CHAPTER FOUR - DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter deals with data presentations and analyses collected through self-administered
questionnaires, 411 questionnaires, 400 were retrieved for analysis and discussions and the
remaining 11 were not retrieved due to unavailability of respondents hence having a response rate
of 97.3%. Results were presented in tables as well as discussions of the results.
Figure 4.1 Gender Distribution of Respondents
Source: Field work, (2025)
Figure 4.1 shows that 248 respondents, representing 62% of the population were female and 152
respondents, representing 38% of the population were male, this implies that majority of the
respondents were female.
Figure 4.2 Age Distribution of respondents
Source: Field work (2025)
Figure 4.2 indicates that 229 respondents, representing 57.3 % of the population were gen z’s (13 –
28 years) and 171 respondents, representing 42.8 % of the population were millennials (29 – 44
years). This result indicates that majority of the respondents in FBMS were gen z’s and the rest of the
respondents were millennials.
Figure 4. 3 Educational Level of Respondents
Source: Field work (2025)
Figure 4.3 shows that 208 respondents, representing 52 % of the population were Bachelor’s Degree
holders, 138 respondents, representing 34.5 % were HND holders, 39 respondents, representing 9.8
% of the population were Master’s Degree holders, and 15 respondents, representing 3.8 % were
PHD holders. The mean value of 1.83 falls between HND and Bachelor's level.
The bar chart illustrates that the sample is largely composed of moderately to well-educated
individuals, with a strong concentration at the Bachelor's level. This education profile supports the
credibility of responses in evaluating influencer behavior and its effect on purchase intentions among
digitally literate consumer segments.
Figure 4.4 Marital Status of Respondents
Source: Field work (2025)
Figure 4.4 indicates that the majority of respondents are single (58.5%), followed by married
individuals (35%), only 3.5% are divorced and 3.0% separated. The mean value (1.51) suggests that,
on average, respondents fall between the single and married categories. The standard deviation
(0.708) indicates a tight clustering around the mean, showing minimal spread and confirming the
strong dominance of these two marital statuses.
The marital status distribution shows that the majority of participants were single or married, with a
very small portion from the divorced/separated categories. The findings enhance the study’s validity
by ensuring that the sample reflects typical social media user demographics, particularly those most
influenced by digital trends and social recommendations.
Figure 4.5 Employments Status of Respondents
Source: Field work (2025)
Figure 4.5 shows that 50.7 % of the respondents were students, followed by 36.5 % of the
respondents who were employed, 9.3 % of the population were unemployed and 3.5 % of the
population were self-employed.
The employment status distribution confirms that the sample largely reflects a young, digitally
engaged, and economically active audience—well-aligned with the target population for influencer
marketing research. With a strong presence of students and working professionals, the findings can
be confidently applied to understand how social media influencers impact real-world purchasing
behavior.
Table 4.1 Showing response for influencer trustworthiness
Influencer Trustworthiness and Purchase SD D N A SA M StD
Intention
6. I consider an influencer’s honesty before 24 41 26 167 142 3.91 1.168
making a purchase
7. I trust product recommendations from 33 67 37 144 119 3.62 1.290
influencers who are reliable in their field
8. I am more likely to purchase products if 35 48 28 147 142 3.78 1.284
influencers are credible
9. I prefer to buy from influencers who are 29 82 47 143 99 3.50 1.263
transparent in their dealings
10. I am more likely to purchase products if the 31 67 43 141 118 3.62 1.277
influencers are dependable
Source: Field works (2025)
