy: Principles, practices and a research agenda.” Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 20, pp. 27-37
Podsakoff, P.M., Podsakoff, N.P., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J. (2003). “Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88 (5), pp. 879-903
Radner, R., Rothschild, M. (1975). “On the allocation of effort.” Journal of Economic Theory (10), pp. 358-376,
in: Davis, F.D. (1989). “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology.” MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), pp. 319-340
Randolph, J.J. (2009). “A guide to writing the dissertation literature review.” Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 14 (13), pp. 1-13
49
Reinzartz, W.J., Haenlein, M., Henseler, J. (2009). “An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-
based and variance-based SEM.” INSEAD Working Paper
Scott Armstrong, J., Overton, T.S. (1977). “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.” Journal of Marketing
Research, 14, pp. 396-402
Sobel, M.E. (1982). “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models.” Social
Methodology, 13, pp. 159-186
Spiteri, J.M., Dion, P.A. (2004). “Customer value, overall satisfaction, end-user loyalty, and market
performance in detail intensive industries.” Industrial Marketing Management, 33, pp. 675-687
Srinivasan, V., Lovejoy, W.S., Beach, D. (1997). “Integrated product design for marketability and
manufacturing.” Journal of Marketing Research, 34, pp. 154-63, in: Thompson, D.V., Hamilton, R.W.,
Rust, R.T. (2005). “Feature fatigue: when product capabilities become too much of a good thing.”
Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (4), pp. 431-442
Steiner, F., Tarman, R.T., Ihl, J.C., Piller, F.T. (2009). “Learning from the customer: Identifying changing user
needs during product usage through embedded toolkits for user innovation.” Portland International
Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology, August 2-6, 2009, pp. 706-716
Stone, R.S. (2000). “A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures.” Design Studies, 21,
pp. 5-31
Szymanski, D.M., Henard, D.H. (2001). “Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence.”
Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 29 (1), pp. 16-35
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S. (2001). “Using multivariate statistics.” 4th
edition. HarperCollins
Tan, W., Yeh, Y., Chen, S., Lin, Y., Kuo, C. (2012). “How consumers assess product’s features?: A case study
of product features of smartphone.” Recent Researches in Applied Mathematics and Economics.
Volume unknown, accessible via
http://www.wseas.us/elibrary/conferences/2012/Vouliagmeni/MMAS/MMAS-20.pdf
Teleompaper (2011). “Dutch mobile apps market.” Telecompaper Research Report 2011, October 2011
Teleompaper (2012). “Dutch mobile apps market.” Telecompaper Research Report 2011, January 2012
Thaler, R. (1985). “Mental accounting and consumer choices.” Marketing Science, 4 (3), pp. 199-214, in:
Gallarza, M.G., Saura, I.G. (2006). “Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: an
investigation of university students’ travel behavior.” Tourism Management, 27, pp. 437-452
Thompson, D.V., Hamilton, R.W., Rust, R.T. (2005). “Feature fatigue: when product capabilities become too
much of a good thing.” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (4), pp. 431-442
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K. (2006). “The 3G transition: Changes in the US wireless industry.” Telecommunications
Policy, 30 (10-11), pp. 569-586
Töyssy, S., Helenius, M. (2006). “About malicious software in smartphones.” Journal in Computer Virology, 2
(2), pp. 109-119
Turel, O., Serenko, A. (2006). “Satisfaction with mobile services in Canada: an empirical investigation.”
Telecommunications Policy, 30, pp. 314-331
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D. (2000). “A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four
longitudinal field studies.” Management Science, 46 (2), pp. 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D. (2003). “User acceptance of information technology:
Toward a unified view.” MIS Quartetly, 27 (3), pp. 425-478
Verkasalo, H., López-Nicolás, C., Molina-Castillo, F.J., Bouwman, H. (2010). “Analysis of users and non-users
of smartphone applications.” Telematics and Informatics, 27, pp. 242-255
Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H. (2009). “Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods
and applications.” Springer VerlagBerlin Heidelberg 2010
Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R., Grohmann, B. (2003). “Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of
consumer attitude.” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (3), pp. 310-320
Wang, Y., Lo, H., Yang, Y. (2004). “An integrated framework for service quality, customer value, satisfaction:
evidence from China’s telecommunication industry.” Information Systems Frontiers, 6 (4), pp. 325-340
Woodruff, R.B. (1997). “Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage.” Academy of Marketing
Science Journal, 25 (2), pp. 139-153
Yi, Y. (1990). “A critical review of consumer satisfaction.” Review of Marketing, 1990 in: Fournier, S., Mick,
D.G. (1999). “Rediscovering satisfaction.” The Journal of Marketing, 63 (4), pp. 5-23
6.2 Web references
Gaigg, M. (2012). Blog by Micheal Gaigg (publication date unknown). “Feature fatigue: say NO to your clients.”
http://www.michaelgaigg.com/blog/tag/feature-fatigue/ , accessed June 20th 2012
Gartner.com (2012): Summary of Quartile 1 2012 market share analysis of mobile devices worldwide, by Gartner –
information technology research and advisory. http://www.gartner.com/id=2015916 ; Accessed July 27th 2012
50
IDC.com (2011). Press release on smartphone sales by market intelligence provider IDC.
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS22871611 , accessed 5th of August, 2011
iTunes.apple.com (2012). Online store where apps can be purchased. http://itunes.apple.com/nl/app/sleep-cycle-alarm-
clock/id320606217?mt=8 , accessed 7th of August, 2012
Kendrick, J. (2011). Blog by Kendrick, J. (2011). “Are you suffering from app fatigue?” http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-
news/are-you-suffering-from-app-fatigue/1305, accessed 27th of June 2012
Madison, J. (2011). “’The world is a better place because of Steve’: the life and times of Apple visionary Steve Jobs.”
Appeared on Dailymail.co.uk (2011): Website of newspaper The Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045852/Steve-Jobs-dead-Biography-Apple-visionary.html, accessed 24th
of July, 2012
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Will, S. (2005). Software package for Partial Least Squares analysis “SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta.”
http://www.smartpls.de , accessed May 29th 2012
Statline.cbs.nl (2012). Database of the Dutch Bureau for Satistics, http://statline.cbs.nl , accessed 17th of February 2012
Taliuaga, J., Bates, J., Sumner, J. (2009). “Feature fatigue: A necessary evil in portable devices.”
http://www.rockresearch.com/feature-fatigue-a-necessary-evil-in-portable-devices , accessed 27th of June 2012
Appendix A: Measurement instrument
Construct or variable (Cronbach’s
α if applicable)
Factor loading
(if applicable)
Measure (source and Cronbach’s alpha where applicable)
Apps - How many apps are installed in total on your smartphone, including pre-installed
applications? 1-10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, 61-70, 71-80, 81-90, 91-100, more than 100, namely: …
Customer Satisfaction Of The
Smartphone**
- I am satisfied with my smartphone (11 point Likert scale: Peterson & Wilson, 1992)
Daily Usage Time - On average, how much time do you spend on using your smartphone per day? This
concerns use without calling, but including texting, and using internet and applications.
