66
Eindhoven University of Technology MASTER Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and telecommunication providers feature fatigue vs. mass customization Agterhuis, D.J. Award date: 2012 Disclaimer This document contains a student thesis (bachelor's or master's), as authored by a student at Eindhoven University of Technology. Student theses are made available in the TU/e repository upon obtaining the required degree. The grade received is not published on the document as presented in the repository. The required complexity or quality of research of student theses may vary by program, and the required minimum study period may vary in duration. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 15. Feb. 2018

Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

Eindhoven University of Technology

MASTER

Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and telecommunicationprovidersfeature fatigue vs. mass customization

Agterhuis, D.J.

Award date:2012

DisclaimerThis document contains a student thesis (bachelor's or master's), as authored by a student at Eindhoven University of Technology. Studenttheses are made available in the TU/e repository upon obtaining the required degree. The grade received is not published on the documentas presented in the repository. The required complexity or quality of research of student theses may vary by program, and the requiredminimum study period may vary in duration.

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Download date: 15. Feb. 2018

Page 2: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 3: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

2

Series Master Theses Innovation Management

Subject headings: Apps, Smartphones, Feature Fatigue, Mass Customization, Customer

Satisfaction, Technology Acceptance, Consumer Behavior,

Telecommunication

Page 4: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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.

Page 5: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 6: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 7: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 8: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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.

Page 9: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 10: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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.

Page 11: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 12: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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).

Page 13: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 14: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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).

Page 15: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 16: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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.,

Page 17: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 18: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 19: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 20: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 21: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 22: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 23: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 24: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 25: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 26: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 27: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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)

Page 28: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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.

Page 29: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 30: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 31: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 32: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 33: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 34: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 35: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 36: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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).

Page 37: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 38: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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.

Page 39: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 40: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 41: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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.

Page 42: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 43: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 44: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 45: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 46: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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.

Page 47: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 48: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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-

Page 49: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 50: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 51: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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)

Page 52: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 53: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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]

Page 54: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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)

Page 55: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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:

Page 56: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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]

Page 57: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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.

Page 58: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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.

Page 59: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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).

Page 60: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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.

Page 61: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 62: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 63: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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

Page 64: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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 -

Page 65: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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.

Page 66: Effects of apps on consumer behavior of smartphones and

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.