Page 76 - Azerbaijan State University of Economics

Kanan Fadani: Impact Of Digital Consumption And Factors Affecting It: The Example
Of Azerbaijan

When respondents' perceived privacy risk behaviors increase by one unit, digital
consumption (clothing) decreases by 0.258, and this effect is significant (p=0.025).
At the same time, when digital consumption (clothing) behavior increases by one unit,
shopping satisfaction increases by 0.143, word of mouth increases by 0.130, and both
effects are significant (p<0.001). As can be seen from this table, there is no significant
effect of internet attitude on digital consumption (clothing) as p=0.099, i.e. p>0.05.
Overall, attitudes toward digital consumption have the greatest impact on digital
consumption (clothing). As the results suggest, H1, H3, H4, and H5 are supported and
H2 is rejected.
Table 7: Model fit indices of SEM analysis of study variables (food)
Model fit indices Values Comments
CMIN /DF 4,873 Acceptable fit
GFI .826 Poor fit
CFI .825 Poor fit
RMSEA .110 Poor fit
Source: Author's calculations using AMOS software

We can see that the value of CMIN/DF is CMIN/DF=4.873 when evaluating the
model fit indices resulting from the analysis. A value of CMIN/DF ≤5 indicates that
it is an acceptable fit. The GFI value was GFI=0.826. If this value is above 0.90, it is
indicated as an accepted value (Şimşek, 2007). If the GFI fit index obtained as a result
of the analysis does not coincide with the accepted value, it is marked as a poor fit.
CFI value was CFI=0.825. A value above 0.900 is considered an acceptable fit. If the
GFI fit index obtained as a result of the analysis does not coincide with the accepted
value, it is marked as a poor fit. The last RMSEA value mentioned in the table was
RMSEA=0.110. This value is an acceptable fit when RMSEA≤0.08.

Table 8: Regression coefficients of AMOS SEM analysis (food)
Regression SE CR P
coefficient
food <--- ATD .155 .123 1.259 .208
food <--- ATI -.083 .140 -.595 .552
food <--- PPR -.081 .080 -1.011 .312
ENJ <--- food .046 .055 .835 .404
WOM <--- food .024 .049 .494 .622
food-digital consumption, ATD – attitudes towards digital consumption, ATI – attitudes towards
the internet, PPR – perceived privacy risk, ENJ – enjoyment, WOM – word of mouth
*** = significant at p<0.001 level
Source: Author's calculations using AMOS software

Table 8 describes the effects of attitude towards digital consumption, attitude towards
the internet, and perceived privacy on digital consumption (food), as well as the
effects of digital consumption (food) on enjoyment, and word-of-mouth variables.

76