Measured in hours, with an interval of 0.25 hours (adapted from Venkatesh & Davis,
2000 and Al-Gahtani & King, 1999)
Frequency Of Use - On average, how many times do you use your smartphone per day? This concerns use
without calling, but including texting, and using internet and applications (adapted Al-Gahtani & King, 1999)
Mobile Data Usage (Objective
Measure – Not In Survey)
- Mobile data usage in MB/month. This information is extracted from the customer base
and is objective. The measure is the monthly data use, averaged over the 3 months before data collection: December 2011 through February 2012
Perceived Effort*
(α = .81)
.882 Installing applications on my smartphone requires time (adapted from Wang et al., 2004)
.905 Updating applications on my smartphone requires time (adapted from Wang et al., 2004)
.740 Learning to use the applications on my smartphone requires time (adapted from Wang et
al., 2004) Perceived Usability/Ease Of Use*
(α = .92)
.940 My interaction with my smartphone is clear and understandable (adapted from Venkatesh
& Davis, 2000, α = .86-.98)
Deleted Interacting with my smartphone does not require a lot of my mental effort (adapted from Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, α = .86-.98) [is reversed in the survey]
.922 I find my smartphone to be easy to use (adapted from Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, α = .86-
.98) .915 I find it easy to get my smartphone to do what I want it to do (adapted from Venkatesh &
Davis, 2000, α = .86-.98)
Perceived Usage - I often use my smartphone (adapted from Al-Gahtani & King, 1999). Perceived Usefulness*
(α = .84)
.885 Using my smartphone increases my productivity in everyday activities (adapted from
Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, α = .87-.98)
.882 Using my smartphone enhances my effectiveness of everyday activities (adapted from Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, α = .87-.98)
.848 I find my smartphone to be useful in everyday life (adapted from Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, α = .87-.98)
SMS Usage (Objective Measure –
Not In Survey)
- SMS usage in number of SMS text messages per month, averaged over December
2011through February 2012. This objective information is extracted from the customer base of the Telco
Telecommunication Provider
/Company (Telco) Customer Satisfaction**
- I am satisfied with my telecom provider (11 point Likert scale: Peterson & Wilson, 1992)
Voice Usage (Objective Measure – Not In Survey)
- Voice usage in number of minutes per month, averaged over December 2011 through February 2012. This objective information is extracted from the customer base of the
Telco
Moderating Variables
Hedonic Attitude Towards The
Smartphone*
.831 Smartphones are fun (adapted from Voss et al., 2003, α = .92- .95)
(α = .88) .894 Smartphones are exciting (adapted from Voss et al., 2003, α = .92- .95)
51
All items of the constructs marked with an asterisk are measured on a 7 point Likert
scale with 1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: somewhat disagree, 4: neutral (neither disagree
nor agree), 5: somewhat agree, 6: agree, 7: strongly agree (adapted from Venktatesh & Davis,
2000). The constructs marked with a double asterisk are measured with an 11-point Likert
scale. In Appendix B, the measurement instrument is integrated into a Dutch questionnaire.
Appendix B: Questionnaire
This Appendix contains the measurement instrument translated in Dutch. The
questionnaire contains 35 questions in total. Some elements were added due to the interest of
the telecom operator and in order to filter irrelevant respondents. These elements are marked
with an “X” in the item indication. Additionally, every item is guided by a Dutch text in
which the questions corresponding to the items are explained.
Abbreviations: APP = number of apps, CS = customer satisfaction with the smartphone,
TPCS = customer satisfaction with the telecommunication operator, PU = perceived
usefulness, PEU = perceived ease of use/usability, DU = daily duration of use, FREQ = daily
frequency of use, PULS = perceived usage level, LS = loyalty towards the smartphone, LTC
= loyalty towards the telecommunication operator, PBI = perceived image of the smartphone
brand, SK = subjective knowledge, UA/HA = utilitarian/hedonic attitude, PE = perceived
effort put into apps, PMC = perceived monetary costs, PO = perceived overlap, CON =
conscientiousness, UT = usage time, A = age, G = gender, E = education, SB = smartphone
brand, SM = survey method, TU = type of use.
.882 Smartphones are delightful (adapted from Voss et al., 2003, α = .92- .95)
.830 Smartphones are thrilling (adapted from Voss et al., 2003, α = .92- .95) Deleted Smartphones are enjoyable (adapted from Voss et al., 2003, α = .92- .95)
Perceived Brand Image* .938 The brand of my smartphone is attractive (Low & Lamb, 2000, α = .85)
(α = .95) .961 The brand of my smartphone is reliable (Low & Lamb, 2000, α = .85) .964 The brand of my smartphone is of high quality (Low & Lamb, 2000, α = .85)
Subjective Knowledge*
(α = .92)
.932 I know much about smartphones (Adapted from Flynn & Goldsmith, 1999, α = .87 - .94)
.830 I know how to operate smartphones (Adapted from Flynn & Goldsmith, 1999, α = .87 -
.94)
.898 Among my circle of friends, I’m one of the experts on smartphones (Flynn & Goldsmith, 1999, α = .87 - .94)
.910 Compared to most other people, I know more about smartphones (Flynn & Goldsmith,
1999, α = .87 - .94) Utilitarian Attitude Towards The
Smartphone*
.904 Smartphones are effective (adapted from Voss et al., 2003, α = .95)
(α = .94) Deleted Smartphones are helpful (adapted from Voss et al., 2003, α = .95)
.934 Smartphones are functional (adapted from Voss et al., 2003, α = .95)
Deleted Smartphones are necessary (adapted from Voss et al., 2003, α = .95)
.917 Smartphones are practical (adapted from Voss et al., 2003, α = .95)
Control Variables
Age - What is your age? Gender - What is your gender (M/F)?
Education Level - What is your education level: primary education, vmbo/mbo 1, havo/vwo, mbo 2-4, hbo,
wo, other (Statline.cbs.nl, 2012) Usage Time - How many smartphones have you owned in total, including your current smartphone?
(adapted from Mitchell & Dacin, 1996)
- When did you purchase/receive your current smartphone? (which month and year, adapted from Turel & Serenko, 2006) ; or if this is not your first smartphone: when did
you receive/purchase your first smartphone?
Smartphone Brand - Which brand is your current smartphone? Apple, Blackberry, Samsung, HTC , other: … (GfK, 2011)
Type Of Use - Do you use your smartphone for business, private, or both?
Survey Method - On which device did you fill in this survey? On a PC/laptop, smartphone, tablet or other
52
********* Start of the questionnaire **********
Deze enquête gaat over smartphones en het gebruik van apps. Als je meerdere smartphones in gebruik hebt,
neem dan voor het invullen van deze vragenlijst de smartphone in gedachten die je het meest gebruikt.
XA1. Volgens onze gegevens maak je gebruik van een smartphone en heb je een abonnement bij [telecom
provider] Klopt dit?
Ja (“Yes”) (1)
Nee (“No”) (2) einde enquête: “Helaas val je buiten de doelgroep
van het onderzoek. Hartelijk dank voor je medewerking.”
