Dependency on smartphone and the
impact on purchase behaviour
Ding Hooi Ting, Suet Fong Lim, Tanusina Siuly Patanmacia, Ca Gie Low and
Gay Chuan Ker
Ding Hooi Ting is a Senior
Lecturer at the School of
Business, Monash
University, Sunway
Campus, Malaysia.
Suet Fong Lim,
Tanusina Siuly Patanmacia,
Ca Gie Low and
Gay Chuan Ker are
Research Students at the
School of Business,
Monash University, Sunway
Campus, Malaysia.
Received: August 2010
Revised: January 2011
Accepted: February 2011
DOI 10.1108/17473611111163250
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to investigate the effect of convenience, social needs and social influences
on university students’ dependency towards smartphones and the impact on future purchase behaviour
in Malaysia.
Design/methodology/approach – Hypotheses were tested with a random and judgemental sampling
(students who use smartphones only) of 358 university students using a face-to-face survey method.
Structural equation modelling was used to test the hypotheses.
Findings – The results indicated that university students’ dependency on smartphones is influenced by
convenience, social needs and social influences and dependency is positively related with future
purchase behaviour.
Research limitations/implications – Results of this study are limited by the absence of equal
distribution across different races and culture of university students.
Originality/value – The domain of research, smartphones, is a new technology that is largely adopted
and deserves investigation for future mobile market strategies. Although this research of smartphone
dependency is limited to universities, this study contributes to the field by adding new investigation in
this new target segment of smartphone users.
Keywords Mobile technology, Influence, Convenience, Social needs, Dependency,
Purchase behaviour, University students, Smartphones, Mobile communication systems, Students,
Malaysia
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The use of mobile phones has triggered consumer market demand as it forms a new
dimension of virtual mobility to a continuing trend for geographically extended, faster and
more personalized social interaction (Wei and Lo, 2006). In recent years, the mobile phone
has evolved from essentially an interpersonal communication device to a multimedia
machine known as smartphone. The term smartphone refers to a programmable mobile
phone that offers advanced capabilities and features that help individuals in their daily work
and personal life (Euromonitor, 2010a). It contains functions such as instant messaging,
downloading applications, utilising information services such as WiFi and global positioning
system (GPS) and entertainment (Euromonitor, 2010a).
With the popularity and functions offered in the phone, smartphones have seen an increase
in terms of demand (Park and Chen, 2007). Research by Ni et al. (2009) found that in the
third quarter of 2008, Canalys reported that global shipments of smartphones had hit a new
peak of just under 40 million units despite the gloomy economic picture and smartphones
represented around 13 percent of the total mobile phone market. In meeting these demands,
several companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Nokia and Google have developed various
smartphone operating systems (OS) such as Symbian OS, iPhone OS, Windows Mobile and
VOL. 12 NO. 3 2011, pp. 193-203, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-3616 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j PAGE 193
 Android, respectively (Sharma, 2008) for the convenience of their users by providing
different supports, features and applications.
In-stat (2010), a high-tech market research firm found that the users of smartphones are
experiencing significant value from their smartphones. As a result, the volume of
downloading applications increases thus generating higher usage rate among
smartphone holders (In-stat, 2010). In a study done by Krieger et al. (2009), they stated
how smartphones have changed from being an object of ‘‘conspicuous consumption’’ and
intense epidemic curiosity to becoming a mundane, ordinary artefact. The association that
links human and smartphones together have been described as an increasingly indissoluble
unit (Farnsworth and Austrin, 2010). This smartphone trend is so big because it helps feed
consumer addictions to other smartphone trends that have emerged since 2007 in Malaysia
(Euromonitor, 2010b). For example, smartphone users are clearly tantalized by both useful
and fun functions of more than 100,000 applications that are available in iPhone, Android
and other smartphones (Goldman, 2010). In Malaysia, it was found that smartphone sales
totalled 172.4 million units in year 2009, with a 23.8 percent increase from 2008 (Sidhu,
2010). This increment in sales was partly contributed by university students (Jacob and
Isaac, 2008). This shows that although the smartphone is created to fit and target business
people, the usage rate of smartphones among university students’ is also on the rise.
Therefore, the objectives of this study are to:
B Identify the stimulus for the dependency of university students on smartphones.
B Examine the relationship between university students’ dependency on smartphones and
purchase behaviour towards smartphones.

