Mantaps

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (E-ISSN 2250-2459, Scopus Indexed, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 12, Issue 03, March 2022)
Manuscript Received: 02 February 2022, Received in Revised form: 04 March 2022, Accepted: 09 March 2022 DOI: 10.46338/ijetae0322_14
Analysis of Intention to Use on Pay Later Payment System

During COVID-19 Pandemic
Abby Akihiro Setiawan1, Yoel Erikson Silaen2, Thony Andreas3, Tanty Oktavia4
1,2,3
Information System Department, School of Information Systems, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
4
Information Systems Management Department, BINUS Graduate Program - Master of Information Systems Management, Bina
Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
Abstract—This time around, technology development is E-wallet itself can be interpreted as a digital wallet or
growing at a very fast pace, especially in the area of can be referred to as electronic money to facilitate
information technology. It brings a lot of changes in other transactions in cashless payments more efficiently, easily,
fields as well, like the field of financial technology. Digital quickly and securely to replace cash payments [1]. The use
payment, such as Pay later can be recognized by a large
of this e-wallet allows its users to be able to access through
number of people. As the time goes by, the usage of Pay later
has increased, and people would rather choose Pay later the internet network, in Indonesia the expansion of internet
rather than other payment methods. Aside from that, since usage has also begun. At the beginning of 2021, Indonesia
the COVID-19 pandemic, people tend to use Pay later more ranked third with the most internet users in Asia. Internet
than before. Hence, this research will show the analysis of users in Indonesia have reached 212.35 million people, in
Intention to Use on Pay later payment system during COVID- the first place there is China with 989 million users,
19 Pandemic. The result in this study is based on 439 followed by India in second with 756 million internet
respondents that were obtained from November - December users [2].
2020 who are actively using Pay later to do transactions as a
mobile payment method in Indonesia and collected by using TABLE I
SmartPLS as a tool for the Structural Equation Model (SEM), TOP 10 ASIAN COUNTRIES WITH THE MOST INTERNET
USERS [2]
with a purposive sampling method. With the proposed model,
there are eight hypotheses. In this study, Perceived Ease of
Use has no siginificant impact on the Intention To Use, but Rank Country Users
other hypotheses resulted to be significant.
1 China 989,08 M
Keywords—paylater, fintech, e-wallet, e-commerce,
perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, trust, informal
learning, mobile self efficacy, intention to use
2 India 755,82 M
3 Indonesia 212,35 M
I. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays technology development is growing so fast, 4 Japan 118,63 M
especially in the information technology sector. This
development brings many changes in every aspect of life in 5 Bangladesh 116,14 M
today's digital era, including the financial sector.
Developments in the sector of finance make money not 6 Pakistan 100,68 M
only in the form of physical (cash) only, but there is
already technology, which makes money into an object that 7 Philippines 89.1 M
is not materialized (non-cash). This term is currently
known publicly as financial technology. There are a few 8 Vietnam 74,75 M
innovations that have been made by FinTech companies,
one of the innovations is called E-Wallet (electronic 9 Thailand 57 M
wallet).
10 South Korea 49,42 M
119
With the world of the internet and advanced technology TABLE II
that is growing rapidly, many things facilitate and benefit 7 PAYMENT METHODS WITH THE MOST NUMBER OF USERS
IN INDONESIA [6]
many individuals in various daily activities so that the
internet is important and needed in individual life.
Rank Payment Method Percentage
Currently, people are quite following the trend well, as
using a smartphone to do various activities to meet daily
needs. One of them is by shopping online through E- 1 E-Wallet 65%
commerce. In 2020, where the COVID-19 pandemic just
started to spread out in Indonesia, and also the trend of 2 Bank transfer / Virtual account 51%
online purchasing via online commerce are also expanding,
it causes a significant increase for the e-commerce users in 3 Alfamart/Indomaret 39%
Indonesia. In the early 2021, it is recorded that as many as
88.1% of people who use the internet in Indonesia who like 4 Paylater 27%
to buy their needs by using e-commerce services in recent
months in the whole world. This makes Indonesia ranked 5 Debit Card 11%
first in the world, followed by England, Philippines,
Thailand, Malaysia, etc [3]. 6 Credit Card 6%
The COVID-19 phenomenon has a major impact on
economic sectors around the world, including in Indonesia. 7 Others 1%
Based on data from [4], in 2020 Indonesia experienced a
growth contraction of 2.07 percent compared to 2019.
Indonesia's economy in the start of 2021 to the first months II. LITERATURE REVIEW
of 2020 contracted by 0.74 percent. The e-commerce‘s 2.1 PayLater
development is also caused by the emergence of the new
Based on the study [7], Pay Later and credit cards both
payment system that allows users to buy an item with
have similar functions that allow the users to be able to buy
online credit, this is known as Pay later.
their needs without paying directly. Pay later and credit
Pay later has been introduced to the Indonesian society
card have a significant difference, which is their forms. Pay
as an alternate payment mechanism in recent years, namely
later does not have a tangible form like a credit card that
after 2018. This notion of Pay Later is an online borrowing
we all know, but it‘s rather a feature that may be found in
business that does not require a credit card. Indonesia has
digital operations such as mobile applications and websites.
been using digital payments in different forms for some
It is a concept that will allow customers to pay their needs