De volgende twee stellingen gaan over jouw tevredenheid met je smartphone en met [telecom provider]. Geef
aan in hoeverre je het eens bent met de volgende stellingen [1 (helemaal mee eens)…(11 helemaal mee
oneens)]:
CS Ik ben tevreden met mijn smartphone
TPCS Ik ben tevreden met [telecom provider]
De volgende stellingen gaan over het gebruik van jouw smartphone. Geef aan in hoeverre je het eens bent met
de volgende stellingen:
PU1 Door mijn smartphone kan ik meer doen in dezelfde tijd
PU2 Door mijn smartphone kan ik alledaagse activiteiten beter uitvoeren
PU3 Mijn smartphone is nuttig in het alledaagse leven
PEU1 Mijn smartphone is duidelijk en begrijpelijk
PEU2 Ik moet mij concentreren als ik mijn smartphone gebruik [REVERSED]
PEU3 Mijn smartphone is eenvoudig in gebruik
PEU4 Het is gemakkelijk om mijn smartphone te laten doen wat ik wil
DU Hoeveel tijd besteed je gemiddeld per dag aan het gebruiken van je smartphone?Reken bellen hier niet
onder en rond je antwoord af in kwartieren. 1 uur en 40 minuten per dag rond je bijvoorbeeld af naar 1:45
[in uren met intervallen van een kwartier; bij voorkeur twee uitklapvensters, links voor # uren 1 t/m 24,
rechts voor het aantal kwartieren: 0, 15, 30, 45]
FREQ Hoe vaak gebruik jij je smartphone gemiddeld op een dag? Reken bellen hier niet onder en denk hierbij
dus aan het volgende gebruik: SMS-en en het gebruiken van internet en apps
[Aantal (open antwoord) ] keer per dag
PULS Ik maak veel gebruik van mijn smartphone (reken belgedrag hier niet onder)
[Monthly mobile data, voice, and SMS usage is extracted from customer database in Megabytes/
minutes/SMS per month averaged over 3 months]
De volgende vragen gaan over toekomstig gebruik van jouw smartphone. Geef aan in hoeverre je het eens bent
met de volgende stellingen:
XLS0 Mijn volgende telefoon wordt een smartphone
LS1 Mijn volgende smartphone wordt van hetzelfde merk
LS2 Als ik op dit moment zou kunnen kiezen zonder dat het geld of moeite kost om over te stappen, zou ik een
smartphone van een ander merk nemen [Reversed]
53
LS3 Als mensen het mij zouden vragen dan zou ik het merk van mijn smartphone aanraden
De volgende vragen gaan over het toekomstig gebruik van [telecom provider]. Geef aan in hoeverre je het eens
bent met de volgende stellingen:
LTC1 Mijn volgende mobiele abonnement wordt van [telecom provider]
LTC2 Als ik op dit moment zou kunnen kiezen, zonder dat het geld of moeite kost om over te stappen, zou ik
voor een abonnement van een andere aanbieder kiezen [Reversed]
LTC3 Als mensen het mij zouden vragen dan zou ik [telecom provider] aanraden als mobiele aanbieder
De volgende stellingen gaan over jouw beleving van het merk van jouw smartphone. Geef aan in hoeverre je het
eens bent met de volgende stellingen:
PBI1 Het merk van mijn smartphone is aantrekkelijk
PBI2 Het merk van mijn smartphone is betrouwbaar
PBI3 Het merk van mijn smartphone staat voor hoge kwaliteit
De volgende vragen gaan over jouw kennis over smartphones. Geef aan in hoeverre je het eens bent met de
volgende stellingen:
SK1 Ik weet veel van smartphones
SK2 Ik kan goed met smartphones overweg
SK3 In mijn vriendenkring ben ik een van de smartphone-experts
SK4 In vergelijking met anderen weet ik veel van smartphones
De volgende 10 stellingen gaan over jouw houding ten opzichte van smartphones. Geef aan in hoeverre je het
eens bent met de volgende stellingen:
HA1 Smartphones zijn leuk
HA2 Smartphones zijn boeiend
HA3 Smartphones geven voldoening
HA4 Smartphones zijn spannend
HA5 Smartphones zijn plezierig
UA1 Smartphones zijn effectief
UA2 Smartphones zijn behulpzaam
UA3 Smartphones zijn functioneel
UA4 Smartphones zijn noodzakelijk
UA5 Smartphones zijn praktisch
De volgende vragen gaan over de apps die op jouw smartphone staan geïnstalleerd en over het gebruik van deze
apps.
APP Hoeveel apps heb jij in totaal op jouw smartphone geïnstalleerd? Reken hiertoe ook vooraf geïnstalleerde
apps mee, zoals de SMS-app of agenda-apps.
1-10 (1)
11-20 (2)
21-30 (3)
31-40 (4)
41-50 (5)
51-60 (6)
61-70 (7)
71-80 (8)
54
81-90 (9)
91-100 (10)
Meer dan honderd, namelijk: [open antwoord met waarde >100] (11)
[It should be noted that an error occurred in the design of the web survey: the first 33 respondents were
not able to provide a 15 minute interval in their answer to the question how much time they spend on an average
day on using their smartphone, when they selected ‘1 hour’ as an answer option. As a result, the following
answer options ‘15’, ‘30’ and ‘45’ minutes were not available to these 33 respondents. Fortunately, the lowest
answer to this question from this batch of respondents was 1:45 hours, which is an indication that the leaving-
out of the answer options did not affect the results because it could be expected that respondents that wanted to
fill in the answer options that were not available would have indicated the lowest possible answer, which is 0
hours or 1 hour. After one day the answer options were adapted such that the left-out answer options are made
available to respondents.]
XOWNAPPS Heb je naast de apps die reeds op je telefoon stonden, ook zelf apps geïnstalleerd?
Ja (1)
Nee (2) Niet vragen (“Skip”): PMC1, PMC2, PMC3, PE1
Geef aan in hoeverre je het eens bent met de volgende stellingen:
PMC1 De apps die ik op mijn smartphone heb geïnstalleerd zijn redelijk geprijsd [Reversed]
PMC2 De verkoopprijs van apps die ik heb geïnstalleerd op mijn smartphone is voordelig[Reversed]
PMC3 De apps op mijn smartphone zijn hun geld waard [Reversed]
PE1 Het heeft veel tijd gekost om de apps op mijn smartphone te installeren
PE2 Het updaten van de apps op mijn smartphone kost veel tijd
PE3 Ik heb veel tijd geïnvesteerd om de apps op mijn smartphone te leren gebruiken
De volgende stellingen gaan over jouw beleving van de onderlinge verschillen tussen de apps op jouw
smartphone. Geef aan in hoeverre je het eens bent met de volgende stellingen:
PO1 Er is veel overlap tussen de functies van de apps op mijn smartphone
PO2 Ik heb meerdere apps voor hetzelfde doeleind (Bijvoorbeeld meerdere apps voor reizen met het openbaar
vervoer of voor weersvoorspellingen)
PO3 De verschillende apps op mijn smartphone voorzien in dezelfde behoeften
De volgende stellingen gaan over het beheren van apps op jouw smartphone, welke afwegingen er plaatsvinden
bij het downloaden van apps en de functionaliteit van jouw smartphone. Geef aan in hoeverre je het eens bent
met de volgende stellingen [Measured on a five-point Likert scale]:
XSTR Ik structureer de apps op mijn smartphone (denk hierbij bijvoorbeeld aan het beheren van mappen
waarin je de apps hebt opgeslagen (voor iPhone gebruikers) of het plaatsen van widgets en snelkoppelingen
(voor Android gebruikers)
XDEL Ik verwijder apps van mijn smartphone als ik ze niet gebruik
XCOST Ik let op de kosten van een app als ik overweeg om een app te downloaden
XMEM Ik let op de hoeveelheid geheugen die een app inneemt op mijn smartphone als ik overweeg om een app
te downloaden
XFUNC Ik vind het belangrijk dat mijn smartphone andere functionaliteit biedt naast bellen
XFF Ik erger mij aan apps die ik niet gebruik
XOA8 Geef een top 3 van apps die je het meest gebruik [Open vraag]
Tot slot volgen er nu nog enkele algemene vragen over jou en jouw smartphone. Geef aan in hoeverre je het
eens bent met de volgende stellingen:
55
Con1 Ik let op details
Con2 Ik begin meteen aan taken
Con3 Ik vind het prettig als dingen geordend zijn
Con4 Ik ben precies in mijn werk
Con5 Ik laat mijn spullen rondslingeren
XSEGMENT1 Welk van de volgende antwoorden associeer jij het meest met het gebruik van apps?
