Determinants of voters behaviour and voting intention: The mediating role of social media

Figures & data

Figure.1. Research model.

Table 1. Common method bias test through full collinearity (VIF)

	C.Pers	E.Value	P.Issue	S.Cont	Soc.Image	Soc.Med	Vot.Int
C.Pers		2.20	1.87	2.37	2.38	2.37	2.41
E.Value	3.40		3.23	3.35	3.41	3.23	3.85
P.Issue	1.05	1.24		1.04	1.11	1.11	1.04
S.Cont	2.26	2.09	2.00		2.42	2.35	2.28
Soc.Image	2.24	2.06	2.34	2.32		2.40	2.32
Soc.Med	1.66	1.57	1.78	1.70	1.79		1.56
Vot.Int	1.58	1.84	1.59	1.57	1.70	1.49

Table 2. Common method bias test through Unmeasured Latent Variable Marker (ULMV)

Construct Endogenous	Without marker variable	With marker variable	Changes (%)
Social Media	0.717	0.724	0.98%
Voter Intention	0.535	0.574	7.29%

Measurement Model

Table 3. Convergent reliability (outer loading, cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability and average variance extracted)

Construct		OL (≥0.70)	CA (≥0.70)	CR (≥0.70)	AVE (≥0.50)
C.Pers	C.Pers_1	0.790	0.849	0.893	0.626
	C.Pers_2	0.803
	C.Pers_3	0.862
	C.Pers_4	0.665
	C.Pers_5	0.823
E.Value	E.Value_1	0.774	0.909	0.929	0.687
	E.Value_2	0.863
	E.Value_3	0.850
	E.Value_4	0.801
	E.Value_5	0.833
	E.Value_6	0.848
P.Issue	P.Issue_1	0.790	0.933	0.942	0.598
	P.Issue_10	0.857
	P.Issue_11	0.788
	P.Issue_2	0.796
	P.Issue_3	0.749
	P.Issue_4	0.718
	P.Issue_5	0.820
	P.Issue_6	0.752
	P.Issue_7	0.815
	P.Issue_8	0.694
	P.Issue_9	0.710
S.Cont	S.Cont_1	0.833	0.953	0.959	0.704
	S.Cont_10	0.770
	S.Cont_2	0.887
	S.Cont_3	0.892
	S.Cont_4	0.865
	S.Cont_5	0.711
	S.Cont_6	0.880
	S.Cont_7	0.884
	S.Cont_8	0.846
	S.Cont_9	0.805
Soc.Med	SM.Med_1	0.758	0.833	0.882	0.601
	SM.Med_2	0.826
	SM.Med_3	0.850
	SM.Med_4	0.777
	SM.Med_5	0.650
Soc.Image	So.Imag_1	0.673	0.726	0.847	0.652
	So.Imag_3	0.848
	So.Imag_4	0.886
Vot.Int	VT.Int_10	0.692	0.873	0.901	0.532
	VT.Int_11	0.738
	VT.Int_13	0.763
	VT.Int_3	0.643
	VT.Int_4	0.702
	VT.Int_6	0.690
	VT.Int_7	0.805
	VT.Int_9	0.789

Fornell-Larcker Criterion

Table 4. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)

	Soc. Med	Vot.Int
C.Pers	1.868	1.936
E.Value	2.691	2.724
P.Issue	1.179	1.179
S.Cont	2.780	2.794
Soc.Image	1.355	1.401
Soc. Med		1.210

Table 5. Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT)

	C.Pers	E.Value	P.Issue	S.Cont	Soc.Image	Soc.Med	Vot.Int
C.Pers
E.Value	0.691
P.Issue	0.333	0.361
S.Cont	0.676	0.823	0.382
Soc.Image	0.581	0.502	0.253	0.512
Soc.Med	0.427	0.347	0.133	0.274	0.414
Vot.Int	0.594	0.584	0.308	0.565	0.466	0.360

Figure 2. Measurement model.

Figure 3. Structural model.

Table 6. Fornell-larcker criterion

	C.Pers	E.Value	P.Issue	S.Cont	Soc.Image	Soc.Med	Vot.Int
C.Pers	0.791
E.Value	0.613	0.829
P.Issue	0.310	0.342	0.773
S.Cont	0.615	0.771	0.368	0.839
Soc.Image	0.467	0.421	0.220	0.445	0.808
Soc.Med	0.362	0.309	0.130	0.252	0.327	0.775
Vot.Int	0.518	0.524	0.289	0.518	0.382	0.316	0.730

Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)

Table 7. Hypothesis and co-efficient

Paths	UnStand. Beta	Stand. Error	T-Value	P Values	95% BC CI		Decision
					Lower Level	Upper Level
C.Pers → Soc.Med	0.236	0.062	3.789	0.000	0.091	0.342	Accepted
C.Pers → Vot.Int	0.209	0.053	3.908	0.000	0.104	0.301	Accepted
E.Value → Soc.Med	0.167	0.067	2.470	0.014	0.043	0.300	Accepted
E.Value → Vot.Int	0.177	0.079	2.248	0.025	0.027	0.335	Accepted
P.Issue → Soc.Med	−0.004	0.048	0.080	0.936	−0.098	0.085	Rejected
P.Issue → Vot.Int	0.071	0.039	1.821	0.069	−0.014	0.135	Rejected
S.Cont → Soc.Med	−0.108	0.069	1.569	0.117	−0.245	0.017	Accepted
S.Cont → Vot.Int	0.162	0.073	2.226	0.026	0.018	0.305	Accepted
Soc.Image → Soc.Med	0.196	0.053	3.718	0.000	0.096	0.297	Accepted
Soc.Image → Vot.Int	0.087	0.054	1.635	0.103	−0.011	0.198	Rejected
Soc.Med → Vot.Int	0.107	0.043	2.482	0.013	0.013	0.190	Accepted

Table 8. Specific indirect effect

Paths	Beta	T-Value	P- Values	BC 95% CI		Decision
				LLB	ULB
C.Pers → Soc.Med → Vot.Int	0.025	2.123	0.034	0.003	0.050	Partial Mediation
E.Value → Soc.Med → Vot.Int	0.018	1.529	0.127	0.002	0.050
P.Issue → Soc.Med → Vot.Int	0.000	0.072	0.942	−0.015	0.009
S.Cont → Soc.Med → Vot.Int	−0.012	1.243	0.215	−0.034	0.000
Soc.Image → Soc.Med → Vot.Int	0.021	2.089	0.037	0.005	0.045	Full mediation