time, but the pay later approach is relatively new [5].
just like a credit card. But since they can't have a credit
People appear to notice and begin to utilize the pay later
card then they can use Pay later because it is suitable for
service after the COVID-19 outbreak, as it has been
those who don't have access to credit card yet because they
implemented by various e-commerce and e-wallet
can pay in installments [8].
companies in Indonesia.
Based on [8] study, in the same way that a credit card
The authors picked the issue because of the rising
encourages impulsive purchases, the Paylater system does
number of Pay Later users in Indonesia. The goal is to test
too.
if perceived usefulness, trust, perceived ease of use,
personal word of mouth, virtual word of mouth, and self 2.2 TAM
efficacy all have a significant impact on the intention to use TAM (Technology Acceptance Model) is a model that
Pay later during the COVID-19 Pandemic. was created and adapted from the Theory of Reasoned
Action (TRA) and was first offered by Fred Davis [9].
120
TAM is one of numerous models developed to The indications used to evaluate Perceived Ease of Use,
investigate and understand the elements that influence the according to Kulviwat et al [15], are easy to use; it is
adoption of computer technology. TAM, on the other hand, simple to know how to use; it is easy to remember how to
employs TRA as a conceptual framework for determining use; and it is simple to learn how to use.
the link between two elements: perceived usefulness and Consumers can find it simple to utilize technology based
perceived ease of use. TAM is substantially more precise on a variety of factors, one of which is installation
than TRA since it solely considers computer technology simplicity. In addition, the next phase that can be carried
behavior [9]. out is the convenience with which the technology may be
Fishbein and Ajzen's Theory of Reasoned Action serves used [16].
as the foundation for the Technology Acceptance Model.
2.5 Trust
The anticipation of a user that the technology will be useful
for the work is known as perceived usefulness. The Trust is known as an individual‘s ability to authenticate
expectation that the system is user-friendly and simple to knowledge that is accepted as relevant and factual, without
use is known as perceived ease of use [10]. risk, without error and inconsistency. Trust grows over
time with interactions, relationships and experiences [17].
2.3 Perceived Usefulness Individuals have shown varying levels of trust in e-
Perceived usefulness may be understood as a society's commerce, but individuals across nation cultures also
assessment of whether using or implementing a technology varied in their overall level of trust [18].
will help the society. Perceived Usefulness is also defined However, trust is the subjective belief that a party will
as people's interest in using a new technology and society carry out its duties. According to Y. Lu et al [19], in a
also has a sense of confidence that new technologies can situation where the supervisor is faced with greater
also improve job performance [11]. A person will use a uncertainty and a greater risk of losing control.
technology if the technology can provide benefits to him. If
2.6 Informal Learning
a person believes that technology is useful and has a
positive advantage, then that person will use it. Therefore, Informal learning is based on two things: Personal and
the presence of a technology can provide various benefits Virtual Word of Mouth [20]. Personal word of mouth
for every user [12]. According to these studies, people tend usually occurs between people who recognize each other
to like to use a new technology if they are certain that it which includes the exchange of information through
will be more beneficial than the previous one or might have conversation. As a positive example, through comments
a beneficial impact on their work [11]. about products that hold someone with negative support for
Additionally, Ozturk [13] describes the beliefs the positives of a product. A conversation between people
usefulness as people's desire to use a new technology if who do not know each other through online or virtual
they have a strong belief that it will improve their job conversations is known as virtual word of mouth. For
performance. example, online forums that contain concerns about the
experience in using a product, for sellers of Virtual word of
2.4 Perceived Ease of Use mouth products have a good impact, one of the good things
Perceived Ease of Use is a situation in which an is that sellers can find out the category of products that are
individual uses an information technology system that does in demand by consumers actually through product
not need a partial of effort and does not become a discussion forums and also the results of sales reviews [21].
distraction while using it. It can also be defined as a level In one of the research conducted by A.Manuti et al, in
that one perceives that using technology no longer involves informal learning, individual differences such as
a significant amount of effort, making the meaning of Ease inquisitiveness, self-direction, and self-efficacy are thought
of Use simple to learn, understand, and operate [14]. An to be called on and essential. When the primary objective
application will be more interesting when it is easy to use of an activity isn't learning, but it is prompted by a possible
and also customers will pay more attention if they feel ease or actual issue situation that has to be handled, it is referred
of using the application. to as informal learning [22].
121
2.7 Self-Efficacy III. METHOD
A personal estimate of "how successfully a person can A. Model Building
carry out the steps necessary to deal with a potential In this study, there are 1 (one) independent variable:
scenario" is described as self-efficacy. Self-efficacy, Intention of Use (IOU), 4 (four) dependent variables:
according to socio-cognitive theory, is an excellent Informal Learning (IL), Self-efficacy (SE), Perceived Ease
predictor of their performance. Furthermore, self-efficacy of Use (PEOU), Informal Learning (IL), and then 1 (one)
