43 so that I seldom experience lack of money.
In times when I have extra money, I save it. 3.61
0.82 Total Average
3.54
CBB
I often have a strong urge and spontaneous desire to go and buy something.
2.31 0.76
I find it isn‟t hard to restrain my self not to shop.
2.31 0.81
For me, shopping is a way of facing the stress
2.32 0.84
Total Average 2.31
Borrowing Habit
I try as much as possible not to borrow money.
2.39 0.93
I will think carefully before deciding to borrow money.
2.39 0.92
I am not used to borrow money when I need it.
2.46 0.94
Total Average 2.41
Source: appendix 13 Note: reverse statement
The answers’ interval categories: 1.00
-1.80 very low; 1.81- 2.60 low; 2.61-3.40 medium; 3.41-4.20 high; 4.21-5.00 very
high.
4.5. Hypothesis Testing
Using the modified full structural model that shown in figure 4.4, the result of the regressions reported in table 4.11. As shown below on the
table, money retention and peer acceptance were found significantly influence CBB in level 1, but only money retention that significantly
influenced borrowing habit. Therefore pocket money was the only independent variable that did not significantly influence both CBB and
borrowing habit. Peer acceptance, even it proved to have a significant
44 influence on CBB, it did not influence borrowing habit. Looking at the effect
of CBB to borrowing habit, it was found that CBB influenced borrowing habit in level 10, since the p value was 0.76 as reported in table 4.11
below. Therefore only money retention that had significant influence on CBB and borrowing habit that could be further analyzed whether CBB
mediated the effect of money retention to borrowing habit. As noted by Hair
et al
. 2009 that there were three steps done in order to see the mediating effect of an intervening variable. Here the three
steps were: 1 money retention is related to borrowing habit; 2 money retention is related to CBB; and 3 CBB is related to borrowing habit. Then
by looking at and comparing the estimate score before and after CBB included, it could be concluded whether there was a full mediation of CBB,
partial mediation, or no mediation at all.
45
Table 4.12. Regression Weights
Estimate S.E.
C.R. P
COMPULSIVE_BUYING --- MONEY_RETENTION -.371 .085 -4.371
COMPULSIVE_BUYING --- PEER_ACCEPTANCE .289 .072 4.045
COMPULSIVE_BUYING --- POCKETMONEY .041 .051
.805 .421 BORROWING_HABIT
--- POCKETMONEY -.017 .053 -.319 .750
BORROWING_HABIT --- COMPULSIVE_BUYING
.172 .097 1.775 .076 BORROWING_HABIT
--- PEER_ACCEPTANCE -.083 .077 -1.077 .282
BORROWING_HABIT --- MONEY_RETENTION
-.549 .101 -5.418
Source: appendix 14 Note: significant value at 10, significant value at 1
Table 4.13. Standardized Regression Weights
Estimate
COMPULSIVE_BUYING --- MONEY_RETENTION -.360
COMPULSIVE_BUYING --- PEER_ACCEPTANCE .310
COMPULSIVE_BUYING --- POCKETMONEY .057
BORROWING_HABIT --- POCKETMONEY
-.021 BORROWING_HABIT
--- COMPULSIVE_BUYING .158
BORROWING_HABIT --- PEER_ACCEPTANCE
-.082 BORROWING_HABIT
--- MONEY_RETENTION -.492
Source: appendix 15
46 The first step was to see the influence of money retention to
borrowing habit. The influnce was significant and the standardized estimate was -.543 see appendix 19. The second step was to see the effect of money
retention to CBB as the intervening variable which resulted a significant effect see appendix 20. The last step was to see the influence of money
retention to borrowing habit by also adding CBB as an additional predictor. The influence was found to be significant, but the standardized estimate was
-.413 see appendix 21. The estimate was lower then the estimate in the first step -.543 to -.413. When intervening variable was included as an
additional predictor and the estimate score was reduced but remained significant, then partial mediation was supported Hair
et al
., 2009. Therefore the conclusion was that CBB played a role to be a partial mediator
of the effect of money retention to borrowing habit.
Hypotesis 1 Testing
Hypothesis H1 stated that pocket money had a positive and significant effect on CBB. The result of the first hypothesis testing thar
reported in table 4.12 and table 4.13 didn‟t support the hypothesis. In this study it was proved that there was no significant effect of pocket money to
CBB. This conclusion was based on the p value that was greater than 0.05 the p value was 0.421. The C.R. score was also supported the rejection of
47 the hypothesis since the score was 0.805, less than 2 as the standard score of
evaluation. Beside reflecting the unsignificant effect of pocket money to CBB, the C.R. score that was positive also showed that the effect was
positive, meaning that the greater the pocket money the greater the tendency of the students to be compulsive buyers even not significant.
Hypothesis 2 Testing
The p value of this hypothesis testing was 0.000 while the C.R. score was 4.045. Based on both standard of evaluations where p value must
be less than 0.05 and the C.R. score must be greater than 2, hypothesis 2 could be accepted. Moreover, the p value indicated a significant effect on 1
level of this effect. Therefore it could be concluded that peer acceptance had a very significant effect on CBB. Based also on the C.R. score that was
positive, it was also proved that the significant effect was positive, meaning that the greater the effort the students made to be accepted by their friends
the greater their possibility to be compulsive buyers.
Hypothesis 3 Testing
The third hypothesis in this study stated that money retention had a significant effect on CBB, and the effect was negative. Looking in table 4.11,
it could be seen that the p value was exactly the same with the p value of the
48 hypothesis 2, which was 0.000. As well as the effect of peer acceptance to
CBB, here the effect of money retention to CBB was also very significant. However the effect of money retention to CBB was negative as reflected by
the C.R. score that was greater than -2 the C.R. score was -4.371. The conclusion of the acceptance of this third hypothesis would be the greater
money retention the students had, the lower their opportunity to be compulsive buyers.
