UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business HUYNH TRAC SIEU FACTORS AFFECTING INTENTIONS TO USE MOBILE CONTENT SERVICES IN HO CHI MINH CITY MASTER OF BUSINESS (Honours) Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2014 UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business HUYNH TRAC SIEU FACTORS AFFECTING INTENTIONS TO USE MOBILE CONTENT SERVICES IN HO CHI MINH CITY ID: 22120137 MASTER OF BUSINESS (Honours) SUPERVISOR: DINH CONG KHAI, PhD Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2014 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First and foremost, I respectfully express my gratefulness to my research instructor, Dr Đinh Công Khải for his warmly supports, taking the time from the beginning of the research to shape my research design and during every step of the thesis process To my ISB Research Committee (IRC), I would like to thank for your recommending and putting me back on track of research Besides, I would be grateful to Professor Nguyễn Đình Thọ for his encouragement, insightful recommendations, and value requirements during my process My sincere thanks also come to my teachers at International Business School University of Economic Ho Chi Minh City who provide a lot of knowledge for me during my MBA course I would also like to thank many different individuals who help me in my developing research, especially the professional mobile development department in UFS International Inc Moreover, I owe thanks to my close friend – Hồ Quang Chi Bảo; your assistances and contributed comments made my research measurement scales more accurate and fit Furthermore, I would like to specially send my thanks to my classmates, my friends who are working in banks, schools, industrial zones, software development companies, and mobile application development companies for their support during my research Dad and Mom, I could not go far on my way without your encouragement Again, I give my gratefulness to you, regarding to the many sacrifices you made I am proud to be your son Finally, to my beloved wife, I deeply appreciate the patience and sacrifices, which you sent to me Without your hands to take care our small home, I could never have made my thesis so far iii ABSTRACT The main purpose of this study is to examine the factors that affect customers’ behavioral intention to use mobile content services, which enhance the understanding of Vietnamese mobile consumers as client of technology services The proposed research model base on Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the consideration of Yang and Yoo (2004), whereas both affective and cognitive attitudes as two parts of attitude construct in TAM In this study, perceived convenience and perceived mobility are also introduced as external factors that reflect the behavioral intention to use mobile content services, in addition, the mediating role of affective attitude between cognitive attitude and behavior intention is investigated The study analyzed a sample of 505 consumer responses in Ho Chi Minh City, the results showed that all the cognitive and affective attitudes, perceived mobility, perceived convenience, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use - have impact on the behavioral to use mobile content services via direct-effect, indirecteffect or both The finding of this research most focused on providing a guideline