Evaluating Group Differences in Gender During the Formation of Relationship Quality and Loyalty in ISP Service - End User Computing Challenges and Technologies: Emerging Tools and Applications - page 250

Figure 2.

Total=0.03
Male=0.05
Female=0.03

Expertise

(F3)

Total=0.36***
Male=0.26**
Female=0.58***
Male<Female
Total=0.30***
Male=0.36***
Female=0.01
Male>Female

Relational
Selling
Behavior

(F4)

Relationship
Quality

Loyalty (F1)

(F2)

Total=0.79***
Male=0.85***
Female=0.66***
Male>Female

Perceived
Network
Quality

(F5)

Total=0.30***
Male=0.33**
Female=0.33**
Male=Female

Note: Standardized coefficients are reported in the model.
** Denotes significance at the 5% level.
*** Denotes significance at the 1% level.

Service
Recovery

(F6)

Table 6. Hypothesis testing results

χ 2

Male
vs.
Female

Hypothesis Conclusion

Unconstrained Constrained difference

H 6 415.62 419.22 3.60* Male > Female Supported

H 7 415.62 415.62 0.00 Male = Female Not Supported

H 8 415.62 418.93 3.31* Male < Female Supported

H 9 415.62 418.84 3.22* Male > Female Supported

H 10 415.62 415.62 0.00 Male = Female Not Supported

Notes:
1. The d.f. for the unconstrained and constrained models are respectively 282 and 283.
2. In the constrained models, The target path coefficients are set to be equal for cross-group datasets.
* Denotes significance at the 10% level.