Ontdekken, proberen, testen (1)
Delen, tonen, mode rn (2)
Socialiseren, relaties, vrienden (3)
Functioneel, praktisch, oplossing (4)
XSEGMENT2 Apps zijn voor mij vooral
Nieuw, onbekend, vreemd (1)
Praktisch, eenvoudig, bekend (2)
Vertrouwd, handig, leuk, (3)
Intens, actief, onmisbaar (4)
XSEGMENT3 Hoe zou je je leven over het algemeen omschrijven?
Gestructureerd, duidelijk rechtlijnig (1)
Druk, spanning, snel (2)
Complex, verwarrend, veranderlijk (3)
Groei, vooruitgang, opbouwen (4)
Geleidelijk, rustig, uitgebalanceerd (5)
A Hoe oud ben je?
[leeftijd]
G Ik ben een
Man (1)
Vrouw (2)
E Wat is het niveau van je hoogst genoten of je huidige opleiding?
Geen (1)
Primair onderwijs of vergelijkbaar (2)
vmbo/mbo 1 of vergelijkbaar (3)
havo/vwo of vergelijkbaar (4)
mbo 2-4 of vergelijkbaar (5)
hbo of vergelijkbaar (6)
wo of vergelijkbaar (7)
anders (8)
UT1 Hoeveel smartphones heb je gehad (inclusief je huidige smartphone)?
Dit is mijn eerste smartphone (1) UT3 niet vragen
[aantal] smartphones (2)
UT2 Wanneer heb je je huidige smartphone gekregen?
[Maand en jaar]
UT3 Wanneer heb je je eerste smartphone gekregen?
[maand en jaar]
56
SB Van welk merk is je smartphone?
Apple (1)
Blackberry (2)
HTC (3)
Samsung (4)
Anders (5)
TU Gebruik je je smartphone zakelijk, privé of voor beiden?
Privé (1)
Zakelijk (2)
Beiden (3)
SM Met welk apparaat heb je deze enquête ingevuld?
Op een PC/laptop (1)
Op een smartphone (2)
Op een tablet (3)
Hartelijk dank voor het invullen van deze enquête!
*********** End of the questionnaire ***********
Appendix C: Data manipulation
This appendix describes the manipulation of the dataset that was delivered by the market
research agency. First of all, the e-mail addresses and phone numbers of the respondents were
deleted in order to ensure animosity of the respondents. The labels added by the market
research agency were replaced by the original labels as used in the measurement instrument.
The information containing the gender and handset brand in use that stemmed from the
customer database was deleted because it is expected that this information is more reliable
when directly provided by respondents.
The two variables for duration of daily usage (hours and minutes) were aggregated to
from 1 variable: hours of use. 3 respondents indicated that they filled in the survey on an
‘other’ device than a smartphone, tablet or desktop/laptop PC. However, these cases
concerned an “I MAC” an “Ipad” and a “MAC” of which the MAC and I MAC can be
categorized under desktops and laptop PC’s and the iPad can be categorized as a tablet.
Therefore, these cases were recoded. The variables for the duration of owning a smartphone
were joined such that the months and years of owning a smartphone were combined in a
single variable. The different variables for the different paths in the survey (for people having
owned multiple smartphones and people owing their first smartphone) were then joined to
reflect the time that people have owned a smartphone in total, in months.
Subsequently, the data was saved in SPSS and the corresponding labels were added.
The item perceived ease of use2 was reversed in the questionnaire and therefore they were
reverse recoded in order to reflect the original variable.
The brand of the smartphone as provided by the respondent matched the brand of the
handset of the customer database for every respondent, except for the 4 cases for which this
question was answered with ‘other’; these answers were assigned as missing.
57
For the number of apps installed on the smartphone, the answer option above 100 was
“other, namely:”. The maximum value for this item was 188 apps. The answers above 100
were recoded such that they corresponded to the value of the last group on the scale. This last
group on the scale, consisting of respondents with more than 101 apps on their smartphone,
consisted of 8 respondents.
One respondent indicated to be of an age of 17.5 years. This case was rounded to 18
years. The data on SMS and voice usage was delivered per month for December 2011-
February 2012. This data was averaged and rounded with two digits.
Finally, because the distribution of mobile data, SMS and voice usage appeared to be
asymptotic, i.e. the distributions had “long tails”. A third root transformation was applied to
the mobile data usage and SMS usage, and a fourth root transformation was applied to voice
usage. These specific transformations were selected because they yielded distributions of the
corresponding variables that best approached the normal distribution.
Recoding of daily usage duration and frequency of daily interaction
Scale increments for the variables ‘daily interaction duration’ and ‘daily frequency of
use’ were created such that the mean was in the middle-answer option and the increments of
the scale corresponded to 0.5 standard deviations, in an attempt to create a 7-point scale
which corresponds to the scale-size of other measured items and to allow for sufficient
discrimination between the categories. In Table 8, the calculations of the scales are displayed.
Frequency of use was now measured on a 6-point scale and daily duration of use on a 7-point
scale. The scale boundaries are not strict; i.e. if scale value 1 ranges from 0.00 to 5.00; 5.00 is
assigned value 1 but 5.01 is assigned value 2. The values of both variables were recoded to
reflect the values of the new scales that were developed.
Table 8 Recoding of daily duration of use and dialy frequency of use
Daily duration of use Daily frequency of use
Value: lower bound upper bound lower bound upper bound
1 0.00 1.33 0 5
2 1.33 2.42 5 17 3 2.42 3.51 17 29
4 3.51 4.59 29 41
5 4.59 5.68 41 54 6 5.68 6.77 54 or more
7 6.77 or more
mean 4.05 mean 23.08 S.D. 2.17 S.D. 24.50
min value 1.25 min value 0.00
max value 17.25 max value 200.00
Coding of dummy variables for survey method and type of use
In the Table 9, the values for the dummy variables and the corresponding categories
can be viewed. Since only 1 respondent indicated to use his smartphone for business uses,
this category was not included in the model and was treated as missing data.