for future direction of mobile content services, especially most focus on the attitude change toward using the mobile services Keywords: Mobile content services, behavioral intention, cognitive attitude, affective attitude, perceived mobility, perceived convenience iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii ABSTRACT iii LIST OF FIGURES vi LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii CHAPTER INTRODUCTION .9 1.1 Research Background 1.2 Research Motivation 11 1.3 Research Objectives 12 1.4 Research Scopes 12 1.5 Significance of the Research 13 1.6 Research Methodology 13 1.7 Structure of Research 13 1.8 Summary 14 CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH MODEL 15 2.1 Mobile Content Services 15 2.2 Theory of Reasoned Action 17 2.3 Theory of Planned Behavior 18 2.4 Technology Acceptance Model 18 2.4.1 Revised Original TAM with Separate Affective and Cognitive Attitude 20 2.4.2 Perceived Convenience – An External Variable of TAM 22 2.5 Perceived Mobility 23 2.6 Research Model and Hypothesis Development 23 2.6.1 Theoretical Model 23 2.6.2 The Competitive Model 27 2.7 Summary 28 CHAPTER RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 29 3.1 Research Process 29 v 3.2 Construct Measurement 31 3.3 Measurement Refinement 33 3.3.1 Qualitative Pilot Study 33 3.3.2 Quantitative Pilot Study 34 3.4 Main Study 38 3.5 Data Analysis 40 3.5.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis 40 3.5.2 Structural Equation Modeling 40 3.6 Summary 41 CHAPTER DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 43 4.1 Sample Specification 43 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis 44 4.3 SEM Approach for Theoretical Model 48 4.4 Optimized the Theoretical Model 50 4.5 Competitive Model Test 52 4.6 Applying Bootstrap Procedure 55 4.7 Hypotheses Testing 57 4.8 Construct Effects 59 4.9 Models’ Generalized Squared Multiple Correlation 60 4.10 Summary 61 CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS 62 5.1 Conclusions 62 5.2 Managerial Implications 64 5.3 Limitation and Further Research 65 REFERENCES 68 Appendix A 77 Appendix B 83 Appendix C 86 Appendix D 89 Appendix E 90 Appendix F 93 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 The Theory of Reasoned Action model……………………………… 17 Figure 2.2 Theory of Planned Behavioral 18 Figure 2.3 First modified version of TAM 19 Figure 2.4 Final version of TAM 19 Figure 2.5 TAM with Affective and Cognitive Attitude 21 Figure 2.6 Revised TAM with Intention, Affective and Cognitive Attitude 21 Figure 2.7 The proposed theoretical model 24 Figure 2.8 The competitive model 28 Figure 3.1 Research process 30 Figure 4.1 Saturated model of the theoretical model 46 Figure 4.2 Standardized SEM results for theoretical model 49 Figure 4.3 The optimized theoretical model 51 Figure 4.4 The Standardized SEM results of Competitive Model 53 Figure 4.5 The final research model 56 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 Table 4.10 Table 4.11 Table 4.12 Table A1 Table A2 Table A3 Table D1 Table E1 Table E2 Table E3 Table F1 Table F2 Table F3 Table F4 Table F5 Table F6 Table F7 Table F8 Table F9 Table F10 Table F11 Summary of Supporting Works for Research Proposition 27 Cronbach’s Alpha 36 EFA Results 38 Summary of the Data Collection Process 40 Respondent Demographic 44 Correlations between Constructs 47 Measurement Validation 48 Construct Relations 48 