Literature review
Convenience of and dependency on smartphones
Due to time scarcity, consumers have a high need for convenience where they are able to
use their smartphones at any time and any place (Genova, 2010). Holub et al. (2010)
claimed that in the current mobile revolution, the smartphone is now portable, tied to an
individual and is not a fixed workstation. Unlike transactions on desktop and laptops at home
or in the workplace, consumers can perform smartphone transactions in circumstances that
have severe time constraints, such as waiting for someone or waiting for a traffic jam to clear
(Lu and Su, 2009). Thus, consumers has become highly dependent on smartphones to
retrieve useful information by a simple browse and click to access their smartphones as it is
with them when they commute, relax at home, travel overseas and so on (Genova, 2010).
Stephen and Davis (2009) asserted that the normal mobile phone and laptops have become
widely diffused into smartphones for consumers’ convenience. The dual-use nature and
function of a normal mobile phone and laptop has provided a positive increase of the usage
rate of smartphone users (Hahn, 2010). Consumers are able to check their e-mails,
communicate on social networking web sites, and use online chat on their smartphones
instead of paying for broadband internet on computers (Hudson, 2010). It is clear that as the
smartphones provides convenience to others, dependency on smartphones will be on the
rise. As a result, the first hypothesis is:
H1. The convenience of smartphones positively affects consumers’ dependency on
smartphones.

Social needs and dependency towards smartphones

Social needs are the needs for social interaction of an individual that represent the need for
communicating with friends, family and affiliation such as group membership, clubs,
churches and work affiliations (Tikkanen, 2009). Social need is one of the determinants of
consumers’ dependency on smartphones because the smartphones have become much
more versatile, allowing consumers increased usage for communication and maintaining
relationships between and among individuals (Lippincott, 2010). In Wei and Lo’s (2006)
research, it was found that consumers were highly engaged with smartphones when there

j j
PAGE 194 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 12 NO. 3 2011
was a positive correlation between social needs and dependency. Consumers with a high
need to socialize and be connected were found to increase their usage rate on smartphones
because Bodker et al. (2009) claimed that interaction or social networking has been
embedded and conveyed through the smartphone itself. Consequently, consumers with a
lower level of social needs are expected to have a lower usage rate of smartphones
(Morgan, 2010). The stimulus of keeping contact with consumers’ existing groups of friends
and learning more about individuals they meet offline encourages a higher engagement of
consumers with smartphones with easy access to embedded social networks such as
Twitter, Facebook and MySpace (Raskin, 2006). Smartphones allow consumers to satisfy
their need to belong as they are able to stay connected with others either through social
networking sites or using live chat integrated in the smartphones (Bridges et al., 2010). It can
be seen then that smartphones are an important facilitator of one’s social relationship (Wei
and Lo, 2006). According to Hundley and Shyles (2010), consumers fulfils their social need
by engaging with smartphones and have concerns about being socially disconnected,
uninformed and excluded from friends and their social activities. Therefore, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H2. Consumers’ social needs positively affect the consumers’ dependency on
smartphones.

Social influences and dependency on smartphones

Social influence is defined as the way other people affect one’s beliefs, feelings and
behaviour (Mason et al., 2007). Individuals are not often conscious of social influences as
they are so pervasive (Klobas and Clyde, 2001). Consumers may be susceptible to social
influence by observations, perceptions or anticipations of decisions made by others in
engaging to smartphones (Suki and Suki, 2007). Social influence is often seen as a strong
influencer that affects the consumers’ dependency on smartphones (Auter, 2007).
Klobas and Clyde (2001) found that social influences have positive impact on the
dependency of using smartphones. Friends and family members are seen as social
influencers who are perceived to be important to consumers in encouraging a greater
dependency on smartphones (Auter, 2007). Like other innovative products, the smartphone
is an ‘‘experience good’’; consumers must be experienced to value and are more
ambiguous about their potential uses (Kim, 2008). If smartphones make a good impression
on others, consumers’ dependency on them will increase and consequently will lead to
positive word-of-mouth communication to others. Nevertheless, consumers who are more
likely to incorporate and rely on positive word-of-mouth opinions of important others on
smartphones will in turn increase their usage rate by either transforming them into beliefs, or
through a process of imitation (Basaglia et al., 2009). This leads to the next hypothesis:
H3. Consumers’ social influences positively affect the consumers’ dependency on
smartphones.