58
Table 9 Coding of dummy variables
Variable Recoded into variables
Age (original code) Original variable
Male (1) 0
Female (2) 1
Type of use categories (original code) Original variable
Consumer (1) 0 Business (2) (not included into analysis due to only 1
respondent) -
Consumer and Business (3) 1
Survey method categories (original code) SMDummy1 SMDummy2 PC/laptop (1) 0 0
Smartphone (2) 1 0
Tablet (3) 0 1
Smartphone brand categories (original code) SBDummy1 SBDummy2 SBDummy3
Apple (1) 0 0 0
Blackberry (2) 1 0 0 HTC (3) 0 1 0
Samsung (4) 0 0 1
Other (5) is not controlled for - - -
Appendix D: Generalization of the sample
Table 10 General characteristics of the sample and other customer groups
Variable Category Respondents
Consumer postpaid
base (smartphone, 4 brands)
Consumer postpaid + prepaid base
(smartphone, 4
brands)
Consumer +
business, postpaid +
prepaid (Smartphone, 4
brands)
Dutch
population
Gender Male 48.8% 47,33% 47,53% 49.51%*
Female 51.2 % 52,67% 52,47% 50.49%
Age 15-25 18.3 % 3,17% 8,37% 8,25% 13,49%*
26-35 18.3 % 31,33% 30,17% 29,97% 12,03%
36-45 25.0 % 21,78% 20,21% 20,31% 14,44%
46-55 25.4 % 24,75% 23,04% 23,18% 14,87%
56-65 10.3 % 14,40% 13,44% 13,49% 13,02%
66-75 1.2 % 3,92% 3,88% 3,91% 8,39%
75+ 0.8 % 0,66% 0,89% 0,89% 7,13%
Education None 0.4 %
-
Primary 0.4 %
5.13%**
VMBO/MBO1 11.9 %
18.06%
HAVO/VWO 29%
9.05%
MBO 2-4 28.2 %
33.20%
HBO 31.3 %
21.79%
WO 13.5 %
11.80%
other 2.8%
0.97%
Smartphone brand Apple 18.7 % 21,60% 19,87% 20,06%
Blackberry 13.5% 17,76% 19,65% 19,74%
HTC 32.1% 17,92% 16,92% 16,87%
Samsung 34.1 % 42,72% 43,55% 43,32%
*As of January 1st, 2012; **Over 2011. Source: Telecommunication operator’s customer base data and Statline.cbs.nl (2012).
59
Appendix E: Data exploration: outliers and normality
Table 11 Univariate outliers
Case ID Variable Z-Value Variable value Outlier category Action
528067 ULS1: Smartphone Use Per Day 7.2 21.5 hours/day Procedural error Delete value 521834 ULS1: Smartphone Use Per Day 6.1 17.25 hours/day Extraordinary observation Retain 523001 ULS1: Smartphone Use Per Day 4.2 13.25 hours/day Extraordinary observation Retain 523188 ULS2: Frequency Of Smartphone Use Per Day 14.7 1000 times per day Procedural error Delete value 521892 ULS2: Frequency Of Smartphone Use Per Day 7.22 200 Extraordinary observation Retain 527015 ULS2: Frequency Of Smartphone Use Per Day 5.18 150 Extraordinary observation Retain 527748 MDU 6.3 1503 Mb/month Extraordinary observation Delete value 522188 UT1: Number Of Smartphones Owned 6.6 10 smartphones Extraordinary observation Retain 522723 UT1: Number Of Smartphones Owned 5.0 8 smartphones Extraordinary observation Retain 5226821 UT1: Number Of Smartphones Owned 4.2 7 smartphones Extraordinary observation Retain
522188 UT2: Months Owning A Smartphone 4.7 135 months Extraordinary observation Retain 522473 UT2: Months Owning A Smartphone 4.5 131 months Extraordinary observation Retain 525776 Age 13.8 500 Procedural error Delete value 526767 Age 4.4 190 Procedural error Delete value 527078 SMS 5.19 475.67 Extraordinary observation Delete value 526776 SMS 6.20 556.33 Extraordinary observation Delete value 521772 SMS 6.83. 607.33 Extraordinary observation Delete value 522778 Voice 4.60 597.05 Extraordinary observation Delete value 521768 Voice 4.92 631.17 Extraordinary observation Delete value 522216 Voice 8.20 991.08 Extraordinary observation Delete value
The outliers are displayed in Table 11. The outliers are categorized according to 3
categories provided by Hair et al. (2010): procedural errors, extraordinary events or
extraordinary observations. The following is observed about the outliers:
Outliers 528067, 523188, 525776 and 526767 are classified as procedural errors because
of their unrealistic values. Respondent 528067 indicates to use his/her smartphone for 21.25
hours per day, with a frequency of 25 times per day, meaning an average of 51 minutes per
interaction. Due to this improbable value, which indicates either use of a smartphone during
sleep or 2.75 hours sleep per day, the value was deleted. Respondent 523188 indicates a
frequency of 1000 interactions with his/her smartphone per day, with the next runner up in
the dataset indicating a value of 200. The respondent indicates a use of 9.25 hours per day
and uses 607 Mb of data per month and the rest of the values seem normal. It is assumed that
the value of 1000 is a typing error, and the value is deleted. The same is assumed for
respondents 525776 and 526767, indicating an age of respectively 500 and 190 years. These
values are deleted.
The other univariate outliers are classified as extraordinary observations because there are
no obvious explanations for them but the values are realistic and plausible. The value of
17.25 hours smartphone use per day is high, but possible for someone using his/her
smartphone for both business and pleasure. For the objective data on voice, SMS and mobile
data usage, the outlying values are deleted since these are central variables and in order to
prevent asymptotic data, could lead to unreliable estimation of parameters in PLS (Vinzi et
al., 2009). The outliers of the control variables are retained.
The distribution of the variables is displayed in Table 12.