Relations of Constructs (Standardized) 52 Competing Measurement Modeling 54 Summary of Models 54 Competitive Model-Relations of Constructs (Standardized) 55 Bootstrap Results (Final Model) 55 Hypotheses Test – Results (Standardized) 57 The Direct, Indirect and Overall Effects 59 The Squared Multiple Correlations (R-squared Values) 60 Original Measurement Scales 77 Measurement Scale (Draft Questionnaire) 78 Final Measurement Scales (Final Draft Questionnaire) 80 KMO and Bartlett's Test 89 Assessment of Normality 90 Estimates of Saturated Model (Unstandardized) 91 Standardized Regression Weight (Saturated Model) 92 Covariances – MI for Theoretical Model 93 SEM – Estimates Optimized Model (Unstandardized) 93 SEM – Estimates Optimized Model (Standardized) 94 SEM – Estimates Competitive Model (Unstandardized) 95 SEM – Estimates Competition Model(Standardized) 96 Bootstrap – Final Selected Model (Standardized) 97 SEM – Variances of Residuals, Independent Constructs 98 Bootstrap – Bootstrap Distributions (Final Model) 99 Squared Multiple Correlations 101 Standardized Residuals for Theoretical Model 102 Standardized Residuals for Optimized Model 103 viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AA Affective Attitude BI Behavior Intention CA Cognitive Attitude CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis CFI Comparative Fit Index CMIN Chi-Squared Value EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis IS Information System KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Value MI Modification Indices ML Maximum Likelihood MCS Mobile Content Services P P-Value PC Perceived Convenience PEU Perceived Ease Of Use PM Perceived Mobility PU Perceived Usefulness RMSEA Root Mean Square Error Of Approximation SEM Structural Equation Modeling TAM Technology Acceptance Model TLI Tucker & Lewis Index TPB Theory Of Planned Behavior TRA Theory Of Reasoned Action CHAPTER INTRODUCTION This chapter introduces the background of mobile content services in general and a basic description of mobile content services in particular Subsequently, the research motivation, research objectives, research scopes and methodology are mentioned 1.1 Research Background This research focuses on main factors affecting the behavioral intention to use mobile content services (MCS) among Vietnamese consumers The relevance of the topic relates to important themes: the theme of continuous information technology (IT) development and the theme of information technology acceptance and use These themes are extremely meaningful to the business sector because business process under information technology revolution is transforming the way we business (Mahabir & Geeta, 2013) Over the last few years, the developments of IT have pushed strong motivation forces on mobile technology Therefore, mobile technology has grown up rapidly and brought a key impact on human life, as the number of mobile devices has reached 4.6 billion in the world (CBSnews, 2010) Gartner (2011) has reported that mobile applications would not only generate $15.9 billion in expected end-user spending in 2012, but also drive other smartphone segments such as advertising spending, phone device sales and mobile technology innovation By offering context-aware features that provide various function services to a user’s mobile environment, mobile content services have redefined the user experiences and