Hello everyone,
I stumbled upon an interesting result in my analysis. I've got a sample of n= 140. 96 of which are male while the other 44 are female.
The study aims to identify the effect of privacyx concerns on the intention to use of mobile payment systems.
Now, looking at the item loadings of the full sample ("full.png") and comparing them to the ones of the female-only sample ("female.png"), one can see that the item loadings don't just slightly differ, they even have alternating signs.
The results seem absolutely odd.
Another example: the path of "Perceived Trust" -> "Privacy Concerns" for the female-only sample. The results suggest that if a woman believes a mobile payment service provider (such as Apple Pay) to be more trustworthy, her privacy concerns also increase.
Furthermore, the female sample suggests that higher privacy concerns increas the intention to use a mobile payment service...
I'd really appreciate your help on this since I ran out of ideas.
Thank you!
Thorben
Gender comparison of a sample -> alternating signs for items
-
- PLS Junior User
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:28 pm
- Real name and title: Thorben Volters, B. Sc.
Gender comparison of a sample -> alternating signs for items
- Attachments
-
- male subsample
- male.png (52.83 KiB) Viewed 3398 times
- cringle
- SmartPLS Developer
- Posts: 818
- Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:13 am
- Real name and title: Prof. Dr. Christian M. Ringle
- Location: Hamburg (Germany)
- Contact:
Re: Gender comparison of a sample -> alternating signs for i
Is privacy concern a second-order construct using the indicators of the lower order constructs?
Then the problem is the coding of the lower order constructs with positive and negative signs. You should always use the same orientation of indicators (e.g., rescale the negative ones).
An alternative: SmartPLS uses intial values of +1. Alternatively, use a +1 for those outer relationships where you expect a positive sign and -1 where you expect a negative sign. It involves some careful "typing" but may be the solution to your problem. Here are some additional info: https://www.smartpls.com/documentation/ ... cification
Best regards
Christian
Then the problem is the coding of the lower order constructs with positive and negative signs. You should always use the same orientation of indicators (e.g., rescale the negative ones).
An alternative: SmartPLS uses intial values of +1. Alternatively, use a +1 for those outer relationships where you expect a positive sign and -1 where you expect a negative sign. It involves some careful "typing" but may be the solution to your problem. Here are some additional info: https://www.smartpls.com/documentation/ ... cification
Best regards
Christian
Prof. Dr. Christian M. Ringle, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), SmartPLS
- Literature on PLS-SEM: https://www.smartpls.com/documentation
- Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.de/citations?use ... AAAJ&hl=de
- Literature on PLS-SEM: https://www.smartpls.com/documentation
- Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.de/citations?use ... AAAJ&hl=de