60
Table 12 Data distribution
Variable
Shape descriptions
Variable
Shape descriptions
Skewness Kurtosis Skewness Kurtosis
statistic Z-
value* statistic
Z-
value* statistic
Z-
value* statistic
Z-
value*
Age 0.02 0.14 -0.32 -1.02 Perceived Usability3 -1.39 -8.98 2.85 9.22
Apps 0.98 6.37 0.43 1.39 Perceived Usability4 -1.10 -7.15 0.62 2.00
Daily Usage Time 0.83 5.37 -0.24 -0.77 Perceived Usage Level -1.12 -7.27 1.13 3.67
Duration Of Ownership 1.91 12.39 4.35 14.11 Perceived Usefulness1 -0.69 -4.44 0.11 0.35
Education -0.35 -2.26 -0.21 -0.68 Perceived Usefulness2 -0.71 -4.63 0.29 0.95
Frequency of use 0.80 5.05 -0.10 -0.33 Perceived Usefulness3 -1.47 -9.51 3.01 9.75
Hedonic Attitude1 -1.58 -10.26 4.36 14.13 Smartphone Cust Sat -1.39 -9.01 1.99 6.46
Hedonic Attitude2 -1.02 -6.62 1.51 4.91 Smartphones Owned 2.64 17.12 10.34 33.51
Hedonic Attitude3 -0.74 -4.79 0.38 1.22 SMS Usage** 0.25 1.64 0.05 0.15
Hedonic Attitude4 -0.50 -3.22 0.12 0.38 Subjective Knowledge1 -0.44 -2.87 -0.52 -1.70
Hedonic Attitude5 -1.09 -7.07 1.86 6.04 Subjective Knowledge2 -1.00 -6.51 1.11 3.61
Mobile Data Usage** -0.13 0.84 -0.72 -2.32 Subjective Knowledge3 -0.01 -0.05 -0.85 -2.77
Perceived Brand Image1 -1.27 -8.21 1.42 4.61 Subjective Knowledge4 -0.31 -1.98 -0.54 -1.76
Perceived Brand Image2 -1.29 -8.38 1.66 5.39 Telco Cust Sat -0.42 -2.70 0.26 0.84
Perceived Brand Image3 -1.33 -8.64 1.89 6.12 Utilitarian Attiude1 -0.95 -6.19 2.39 7.74
Perceived Effort1 0.94 6.07 0.37 1.18 Utilitarian Attitude2 -1.17 -7.58 2.33 7.55
Perceived Effort2 0.57 3.69 -0.53 -1.73 Utilitarian Attitude3 -1.35 -8.73 4.59 14.89
Perceived Effort3 0.60 3.87 -0.16 -0.52 Utilitarian Attitude4 -0.22 -1.46 -0.53 -1.70 Perceived Usability1 -1.29 -8.37 1.89 6.13 Utilitarian Attitude5 -1.26 -8.14 4.06 13.16
Perceived Usability2 0.10 0.62 -1.09 -3.52 Voice Usage** 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.12
*Values exceeding ± 2.58 (significance p<.01) have been highlighted in bold.
and
with N
= sample size = 252. Note that the distribution is reflected by the data of which the outliers have been deleted.
** these variables have been transformed, see section 4.1.3
61
Appendix F: Factor loadings and cross loadings of the first CFA
Ap
ps
Cu
st s
at
Dai
ly u
sag
e
tim
e
Fre
quen
cy
Hen
odic
atti
tud
e
Mobil
e dat
a
usa
ge
Per
ceiv
ed
bra
nd i
mag
e
Per
ceiv
ed
effo
rt
Per
ceiv
ed
usa
bil
ity
Per
ceiv
ed
use
fuln
ess
Per
ceiv
ed
usa
ge
Su
bje
ctiv
e
kno
wle
dg
e
SM
S u
sag
e
Tel
co c
ust
sat
Uti
lita
rian
atti
tud
e
Vo
ice
usa
ge
Apps 1 .32 .057 .152 .175 .178 .246 -.205 .348 .272 .226 .297 -.027 .026 .241 -.062 Cust sat .32 1 .039 .178 .125 .107 .683 -.318 .622 .49 .339 .143 -.02 .312 .218 .091
Daily usage time .057 .039 1 .489 .285 .222 .031 .064 .146 .186 .408 .192 -.01 .02 .246 -.02
Frequency .152 .178 .489 1 .288 .307 .15 -.023 .261 .299 .42 .343 .05 .01 .267 .04 Hedonic atttiude1 .193 .165 .244 .299 .842 .185 .28 -.08 .378 .324 .39 .355 .002 .126 .676 -.016
Hedonic attitude2 .158 .063 .262 .257 .866 .121 .285 -.068 .27 .32 .344 .456 -.001 .054 .594 -.021
Hedonic attitude3 .091 .083 .263 .241 .867 .1 .21 -.053 .316 .351 .332 .399 0 .134 .625 -.058 Hedonic attitude4 .12 .055 .266 .172 .814 .019 .141 -.037 .247 .25 .268 .401 -.023 .16 .541 -.051
Hedonic attitude5 .174 .146 .186 .235 .862 .08 .266 -.11 .337 .305 .347 .321 -.017 .208 .719 -.012
Mobile data usage .178 .107 .222 .307 .125 1 .071 -.079 .228 .246 .303 .307 .082 -.03 .161 .116 Perceived brand image1 .23 .629 .052 .106 .264 .038 .938 -.214 .586 .575 .392 .269 -.021 .278 .328 -.005
Perceived brand image2 .225 .657 .032 .171 .251 .084 .962 -.287 .605 .528 .383 .231 -.001 .225 .319 .017
Perceived brand image3 .249 .67 .008 .151 .294 .08 .964 -.254 .629 .556 .367 .249 .019 .253 .344 .001 Perceived effort1 -.21 -.253 .084 -.028 -.061 -.069 -.242 .882 -.278 -.118 -.061 -.047 .055 -.124 -.07 .045
Perceived effort2 -.19 -.343 .058 .007 -.099 -.059 -.262 .905 -.339 -.154 -.009 -.005 -.001 -.176 -.089 -.085
Perceived effort3 -.089 -.165 -.003 -.061 -.036 -.087 -.127 .74 -.23 -.093 -.025 -.064 .025 -.075 -.036 .06 Perceived usability1 .334 .576 .162 .264 .376 .183 .63 -.272 .939 .567 .497 .358 .061 .18 .461 -.019
Perceived usability2 .085 .124 .055 .114 .03 .092 .016 -.245 .217 -.025 .072 .041 .138 -.011 .02 .01
Perceived usability3 .314 .542 .145 .231 .34 .267 .557 -.334 .921 .475 .483 .302 0 .164 .415 .01 Perceived usability4 .315 .609 .093 .219 .314 .181 .589 -.323 .915 .53 .427 .358 -.037 .182 .402 -.032
Perceived usefulness1 .163 .402 .155 .244 .305 .2 .523 -.139 .475 .885 .423 .365 -.139 .234 .386 .016
Perceived usefulness2 .287 .39 .143 .22 .296 .207 .457 -.169 .437 .882 .413 .359 -.127 .17 .377 -.045 Perceived usefulness3 .26 .479 .184 .309 .354 .231 .528 -.088 .543 .848 .513 .354 -.089 .172 .484 -.06
Perceived usage .226 .339 .408 .42 .399 .303 .399 -.036 .505 .52 1 .403 -.032 .077 .453 .016
Subjective knowledge1 .216 .117 .211 .352 .426 .251 .232 -.023 .31 .389 .351 .931 .075 .031 .37 .011 Subjective knowledge2 .276 .157 .142 .269 .479 .258 .297 -.13 .441 .361 .459 .831 .067 .055 .501 -.02
