The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2053-4620.htm
JSTPM
13,4
952
Received 30 March 2020
Revised 14 January 2021
3 June 2021
Accepted 4 June 2021
Journal of Science and Technology
Policy Management
Vol. 13 No. 4, 2022
pp. 952-973
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2053-4620
DOI 10.1108/JSTPM-03-2020-0058
Safety first: extending UTAUT to
better predict mobile payment
adoption by incorporating
perceived security, perceived
risk and trust
Hanif Adinugroho Widyanto, Kunthi Afrilinda Kusumawardani and
Helmy Yohanes
School of Business, President University, Bekasi, Indonesia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the antecedents of behavioral intention to use (BIU)
mobile payment in Indonesia by extending unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) with
user privacy constructs, namely, perceived security (PS), perceived risk (PR) and trust (Tr).
Design/methodology/approach – This is a quantitative research using the covariance-based structural
equation modeling method, whereby the researchers conducted an online survey and distributed online
questionnaires to users of mobile payment from all over Indonesia to obtain the data. The sample in this study
consisted of 358 respondents.
Findings – This study found that social influence, facilitating conditions, PS, performance expectancy and
Tr have a significant and direct influence on BIU mobile payment. PR was not found to have a significant and
direct relationship with BIU, but it was indirectly affecting the latter through Tr as the mediating variable.
Originality/value – The researchers modified UTAUT by incorporating PS, PR and Tr to create a more
comprehensive model in predicting mobile payment adoption, especially considering the risky nature of
digital transactions in emerging economies like Indonesia. This extended model has never been thoroughly
explored in previous studies.
Keywords UTAUT, Mobile payment, Trust, Perceived risk, Perceived security,
Behavioral intention to use
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The rapid advancement in the field of information and communication technology in the
past few decades has inevitably facilitated the rise of mobile technologies (Hwang et al.,
2007; Schierz et al., 2010; Thalia et al., 2011). Specifically, in the commercial sector, mobile
commerce has had a profound impact on our daily activities, enabling people with
convenient ways to pay for goods and services cashless using their mobile devices on the go,
without having to use physical cash (Kim et al., 2010; Tee and Ong, 2016). One of the most
rapidly expanding areas of mobile commerce is mobile payment (Chen, 2007), which is
The researchers would like to acknowledge the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and
Technology of the Republic of Indonesia (Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan
Teknologi Republik Indonesia) for supporting this study through the National Competitive Research
Grant scheme.
defined as the use of mobile devices to conduct, authorize and confirm a financial Mobile
transaction to obtain goods and services (Au and Kauffman, 2008). It is widely used as an payment
alternative method to paying for products, services and other forms of invoices using mobile
devices that can be used in a variety of online and offline payments, and competes directly
adoption
or can be used interchangeably with cash, credit cards, bank checks and debit cards (Kim
et al., 2010).
Regardless of the specific mobile technology being used, existing definitions of mobile
payment always deal with the movement of monetary value (Schierz et al., 2010). Mobile 953
payment is a crucial subset of mobile commerce (Adams and Chen, 2005) designed to
be convenient, fast and adaptable, which is vital in today’s marketplace (Chen, 2007). One of
the main benefits of mobile payment is its ubiquity, wherein consumers can pay for goods
and services anytime and anywhere, which could encourage the adoption of the system
(Zhou, 2013). According to Statista (2019), the worldwide mobile payment revenue is
projected to exceed US$1tn in 2019, up from US$450bn in 2015. Additionally, mobile
commerce also contributed around 35% of the global e-commerce market in 2016 and is
expected to capture a market size of US$4.58tn in 2023 (Sonawane, 2018).
As the fourth most populous country in the world with more than 250 million inhabitants
and around 5 million of whom entering the middle-income class annually, Indonesia is
considered as one of the most potential emerging economies for the mobile payment
industry (KPMG Siddharta Advisory, 2017). In 2018, it was reported that nearly 91% of the
population owned a mobile phone; 47% of whom were using smartphones, which supported
mobile payment. However, while 61% of the internet users in the country had already used
mobile banking, only 35% of them had made mobile payments (Kemp, 2019), which
signified a considerable room for expansion. In terms of the major mobile payment players,
there were around 41 registered financial technology providers at Bank Indonesia as of 2018,
and the number is only expected to increase going forward, which reflected the massive
potential in the market (Gumiwang, 2018). Indonesia is often regarded as having the fastest
growth of the mobile commerce market in the world (Nikkei Asian Review, 2017).
According to MDI Ventures (Agusta, 2018), there are at least two major types of cashless
payment technology in Indonesia: chip-based electronic money (e.g. BCA Flazz, Mandiri
e-Money) and server-based mobile payment system (e.g. Go-Pay, OVO). However, while
chip-based electronic money has been around since 2007 (Bank Indonesia, 2007), mobile
payment services have managed to scale up significantly in recent years (Agusta, 2018).
Furthermore, it is expected that in 2019, the mobile payment industry (led by Go-Pay, OVO,
T-Cash/LinkAja, BCA KlikPay, among others) will contribute an even much larger portion
of the overall retail sales transaction in Indonesia with the introduction of a centralized
gateway by Bank Indonesia, using QR codes to conveniently pay for various retail
transactions and transfer funds across platforms, rendering chip-based electronic money to
be increasingly irrelevant (FT Confidential Research, 2018).
However, as the mobile payment industry in Indonesia is still in its early years,
understanding consumer’s intention to use mobile payment is of considerable interest not
only for the service providers but also to the researchers, especially as the adoption of new
technology is persistent and constantly developing (Eze et al., 2019). Strategically speaking,
this is important as a number of stakeholders, including the government, financial institutions,
digital payment service providers, software developers, managers of retail firms, among
others, could immensely benefit from an improved understanding on the topic (Lim, 2008;
Schierz et al., 2010). Conversely, the researchers would also like to corroborate earlier study by
Ondrus and Pigneur (2006), which predicted that chip-based electronic money would be
“disrupted” by phone-based mobile payment solutions.
