| Literature DB >> 35677127 |
Abstract
Since the COVID-19 outbreak, the use of mobile easy payment services that minimize human contact has rapidly increased. Several studies have explored the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and the intention to use mobile easy payment services, assuming that the relationship between both variables is simply linear. However, actual complex relationships between variables cannot be fully analyzed in a linear fashion, as most relationships between variables of social phenomena are non-linear. Therefore, this study attempted to analyze the non-linear relationships between factors influencing the intention to use mobile easy payment services, especially since the COVID-19 outbreak, by applying the extended technology acceptance model (TAM2). Online and offline surveys were conducted with users who have used mobile easy payment services since the COVID-19 outbreak; 227 samples were secured for analysis. In addition, an empirical analysis was conducted using PLS-SEM to determine the linearity of relationships between variables. The results showed that subjective norms, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness had significant effects on the intention to use mobile easy payment services. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant moderating effect, also implying non-linear relationships between variables. Based on these results, the study proposes that the pandemic is a factor influencing the intention to use mobile easy payment services, and recommends that providers adopt marketing strategies, such as improving the usefulness of these services.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; WarpPLS; extended technology acceptance model; mobile easy payment service; non-linear relationship
Year: 2022 PMID: 35677127 PMCID: PMC9169679 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.878514
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Research model.
Demographic characteristics.
| Variable | Category | Frequency | Ratio (%) |
| Gender | Male | 103 | 45.4% |
| Female | 124 | 54.6% | |
| Age | Under 20 | 15 | 6.6% |
| 20–29 | 122 | 53.8% | |
| 30–39 | 40 | 17.6% | |
| 40–49 | 22 | 9.7% | |
| Over 50 | 28 | 12.3% | |
| Education level | Middle School and below | 12 | 5.3% |
| High School | 33 | 14.6% | |
| Undergraduate | 166 | 73.1% | |
| Post-graduate | 16 | 7.0% | |
| Total | 227 | 100% |
Factor analysis result.
| Variable | Category | Factor analysis | ||||
| Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Factor 5 | ||
| SN | SN1 | 0.798 | ||||
| SN2 | 0.793 | |||||
| SN3 | 0.737 | |||||
| SN4 | 0.832 | |||||
| SN5 | 0.755 | |||||
| PEOU | PEOU1 | 0.735 | ||||
| PEOU2 | 0.783 | |||||
| PEOU3 | 0.807 | |||||
| PEOU4 | 0.814 | |||||
| PEOU5 | 0.870 | |||||
| PU | PU1 | 0.752 | ||||
| PU2 | 0.713 | |||||
| PU3 | 0.709 | |||||
| PU4 | 0.643 | |||||
| PU5 | 0.609 | |||||
| C19RP | C19RP1 | 0.630 | ||||
| C19RP2 | 0.736 | |||||
| C19RP3 | 0.691 | |||||
| UI | UI1 | 0.805 | ||||
| UI2 | 0.802 | |||||
| UI3 | 0.830 | |||||
| UI4 | 0.808 | |||||
| UI5 | 0.878 | |||||
| Eigenvalue | 3.648 | 4.247 | 3.171 | 1.978 | 4.186 | |
| Distributed explanation (%) | 15.862 | 18.464 | 13.789 | 8.598 | 18.199 | |
Summary of the validity.
| Latent variables | SN | PEOU | PU | C19RP | UI | AVE | CR | Cronbach α |
| SN |
| 0.826 | 0.915 | 0.884 | ||||
| PEOU | 0.353 |
| 0.860 | 0.934 | 0.912 | |||
| PU | 0.509 | 0.673 |
| 0.849 | 0.928 | 0.903 | ||
| C19RP | 0.467 | 0.618 | 0.727 |
| 0.912 | 0.937 | 0.899 | |
| UI | 0.407 | 0.266 | 0.506 | 0.573 |
| 0.868 | 0.939 | 0.918 |
Bold values is the square root of the AVE value for each variable.
Model fit and criteria.
| Indices for model fit | Decision criteria |
| Average path coefficient (APC) = 0.237, | |
| Average R-squared (ARS) = 0.533, | |
| Average adjusted R-squared (AARS) = 0.523, | |
| Average block VIF (AVIF) = 1.464 | Acceptable if ≤ 5, ideally ≤ 3.3 |
| Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF) = 2.165 | Acceptable if ≤ 5, ideally ≤ 3.3 |
| Tenenhaus GoF = 0.670 | Small ≥ 0.1, medium ≥ 0.25, large ≥ 0.36 |
FIGURE 2Path coefficient and model fitness level of research model.
Path hypotheses test.
| Paths | Coefficients | Effect sizes | Results | ||
| H1 | SN → UI | 0.291 | 0.094 | 0.001 | Supported |
| H2 | SN → PU | 0.245 | 0.126 | 0.001 | Supported |
| H3 | PEOU → UI | 0.178 | 0.049 | 0.003 | Supported |
| H4 | PEOU → PU | 0.539 | 0.368 | 0.001 | Supported |
| H5 | PU → UI | 0.480 | 0.249 | 0.001 | Supported |
*p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.
Linear or non-linear (WARP) relationship of the paths.
| Latent variables | PU | UI |
| SN | Warped | Warped |
| PEOU | Warped | Warped |
| PU | Warped |
Path hypotheses test.
| Paths | Coefficients | Effect sizes | Results | ||
| H6-1 | SN → UI | −0.089 | 0.008 | 0.087 | Supported |
| H6-2 | SN → PU | −0.159 | 0.033 | 0.007 | Supported |
| H6-3 | PEOU → UI | −0.087 | 0.026 | 0.093 | Supported |
| H6-4 | PEOU → PU | −0.174 | 0.061 | 0.004 | Supported |
| H6-5 | PU → UI | −0.197 | 0.052 | 0.001 | Supported |
*p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.
FIGURE 3Non-linear graph of the path from SN to UI.
FIGURE 4Non-linear graph of the path from SN to PU.
FIGURE 5Non-linear graph of the path from PEOU to UI.
FIGURE 6Non-linear graph of the path from PEOU to PU.
FIGURE 7Non-linear graph of the path from PU to UI.