Subjective knowledge3 .281 .104 .134 .317 .324 .285 .185 -.012 .238 .338 .26 .897 -.012 -.078 .225 -.02
Subjective knowledge4 .289 .122 .195 .287 .345 .303 .197 .057 .276 .376 .331 .909 -.007 -.027 .282 -.058 SMS usage -.027 -.02 -.01 .05 -.008 .082 -.001 .029 .016 -.134 -.032 .039 1 -.017 -.022 .034
Telco cust sat .026 .312 .02 .01 .16 -.03 .264 -.158 .187 .22 .077 .001 -.017 1 .209 .081
Utilitarian attitude1 .212 .145 .213 .274 .667 .185 .293 -.079 .429 .42 .404 .358 .033 .142 .883 -.03 Utilitarian attitude2 .248 .207 .221 .244 .704 .148 .298 -.109 .393 .422 .384 .346 .018 .21 .867 .014
Utilitarian attitude3 .218 .214 .208 .263 .679 .1 .35 -.093 .442 .385 .431 .34 -.012 .145 .923 -.045
Utilitarian attitude4 .128 .04 .191 .072 .459 .117 .145 .035 .145 .333 .208 .323 -.059 .162 .575 -.1 Utilitarian attitude5 .188 .255 .204 .215 .598 .124 .322 -.059 .428 .453 .42 .333 -.088 .224 .884 -.073
Voice usage -.062 .091 -.02 .04 -.036 .116 .004 -.009 -.014 -.035 .016 -.024 .034 .081 -.049 1
Note: item loadings above .70 are highlighted
Table 13 Factor loadings and cross loadings of first confirmatory factor analysis
62
Appendix G: Factor loadings and cross loadings of the definite CFA
Ap
ps
Cu
st s
at
Dai
ly u
sag
e
tim
e
Fre
quen
cy
Hen
odic
atti
tud
e
Mobil
e dat
a
usa
ge
Per
ceiv
ed
bra
nd i
mag
e
Per
ceiv
ed
effo
rt
Per
ceiv
ed
usa
bil
ity
Per
ceiv
ed
use
fuln
ess
Per
ceiv
ed
usa
ge
Su
bje
ctiv
e
kno
wle
dg
e
SM
S u
sag
e
Tel
co c
ust
sat
Uti
lita
rian
atti
tud
e
Vo
ice
usa
ge
Apps 1 .32 .057 .152 .166 .178 .246 -.205 .347 .272 .226 .297 -.027 .026 .224 -.062
Cust sat .32 1 .039 .178 .112 .107 .683 -.318 .622 .49 .339 .143 -.02 .312 .223 .091
Daily usage time .057 .039 1 .489 .3 .222 .031 .064 .145 .186 .408 .192 -.01 .02 .227 -.02
Frequency .152 .178 .489 1 .288 .307 .15 -.023 .258 .299 .42 .343 .05 .01 .273 .04
Hedonic atttiude1 .193 .165 .244 .299 .831 .185 .28 -.08 .38 .324 .39 .355 .002 .126 .667 -.016
Hedonic attitude2 .158 .063 .262 .257 .894 .121 .285 -.068 .271 .32 .344 .455 -.001 .054 .561 -.021
Hedonic attitude3 .091 .083 .263 .241 .882 .1 .21 -.053 .318 .351 .332 .399 0 .134 .579 -.058
Hedonic attitude4 .12 .055 .266 .172 .83 .019 .141 -.037 .247 .25 .268 .401 -.023 .16 .484 -.051
Mobile data usage .178 .107 .222 .307 .132 1 .071 -.079 .226 .246 .303 .307 .082 -.03 .149 .116
Perceived brand image1 .23 .629 .052 .106 .257 .038 .938 -.214 .591 .575 .392 .269 -.021 .278 .331 -.005
Perceived brand image2 .225 .657 .032 .171 .237 .084 .961 -.287 .608 .528 .383 .231 -.001 .225 .323 .017
Perceived brand image3 .249 .67 .008 .151 .285 .08 .964 -.254 .633 .557 .367 .249 .019 .253 .347 .001
Perceived effort1 -.21 -.253 .084 -.028 -.047 -.069 -.242 .882 -.272 -.118 -.061 -.046 .055 -.124 -.071 .045
Perceived effort2 -.19 -.343 .058 .007 -.092 -.059 -.262 .905 -.333 -.154 -.009 -.005 -.001 -.176 -.093 -.085
Perceived effort3 -.089 -.165 -.003 -.061 -.022 -.087 -.127 .74 -.22 -.093 -.025 -.064 .025 -.075 -.029 .06
Perceived usability1 .334 .576 .162 .264 .367 .183 .63 -.272 .94 .567 .497 .358 .061 .18 .471 -.019
Perceived usability3 .314 .542 .145 .231 .327 .267 .557 -.334 .922 .475 .483 .301 0 .164 .444 .01
Perceived usability4 .315 .609 .093 .219 .307 .181 .589 -.323 .915 .53 .427 .358 -.037 .182 .399 -.032
Perceived usefulness1 .163 .402 .155 .244 .298 .2 .523 -.139 .482 .885 .423 .365 -.139 .234 .36 .016
Perceived usefulness2 .287 .39 .143 .22 .302 .207 .457 -.169 .441 .882 .413 .359 -.127 .17 .329 -.045
Perceived usefulness3 .26 .479 .184 .309 .353 .231 .528 -.088 .548 .848 .513 .354 -.089 .172 .489 -.06
Perceived usage .226 .339 .408 .42 .394 .303 .399 -.036 .506 .52 1 .403 -.032 .077 .456 .016
Subjective knowledge1 .216 .117 .211 .352 .442 .251 .232 -.023 .313 .389 .351 .932 .075 .031 .344 .011
Subjective knowledge2 .276 .157 .142 .269 .475 .258 .297 -.13 .439 .361 .459 .83 .067 .055 .491 -.02
Subjective knowledge3 .281 .104 .134 .317 .35 .285 .185 -.012 .241 .338 .26 .898 -.012 -.078 .193 -.02
Subjective knowledge4 .289 .122 .195 .287 .366 .303 .197 .057 .279 .376 .331 .91 -.007 -.027 .248 -.058
SMS usage -.027 -.02 -.01 .05 -.005 .082 -.001 .029 .01 -.134 -.032 .039 1 -.017 -.025 .034
Telco cust sat .026 .312 .02 .01 .136 -.03 .264 -.158 .189 .22 .077 .001 -.017 1 .186 .081
Utilitarian attitude1 .212 .145 .213 .274 .638 .185 .293 -.079 .432 .42 .404 .357 .033 .142 .904 -.03
Utilitarian attitude3 .218 .214 .208 .263 .648 .1 .35 -.093 .443 .385 .431 .34 -.012 .145 .934 -.045
Utilitarian attitude5 .188 .255 .204 .215 .576 .124 .322 -.059 .43 .454 .42 .333 -.088 .224 .917 -.073
Voice usage -.062 .091 -.02 .04 -.042 .116 .004 -.009 -.015 -.035 .016 -.024 .034 .081 -.054 1
Note: item loadings above .70 are highlighted
Table 14 Factor loadings and cross loadings of definite confirmatory factor analysis
63
Appendix H: Statistical validity of the base model
For the estimation of the significance of the parameters, bootstrapping was applied
with a resample of 500. Displayed here are the supported hypotheses of the base model and
the effect sizes of changes in R2 due to the deletion of insignificant effects.