JSTPM In doing so, the theoretical model proposed in this study expanded on of the technology
13,4 acceptance model (TAM) by Davis (1989) and the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT) by Venkatesh et al. (2003), which provide a solid basis to understand
the antecedents of behavioral intention to use (BIU) mobile payment in Indonesia. These
theories have also been proven to be particularly useful to predict new technology adoption
and are considered as the most prevalent theories on the subject matter (Koenig-Lewis et al.,
954 2015). In fact, a comprehensive review of the extant research on mobile payment adoption
revealed that more than half of previous studies are based on TAM (Slade et al., 2015).
Conducting a confirmatory analysis in predicting consumer acceptance of mobile payment
is also of particular interest to the researchers as earlier studies on the topic were mostly
qualitative (Schierz et al., 2010). Additionally, mobile payment adoption is still considered a
relatively new area of research (Slade et al., 2013), especially compared to other relevant
areas of study such as mobile banking or e-commerce (Oliveira et al., 2016).
In general, TAM postulates that a user’s adoption of a new technological invention is
subject to the user’s intention to use the system (Luarn and Lin, 2005). The theory and its
ensuing studies were viewed by many researchers as the most prominent expansion of the
theory of reason action (TRA) by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and the theory of planned
behavior (TPB) by Ajzen (1991). This feat is achieved by substituting attitude, subjective
norms and perceived behavioral control variables with technology acceptance constructs
(Bagozzi, 2007). Moreover, across various studies, TAM has consistently performed better
vis-à-vis the explained variance compared to TRA and TPB (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
TAM model has been expanded by numerous researchers in various technological topics
including mobile payment (Chen, 2007; Kim et al., 2010; Nysveen et al., 2005; Schierz et al.,
2010; Slade et al., 2015), e-government (Hamid et al., 2016; Harjanto, 2019; Lean et al., 2009),
mobile websites (Amin et al., 2014), online booking (Kucukusta et al., 2015), mobile banking
(Govender and Sihlali, 2014; Priya et al., 2018; Singh and Srivastava, 2018; Sripalawat et al.,
2011; Yu, 2012), among many others. Therefore, although TAM was originally designed to
predict IT system usage in the office, the constructs can also be used to foresee consumer
acceptance in various scenarios (Schierz et al., 2010).
In the basic TAM framework, two of the core constructs, namely, perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use, are hypothesized as the direct predictors of BIU. However, in
UTAUT, these two predictors of behavioral intention had equivalent parallels; perceived
usefulness was similar to performance expectancy (PE), whereas perceived ease of use was
comparable with effort expectancy (Kim et al., 2016). Additionally, social influence (SI) in
UTAUT was similar to TPB’s subjective norm, and facilitating condition (FC) was akin to
TPB’s perceived behavioral control (Slade et al., 2013). UTAUT itself was derived from eight
theories, namely, TRA, TAM, TPB, the PC utilization model, the social cognitive theory, the
innovation diffusion theory and the integrated model of technology acceptance and planned
behavior. It also approached the user’s acceptance of technology with a more robust
explanatory power compared to TAM and other prevailing models (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Based on the extant literature, in the present study, the researchers analyzed the
predicting factors of BIU mobile payment in Indonesia by incorporating some underlying
constructs from UTAUT, which are relevant to the subject matter. These included PE, SI
and FCs. The variable effort expectancy from UTAUT was not used in this study as the
construct was not found to be a significant predictor of BIU based on a variety of relevant
studies on technology adoption in the past (Kristiawan and Harisno, 2016; Oliveira et al.,
2016; Slade et al., 2015; Šumak et al., 2010; Tarhini et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2010).
Additionally, the objective of the current study is to expand on UTAUT by exploring the
user privacy domain (Davies et al., 2016), which is particularly essential to encourage
customer’s intention to use mobile payment platform (Nelloh et al., 2019). Unfortunately, this Mobile
topic has never been thoroughly explored in previous studies, especially in the context of payment
Indonesia. The uncertain nature of mobile payment transaction should be taken into serious
consideration, especially since past studies have revealed an apparent lack of user privacy in
adoption
the platform: In a study by Putritama (2019), 88.5% of Indonesian respondents were worried
about the risks of potential abuse pertaining to their financial information when using mobile
payment. Furthermore, the traditionally cash-based Indonesian people (99% of transactions)
are still largely reluctant to adopt mobile payment owing to security concerns (Das et al., 2018; 955
Frost and Sullivan, 2019). Another study by Agusta (2018) also emphasized on the issues of
trust and security for users of mobile payment services in Indonesia. Additionally, trust and
security were also found to be some of the important factors which could significantly explain
continuance intention to use mobile payment in the country (Nelloh et al., 2019).
Therefore, the present study would fill the gap by extending UTAUT with three privacy-
related constructs that have never been properly explored concurrently before, namely,
perceived security (PS) (Flavian and Guinalíu, 2006; Furnell and Karweni, 1999; Junadi and
Sfenrianto, 2015; Oliveira et al., 2016), perceived risk (PR) (Aldas-Manzano et al., 2009;
Bélanger and Carter, 2008; Nicolaou and McKnight, 2006; Priya et al., 2018) and trust (Tr)
(Amin et al., 2014; Kim and Park, 2007; Lean et al., 2009; Mou et al., 2017; Nelloh et al., 2019;
Slade et al., 2015; Wijoseno and Ariyanti, 2017), to gain a deeper understanding of the BIU
mobile payment in Indonesia. Furthermore, this study also aims to analyze the nature and
strength of the relationship between the constructs to understand which factors are more
influential in predicting intention to use mobile payment platform.
This paper is structured as follows: First, the researchers explain the key constructs that are
going to be explored in this research. Building on the extant knowledge about the model, the
researchers then present the hypotheses, justifying the relationships between the latent
variables that determine consumers’ intention to use mobile payment service in Indonesia. The
methodology section follows suit with a discussion on the survey, as well as an explanation
about the validity and reliability of the empirical data. Next, the structural measurement of the
latent variables is conducted to test the proposed hypotheses. The paper concludes with a
summary of the essential findings and managerial implications of this research.