Dependency on and purchase behaviour of smartphones

According to Tian et al. (2009), consumers are perceived to be dependent on their
smartphones when they viewed them as a necessity and have a strong propensity for
continuous high usage, being engaged and unwilling to part from it. Having used or been
highly engaged with smartphones means that the consumer not only has personal
knowledge about their attributes but also has the personal experience about how they work
for consumers and how they satisfy their needs (Keaveney and Parthasarathy, 2001). As a
result, consumers’ expectations for future purchase behaviour will be affected by their past
experience as they are heavily dependent on smartphones because of the underlying
motives (Kuhlmeier and Knight, 2005). This is supported by the Mafe and Blas (2006) study
which found that consumers’ high dependency on smartphones is positively correlated with
consumers’ future purchase behaviour. Moreover, consumers who have prior experience
with a smartphone learn quickly from their experience (Kim, 2008). Whether the experience
of depending on smartphones is positive or negative, experienced consumers will quickly

j j
VOL. 12 NO. 3 2011 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 195
 adjust their subsequent evaluations in purchasing their next smartphone (Keaveney and
Parthasarathy, 2001).
H4. Consumers’ dependency on smartphones positively affects their purchase
behaviour.

Methodology
Data were collected from 358 university students, aged 18 to 23 who use a smartphone from
universities located in Petaling Jaya and Subang Jaya areas in Malaysia. These two areas
have numerous colleges and universities making it a strategic location to gather a large
amount of data (Miller and Roo, 2004). Student samples from five universities were surveyed
as they have the characteristics of being either hedonic or utilitarian from their experience of
university lifestyle (StudyMalaysia, 2010). It is valuable to include the views of students in
such universities in order to get a better understanding of their underlying motives towards
dependency on smartphones and how their dependency leads to purchase behaviour.
To achieve the objective of this research, non-probability sampling method was adopted, as
the focus of this research is only on smartphones users. The questions used to measure the
variables were adopted from a wide range of relevant past research (e.g. convenience (Kim,
2008; Park and Chen, 2007); social needs (Park and Chen, 2007; Wilson and McCarthy,
2010; Campbell, 2007); social influence (Mangleburg and Bristol, 1998; Basaglia et al.,
2007; Park and Chen, 2007); dependency (Wajcman et al., 2008; Hjorthol, 2008; Kim, 2008);
purchase behaviour (Keaveney and Parthasarathy, 2001; Pihlstrom and Brush, 2008; Park
and Chen, 2007)). Five point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘1’’ strongly disagree to ‘‘5’’ strongly
agree were used to measure university student’s intention towards smartphones (Cummins
and Gullone, 2000). The five point Likert scale was used with the assumption that the
psychometric distances between categories are equal.

Results
Malaysia is a multicultural country with various ethnic groups; Malays (54.0 percent), Chinese
(25.0 percent), indigenous (11.8 percent), Indians (7.5 percent), others (1.7 percent). Most of
the private universities in Malaysia are populated by Chinese while a large number of students
in the public universities are Malays. The sample of this study focused on private universities;
therefore, there is a bias toward Chinese samples, which reflects the distribution.
Demographic profiles were collected from different universities throughout Petaling Jaya
and Subang Jaya areas in Malaysia. In terms of age, there are 34.6 percent of the
respondents aged between 18 to 19 years old, followed by 42.2 percent of respondents
which are the majority of respondents aged between 20 to 21 years old and 23.2 percent
respondents in the range of age between 22 to 23 years old.
Among 358 respondents, there are 53.6 percent are male respondents and 46.4 percent of
the respondents are female. Based on the ethnic group, the majority of the respondents are
Chinese with 60.1 percent followed by Malay 15.4 percent, Indian 12.8 percent and other
ethnic groups with 11.7 percent.
Referring to education institution, 23.2 percent respondents are pursuing their study in
Institution A, 22.1 percent of the respondents from Institution B and followed by 18.4 percent
respondents from Institution C, 17.3 percent from Institution D and 19.0 percent are from
Institution E. The majority of respondents analyzed use Apple iPhone (34.1 percent), with
28.5 percent using Blackberry and a minority of respondents (7.8 percent) using the HTC
model. The remaining 29.6 percent respondents use other models of smartphones.

