Effects of variety-seeking intention by mobile phone usage on university students’ academic performance

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model.

Table 1. Demographic statistics of the respondents

Category		Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	193	62
	Female	118	38
Age (years)	18–23	68	22
	24–29	159	51
	30–35	58	19
	36–41	17	5
	41+	9	3
Geographic location	Local student	242	78
	International student	69	22
Smart mobile device	Yes	311	100
	No	0	0
Degree	PhD student	88	28
	Master’s student	187	60
	Bachelor’ student	36	12
Own multiple mobile devices	Yes	292	94
	No	19	6

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis

Constructs	Items	Factor loading	Cronbach’s alpha	CR	AVE
Technology addiction (Charlton, 2002)	I sometimes neglect important things because of my interest in my mobile phone	0.874	0.965	0.964	0.752
	My social life has sometimes suffered because of me interacting with my mobile phone	0.898
	Using my mobile phone sometimes interferes with other activities	0.895
	When I am not using my mobile phone I often feel agitated	0.873
	I have made successful attempts to reduce the time I interact with my mobile phone	0.849
	I am sometimes late for engagements because I interact with my mobile phone	0.849
	Arguments have sometimes arisen because of the time I spend on my mobile phone	0.850
	I think that I am addicted to my mobile phone	0.852
	I often fail to get enough rest because I interact with my mobile phone	0.865
Technostress (Ayyagari, Grover, & Purvis, 2011)	I feel drained from tasks that require me to use my mobile phone	0.858	0.907	0.908	0.712
	I feel tired from using my mobile phone	0.835
	Interacting all day with my mobile phone is a strain for me	0.836
	I feel burned out from using my mobile phone	0.846
Perceived enjoyment (Venkatesh et al., 2012)	Using my mobile phone is fun	0.804	0.926	0.927	0.717
	Using my mobile phone is enjoyable	0.835
	Using my mobile phone is very entertaining	0.895
	Using my mobile phone is exciting	0.848
	Using my mobile phone is interesting	0.852
Perceived ease of use (Venkatesh et al., 2012)	Learning how to use my mobile phone is easy for me	0.850	0.930	0.930	0.770
	My interaction with my mobile phone is clear and understandable	0.892
	I find my mobile phone easy to use	0.880
	It is easy for me to become skilful at using my mobile phone	0.889
Perceived usefulness (Venkatesh et al., 2012)	I find using my mobile phone useful in my daily life	0.868	0.941	0.930	0.770
	Using my mobile phone increases my chances of achieving things that are important to me	0.885
	Using my mobile phone helps me accomplish things more quickly	0.901
	Using my mobile phone increases my productivity.	0.923
Perceived satisfaction (Limayem et al., 2007)	How do you feel about your overall experience of your mobile phone?		0.937	0.938	0.792
	Very dissatisfied—very satisfied	0.908
	Very displeased—very pleased	0.862
	Very frustrated—very content	0.911
	Very terrible—very delighted	0.879
Continuance intentions (Venkatesh et al., 2012)	I intend to continue using my mobile phone in the future	0.884	0.954	0.954	0.778
	I will always try to use my mobile phone in my daily life	0.874
	I plan to continue to use my mobile phone frequently	0.915
	I intend to continue using my mobile phone rather than discontinue its use	0.882
	My intentions are to continue using my mobile phone than use any alternative technology	0.850
	If I could, I would like to continue my use of my mobile phone	0.887
Variety seeking (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1992)	I like to experience novelty and change in daily routine	0.837	0.944	0.945	0.777
	I would like a job that offers change, variety and travel	0.891
	I am continually seeking new ideas and experiences	0.913
	I like continually changing activities	0.881
	I like to find some new and unfamiliar experiences	0.886
Academic Self-perception (McCoach, 2002)	I am confident in my scholastic abilities	0.915	0.948	0.962	0.866
	I do well in school	0.932
	I learn new concepts quickly	0.947
	I am confident in my ability to succeed in school	0.929

Table 3. Correlation matrix and AVE

Constructs	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
TA	4.70	1.11	0.75
TS	4.54	0.99	0.92	0.71
PE	4.61	0.94	0.88	0.94	0.71
PEOU	4.64	1.13	0.83	0.81	0.90	0.77
PU	4.67	1.16	0.79	0.74	0.80	0.88	0.79
SAT	4.70	1.17	0.79	0.78	0.82	0.87	0.96	0.79
CI	4.74	1.11	0.87	0.84	0.89	0.84	0.84	0.90	0.77
VS	4.77	1.13	0.92	0.87	0.89	0.86	0.86	0.86	0.95	0.86
AP	4.75	1.16	0.21	0.25	0.23	0.17	0.25	0.26	0.28	0.27	0.86

Note: The bold values on the diagonal represent AVE.

Table 4. Statistics of the structural model

Hypothesised path	β	SE	CR	p
TA → TS	0.786	0.041	19.215	0.000
PEOU → PE	0.886	0.114	7.764	0.000
PU → PE	−0.123	0.091	−1.361	0.174
PU → SAT	1.002	0.046	21.86	0.000
TS → VS	0.399	0.064	6.200	0.000
SAT → VS	0.355	0.041	8.642	0.000
PE → VS	0.301	0.082	3.682	0.000
VS → CI	0.996	0.052	19.17	0.000
CI → AP	0.295	0.060	4.928	0.000

Note: R² = (TS = 0.896), (PE = 0.889), (SAT = 0.938), (VS = 0.910), (CI = 0.931). The bold values are not significant.

Figure 2. Structural model and results.

Charlton, J. P. (2002). A factor-analytic investigation of computer ‘addiction’ and engagement. British Journal of Psychology, 93(3), 329−344. doi:10.1348/000712602760146242

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831−858. doi:10.2307/41409963

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157−178. doi:10.2307/41410412

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. S. K. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 705−737. doi:10.2307/25148817

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Steenkamp, J. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1992). The role of optimum stimulation level in exploratory consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 434−448. doi:10.1086/209313

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McCoach, D. B. (2002). A validation study of the School Attitude Assessment Survey. Psyc Tests Dataset, 35(2), 66–77. doi:10.1037/t03399-000

 Google Scholar