Page 78 - Azerbaijan State University of Economics

THE JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC SCIENCES: THEORY AND PRACTICE, V.78, # 1, 2021, pp. 66-85

Table 4: Results
N Hypotheses Status

The gender of respondents moderates the Hypothesis Rejected
H1 relationship between social influence and Female Subsample: Rejected p> 0.05
smartphone brand awareness. Male Subsample: Rejected p> 0.05P>0.05
The gender of respondents moderates the Hypothesis Accepted
relationship between social influence and
H2 Female Subsample: Accepted p< 0.001
symbolic brand image with a stronger effect Male Subsample: Accepted p< 0.001
size on the male subsample
Hypothesis Accepted
The gender of respondents moderates the
H3 Female Subsample: Accepted p< 0.001
relationship between social influence and Male Subsample: Accepted p< 0.001
hedonic motivation.
The gender of respondents moderates the Hypothesis Accepted
H4 relationship between social influence and Female Subsample: Accepted p< 0.001
habit. Male Subsample: Accepted p= 0.002
The gender of respondents moderates the Hypothesis Rejected
H5 relationship between social influence and Female Subsample: Rejected p> 0.05
price-value ratio. Male Subsample: Rejected p>0.05
The gender of respondents moderates the Hypothesis Partially Accepted
H6 relationship between social influence and Female Subsample: Rejected; p>0.05
actual use. Male Subsample: Accepted; p=0.034;

There is a significant relationship between Hypothesis Accepted
H7
habit and actual use. Total sample: p=0.005
Source: own editing based on the results of the analysis
Social Influence has a positive impact on the symbolic brand image of the Azeri
young adults (H2: SBI→BI), who participated in this study. The findings show that
males are more highly influenced by the image of their handset than females. It
might be connected with the religion or influence of Post-Soviet culture (i.e.,
Russia). The signification of status/fashion in the case of Russian mobile phone
users was previously reported (Salmi & Sharafutdinova, 2008).

The hypothesis explaining the relationship between social influence and hedonic
motivation (H3:SI → HM) was adopted from the original hypothesis used by
Venkatesh et al. (2012). The findings of the Azeri sample illustrate that the effect
size of social influence on hedonic motivation is stronger in case of the female
subsample. Regarding HM → BI pathway, similar results from Jordan were
presented (Ameen et al., 2018). However, Rita et al. (2018) reported different
findings; according to the results of a study in Portugal, age and gender have no
significant influence on the relationship between hedonic motivation and behavioral
intention in terms of mobile service adoption.

78