Proposed hypotheses
Behavioral intention to use
According to Zhang et al. (2016), BIU is defined as a continuance of usage to some factors
that turns into some kind of behavioral attitude. It is the primary dependent variable used in
TAM- and UTAUT-related studies (Venkatesh et al., 2003), which determines the prospect
that consumers will adopt a technology (Schierz et al., 2010; Tarhini et al., 2016).
Understanding intention to use is important to maintain user’s retention to continue using
mobile payment services (Nelloh et al., 2019). Similarly, in the context of new technology like
mobile payment, BIU can be used to gauge the magnitude of one’s intention to use the
innovative product (Amoroso and Magnier-Watanabe, 2012), which eventually leads to
actual usage (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Therefore, in keeping with Cheng et al. (2006), it is
important to study factors influencing BIU to help organizations better prepare their
marketing strategies to improve user’s adoption and retention of mobile payment.

Social influence
SI is the level of influence that a person may have on another person to perform certain
behavior. It can be measured by analyzing various social factors (Christensen and
Schiaffino, 2014; Singh and Srivastava, 2018). SI explains the impact of environmental
JSTPM factors (e.g. friends, families and colleagues) in shaping one’s behavior. It is included in this
13,4 study as part of UTAUT to address the limitation of and extend the TAM, which did not
account for the importance of SI in the adoption of new technology (Shen et al., 2006).
Besides, SI shows a positive relationship with technology-related issues, which also means
that it could raise the intensity of information technology usage given particular SI from
close friends and relatives (Triandis, 2003). SI is also deemed to be conceptually similar to
956 subjective norm from the theory of perceived behavior (Slade et al., 2013; Tarhini et al., 2016;
Venkatesh and Davis, 2000), which was found to be positively related to perceived
usefulness (comparable to PE) according to a host of studies in the past (Suksa-ngiam and
Chaiyasoonthorn, 2015; Teo et al., 2019; Teo and Milutinovic, 2015; Venkatesh and Davis,
2000). Moreover, SI is also found to have a significant positive effect on BIU (Martins et al.,
2014; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H1. Social influence positively influences performance expectancy.