is thought to be a mediator. When people are working on a mediator variable: Trust (TR), as shown in this model that
task, their roles have an impact on their decisions, efforts, was adapted from [20]:
anxieties, and perseverance. The theory is widely adopted
by researchers. Enactive mastery experience, representative
experience, verbal persuasion and competition in a learning
environment were found to influence students' levels of
self-efficacy. Many researchers have looked at self-efficacy
in learning a new or a foreign languages in recent decades,
such as the role of self-efficacy mediation in listening,
speaking, reading, and writing performances. It has been
discovered that students with stronger self-efficacy at
various levels are more likely to attain better English
results. In addition, self-efficacy is an important indicator
of English learning in many aspects such as learning
strategies, learning autonomy and anxiety [23].
Depending of whether sort of technology-related self-
efficacy is studied, knowledge and confidence, an Fig 1. Research Model of constructs
individual will be able to adapt to a new technology if they B. Data Source
are certain of their own capabilities [24]. Primary data and secondary data are the types that are
2.8 Intention to Use used in this study. The primary data came from the replies
Behavioral intention is a factor used to measure an of 439 persons who filled out the survey. The online
individual's tendency to take part in a predictable behavior questionnaires were disseminated through social media.
when deciding on an action. Furthermore, behavioral The respondents to the survey must have utilized the pay
intention to use is described as a behavioral predisposition later mode of payment and reside in Indonesia. There were
to continue utilizing a technology in terms of technology. 41 respondents who had never utilized pay later, making
For example, The user's attitude and attention to the device the total number of respondents in this survey 398. In light
can predict a person's level of computer technology use. of the findings, the information gathered will be computed
This activity can involve a person's desire to add more and analyzed. The secondary data was collected from a
supporting peripherals, to keep using, and to encourage number of sources, including literature, journals, research,
other users. When it comes to technology, individuals will articles, and websites, all of which can be trusted for
try to find out which airline is the best to fly with when accuracy, and the data will be examined and conclusions
they need to book a flight. The goal is to use Instagram to formed to serve as the foundation for this study.
explore the impact of the technological acceptance model C. Analysis Design and Hypothesis
on online commerce. The findings indicated a beneficial Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and the Partial
impact on actual usage [25]. Least Square (PLS) approach methods were utilized to
Furthermore, another study was conducted [26]. They analyze the data in this study. A cause-and-effect model is
revealed that knowing a person's intentions in using a a statistical analytic approach often employed in SEM. In
mobile wallet can be proven by using the TAM model. The the social sciences, SEM is a sort of multivariate analysis.
behavioral inclination of a person to continue to utilize Multivariate analysis is a statistical technique for
technology in the future is known as the intention to use. examining numerous study variables at the same time.
122
The authors adopted the SEM-PLS analytic approach in PEOU4 It's simple and straightforward to figure out
this work because PLS can assess research models with using the pay later service.
small sample sizes and examine reflecting and formative
indicators [27]. To undertake a statistical study of SEM- TRUST (TR) [20], [24]
PLS, the authors used SmartPLS software as a statistical
tool. TRUST1 Pay later app has capable features to protect my
security
Hypotheses:
H1: PU has positive impact to ITU TRUST2 Pay later app keeps my personal data safe
H2: PEOU has positive impact to ITU
H3: SE has positive impact to PU TRUST3 Pay later app has capable features to protect my
H4: SE has positive impact to PEOU privacy
H5: TR has positive impact to ITU
H6: IL has positive impact to ITU TRUST4 Pay later app keeps my financial information
secure
H7: IL has positive impact to PU
H8: TR mediating IL to ITU TRUST5 Pay later app is trustworthy
Table I displays that there are 39 (thirty-nine) indicators
that are considered as a starting point for creating Personal Word of Mouth (PWOM) [20], [21]
questionnaire questions These 39 indicators come from 7
(seven) variables, including: Perceived Usefulness (PU), PWOM1 I learned the use of pay later by listening to my
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), Trust (TR), Personal Word friends
of Mouth (PWOM), Virtual Word of Mouth (VWOM), Self
Efficacy (SE), Intention to Use (ITU). PWOM2 I learned the use of pay later by listening to my
family
TABLE III
VARIABLES AND INDICATORS
PWOM3 I learned the use of pay later by listening to
colleagues
Variables and Indicators Ref.
PWOM4 I learned the use of pay later based on my
Perceived Usefulness (PU) [20], [28] friends‘ opinions and recommendations
PU1 Using pay later would be useful PWOM5 I learned the use of pay later based on my
friends‘ opinions and recommendations
PU2 Using pay later would help me do payment PWOM6 I learned the use of pay later based on my
much quicker friends‘ opinions and recommendations
PU3 Using pay later would be more efficient PWOM7 I learned about paylater by seeing my friends
use it on their smartphones.
PU4 Using pay later would be more convenient for
me PWOM8 I learned about paylater by seeing my family
use it on their smartphones.
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) [20], [28]
PWOM9 I learned about paylater by seeing my
colleagues use it on their smartphones.
PEOU1 Using pay later is as simple as using other
payment cards Virtual Word of Mouth (VWOM) [20], [21]
PEOU2 Learning to use pay later would be easy