Factor analysis and reliability test

A reliability test using Cronbach’s alpha reference coefficient test was carried out in order to
remove any cross-loading of items (Helms et al., 2006; Bonett, 2003; Alsawalemh and Feldt,
1999). The internal consistency method, measured by the Coefficient alpha test was used to

j j
PAGE 196 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 12 NO. 3 2011
evaluate the reliability of score of the data in this study (Cronbach and Shavelson, 2004). A
common rule of thumb is that indicators should have a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.7 to judge the
set of items as reliable (Nunnally, 1978). Typically, a higher Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
indicates higher reliability of the scale employed to measure the latent construct (Bollen,
1989).The reliability coefficients for convenience, social needs, social influence,
dependency and purchase behaviour has been carried out and the results (see Table I)
showed that all Cronbach alpha values were above 0.70.

The fit of the CFA models were assessed by means of diverse fit indicators (Figure 1).
Specifically, the researchers used the chi-square (x 2), relative chi-square (x 2/df), and the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Other relative fit indicators that were
used includes goodness-of-fit (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), comparative fit
index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), parsimony comparative fit index (PCFI), and Akaikes’
information criterion (AIC) (Bollen, 1989; Hair et al., 2010).

Based on the model-fit indices obtained, the model has adequate and acceptable
goodness-of-fit indices: x 2 ¼ 25:46 at p 2 value 0.26 (. 0.05), x 2 =df ¼ 1:10 (, 3),

Table I Cronbach’s alpha for each variable

Dimension Items Cronbach’s alpha

Social needs I use smartphone to stay connected with friends 0.787

and family through social networking web sites
(Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and etc.)
It is easy for me to observe others’ happenings
by using the smartphone
I use my smartphone to catch up with friends and
relatives
Smartphone allows me to stay connected with
those I care about
Social influence It is important that my friends like the brand of 0.838
smartphone I’m using
The pressure from friends and family is likely
influence the usage rate of smartphone
I would buy a smartphone if it helped me fit in with
my social group better
I would be susceptible to be persuaded into
using a smartphone if I had a low self-esteem
Convenience Using a smartphone would allow me to 0.724
accomplish tasks more quickly
In my work, smartphone saves me time and effort
I would prefer carrying my smartphone rather
than my laptop
Having a smartphone is like having both a mobile
phone and a computer together
A smartphone enables me to receive learning
materials anywhere I go
Dependency In my daily life, usage of smartphone is high 0.810
I will feel insecure when my smartphone is not
with me
I always use smartphone to deal with my job
I cannot do anything with my job without the
smartphone
I’m totally depend on my smartphone
Purchase behaviour On the whole, I’m satisfied with the smartphone 0.773
experience
Overall, my positive experience outweighs my
negative experience with smartphone
I intend to keep continuing use smartphone in the
future
I intend to have a better purchase of smartphone
in the future from my experience

j j
VOL. 12 NO. 3 2011 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 197
 Figure 1 Results of analysis

GFI ¼ 0:99 (.0.9), AGFI ¼ 0:98 (. 0.9), CFI ¼ 1:00 (.0.95), TLI ¼ 0:99 (.0.9), and
RMSEA ¼ 0:01 (,0.08). These indices are among the most frequently used, as they are less
affected by sample size (Hair et al., 2010). The results indicated that convenience, social
needs, social influences and university students’ dependency on smartphones are positively
related at p , 0:01 level. Convenience was found to be significantly related to university
students’ dependency on smartphones (b ¼ 0:43, p , 0:01). Thus, H1 is supported.
Moreover, the results indicated that social needs had a significant impact on the
dependency on smartphones (b ¼ 0:26, p , 0:01). Therefore, the second hypothesis (H2)
is supported. Finally, social influences was significantly related to university students’
dependency on smartphones (b ¼ 0:35, p , 0:01). Hence, H3 is supported. Figure 1 shows
that the R square between the independent variables on dependency are at 0.60. This
indicates that 60.0 percent of the variation in university students’ dependency on
smartphones is explained by the convenience, social needs and social influences. This
evidence supports the interaction effect of convenience, social needs and social influences
on university students’ dependency towards smartphones. Hence, H1, H2 and H3 are
supported.
As for the path between dependency and purchase behaviour, it was found to be significant
as well (b ¼ 0:57, p , 0:01). Therefore, H4 is supported. The adjusted R square for this path
is at 0.32. This explains that 32.0 percent of the variation in future purchase behaviour is
explained by the university students’ dependency on smartphones. This supports the effect
of university students’ dependency on smartphones towards their future purchase
behaviour. Thus, H4 is supported.