shaped a highly competitive marketplace, which enchants the interest of a number of stakeholders including device vendors, merchants, mobile application developers and marketing firms According to IDC’s Vietnam Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker, a total 5.8 million mobile phones have been shipped to Vietnam in the second quarter of 2013 In 89 Appendix D EFA results Table D1 KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling 878 Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Approx Chi-Square 2311.365 Sphericity df 300 Sig .000 90 Appendix E CFA Results Table E1 Assessment of Normality Variable max BI3 BI2 BI1 AA3 AA2 AA1 CA3 CA2 CA1 PEU4 PEU3 PEU2 PEU1 PC4 PC3 PC2 PC1 PU4 PU3 PU2 PU1 PM4 PM3 PM2 PM1 skew -.398 -.346 -.421 -.238 -.150 -.154 -.452 -.428 -.511 -.308 -.336 -.261 -.461 -.466 -.275 -.386 -.322 -.318 -.490 -.560 -.511 -.650 -.520 -.564 -.728 c.r kurtosis c.r -3.651 -.674 -3.093 -3.177 -.584 -2.679 -3.862 -.426 -1.953 -2.180 -.764 -3.504 -1.374 -.765 -3.508 -1.412 -.828 -3.796 -4.150 -.572 -2.625 -3.923 -.597 -2.737 -4.686 -.289 -1.327 -2.824 -.660 -3.028 -3.085 -.517 -2.373 -2.395 -.590 -2.707 -4.233 -.508 -2.332 -4.272 -.336 -1.542 -2.520 -.659 -3.024 -3.545 -.378 -1.735 -2.957 -.510 -2.340 -2.919 -.479 -2.196 -4.495 -.321 -1.474 -5.133 -.300 -1.376 -4.690 -.389 -1.784 -5.961 136 622 -4.767 -.113 -.518 -5.176 -.034 -.158 -6.683 035 158 91 Table E2 Estimates of Saturated Model (Unstandardized) Estimate S.E C.R P PM PM1 PM PM2 1.036 064 16.251 *** PM PM3 963 062 15.613 *** PM PM4 901 062 14.559 *** PU PU1 PU PU2 1.022 047 21.740 *** PU PU3 975 047 20.846 *** PU PU4 925 049 18.733 *** PC1 PC PC2 PC 1.108 063 17.574 *** PC3 PC 1.045 064 16.413 *** PC4 PC 1.090 068 16.127 *** PEU PEU1 PEU PEU2 952 059 16.168 *** PEU PEU3 929 060 15.472 *** PEU PEU4 958 061 15.794 *** CA CA1 CA CA2 1.016 056 18.044 *** CA CA3 1.023 057 17.945 *** AA AA1 AA AA2 1.004 052 19.284 *** 974 055 17.768 *** AA AA3 BI1 BI BI2 BI 1.058 057 18.613 *** BI3 1.114 061 18.263 *** BI Note S.E: standard error; C.R: critical ratio; p: p-value 92 Table E3 Standardized Regression Weight (Saturated Model) Estimate PM PM1 742 PM PM2 793 PM PM3 756 PM PM4 701 826 PU PU1 PU PU2 847 PU PU3 820 756 PU PU4 PC1 PC 754 PC2 PC 815 PC3 PC 758 PC4 PC 745 PEU PEU1 750 PEU PEU2 762 PEU PEU3 728 PEU PEU4 744 CA CA1 803 CA CA2 806 CA CA3 800 AA AA1 825 AA AA2 842 AA AA3 762 BI1 BI 786 BI2 BI 828 BI3 BI 810 93 Appendix F SEM Results Table F1 Covariances – MI for Conceptual Model δ2 δ5 ε25 ε23 ε23 ε21 ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ PM δ1 ε06 ε05 ε07 ε08 M.I 16.861 12.794 11.622 20.640 10.043 10.092 Par Change 183 173 168 220 -.151 162 Note M.I: Modification indice Table F2 SEM – Estimates Optimized Model (Unstandardized) PEU PEU PC PU PEU PEU CA PU CA AA PM CA CA CA AA AA AA PC PC PC PM PM PM BI BI BI PU PU PU à à à à à à à à à à à à à à PC PU PU CA CA AA AA AA BI BI BI CA1 CA2 CA3 AA3 AA2 AA1 PC3 PC2 PC1 PM2 PM3 PM4 BI1 BI2 BI3 PU4 PU3 PU2 Estimate 703 S.E .060 C.R 11.817 p *** 585 178 295 328 230 418 036 309 238 412 1.019 1.026 1.032 1.025 1.003 1.114 1 945 878 1.065 1.119 1.051 1.086 090 083 072 085 085 059 071 052 049 054 6.514 2.143 4.089 3.844 2.709 7.050 498 5.991 4.906 7.694 *** 032 *** *** 007 *** 618 *** *** *** 057 057 17.998 17.902 *** *** 057 058 065 066 17.969 17.736 15.467 16.809 *** *** *** *** 063 062 14.987 14.257 *** *** 058 062 18.368 18.009 *** *** 059 060 17.806 18.021 *** *** 94 PEU PEU4 PEU PEU3 968 063 PEU PEU2 99 062 PEU PEU1 1.042 066 Note S.E: standard error; C.R: critical ratio; p: p-value 15.324 15.979 15.762 Table F3 SEM – Estimates Optimized Model (Standardized) Relation PEU PEU à PC PU PEU PEU à CA PU CA AA PM CA CA CA AA AA AA PC PC PC PM PM PM BI BI BI PU PU PU PEU PEU PEU PEU PC PU PU CA CA AA AA AA BI BI BI CA1 CA2 CA3 AA3 AA2 AA1 PC3 PC2 PC1 PM2 PM3 PM4 BI1 BI2 BI3 PU4 PU3 PU2 PEU4 PEU3 PEU2 PEU1 Estimate 694 496 153 271 255 177 413 032 324 252 366 801 806 800 762 843 824 735 828 762 791 765 706 780 829 808 762 823 839 742 726 758 747 *** *** *** 95 Table F4 SEM – Estimates Competitive Model (Unstandardized) Relations Estimate S.E PEU PC 782 063 PEU PU 626 096 PC PU 196 081 PU CA 281 068 PEU CA 329 088 PEU AA 228 085 CA AA 409 058 PU AA 033 066 CA BI 297 054 AA BI 245 051 PM BI 413 061 PC BI 118 055 CA CA1 977 054 CA CA2 993 055 CA CA3 AA AA3 AA AA2 1.032 057 AA AA1 1.025 058 PC PC3 902 055 PC PC2 PC PC1 898 053 PM PM2 1.059 071 PM PM3 PM PM4 928 066 BI BI1 941 051 BI BI2 BI BI3 1.054 055 PU PU4 920 051 PU PU3 967 049 PU PU2 PEU PEU4 PEU PEU3 968 063 PEU PEU2 990 062 PEU PEU1 1.042 066 Note S.E: standard error; C.R: critical ratio; p: p-value C.R p 12.42 6.546 2.403 4.134 3.740 2.674 7.094 499 5.541 4.773 6.773 2.142 17.932 17.991 *** *** 016 *** *** 008 *** 618 *** *** *** 032 *** *** 17.978 17.747 16.291 *** *** *** 16.819 14.939 *** *** 14.068 18.359 *** *** 19.031 18.155 19.594 *** *** *** 15.331 15.986 15.766 *** *** *** 96 Table F5 SEM – Estimates Competition Model (Standardized) PEU PEU PC PU PEU PEU CA PU CA AA PM PC CA CA CA AA AA AA PC PC PC PM PM PM BI BI BI PU PU PU PEU PEU PEU PEU Relation à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à PC PU PU CA CA AA AA AA BI BI BI BI CA1 CA2 CA3 AA3 AA2 AA1 PC3 PC2 PC1 PM2 PM3 PM4 BI1 BI2 BI3 PU4 PU3 PU2 PEU4 PEU3 PEU2 PEU1 Estimate 693 486 171 274 249 175 416 032 301 244 327 102 803 806 800 763 843 824 736 827 762 792 766 705 781 827 809 763 824 840 743 726 758 747 97 Table F6 Bootstrap – Final Selected Model (Standardized) Parameter SE SE-SE Mean Bias SE-Bias PEU PC 041 001 694 001 001 PEU 002 487 001 002 PU 072 à PC PU 077 002 171 -.001 002 PU 002 274 000 002 CA 076 PEU 002 248 -.001 002 CA 074 PEU 002 176 000 002 AA 071 CA AA 058 001 418 003 002 PU 002 031 -.001 002 AA 067 CA 001 300 -.001 002 BI 056 AA 001 242 -.002 002 BI 053 PM BI 049 001 330 003 002 PC BI 052 001 103 001 002 CA CA1 021 000 801 -.001 001 CA CA2 02 000 805 -.001 001 CA CA3 021 000 800 000 001 AA AA3 02 000 762 000 001 AA AA2 018 000 842 -.001 001 AA AA1 019 000 824 000 001 PC PC3 026 001 736 000 001 PC PC2 022 000 827 -.001 001 PC PC1 025 001 762 000 001 PM PM2 028 001 791 -.001 001 PM PM3 028 001 765 -.002 001 PM PM4 032 001 703 -.002 001 BI BI1 022 000 779 -.001 001 BI BI2 019 000 827 000 001 BI BI3 018 000 809 -.001 001 PU PU4 024 001 763 000 001 PU PU3 02 000 824 000 001 PU PU2 019 000 839 -.001 001 PEU PEU4 026 001 743 000 001 PEU PEU3 025 001 727 001 001 PEU PEU2 022 001 757 -.001 001 PEU PEU1 026 001 746 -.001 001 Note SE: standard error; SE-SE: standard error of bootstrap standard error itself; Bias: the difference between the original mean estimate and bootstrap mean estimate; SE-Bias: standard error of the bias estimate 98 Table F7 SEM – Variances of Residuals and Independent Constructs (Final model) Estimate PEU PM δ2 δ1 δ3 δ4 δ5 ε22 ε21 ε20 ε03 ε04 ε23 ε25 ε08 ε07 ε06 ε10 ε11 ε09 ε16 ε15 ε14 ε13 ε17 ε18 ε19 ε02 ε24 1.001 1.064 662 1.028 1.356 1.208 866 1.213 729 838 748 926 965 995 1.009 732 692 587 877 743 814 841 725 858 917 926 977 708 784 S.E C.R .109 118 078 105 140 134 095 099 079 083 073 076 081 091 082 071 072 064 072 064 064 065 059 068 085 087 090 076 076 9.165 9.041 8.449 9.756 9.680 9.030 9.101 12.196 9.205 10.080 10.308 12.109 11.857 10.944 12.328 10.330 9.648 9.221 12.247 11.571 12.691 12.992 12.366 12.597 10.802 10.678 10.889 9.359 10.255 P *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 99 Table F8 Bootstrap – Bootstrap Distributions (Final Model) ML discrepancy (implied vs sample) N = 1000 Mean = 427.582 S e = 1.225 ML discrepancy (implied vs pop) N = 1000 Mean = 303.514 S e = 465 326.272 342.976 359.679 376.383 393.087 | -|* |** |***** |********* |************** 409.791 |******************* 426.494 443.198 459.902 476.606 493.310 510.013 526.717 543.421 560.125 |******************** |***************** |*********** |********* |***** |** |** |* |* | -| -|* |** |***** |*********** |***************** |******************* |****************** |************** |******** |***** |*** |* |* |* |* | 265.245 272.189 279.133 286.077 293.021 299.964 306.908 313.852 320.796 327.740 334.684 341.627 348.571 355.515 362.459 100 Table F8 (Cont.) Bootstrap – Bootstrap Distributions (Final Model) K-L overoptimism (unstabilized) N = 1000 Mean = 160.880 S e = 4.599 K-L overoptimism (stabilized) N = 1000 Mean = 152.717 S e = 1.195 -273.802 -208.593 -143.384 -78.174 -12.965 52.244 117.453 182.662 247.871 313.080 378.289 443.498 508.707 573.916 639.125 | -|* |* |*** |****** |*********** |**************** |****************** |******************** |**************** |************* |****** |**** |** |* |* | -| 46.478 |* 64.441 |** 82.403 |*** 100.366 |******** 118.328 |************** 136.291 |***************** 154.253 |******************** 172.216 |***************** 190.178 |************* 208.141 |***** 226.103 |*** 244.066 |** 262.028 |* 279.990 |* 297.953 |* | 101 Table F9 Squared Multiple Correlations Variable Estimate PC 480 PU 381 CA 220 AA 283 BI 490 PEU1 559 PEU2 575 PEU3 527 PEU4 551 PU2 706 PU3 680 PU4 582 BI3 655 BI2 684 BI1 609 PM4 497 PM3 587 PM2 627 PC1 581 PC2 685 PC3 541 AA1 679 AA2 711 AA3 581 CA3 640 CA2 650 CA1 644 102 Table F10 Standardized Residuals for Conceptual Model Standardized Residual Covariances (Group number - Default model) PEU1 PEU2 PEU3 PEU4 PU1 PEU1 0.00 PEU2 0.14 0.00 PU2 PU3 PU4 BI3 BI2 BI1 PM4 PM3 PM2 PM1 PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 AA1 AA2 AA3 CA3 CA2 CA1 PEU3 -0.04 -0.09 0.00 PEU4 0.02 0.34 0.30 0.00 PU1 0.58 0.00 0.02 -0.80 0.00 PU2 0.18 0.04 0.44 -0.79 0.09 0.00 PU3 0.05 -0.98 -0.05 -0.08 -0.05 -0.10 0.00 PU4 -0.10 -0.73 0.09 -0.79 -0.14 -0.20 0.46 0.00 BI3 -0.42 -0.56 1.20 -0.75 2.13 3.52 2.20 1.90 0.00 BI2 0.19 -0.57 1.56 -0.66 2.16 2.33 2.19 2.32 0.19 0.00 BI1 -0.35 0.41 1.67 -0.85 3.78 2.59 0.99 1.82 0.07 -0.29 0.00 PM4 -0.17 -0.64 -1.29 -0.88 1.08 1.19 0.84 0.33 0.15 0.41 -0.34 0.00 PM3 -0.98 -0.93 -0.85 -1.59 1.63 1.01 -0.09 0.46 -0.21 -0.27 -0.76 0.27 0.00 PM2 -0.75 -0.79 -0.14 -1.44 2.09 1.72 1.47 0.69 0.44 0.16 -0.09 -0.07 0.23 0.00 PM1 1.64 0.75 0.62 -0.20 3.99 2.16 2.16 1.94 -0.03 0.07 -0.42 -0.18 -0.20 -0.05 0.00 PC1 0.74 1.04 0.51 0.96 -0.49 0.16 -0.37 -0.93 1.30 1.01 1.82 2.02 1.34 1.99 2.83 0.00 PC2 -0.16 0.02 -0.95 0.36 -0.45 -0.02 -0.12 -0.35 1.03 0.72 0.81 1.21 0.97 0.96 1.60 0.20 0.00 PC3 -0.60 -0.40 -1.13 -0.09 -0.25 0.38 -0.48 -0.26 1.35 0.38 1.29 0.94 1.13 1.40 2.59 -0.52 0.10 0.00 PC4 -0.72 -0.36 -0.94 -1.03 0.96 1.30 0.56 0.15 2.47 1.60 1.66 2.59 1.43 2.59 2.29 -0.26 -0.23 0.68 0.00 AA1 -0.79 -0.04 0.63 0.34 -0.37 -1.01 -0.80 0.21 -1.48 -0.35 -0.03 -0.45 -1.16 -0.69 -2.15 -0.61 -1.00 -1.13 0.13 0.00 AA2 -0.43 -0.19 1.24 0.17 -0.13 -0.49 0.13 1.89 -0.72 0.71 0.78 0.05 0.39 0.94 0.08 0.14 -0.81 -0.59 -0.67 0.04 0.00 AA3 -0.69 -0.68 1.10 0.69 -0.22 -0.17 0.15 0.70 -0.05 -0.13 0.12 -0.67 -0.29 0.21 -1.08 0.04 -0.08 -0.66 0.88 0.07 -0.11 0.00 CA3 1.17 -0.55 1.85 -0.68 0.76 1.46 0.74 0.72 -0.55 0.04 0.75 -0.04 -1.00 1.45 0.56 1.19 0.79 -0.19 1.62 -0.24 -0.02 -0.29 0.00 CA2 0.20 -0.61 0.58 -1.10 -1.13 -0.22 -1.88 -1.18 -0.36 -0.28 1.28 -0.78 -0.71 0.66 -0.61 0.62 0.08 -0.65 -0.20 -0.96 -0.78 0.23 -0.02 0.00 CA1 -0.47 -0.63 0.65 -0.60 0.12 -0.49 -1.43 0.23 -1.49 -0.31 0.59 -0.22 0.32 0.63 0.62 -1.15 -1.06 -0.75 -0.46 0.96 0.67 0.77 -0.14 0.25 0.00 103 Table F11 Standardized Residuals for Optimized Model Standardized Residual Covariances (Group number - Default model) PEU1 PEU2 PEU3 PEU4 PU2 0.13 PU3 PU4 BI3 BI2 BI1 PM4 PM3 PM2 PEU1 0.00 PEU2 0.16 0.00 PEU3 PEU4 PU2 -0.02 -0.05 0.48 -0.08 0.25 0.34 0.00 0.22 0.73 0.00 -0.57 PU3 0.26 -0.78 0.14 0.04 0.08 PU4 0.07 -0.57 0.25 -0.70 -0.06 0.47 0.11 BI3 0.00 -0.15 1.62 -0.40 2.09 0.74 0.54 0.15 BI2 0.65 -0.12 2.01 -0.27 0.90 0.72 0.94 0.33 0.16 BI1 0.10 0.86 2.12 -0.46 1.26 -0.37 0.54 0.25 -0.06 0.14 PM4 0.19 -0.28 -0.94 -0.57 1.58 1.18 0.63 0.36 0.64 -0.10 PM3 -0.62 -0.58 -0.51 -1.29 1.41 0.25 0.77 -0.02 -0.06 -0.53 0.07 0.00 PM2 -0.30 -0.34 0.30 -1.06 2.20 1.88 1.06 0.73 0.48 0.24 -0.13 0.11 0.00 PC1 0.54 0.83 0.31 0.68 0.52 -0.11 -0.71 1.57 1.30 2.11 2.17 1.49 2.20 PC1 PC2 PC3 AA1 AA2 AA3 CA3 CA2 CA1 0.13 0.00 0.00 PC2 -0.38 -0.21 -1.17 0.06 0.35 0.16 -0.11 1.31 1.02 1.12 1.37 1.13 1.18 -0.08 0.00 PC3 -0.46 -0.27 -1.00 -0.03 1.02 0.06 0.23 1.78 0.83 1.74 1.25 1.44 1.78 -0.32 0.31 0.00 AA1 -0.80 -0.06 0.61 0.27 -0.87 -0.71 0.28 -1.37 -0.20 0.14 -0.32 -1.02 -0.52 -0.67 -1.07 -1.03 0.01 AA2 -0.45 -0.21 1.22 0.10 -0.34 0.22 1.97 -0.60 0.87 0.96 0.19 0.53 1.12 0.08 -0.88 -0.49 0.05 0.01 AA3 -0.70 -0.70 1.08 0.63 -0.03 0.24 0.77 0.06 0.01 0.28 -0.55 -0.16 0.38 -0.01 -0.14 -0.57 0.08 -0.09 0.01 CA3 1.20 -0.53 1.87 -0.71 1.84 1.03 0.98 -0.41 0.21 0.95 0.13 -0.83 1.67 1.22 0.81 0.01 -0.20 0.01 -0.25 0.02 CA2 0.20 -0.62 0.58 -1.15 0.11 -1.64 -0.97 -0.26 -0.15 1.45 -0.62 -0.55 0.87 0.62 0.08 -0.47 -0.96 -0.79 0.23 -0.01 0.02 CA1 -0.46 -0.63 0.66 -0.65 -0.15 -1.18 0.46 -1.39 -0.17 0.77 -0.06 0.48 0.84 -1.14 -1.06 -0.56 0.98 0.69 0.78 -0.11 0.22 0.02 ... ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business HUYNH TRAC SIEU FACTORS AFFECTING INTENTIONS TO USE MOBILE CONTENT SERVICES IN HO CHI MINH CITY ID: 22120137 MASTER OF BUSINESS (Honours)... not institutions or groups who are also customers of many mobile content services providers in Vietnam Finally, the research only focuses on the factors affecting behavioral intentions to use mobile. .. would be easy for me to become skillful at using mobile content services (PEU2) - I would find mobile content services easy to use (PEU3) - Learning how to use mobile content services would be easy