VWOM1 I learned the use of pay later by consulting user
blogs
PEOU3 Using pay later would be easy
123
VWOM2 I learned the use of pay later by consulting user IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
websites
VWOM3 I learned the use of pay later by visiting

websites of people who use these apps
VWOM4 I learned the use of pay later by visiting

community websites
VWOM5 I learned the use of pay later by reviewing

online postings
VWOM6 I learned the use of pay later by reading articles

in magazines
Self-Efficacy (SE) [20],

[29], [30]
SE1 If no one is around to tell me what to do, I am
sure of my capabilities to learn a new app.
SE2 I'm sure of my capabilities to learn a new app,

even if I've never used one before.
SE3 When I've seen others using an app before

attempting myself, I feel like I have the Fig 2. Measurement Model Validity & Reliability
capability to understand it.
A. Measurement Model: Validity & Reliability
SE4 If I could call someone when I get stuck, I'd be The findings of cross loading, Cronbach Alpha (CA),
sure in my capabilities to understand a new app. Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance
Extracted (AVE) is used to find the results of the model's
SE5 When someone else helped me get started with
a new app, I'm confident in my capabilities to validity and reliability [31]. These tests need meet certain
learn it. standards, such as: (a) the Cross Loading value must be
greater than 0.5 [31]; (b) the Cronbach's alpha (CA) value
SE6 If someone showed me how to do it first, I'm must be greater than 0.6 [31]; (c) the Composite Reliability
confident in my capability to understand a (CR) values must be at least 0.6 but should be greater than
brand new app.
0.7 [31]; (d) Meanwhile, the AVE value (Average Variance
Intention to Use (ITU) [20], [28] Extracted) should be greater than 0.5 [31]. If AVE is less
than recommended level but the CR is greater than the
recommended level, then the construct's convergent
ITU1 In the future, I plan to use the pay later system
more frequently.
validity can be said that it is accepted [32]. As a result,
Table 2 shows the results:
ITU2 In the future, I intend to utilise the pay later
system.
ITU3 I will tell my friends about the usage of the pay

later system.
ITU4 I'll try to use the pay later option every now and
then.
ITU5 I intend to make frequent use of the pay later