Discussion and managerial implications

This study has investigated and made clear the impact of convenience, social needs and
social influences on university students’ dependency and the impact on purchase behaviour
of smartphones. The findings showed that there is a significant and positive relationship
between convenience and university students’ dependency on smartphones at p , 0:01
level. Thus, the first hypothesis (H1) is supported. This indicates that convenience of
smartphones; access to the functions and applications regardless of time, place and effort
positively lead to an increase in university students’ dependency on smartphones
(Verkasalo, 2009). In other words, university students take into consideration convenience of
smartphones as a factor that drives them to increase their smartphone usage (Basaglia et al.,
2009). Due to the current increase in ‘‘time scarcity’’, consumers’ demand for convenience is
higher (Brown, 1989). Smartphone manufacturers should emphasize on convenience
feature when promoting smartphones to students. Smartphone manufacturers may

j j
PAGE 198 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 12 NO. 3 2011
emphasise user-friendly attributes and the range of computer-based functions in
smartphones to increase convenience. Providing greater capacity, increasing the speed
for internet access and increasing the ability to view documents, images, and presentations
are actions that can increase the engagement of university students in smartphones as well
as the capacity to handle multiple tasks anywhere and anytime (Papakonstantinou and
Brujic-Okretic, 2009).
This study also found that there was a significant and positive relationship between social
needs and university students’ dependency on smartphones (p , 0:01). Hence, the second
hypothesis (H2) is supported. This signifies that university students’ need to stay connected
will determine their dependency on smartphones. Smartphone providers should design their
smartphones to integrate functions that allow wide connectivity between university students
and their family, friends and others to fulfil their social needs (Counts, 2007). This should
include functions which allow them to interact through sending and replying to messages.
Communications and feedback allow students to feel more engaged in smartphones,
contributing to a sense of community and networks where communications are encouraged.
In this way students’ engagement with smartphones is enhanced (Mangold and Faulds,
2009). In conjunction with this, marketers may offer and use the need for belonging as their
promotional strategy to engage university students to use smartphones (Gangadharbatla,
2007). To further enhance the promotional effectiveness, marketers can leverage emotional
connections by embracing the importance of staying connected through smartphones in
order to target university students (Mangold and Faulds, 2009). Although social networking
web sites such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and others are embedded in smartphones,
the navigation tool is found to be different from the actual social networking site viewed from
computers. Thus, it is recommended that marketers design the embedded social
networking web site to be similar and matches the actual functions, for instance, live chat,
online games and the layout in the site, allowing more interactivity between university
students’ and their family, friends and others (Zhang et al., 2010).
A significant and positive relationship between social influences and university students’
dependency on smartphones (p , 0:01) was also found. Therefore, the third hypothesis
(H3) is supported. In order to increase the engagement of university students in
smartphones, marketers should view social influence as having an important role in
influencing university students’ smartphone dependency. Pressure from society and
escalating technological advances have made smartphones a necessity within a social
community (Raento et al., 2009). In relation to this, marketers may take the initiative by
stimulating positive word-of-mouth communication among friends and family to engage
more university students in using smartphones. Positive word-of-mouth communication may
be spread either through promotions, celebrity endorsers and other effective reference
groups (Carl, 2006) that are at the centre of attention among students. Positive
word-of-mouth is valuable to be spread by marketers as it allows social influencers to
make positive recommendations and increase awareness about the smartphone’s functions,
by giving them a greater encouragement to use smartphones (Brown et al., 2005).
The study also found that there is a significant and positive relationship between university
students’ dependency and their future purchase behaviour (p , 0:01) supporting the H4.
The indication from this study is that university students with high dependency on
smartphones tend to make evaluations based on their past experiences in determining
future purchase behaviour. Past research found that experienced smartphone users’
dependency on smartphones has a direct effect on the formation of predictive expectations
in future purchase behaviour (Peters, 2009). In other words, university students’ high
dependency on smartphones is positively associated with their future potential purchase of
smartphones.

Limitation of research
There are a few limitations that might limit the research findings of this research. In this study,
the respondents’ profiles revealed that majority of the respondents were Chinese. From a
statistical point of view, this sample may lack generalization power (Campbell, 2007). The