Hypothesis 4 Testing
Hypothesis H4 stated that pocket money had a significant effect on CBB and the effect was positive. Table 4.11 reported that the p value of this
hypothesis was 0.750, it was greater than 0.05. This p value indicated the rejection of hypothesis H4, meaning that pocket money was not a
determinant of CBB since it did not affect CBB. The interesting point of view came from the C.R. score that was -0.319. The negative value of the
C.R. score meant that the effect of pocket money was negative to CBB, not positve as stated by the hypothesis. Moreover, even not significant, the score
showed that the higher the stud ents‟ pocket money the lower their tendency
to have borrowing habit. Based on the p value that was greater than 0.05 and the C.R. score that was less than -2, hypothesis 4 was not accepted.
49
Hypothesis 5 Testing
The p value for hypothesis 5 as reported in table 4.11 was also greater than 0.05 since the score was 0.282. Therefore the students‟ peer
acceptance did not significantly affect borrowing habit. In contrast with the prediction stated by hypothesis 5 that the effect would be positive, here the
C.R. score was -1.077, meaning that the effect was negative. The greater the effort the students made to gain acceptance from their friends would not
increase their borrowing habit, instead it would lead them to be more careful before deciding to borrow money. Finally, based on the p value and the C.R.
score, hypothesis 5 was rejected since there wasn‟t any positive and significant effect of peer acceptance to borrowing habit.
Hypothesis 6 Testing
Hypothesis 6 stated that money retention had a negative and significant effect on borrowing habit. Looking closely in table 4.11, the p
value of this hypothesis testing was 0.000, indicating a very significant effect of money retention on borrowing habit. Secondly by focusing on the C.R.
score that was -5.418, it could be concluded that the significant effect was a negative effect. Here both scores supported the hypothesis, meaning that
money retention had a negative also a very significant effect on borrowing habit. Having a high tendency of money retention would help the students to
50 push their borrowing habit down. Therefore hypothesis 6 was proved to be
acceptable.
Hypothesis 7 Testing
The report in table 4.11 for hypothesis testing of hypothesis 7 showed that the p value was 0.076. The value was greater than 0.05, meaning
that the effect of CBB to borrowing habit was not significant at 5 level. However by using the standard 10, the effect would be positive. Therefore
it was proved that at 10 level, CBB significantly effect borrowing habit of the students. The C.R. score was 1.775, it was near 2 which supported the
conclusion that the effect was significant at 10 level. The positive value of the C.R. score also confirmed that the effect of CBB to borrowing habit was
positive, meaning that the higher the tendency of the students to be compulsive buyers the greater their tendency to borrow money from their
friends or relatives. Finally, based on the explanation above, hypothesis 7 was proved acceptable.
Hypothesis 8 Testing
Hypothesis 8 to hypothesis 10 were different from the previous hypotheses since these three last hypothesis were about the mediating role of
CBB. Hypothesis 8 stated that CBB significantly mediated the effect of
51 pocket money to borrowing habit. The result of this hypothesis testing did
not reported in table 4.11 but the table did help to made conclusion about the acceptance of this hypothesis. The result in table 4.11. indicated that pocket
money did not have any significant effect on both CBB and borrowing habit. It didn‟t pass the requirement to test the mediating effect of CBB since the
requirement was pocket money as the independent variable must had significant effect on CBB as the intervening variabel and on borrowing habit
as the dependent variable. Therefore hypothesis 8 was rejected.
Hypothesis 9 Testing
Hypothesis 9 stated that CBB mediated the effect of peer acceptance on borrowing habit. Unfortunately it did not pass the requirement to be tested
since peer acceptance only significantly affect CBB as the intervening variable and it did not significantly affect borrowing habit. Therefore CBB
did not mediate the effect of peer acceptance on borrowing habit. As well as hypothesis 8, hypothesis 9 was also rejected due to the rejection of the
previous hypothesis 5.
Hypothesis 10 Testing
The last hypothesis tested in this study was hypothesis 10. It stated that CBB mediated the effect of money retention on borrowing habit. As it
52 was proved by the previous hypothesis testing results, money retention had
significant on both CBB and borrowing habit. Therefore the mediating effect analysis could be done. Money retention had significant effect on borrowing
habit, before and after including CBB on the analysis. Although the effect was significant, but the estimated score was lower when CBB included on
the analysis. Therefore CBB significantly mediated the effect of money retention on borrowing and hypothesis 10 was accepted.
53
Table 4.14. Hypothesis Testing Result
Hypotheses Hypothesis Statements
C.R and P Values Conclusion
H
1
Pocket money has a positive and significant effect on CBB.
CR= 0.805 P = 0.421
Rejected H
2
Peer acceptance has a positive significant effect on CBB.
CR = 4.045 P = 0.000
Accepted H
3
Money retention has a negative significant effect on CBB.
CR = -5.3711 P = 0.000
Accepted H
4
Pocket money has a positive significant effect on borrowing habit.
CR = -0.319 P = 0.750
Rejected H
5
Peer acceptance has a positive significant effect on borrowing habit.
CR = - 1.077 P = 0.282
Rejected H
6
Money retention has a negative significant effect on borrowing habit.
CR = -5.418 P = 0.000
Accepted H
7
CBB has a positive significant effect on borrowing habit.
CR = 1.775 P = 0.076
Accepted H
8
CBB plays mediating role between pocket money and borrowing habit.
- Rejected
H
9
CBB plays mediating role between peer acceptance and borrowing habit.
- Rejected
H
10
CBB plays mediating role between money retention and borrowing habit.
- Accepted
Source: table 4.11
54
4.6. Discussion