system.
124
TABLE IV.
MEASUREMENT MODEL: VALIDITY & RELIABILITY 26 IL9 0.837
27 IL10 0.763
No. Variable & Loading AVE CR CA
Indicators Factor
28 IL11 0.639
1 PU 0.458 0.768 0.607
29 IL12 0.696
2 PU1 0.659
30 IL13 0.772
3 PU2 0.797 31 IL14 0.701
4 PU3 0.694 32 IL15 0.810
5 PU4 0.531 33 SE 0.357 0.767 0.636
6 PEOU 0.467 0.777 0.618 34 SE1 0.522
7 PEOU1 0.702 35 SE2 0.561
8 PEOU2 0.683 36 SE3 0.595
9 PEOU3 0.737 37 SE4 0.531
10 PEOU4 0.606
38 SE5 0.685
11 TR 0.549 0.859 0.795
39 SE6 0.670
12 TR1 0.741
40 ITU 0.622 0.892 0.848
13 TR2 0.750
41 ITU1 0.780
14 TR3 0.725
42 ITU2 0.756
15 TR4 0.751
43 ITU3 0.791
16 TR5 0.737
44 ITU4 0.808
17 IL 0.606 0.958 0.953
45 ITU5 0.806
18 IL1 0.755
Table 2 shows that the values of loading factor of each
19 IL2 0.837
indicator vary from 0.552 to 0.837, which is above the
20 IL3 0.832
recommended level of 0.5 and indicate that all indicators
are acceptable. From table 2, Cronbach‘s alpha (CA) values
21 IL4 0.734 also show that all indicators are above 0.6 that vary
between 0.607 to 0.953 which means that all of these
22 IL5 0.830 indicators are acceptable. Composite reliability (CR) with
the results that ranged between 0.767 to 0.958 which are
23 IL6 0.827 above the ideal level of 0.7 are also acceptable.
24 IL7 0.782
25 IL8 0.832
125
However, the average variance extracted (AVE) shows c.) Hypothesis 3 is accepted: Self Efficacy (SE) variable
that there are three constructs that have the values below has a considerable impact on the Perceived Usefulness
0.5, but it can still be accepted if each of the constructs (PU) variable.
have composite reliability (CR) value more than 0.6. d.) Hypothesis 4 is accepted: Self Efficacy (SE) has a
Internal consistency of the measuring items is acceptable, considerable impact on the Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)
since the composite reliability of the three variables are variable.
greater than the recommended level [33].
e.) Hypothesis 5 is accepted: Trust (TR) construct has a
TABLE V. considerable impact on the Intention to Use (ITU) variable.
PATH COEFFICIENT
f.) Hypothesis 6 is accepted: Informal Learning (IL) has a
Relation Original Sample Standard T P considerable impact on the Intention to Use (ITU) variable.
Sample Mean Deviation Statistic Values g.) Hypothesis 7 is accepted: Informal Learning (IL) has a
(O) (M) (STDEV) (|O/STD
EV|)
considerable impact on the Perceived Usefulness (PU)
variable.
PU → 0.180 0.187 0.072 2.500 0.013 h.) Hypothesis 8 is accepted: Informal Learning (IL) has a
ITU strong impact on the Trust (TR) variable and the Intention
to Use (ITU) variable.
PEOU → 0.023 0.024 0.052 0.436 0.663
ITU
SE →PU 0.386 0.384 0.055 7.080 0.000
SE→ 0.620 0.625 0.036 17.396 0.000

PEOU
TR→ 0.170 0.162 0.076 2.236 0.026

ITU
IL→ITU 0.550 0.549 0.096 5.732 0.000
IL→PU 0.469 0.472 0.061 7.746 0.000
IL→TR 0.112 0.106 0.051 2.180 0.030
→ITU
Fig 3. Path Coefficient Bootstrapping Model