j j
VOL. 12 NO. 3 2011 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 199
 information gathered from a particular culture will make the findings vulnerable as different
ethnic groups might have different perceptions over the variables presented in the study.
Future studies should be conducted across university students (public and private
universities in Malaysia) to reflect different cultures among university students instead of
focusing on private universities alone. Comparison between different cultural groupings
would have shed light on the differences and similarities on how smartphones are perceived
and used in Malaysia (Campbell, 2007). It would be especially interesting to include
respondents of disparate cultural groups to determine a more accurate pattern of
dependency behaviour towards smartphones and how it leads to future purchase
behaviour. Hence, a larger sample would be suggested to improve the generalizability of the
result and to provide more accurate results (Couper, 2005).
The findings might not be applicable to all smartphone brand categories as different
smartphone brands have different functionalities and applications. There are many
categories of smartphone brands which include iPhone, BlackBerry, HTC, Symbian OS and
Android (Foster, 2009). Thus, the focus of the study was not specific in terms of smartphone
brands. Different smartphone brand categories may impact differently on university
students’ evaluations and views on the stimulus that affect their dependency on
smartphones (Norris, 2007). By specifying a specific category brand of smartphones, the
relationship between the convenience, social needs and social influences towards university
students’ dependency of smartphones can be analysed more accurately and thus provide
more beneficial information to marketers. Therefore, more research is warranted to gain
more insightful information that would be useful for marketers in the formulating of marketing
strategies.

References
Alsawalmeh, Y.M. and Feldt, L.S. (1999), ‘‘Testing the equity of independent alpha coefficients adjusted
for test length’’, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 373-83.
Auter, P.J. (2007), ‘‘Portable social groups: willingness to communicate, interpersonal communication
gratifications, and cell phone use among young adults’’, International Journal Mobile Communications,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 139-56.
Basaglia, S., Caporarello, L., Magni, M. and Pennarola, F. (2009), ‘‘Individual adoption of convergent
mobile phone in Italy’’, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-18.

Bodker, M., Gimpel, G. and Hedman, J. (2009), ‘‘Technology use as consumption: a longitudinal study of
smart phones’’, Thirtieth International Conference on Information Systems, Phoenix, Vol. 88, pp. 1-7.
Bonett, D.G. (2003), ‘‘Sample size requirements for comparing two alpha coefficients’’, Applied
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 72-4.

Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bridges, L., Rempel, H.G. and Giggs, K. (2010), ‘‘Making the case for a fully library web site: From floor
maps to the catalog’’, Reference Service Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 309-20.
Brown, L.G. (1989), ‘‘The strategic and tactical implications of convenience in consumer product
marketing’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 13-19.
Brown, T.J., Barry, T.E., Dacin, P.A. and Gunst, R.F. (2005), ‘‘Spreading the word: Investigating
antecedents of consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviours in a retailing context’’,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 123-38.
Campbell, S.W. (2007), ‘‘A cross-cultural comparison of perceptions and uses of mobile telephony’’,
New Medoa Society, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 343-63.
Carl, W.J. (2006), ‘‘What’s all the buzz about?: Everyday communication and the relational basis of
word-of-mouth and buzz marketing practices’’, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 601-34.
Counts, S. (2007), ‘‘Group-based mobile messaging in support of the social side of leisure’’, Computer
Supported Cooperative Work, Vol. 16, pp. 75-97.

j j
PAGE 200 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 12 NO. 3 2011
Couper, M.P. (2005), ‘‘Technology trends in survey data collection’’, Social Science Computer Review,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 486-501.

Cronbach, L.J. and Shavelson, R.J. (2004), ‘‘My current thought on coefficient alpha and successor
procedures’’, Educational and Pshycologocal Measurement, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 391-418.

Cummins, R.A. and Gullone, E. (2000), ‘‘Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: the case for
subjective quality of life measurement’’, Proceedings, Second International Conference on Quality of
Life in Cities, National University of Singapore, Singapore, pp. 74-93.

Euromonitor (2010a), ‘‘Smartphone: not just iphones, but a boomerang movement’’, retrieved from
Euromonitor International database (accessed 16 April 2010).

Euromonitor (2010b), Mobile Phones – Malaysia, retrieved from Eurominotor International database
(accessed 16 April 2010).

Farnsworth, J. and Austrin, T. (2010), ‘‘Assembling portable talk and mobile worlds: sound technologies
and mobile social networks’’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media
Technology, Vol. 11, pp. 14-22.

Foster, A. (2009), ‘‘Initiatives June 2009: A round-up of product and initiatives’’, Business Information
Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 135-50.

Gangadharbatla, H. (2007), ‘‘Facebook me: collective self-esteem, need to belong and Internet
self-efficacy as predictors of the iGeneration’s attitudes toward social networking sites’’, Journal of
Interactive Advertising, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 1-28.