Table 15 Hypotheses in the base model
Hypothesis Relation β†
base
model
T-value
base model
β† reduced
model
T-value
reduced model
H1b,alt (+) Apps → Perceived Usability .35 6.41*** .35 6.67***
H1c,alt (-) Apps → Perceived Effort -.2 2.97*** -.2 3.38***
H1d (+) Apps → Cust. Sat. Smartphone .09 2.3** .09 2.26**
H2 (+) Perceived Usability → Perceived Usefulness .54 10.09*** .57 11.35***
H3a (-) Perceived Usefulness → SMS Usage -.22 2.69*** -.13 2.34** H4b (+) Perceived Usefulness → Frequency Of Use .22 2.55** .3 4.97***
H4c (+) Perceived Usefulness → Perceived Usage Level .34 3.78*** .34 4.03***
H4f (+) Perceived Usability → Perceived Usage Level .36 4.08*** .13 2.87*** H4f (+) Perceived Usability → Perceived Usage Level .36 4.08*** .36 4.61***
H5a (+) Perceived Usefulness → Cust. Sat. Smartphone .2 2.68*** .2 2.8***
H5c (+) Perceived Usability → Cust. Sat. Smartphone .44 5.86*** .44 5.8*** H5e (-) Perceived Effort → Cust. Sat. Smartphone -.12 2.14** -.12 2.12**
H6f (+) Frequency Of Use → Mobile Data Usage .19 2.4** .31 5.39***
H7 (+) Cust. Sat. Smartphone → Telco Cust. Sat. .29 3.66*** .31 4.77***
*:P<.1. **:P<.05, ***:P<.01 (Two Tailed); † Effect Sizes Are Standardized
Table 16 Effect sizes of changes in R2
Variable R2 base model R2 reduced model ƒ2
Cust sat smartphone .44 .44 0
Daily usage time .05 Variable deleted - Frequency of use .10 .09 -.01
Mobile data usage .14 .09 -.05
Perceived Effort .04 .04 0 Perceived usability .12 .12 0
Perceived usefulness .33 .32 -.01
Perceived usage .35 .35 0 SMS usage .04 .02 -.02
Telco cust sat .12 .10 -.02
Voice usage .01 Variable deleted -
64
Appendix I: Post-hoc Mediation analysis
Table 17 Coefficients and significance of the effects
Base model without insignificant effects Mediator model
Relation β† T-value Relation β† T-value
Apps → Cust. Sat. Smartphone .09 2.23** Apps → Cust. Sat. Smartphone .09 2.25**
Apps → Perceived Effort -.2 3.19** Apps → Hedonic Attitude .17 3.01*** Apps → Perceived Usability .35 6.55*** Apps → Perceived Brand Image .25 3.92***
Cust. Sat. Smartphone → Telco cust. Sat. .31 4.72*** Apps → Perceived Effort -.17 2.53**
Frequency Of Use → Mobile Data Usage .31 5.39*** Apps → Perceived Usability .14 3.12*** Perceived Effort → Cust. Sat. Smartphone -.12 2.2** Apps → Subjective Knowledge .30 5.09***
Perceived Effort → Perceived Usage Level .13 2.75*** Apps → Utilitarian Attitude .22 4.01***
Perceived Usability → Cust. Sat. Smartphone .44 5.99*** Cust. Sat. Smartphone → Telco cust. Sat. .31 4.76*** Perceived Usability → Perceived Usefulness .57 11.83*** Frequency Of Use → Mobile Data Usage .31 5.37***
Perceived Usability → Perceived Usage Level .36 4.29*** Hedonic Attitude → Perceived Effort -.04 0.48
Perceived Usefulness → Cust. Sat. Smartphone .20 2.93*** Hedonic Attitude → Perceived Usability .00 0.07 Perceived Usefulness → Frequency Of Use .30 4.88*** Perceived Brand Image → Perceived Effort -.25 3.22***
Perceived Usefulness → Perceived Usage Level .34 4.04*** Perceived Brand Image → Perceived Usability .50 10.08***
Perceived Usefulness → Sms Usage -.13 2.14** Perceived Effort → Cust. Sat. Smartphone -.12 2.16**
Perceived Effort → Perceived Usage Level .13 2.67***
Perceived Usability → Cust. Sat. Smartphone .44 6.01***
Perceived Usability → Perceived Usefulness .57 11.5***
Perceived Usability → Perceived Usage Level .36 4.25***
Perceived Usefulness → Cust. Sat. Smartphone .20 2.63***
Perceived Usefulness → Frequency Of Use .30 5.02***
Perceived Usefulness → Perceived Usage Level .34 3.91***
Perceived Usefulness → Sms Usage -.13 2.17**
Subjective Knowledge → Perceived Effort .08 1.12
Subjective Knowledge → Perceived Usability .11 1.79
Utilitarian Attitude → Perceived Effort .03 0.37
Utilitarian Attitude → Perceived Usability .23 3.43***
**: p < .05; ***: p< .01 (two-tailed). † Effect Sizes Are Standardized
Table 18 Calculation of the significance of the mediating effects
Mediating Relation
β Apps → Mediator β Mediator → Dependent Variable Sobel Z-
Value Standardized Unstandardized Std.
Error Standardized Unstandardized
Std.
Error
Apps → Perceived Brand Image → Perceived Effort .246 .126 .0628 -.246 -.537 .0764 -1.93 Apps → Perceived Brand Image → Perceived Usability .246 .126 .0628 .498 .420 .0494 1.96**
Apps → Utilitarian Attitude → Perceived Usability .224 .069 .056 .228 .322 .0665 1.19
**p< .05
Variable Std. Dev.
Apps 2.61
Perceived Brand Image
1.34
Perceived Effort 2.93
Perceived Usability 1.13
Utilitarian Attitude 0.80
See footnotes 2 and 3 for the formulae for the unstandardized coefficients and Sobel value.
65
Appendix J: MANOVA Post-hoc analysis
For the post-hoc analysis, Games-Howell tests were used. Only the tests for the
variables that proved to contain significant differences between the operating systems, based
on the between-subject effects, are displayed.
Table 19 Post-hoc comparisons between groups
Dependent Variable
Reference Category
Comparing Category
Mean Difference
Std. Error Sig.
Apps iOS BOS 2.79 0.46 .0000*
Android 0.46 0.42 .5118 BOS iOS -2.79 0.46 .0000*
Android -2.32 0.35 .0000*
Android iOS -0.46 0.42 .5118 BOS 2.32 0.35 .0000*
Cust. Sat.
Smartphone
iOS BOS 2.99 0.52 .0000*
Android 1.42 0.21 .0000* BOS iOS -2.99 0.52 .0000*
Android -1.56 0.52 .0119
Android iOS -1.42 0.21 .0000* BOS 1.56 0.52 .0119
Duration of daily
use
iOS BOS -0.93 0.36 .0302
Android 0.12 0.25 .8752
BOS iOS 0.93 0.36 .0302 Android 1.05 0.30 .0027
Android iOS 0.12 0.25 .8752
BOS -1.05 0.30 .0027
*Significant at the .05/54 = .0009 level. Such a strict level is used since there are 3 categories being
compared across 9 variables (displayed here are three of the nine compared variables), leading to
3*2*1*9=54 comparisons.