Final SPSS Results
SOP 1:
Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 8 26.67
Female 22 73.33
Total 30 100.00
n2
Age Frequency Percentage
19 years old 3 10.00
20 years old 10 33.33
21 years old 16 53.33
22 years old 1 3.33
Total 30 100.00
College Frequency Percentage
Department
CBEAM 6 20.00
CITE 6 20.00
CEAS 6 20.00
CIHTM 6 20.00
CON 6 20.00
Total 30 100.00
Monthly Allowance Frequency Percentage
Below Php 1,000 12 40.00
Php 1,001 - P2,000 9 30.00
Php 2,001 - P3,000 4 13.33
Above Php 3,000 5 16.67
Total 30 100.00
SOP 2:
Personality Frequency Percentage
Very High 7 23.33
High 16 53.33
Average 6 20.00
Low 1 3.33
Very Low 0 0.00
Total 30 100.00
Expertise Frequency Percentage
Very High 10 33.33
High 13 43.33
Average 6 20.00
Low 1 3.33
Very Low 0 0.00
Total 30 100.00
SOP 3:
Purchase Intention Frequency Percentage
Very High 7 23.33
High 13 43.33
Average 10 33.33
Low 0 0.00
Very Low 0 0.00
Total 30 100.00
SOP 4:
Personality
Profile N Mean Standard F- P- Verbal
Deviation value value Interpretation
Gender Male 8 3.700 0.641 1.031 0.319 Not Significant
Female 22 4.027 0.822
Age 19 years old 3 4.400 0.693 0.844 0.482 Not Significant
20 years old 10 3.840 0.698
21 years old 16 3.863 0.848
22 years old 1 4.800 -
College CBEAM 6 4.267 0.413 0.641 0.638 Not Significant
Department CITE 6 3.667 0.745
CEAS 6 4.167 0.497
CIHTM 6 3.767 1.255
CON 6 3.833 0.814
Monthly Below Php 12 3.600 0.874 1.403 0.264 Not Significant
Allowance 1,000
Php 1,001 - 9 4.178 0.710
Php 2,000
Php 2,001 - 4 4.300 0.600
Php 3,000
Above Php 5 4.040 0.654
3,000
The level of personality of local brand ambassadors varied by the gender of the respondents,
F(1, 28) = 1.031, p < 0.05, n2 = 0.036. Tukey’s post hoc procedure indicated that both males (M
= 3.700, SD = 0.41) and females (M = 4.027, SD = 0.822) reported that the personality of local
brand ambassadors has no significant effect when they are grouped according to gender.
Hence, there was no significant difference in the level of the local brand ambassador’s
personality when DLSL college students are grouped according to gender.
The level of personality of local brand ambassadors varied by the college department of the
respondents, F(2, 26) = 0.844, p < 0.05, n2 = 0.089. Tukey’s post hoc procedure indicated that
respondents with ages 19 years old (M = 4.400, SD = 0.693), 20 years old (M = 3.840, SD =
0.698), 21 years old (M = 3.863, SD = 0.848) and 22 years old (M = 4.800, SD = none) reported
that the personality of local brand ambassadors has no significant effect when they are grouped
according to age. Hence, there was no significant difference in the level of the local brand
ambassador’s personality when DLSL college students are grouped according to age.
The level of personality of local brand ambassadors varied by the age of the respondents, F(4,
25) = 0.641, p < 0.05, n2 = 0.093. Tukey’s post hoc procedure indicated that respondents
belonging to CBEAM (M = 4.267, SD = 0.413), CITE (M = 3.667, SD = 0.745), CEAS (M =
4.167, SD = 0.497), CIHTM (M = 3.767, SD = 1.255) and CON (M = 3.833, SD = 814) reported
that the personality of local brand ambassadors has no significant effect when they are grouped
according to their college department. Hence, there was no significant difference in the level of
the local brand ambassador’s personality when DLSL college students are grouped according to
their college department.
The level of personality of local brand ambassadors varied by the monthly allowance of the
respondents, F(3, 26) = 1.403, p < 0.05, n2 = 0.139. Tukey’s post hoc procedure indicated that
respondents with monthly allowances of below Php 1,000 (M = 3.600, SD = 0.0.874), Php 1,001
- Php 2,000 (M = 4.178, SD = 0.710), Php 2,001 - Php 3,000 (M = 4.300, SD = 0.600) and
above Php 3,000 (M = 4.040, SD = 0.654) reported that the personality of local brand
ambassadors has no significant effect when they are grouped according to their monthly
allowances. Hence, there was no significant difference in the level of the local brand
ambassador’s personality when DLSL college students are grouped according to their monthly
allowances.
Expertise/Knowledge in Marketing/Promotion
Profile N Mean Standard F- P- Verbal
Deviation value value Interpretation
Gender Male 8 3.800 0.441 2.034 0.165 Not Significant
Female 22 4.227 0.798
Age 19 years old 3 4.400 0.872 0.581 0.633 Not Significant
20 years old 10 4.160 0.638
21 years old 16 3.988 0.802
22 years old 1 4.800 -
College CBEAM 6 4.400 0.420 0.827 0.521 Not Significant
Department CITE 6 3.700 0.469
CEAS 6 4.333 0.615
CIHTM 6 4.033 1.113
CON 6 4.100 0.883
Monthly Below Php 12 3.683 0.784 2.834 0.058 Not Significant
Allowance 1,000
Php 1,001 - 9 4.311 0.649
Php 2,000
Php 2,001 - 4 4.400 0.490
Php 3,000
Above Php 5 4.560 0.518
3,000
SOP 5:
Purchase Intention
Profile N Mean Standard F- p- Verbal
Deviation value value Interpretation
Gender Male 8 3.590 0.490 2.274 0.143 Not Significant
Female 22 4.013 0.732
Age 19 years old 3 4.287 0.622 0.451 0.719 Not Significant
20 years old 10 3.842 0.707
21 years old 16 3.840 0.731
22 years old 1 4.290 -
College CBEAM 6 4.025 0.595 0.592 0.672 Not Significant
Department CITE 6 3.643 0.561
CEAS 6 3.762 0.562
CIHTM 6 4.215 0.919
CON 6 3.857 0.851
Monthly Below Php 12 3.715 0.717 0.721 0.549 Not Significant
Allowance 1,000
Php 1,001 - 9 4.096 0.769
Php 2,000
Php 2,001 - 4 3.750 0.503
Php 3,000
Above Php 5 4.114 0.665
3,000
SOP 6:
Purchase Intention
2
Model R R Unstandardized t-value p-value Verbal
Coefficients Interpretation
(Beta)
Constant 0.73 0.543 1.165 2.278 0.031 Significant
Personality 7 0.458 1.825 0.079 Not Significant
Knowledge/Expertise 0.227 0.854 0.401 Not Significant
in
Marketing/Promotion