Genova, G.L. (2010), ‘‘The anywhere office ¼ anywhere liability’’, Business Communication Quarterly,
Vol. 73, pp. 119-26.

Goldman, S.M. (2010), ‘‘Transformers’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 469-73.

Hahn, J. (2010), ‘‘Information seeking with Wikipedia on iPod Touch’’, Reference Services Review, Vol. 38
No. 2, pp. 284-98.

Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Helms, J.E., Henze, K.T., Sass, T.L. and Mifsud, V.A. (2006), ‘‘Treating Cronbach’s alpha reliability
coefficients as data in counseling research’’, The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 630-66.

Hjorthol, R.J. (2008), ‘‘The mobile phone as a tool in family life: impact on planning of everyday activities
and car use’’, Transport Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 303-20.

Holub, S.F., Green, M.C. and Valenti, S.P. (2010), ‘‘The smartphone: The tax practitioner’s portable
office’’, Tax Adviser, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 206-8.

Hudson, A. (2010), ‘‘Measuring the impact of cultural diversity on desired mobile reference services’’,
Reference Research Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 1-13.

Hundley, H.L. and Shyles, L. (2010), ‘‘US teenagers’ perceptions and awareness of digital technology:
a focus group approach’’, New Media Society, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 417-33.

In-stat (2010), Size and growth of smartphone market will exceed laptop market for five years, available
at: www.instat.com/newmk.asp?ID ¼ 2149 (accessed 16 April 2010).

Jacob, S.M. and Isaac, B. (2008), ‘‘The mobile devices and its mobile learning usage analysis’’,
Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Vol. 1,
pp. 19-21.

Keaveney, S.M. and Parthasarathy, M. (2001), ‘‘Customer switching behaviour in online services:
an exploratory study of the role of selected attitudinal, behavioural, and demographic factors’’, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 374-90.

Kim, S.H. (2008), ‘‘Moderating effects of job relevance and experience on mobile wireless technology
acceptance: adoption of a smartphone by individuals’’, Information and Management, Vol. 45,
pp. 387-93.

Klobas, J.E. and Clyde, L.A. (2001), ‘‘Social influence and internet use’’, Library Management, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 61-7.

j j
VOL. 12 NO. 3 2011 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 201
 Krieger, M.H., Govindan, R., Ra, M-R. and Paek, J. (2009), ‘‘Commentary: Persuasive urban media
documentation’’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 29, pp. 114-6.

Kuhlmeier, D. and Knight, J. (2005), ‘‘Antecedents to internet based purchasing: a multinational study’’,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 460-73.

Lippincott, J.K. (2010), ‘‘A mobile future for academic libraries’’, Reference Services Review, Vol. 38
No. 2, pp. 1-20.

Lu, H-P. and Su, P.Y-J. (2009), ‘‘Factors affecting purchase intention on mobile shopping web sites’’,
Internet Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 442-58.

Mafe, C.R. and Blas, S.S. (2006), ‘‘Explaining Internet dependency’’, Internet Research, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 380-97.

Mangleburg, T.F. and Bristol, T. (1998), ‘‘Socialization and adolescents’ skepticism toward advertising’’,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27 No. 3.

Mangold, W.G. and Faulds, D.J. (2009), ‘‘Social media: the new hybrid element of the promotion mix’’,
Business Horizons, Vol. 52, pp. 357-65.

Mason, W.A., Conrey, F.D. and Smith, E.R. (2007), ‘‘Situating social influence processes: dynamic,
multidirectional flows of influence within social networks’’, Personality and Social Psychology Review,
Vol. 11, pp. 279-300.

Miller, D. and Roo, G.D. (2004), Integrating City Planning and Environmental Improvement Practicable
Strategies for Sustainable Urban Development, 2nd ed., Ashgate Publishing, Washington DC.

Morgan, J.J. (2010), ‘‘Social networking web sites teaching appropriate social competence to students
with emotional and behavioral disorders’’, Intervention in School and Clinic, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 147-57.

Ni, X., Yang, Z., Bai, X., Champion, A.C. and Xuan, D. (2009), DiffUser: Differentiated User Access
Control on Smartphones, available at: www.cse.ohio.state.edu/,xuan/papers/09_mass_w_nybcx.pdf
(accessed 16 April 2010).

Norris, D.T. (2007), ‘‘Sales communications in a mobile world: using the latest technology and retaining
the personal touch’’, Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 70, pp. 492-8.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Papakonstantinou, S. and Brujic-Okretic, V. (2009), ‘‘Framework for context-aware smartphone

applications’’, The Visual Computer, Vol. 25, pp. 1121-32.