Based on the explanation from [31] the statistical
significance of the indicator values could be determined by B. Perceived Usefulness to Intention to Use
t values and p values. If the t-value is more than 1.96, and According to the result of this research, the Perceived
p-value is less than 0.05, it will be accepted. Seven Usefulness (PU) variable had a substantial influence on the
hypotheses are accepted and has a positive impact, while Intention to Use (ITU) variable, indicating that H1 is
hypothesis 2 has less significant impact as seen on Table 3: acceptable.
a.) Hypothesis 1 is accepted: Perceived Usefulness (PU) The t-statistic indicates a value of 2.5, which the value is
has a substantial impact on the Intention to Use (ITU) higher than 1.96, and a p-value is 0.013, which is lower
variable. than 0.05. This finding supports earlier studies [20], [28],
b.) Hypothesis 2 is not accepted: impact of Perceived Ease [34], [34], demonstrating that perceived usefulness
of Use (PEOU) on Intention to Use (ITU) is non- increases consumers' willingness to utilize pay later as a
significant. payment option.
126
C. Perceived Ease of Use to Intention to Use G. Informal Learning to Intention to Use
Past research papers [35] [36] have shown that Perceived Based on this research result, Informal Learning (IL)
Ease of Use (PEOU) had a significant impact on Intention variable had a significant impact on the Intention to Use
to Use (ITU). However, this study resulted that, Perceived (ITU) variable, it concludes that H is accepted. The t-
Ease of Use (PEOU) has a non-significant impact to statistic result shows 5.732, which is greater than the
Intention to Use (ITU), which means that H is rejected. recommended level and p-value 0.000, which is below than
This result is similar with previous study [20], where it also 0.05. This result is similar to previous study [20], and
says this relationship is non-significant. The previous study proves that users, who had Informal Learning will make the
looks at mobile wallets, which can be still called relevant user to reuse the pay later as a payment method.
because both mobile wallets and Pay Later are payment
H. Informal Learning to Perceived Usefulness
options. This could be explained by the fact that the
respondents did not anticipate any difficulties in utilizing According to the results, Informal Learning (IL) had a
the Pay later method because they considered it to be as significant impact on the Perceived Usefulness (PU), with
simple as using other payment choices on their t-test value 7.746 which is greater than the recommended
smartphones. level and p-value 0.000 (less than 0.05). This result is
similar to previous study [20]. From the statistical test it
D. Self Efficacy to Perceived Usefulness can be concluded that H is accepted and also proves that
According to the test results, Self Efficacy (SE) had a users, who had learned informally will get more about the
significant impact on Perceived Usefulness (PU), which use of pay later as a payment method.
means that H is accepted. Where the result of t-test value
I. Informal Learning to Trust to Intention to Use
7.080 which is greater than 1.96 and p-value 0.000 (less
than 0.05). This result is similar with previous studies [20], Based on this research result, Trust variable has a
[29], and proves that people who has self-efficacy they will significant impact as a mediator who bridges Informal
get more feel of Perceived Usefulness Learning variable to Intention to Use, resulted t-test value
2.180 which is greater than the recommended level and p-
E. Self Efficacy to Perceived Ease of Use value 0.030 (less than 0.05). This result is similar to
From the result, it can be said that Self Efficacy (SE) has previous study [20]. From the statistical test it can be
the most positive significant effect on the Perceived Ease of concluded that H8 is accepted and also proves that, if the
Use with t-test value 14,882 which is much greater than the user learns informally then the user will understand and be
ideal level and p-value of 0.000, which is below than 0.05. more able to trust what he has learned, and this will make a
This result is similar with previous studies [20], [29]. From big impact on the intentions of users to use Pay later as a
the statistical test it can be concluded that H4 is accepted payment method.
and also proves that people who has self-efficacy they will
find it easier way to use pay later as a payment method V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
F. Trust to Intention to Use From the result that is shown in this study, it can be
According to the results, Trust (TR) variable has a concluded that, there are 8 (eight) related hypotheses that
significant impact on the Intention to Use (ITU) variable, have a significant impact in their relationship that can be
which means that H is accepted. The t-statistic result used to support the continuity of this research.
2.236, which is more than 1.96 and p-value 0.026, which is There is 1 (one) hypothesis, which is Perceived Ease of
below than 0.05. This result is supported with earlier Use that has a less significant and positive impact on
research. [37], [38], [39], and proves that if users trust Pay Intention to Use, some consumers feel that using the
later it will make users intend to use the pay later as a feature in pay later is very easy. So that triggers the
payment method. willingness to use pay later, but referring to previous
research there are also those who say that pay later features
are not easy to use so consumers prefer other payment
methods to make transactions.
127
Thus, authors have drawn the research implications from [7] Duke, P., Andy, M., & Andrew, C. (2019). Insights into Payments
Payment Methods Report 2019 Innovations in the Way We Pay. The
the study findings. From the conclusion, it can be
Paypers, 144, 1–143.
understood that the results from authors‘ findings can be
[8] Dzul Hilmi, L., & Pratika, Y. (2021). PAYLATER FEATURE:
used as a reference that some of the mentioned variables in IMPULSIVE BUYING DRIVER FOR E-COMMERCE IN
this research does have a significant impact towards INDONESIA. Business and Accounting Research (IJEBAR) Peer
intention to use on Pay later system. As all variables give Reviewed-International Journal, 5. https://jurnal.stie-
an impact on intention to use, the results could also be used aas.ac.id/index.php/IJEBAR
by platform owners who equipped Pay later for payment [9] Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User
Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two
method as their foundation about what factors have an Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
impact toward users' behavioral intention to use Pay later https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
as their payment method. For instance, a company can use [10] Ammenwerth, E. (2019) ‗Technology Acceptance Models in Health
these findings to improve their knowledge and ideas on informatics: TAM and UTAUT‘, Studies in Health Technology and
how to get more users using Pay later as a payment Informatics, 263, pp. 64–71. doi: 10.3233/SHTI190111.
method. [11] Keni, K. (2020). How Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of
Use Affecting Intent to Repurchase? Jurnal Manajemen, 24(3), 481.
For further research, it is recommended to look for other https://doi.org/10.24912/jm.v24i3.680
constructs that may have a significant and positive impact [12] Ernawati, N., & Noersanti, L. (2020). The Effect of Perceived
towards Intention to use, also recommended to look for Usefulness, Ease of Use and Trust on Interest in Use in The OVO
other indicators of previously existing variables, as well as Application. www.bi.go.id/id/statistik
variables that do not yet exist. Later, further research can [13] Ozturk, A.B. (2016). "Customer acceptance of cashless payment
also continue to other respondents with various professions systems in the hospitality industry", International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 801-817.
