Structural Equation Modelling: Seventeen Path Model The results of the Structural Equation Modelling analysis are presented in

Table 21 over the next three pages. In keeping with good practice, the first two columns of the table present both the unstandardised regression estimate and the standardised regression estimate. The unstandardised regression estimate also shows the statistical significance of the relationship found. In the next two columns this study, unlike previous studies in the Commitment Trust Theory literature, has also examined the effect size of the associations and has given both the Cohen’s f²value for the relationship and the interpretation of Cohen’s f² effect size heuristic indicator. The fifth and sixth columns of the table formally restate the hypothesis which was examined and give the indication, from the sample data, of whether that hypothesis is either supported (not disconfirmed) or cannot be supported from the data examined. Finally, the last column of the table, for comparison purposes, lists the findings of Morgan and Hunt’s (1994a) original findings.

Path

Hypothesis Results Results from Morgan and Hunt (1994a)

Commitment <--- Game Capital 0.305*** 0.276 0.08 Small

H1: There is a positive relationship between Game Capital and

Alternatives -0.07** -0.068 0.00 Insignificant

H2: There is a negative relationship between Knowledge of Alternatives

Benefits 0 0 0.00 Insignificant

H3: There is a positive relationship between Social Group Benefits and

Commitment

Not Supported

Could not find evidence of a positive relationship between

Relationship Benefits and Commitment

Commitment <--- Metagame

Benefits 0.305*** 0.267 0.08 Small

H4: There is a positive relationship between Metagame Benefits and

Commitment

Supported

Could not find evidence of a positive relationship between

Relationship Benefits and Commitment

Commitment <--- Past

Satisfaction 0.221*** 0.201 0.04 Small

H5: There is a positive relationship between Past Satisfaction and

Commitment

Supported

Could not find evidence of a positive relationship between

Relationship Benefits and Commitment

Commitment <--- SV with

Company -0.076 -0.069 0.00 Insignificant

H6: There is a positive relationship between Shared Values with

Table 21: Seventeen Path Model Findings

Path

Hypothesis Results Results from Morgan and Hunt (1994a)

Commitment <--- SV with

Game rules -0.037 -0.027 0.00 Insignificant

H7: There is a positive relationship between Shared Values with Game

Rules and Commitment

Satisfaction 0.504*** 0.385 0.17 Medium

H8: There is a positive relationship between Current Satisfaction and

Commitment

Supported Not Proposed

Trust <--- SV with Company 0.417*** 0.483 0.30 Medium

H9: There is a positive relationship between Shared Values with Game

Rules and Trust

Supported

Supported a positive relationship between Shared Values and

Trust Trust <--- SV with Game Rules 0.085** 0.077 0.01 Insignificant

H10: There is a positive relationship between Shared Values with

Service Interactions 0.089*** 0.117 0.01 Insignificant

H11: There is a positive relationship between In-Game Customer

Trust <--- Availability of

in-game information 0.291*** 0.266 0.08 Small

H12: There is a positive relationship between Availability of In-game

Table 21: Seventeen Path Model Findings (Cont.)

Path

Hypothesis Results Results from Morgan and Hunt (1994a)

Trust <--- Perceptions of Game

Developers’ Communications 0.035 0.07 0.00 Insignificant

H13: There is a positive relationship between Perceptions of Game

Behaviours -0.026 -0.04 0.00 Insignificant

H14: There is a negative relationship between Opportunistic

Behaviours and Trust

Not

Supported Not Proposed

Trust < --- Current Satisfaction 0.028 0.027 0.00 Insignificant

H15: There is a positive relationship between Current Satisfaction and

Commitment <--- Trust 0.113* 0.085 0.01 Insignificant H16: There is a positive relationship between Trust and Commitment

<---Commitment 0.413*** 0.289 0.09 Small

H17: There is a positive relationship between Commitment and Future

*Significant at the 0.05 level

** Significant at the 0.01 level

*** Significant at the 0.001 level

Table 21: Seventeen Path Model Findings (Cont.)

In all, this analysis found sufficient statistical evidence to support 11 of the 17 hypotheses proposed by the study. For four of those 11 supported hypotheses however it was noted that the Cohen’s f² of the relationship, the effect size of the relationship, was so low as to make it, using Cohen’s heuristic indicator, insignificant. When the statistically significant paths are shown in mathematical terms (Box 21) it is clear that the standardised regression estimates of Shared Values with Game Rules, In-game customer service interactions, Knowledge of Alternatives and, importantly, Trust, represent only fractional changes in the dependent variables, despite being found to be statistically significant. The Shared Values with Company construct was found to be a leading predictor of Trust (with a medium size effect) along with the availability of game information. The four variables of Game Capital, Metagame benefits, Past Satisfaction and Current Satisfaction were together found to be the leading indicators of Commitment.

XT = 0.483 Xsvc+ 0.077 Xsvg+ 0.117 Xigcs+ 0.226 Xagi+δ₁

XC= 0.276 Xgc -0.068 Xkoa+ 0.267 Xmb+ 0.201 Xps + 0.385 Xcs+ 0.085 XT + δ2

XFI= 0.289 XC+δ₃

Where: XT= Trust, Xsvc= Shared Values with Company, Xsvg= Shared Values with Game Rules, Xigcsi= In-game customer service interactions, Xagi=Availablity of Game Information, X_cs= Current Satisfaction, Xmb= Metagame Benefits, X_C= Commitment, X_gc=Game Capital, X_koa=Knowledge of Alternatives, X_ps= Past Satisfaction, X_FI= Future Intentions, δ₁₌Error of Trust,δ2= Error of Commitment,δ3= Error of Future Intentions

Box 21: Mathematical Representation of the Significant Paths in the Seventeen Path Model

Figure 15 below diagrammatically displays the paths tested using structural equation modelling with the standardised regression estimates shown. While the Trust mediating construct was found to have a statistically significant relationship with Commitment, the effect was very small with only a standardised regression estimate of 0.085, a value which the Cohen’s f² value describes as having an insignificant effect size.

Figure 15: Seventeen Path Model with Standardised Regression Estimates

The lack of importance of the Trust mediating variable is perhaps better seen though by considering the indirect effects of Trust and the antecedent Trust constructs upon the Future Intentions construct (Table 22).

Indirect Path

Standardised Indirect Effects Future Intentions <----Trust 0.025 Future Intentions <---- Availability of

in-game information

0.070 Future Intentions <---- Group Social

Benefits

0.000 Future Intentions <---- Opportunistic

Behaviors

-0.001 Future Intentions <---- Perceptions of

Game Developers’ Communications

0.002 Future Intentions <---- In-game customer

service interactions

0.003 Future Intentions <---- Shared Values with

Company

-0.006 Future Intentions <---- Shared Values with

Game rules

-0.008

Table 22: Indirect Effects of Trust and Trust antecedents

Given this, and given the evidence of the insignificant effect size of the Commitment  Trust conceptual path, this study, based on the evidence, comes to the following conclusion. That while there is sufficient statistically significant evidence to support 11 of the 17 Commitment Trust Theory construct relationship paths, and sufficient statistical goodness of fit evidence to support a Seventeen Path adaptation of the Morgan and Hunt (1994a) model, there is also evidence, based on the insignificant Cohen’s f²values of a number of the relationships (particularly Trust), to suggest that a more parsimonious explanation may exist which fits the sample data. This more parsimonious model would not be a rejection of the Morgan and Hunt (1994a) model, nor would it reject the support for the hypotheses found in the analysis. It could however provide a more straightforward explanation of the sample data.