Park, Y. and Chen, J.V. (2007), ‘‘Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of smartphone’’,
Industrial Management and Data, Vol. 107 No. 9, pp. 1349-65.

Peters, O. (2009), ‘‘A social cognitive perspective on mobile communication technology use and
adoption’’, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 76-95.

Pihlström, M. and Brush, G.J. (2008), ‘‘Comparing the perceived value of information and entertainment
mobile services’’, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 732-55.

Raento, M., Oulasvirta, A. and Eagle, N. (2009), ‘‘Smartphones: an emerging tool for social scientists’’,
Sociological Methods Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 426-54.

Raskin, R. (2006), ‘‘Facebook faces its future’’, Young Consumers, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 56-8.

Sharma, A. (2008), ‘‘New smart phone will showcase Google’s brand’’, The Wall Stress Journal,
18 September, available at: http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lib. monash.edu.au/pqdweb?index ¼
0anddid ¼ 1556666581andSrchMode ¼ 1andsid ¼ 1andFmt ¼ 3andVInst ¼ PRODandVType ¼
PQDandRQT ¼ 309andVName ¼ PQDandTS ¼ 1272184056andclientId ¼ 16397 (accessed 24 April
2010).

Sidhu, B.K. (2010), ‘‘5% growth seen in mobile phones’’, available at: http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/
story.asp?file ¼ /2010/3/3/business/5780741andsec ¼ business (accessed 30 May 2010).

Stephen, K.K. and Davis, J. (2009), ‘‘The social influences on electronic multitasking in organisation
meetings’’, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 63-83.

StudyMalaysia (2010), ‘‘Where to study’’, available at: www.studymalaysia.com/where/profile.

php?code ¼ MONASH (accessed 22 July 2010).

j j
PAGE 202 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 12 NO. 3 2011
Suki, N.M. and Suki, N.M. (2007), ‘‘Mobile phone usage for m-learning: comparing heavy and light
mobile phone users’’, Campus Wide Information System, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 355-65.
Tian, L., Shi, J. and Yang, Z. (2009), ‘‘Why does half the world’s population have a mobile phone?
An examiniation of consumers’ attitudes toward mobile phones’’, CyberPshycohology and Behaviour,
Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 513-6.
Tikkanen, I. (2009), ‘‘Maslow’s hierarchy and pupils’ suggestions for developing school meals’’, Nutrition
and Food Science, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 534-43.

Verkasalo, H. (2009), ‘‘Contextual patterns in mobile service usage’’, Personal and Ubiquitous
Computing, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 331-42.
Wajcman, J., Bittman, M. and Brown, J.E. (2008), ‘‘Families without borders: mobile phones,
connectedness and work-home divisions’’, Sociology, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 635-52.

Wei, R. and Lo, V-H. (2006), ‘‘Staying connected while on move: cell phone use and social
connectedness’’, New Media Society, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 53-72.
Wilson, S. and McCarthy, G. (2010), ‘‘The mobile university: from library to the campus’’, Reference
Services Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 1-39.
Zhang, W., Johnson, T.J., Seltzer, T. and Bichard, S.L. (2010), ‘‘The revolution will be networked:
the influence of social networking sites on political attitudes and behaviour’’, Social Science Computer
Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 75-92.

Further reading
Burns, C.A. and Bush, R.F. (2006), Marketing Research, Pearson Educations, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
McCasland, M. (2005), ‘‘Mobile marketing to millennials’’, Young Consumers, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 8-13.

About the authors

Ding Hooi Ting is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Business, Monash University, Sunway
Campus, Malaysia. He obtained his PhD specializing in Services Marketing. His research
interests are on the services marketing and consumer behaviour. Ding Hooi Ting is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: ting.ding.hooi@buseco.monash.edu.my
Suet Fong Lim is a Research Student at the School of Business, Monash University, Sunway
Campus, Malaysia with research interests in consumer behaviour.
Tanusina Siuly Patanmacia is a Research Student at the School of Business, Monash
University, Sunway Campus, Malaysia with research interests in consumer behaviour.
Ca Gie Low is a Research Student at the School of Business, Monash University, Sunway
Campus, Malaysia with research interests in consumer behaviour.
Gay Chuan Ker is a Research Student at the School of Business, Monash University, Sunway
Campus, Malaysia with research interests in consumer behaviour.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
VOL. 12 NO. 3 2011 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 203