and salary, which uses a pay later platform for transactions. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2015-0073.
As for companies who equipped Pay later, it is [14] Islami, M. M., Asdar, M., & Baumassepe, A. N. (2021). Analysis of
recommended to do things that will benefit the consumers Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use to the Actual
and the company itself, such as giving much more benefits System Usage through Attitude Using Online Guidance Application.
to consumers to pay with Pay later. Hasanuddin Journal of Business Strategy, 3(1), 52–64.
https://doi.org/10.26487/hjbs.v3i1.410
REFERENCES [15] Kulviwat, S. et al. (2007) ‗Toward a unified theory of consumer
acceptance technology‘, Psychology and Marketing, 24(12), pp.
[1] Subaramaniam, K., Kolandaisamy, R., Jalil, A. bin, &
1059–1084. doi: 10.1002/mar.20196.
Kolandaisamy, I. (2020). The impact of E-Wallets for current
generation. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control [16] Wang, Z., & Li, H., (2016) ―Factors Influencing Usage of Thrid
Systems, 12(1 Special Issue), 751–759. Party Mobile Payment Services in China: An Empirical Study.‖
https://doi.org/10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP1/20201126 [17] Medina Nilasari, B. (2020). The Impact of Social Media on
[2] V. B. Kusnandar, ―Pengguna Internet Indonesia Peringkat Ke-3 Employee Work Performance with Trust as a Mediation Variable.
Terbanyak di Asia‖ 2021. https://doi.org/10.24912/jm.v24i1.649
https://databoks.katadata.co.id/datapublish/2021/10/14/pengguna- [18] Hallikainen, H., & Laukkanen, T. (2018). National culture and
internet-indonesia-peringkat-ke-3-terbanyak-di-asia (accessed Nov. consumer trust in e-commerce. International Journal of Information
25, 2021). Management, 38(1), 97–106.
[3] A. Lidwina, ―Penggunaan E-Commerce Indonesia Tertinggi di https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.07.002
Dunia,‖ 2021. [19] Lu, Y., Yang, S., Chau, P. Y., & Cao, Y. (2011). Dynamics between
https://databoks.katadata.co.id/datapublish/2021/06/04/pengguna an- the trust transfer process and intention to use mobile payment
e-commerce-indonesia-tertinggi-di-dunia (accessed Nov. 25, 2021). services: A cross-environment perspective. Information &
[4] Badan Pusat Statistik, ―Ekonomi Indonesia Triwulan I-2021 turun Management, 48(8), 393-403.
0,74 persen (y-on-y)‖ 2021. [20] Shaw, N. (2014). The mediating influence of trust in the adoption of
https://www.bps.go.id/pressrelease/2021/05/05/1812/ekonomi- the mobile wallet. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
indonesia-triwulan-i-2021-turun-0-74-persen--y-on-y-.html 21(4), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.03.008
(accessed Nov. 26, 2021). [21] Kawakami, T., Kishiya, K., & Parry, M. E. (2013). Personal word of
[5] Pratika, Y., Salahudin, S., Riyanto, D. W. U., & Ambarwati, T. mouth, virtual word of mouth, and innovation use. Journal of
(2021). Analysis of Pay Later Payment System on Online Shopping Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 17–30.
in Indonesia. Journal of Economics, Business, & Accountancy https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00983.x
Ventura, 23(3). https://doi.org/10.14414/jebav.v23i3.2343 [22] Manuti, A. et al. (2015) ‗Formal and informal learning in the
[6] Herfianto, P, "Riset Kredivo & Katadata: Pengguna Paylater workplace: A research review‘, International Journal of Training and
Meningkat Sepanjang 2020" 2020. https://gizmologi.id/news/riset- Development, 19(1), pp. 1–17. doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12044.
kredivo-katadata-paylater-2020/.
128
[23] Liu, M. (2020). The Effect of Mobile Learning on Students‘ Reading [32] C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker. (1981) ―Evaluating structural equation
Self-Efficacy: A Case Study of the APP ―English Liulishuo.‖ models with unobservable variables and measurement error,‖ Journal
English Language Teaching, 13(12), 91. of marketing research, pp. 39-50.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n12p91 [33] Lam, L. W. (2012). Impact of competitiveness on salespeople‘s
[24] Duane, A., O‘Reilly, P., & Andreev, P. (2014). Realising M- commitment and performance. Journal of Business Research, 65(9),
Payments: Modelling consumers‘ willingness to M-pay using Smart 1328–1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.026
Phones. Behaviour and Information Technology, 33(4), 318–334. [34] Hamid, A. Abd., Razak, F. Z. A., Bakar, A. A., & Abdullah, W. S.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2012.745608 W. (2016). The Effects of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease
[25] Wijaya, O. A., Andajani, E., & Rahayu, S. (2020). Menguji of Use on Continuance Intention to Use E-Government. Procedia
Determinan Individual Intention to Use pada Aplikasi Traveloka. Economics and Finance, 35(October 2015), 644–649.
Journal of Business and Banking, 10(1), 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(16)00079-4
https://doi.org/10.14414/jbb.v10i1.2230 [35] Sigar, J. F. (2016) ‗the Influence of Perceived Usefulness, Perceived
[26] Kanchanatanee, K., Suwanno, N., & Jaren Vongray, A. (2014). Ease of Use and Perceived Enjoyment To Intention To Use
Effects of Attitude toward Using, Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Electronic Money in Manado‘, Jurnal EMBA: Jurnal Riset Ekonomi,
Ease of Use and Perceived Compatibility on Intention to Use E- Manajemen, Bisnis dan Akuntansi, 4(2), pp. 498–507. doi:
Marketing. Journal of Management Research, 6(3), 1. 10.35794/emba.v4i2.13083.
https://doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v6i3.5573 [36] Setiawan, M., & Setyawati, C. Y. (2020). The Influence of Perceived
[27] Galluzzo, N. (2018). A preliminary Quantitative Analysis of Rural Ease of Use on the Intention to Use Mobile Payment. Journal of
Development in Romania Using the PLS-SEM. Albanian j. Agric. Accounting and Strategic Finance, 3(1), 18–32.
Sci, 17(3), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.33005/jasf.v3i1.67
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/database/database_en.cfm [37] Alaeddin, O. and Altounjy, R. (2018) ‗Trust, Technology Awareness
[28] Venkatesh, V., Walton, S. M., & Thong, J. Y. L. (2012). Quarterly and Satisfaction Effect into the Intention to Use Cryptocurrency
Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: among Generation Z in Malaysia INVESTIGATING THE
Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of COMPETITION-STABILITY RELATIONSHIP IN DUAL
Technology1. http://about.jstor.org/terms BANKING SYSTEM View project Antecedents and Consequences
[29] Luarn, P., & Lin, H. H. (2005). Toward an understanding of the of Individuals‘ Attitude and the Moderating Role of Service Quality
behavioural intention to use mobile banking. Computers in Human in Adoption of Islamic Banking Services from Malaysian
Behavior, 21(6), 873–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.003 Perspective View project‘, Article in International Journal of
Engineering and Technology, (November), pp. 7–10. doi:
[30] Xu, H., Teo, H. H., Tan, B. C. Y., & Agarwal, R. (2009). The role of
10.14419/ijet.v7i4.29.21588.
push-pull technology in privacy calculus: The case of location-based
services. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(3), 135– [38] Ejdys, J. (2020) ‗Trust-based determinants of future intention to use
174. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260305 technology‘, Foresight and STI Governance, 14(1), pp. 60–68. doi:
10.17323/2500-2597.2020.1.60.68.
[31] J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin and R. E. Anderson. (2019),
―Multivariate Data Analysis Eighth Edition‖, Hampshire: Cengage [39] Arfi, W. Ben et al. (2021) ‗The role of trust in intention to use the
Learning. IoT in eHealth: Application of the modified UTAUT in a consumer
context‘, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
167(February), p. 120688. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120688.
129

Mantaps

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mantaps

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Analysis of Intention to Use on Pay Later Payment System

PEOU2 Learning to use pay later would be easy

VWOM3 I learned the use of pay later by visiting

VWOM4 I learned the use of pay later by visiting

VWOM5 I learned the use of pay later by reviewing

VWOM6 I learned the use of pay later by reading articles

Self-Efficacy (SE) [20],

SE2 I'm sure of my capabilities to learn a new app,

SE3 When I've seen others using an app before

ITU3 I will tell my friends about the usage of the pay

ITU5 I intend to make frequent use of the pay later

3 PU2 0.797 31 IL14 0.701

4 PU3 0.694 32 IL15 0.810

5 PU4 0.531 33 SE 0.357 0.767 0.636

6 PEOU 0.467 0.777 0.618 34 SE1 0.522

7 PEOU1 0.702 35 SE2 0.561

8 PEOU2 0.683 36 SE3 0.595

9 PEOU3 0.737 37 SE4 0.531

SE →PU 0.386 0.384 0.055 7.080 0.000

SE→ 0.620 0.625 0.036 17.396 0.000

TR→ 0.170 0.162 0.076 2.236 0.026

IL→ITU 0.550 0.549 0.096 5.732 0.000

IL→PU 0.469 0.472 0.061 7.746 0.000

IL→TR 0.112 0.106 0.051 2.180 0.030

Fig 3. Path Coefficient Bootstrapping Model

You might also like