H2. Social influence positively influences behavioral intention to use mobile payment
(Figure 1).

Facilitating conditions
FC is defined as the degree of user’s conviction that the organization’s infrastructure and a
host of other operational instruments are available to support the usage of a system. It is
also conceptually comparable to perceived behavioral control from the theory of perceived
behavior (Venkatesh et al., 2003). FCs are evaluated based on the user’s assessment
regarding their ability to gain access to the means and assistance that they need to use a
system (Tarhini et al., 2016). According to previous studies (Prieto et al., 2014; Teo and
Milutinovic, 2015), FC is found to significantly predict perceived usefulness, which is
conceptually similar to PE. Additionally, earlier studies have also revealed that FCs could

Figure 1.
Theoretical
framework
significantly predict BIU (Huang, 2017; Kim et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2010). Consequently, the Mobile
following hypotheses are put forth: payment
H3. Facilitating conditions positively influence performance expectancy. adoption
H4. Facilitating conditions positively influence behavioral intention to use mobile
payment.
957
Perceived security
PS is defined as a threat that results in situations that could lead to probable financial
difficulties vis-à-vis data or network resources owing to various digital misconducts such as
denial of service, fraud, data tampering and so on (Kalakota and Whinston, 1997).
Consumers consider PS as the extent to which they believe that their personal information
will not be seen, kept or misused by any parties without consent (Flavian and Guinalíu,
2006). PS is considered as a significant consideration in conducting financial transaction via
electronic devices and could pose as a major barrier in adopting e-commerce activities
(Furnell and Karweni, 1999; Singh and Srivastava, 2018). Several recent studies on the topic
(Ha and Pan, 2018; Matos and Krielow, 2019; Munyoka and Maharaj, 2019) have confirmed
that PS has a positive influence on PR online. Additionally, earlier bodies of literature
(Aldas-Manzano et al., 2009; Nelloh et al., 2019; Shin, 2009; Singh and Srivastava, 2018) have
also established the significant impact between PS and consumers’ BIU. Therefore, the
following hypotheses are proposed:

H5. Perceived security positively influences perceived risk.

H6. Perceived security positively influences behavioral intention to use mobile payment.

Performance expectancy
PE refers to the extent to which users believe that using the new technology will be valuable
in assisting them in performing certain activities (Venkatesh et al., 2016). If the customers
perceived the system to be useful, they would be more likely to adopt it (Tarhini et al., 2016).
PE is derived from UTAUT and is conceptually similar to perceived usefulness from the
TAM (Kim et al., 2016; Yu, 2012) and the relative advantage from the IDT (Martins et al.,
2014). According to Zhou et al. (2010), PE will improve when users necessitate a swift,
expedient and pervasive use of technology. The construct was found to have a positive
relationship with Tr (Maroofi et al., 2013; Ramos et al., 2018; Suwunniponth, 2014). It also
significantly affects BIU (Rahi et al., 2018; Tarhini et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2010).
Furthermore, in an earlier study on the adoption of internet banking, Rahi et al. (2018)
discovered that PE was the most influential factor to explain BIU. Hence, this study raises
the following hypotheses:

H7. Performance expectancy positively influences trust.

H8. Performance expectancy positively influences behavioral intention to use mobile
payment.

Perceived risk
PR is defined as the potential to incur a loss in securing an anticipated outcome of using an
electronic form of service. This includes risks associated with performance, finance, time,
JSTPM psychology, social, privacy and the combination of all of the above (Featherman and Pavlou,
13,4 2003). Specifically, Zhou (2013) argued that mobile payment is filled with risk and
uncertainty owing to its vulnerability to hacking and information abuse. A consumer’s
understanding of risk is attributed to the feelings of uncertainty regarding the potential
outcomes of certain behavior (Slade et al., 2013). The notion of PR was first introduced by
Bauer (1960), and then the idea was spread widely into several industries (Bruwer et al.,
958 2013). However, PR is considered as a crucial barrier to the usage of new technology by the
consumers (Chahal et al., 2014; Featherman and Pavlou, 2003). This is in line with Davis
(1989), whose study viewed PR to be the central point of research concerning the adoption of
technology, which led to its acceptance or rejection by the consumers. Previous studies
(Aboobucker and Bao, 2018; Nguyen and Huynh, 2018; Pappas, 2016; Wang, 2016) have
proposed that PR negatively influenced Tr. Finally, PR was also found to be negatively
influencing BIU (Hansen et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2008; Kim and Lennon, 2013; Ozturk, 2016).
Based on the empirical and theoretical understanding from past studies, it is hypothesized
that:

H9. Perceived risk negatively influences trust.

H10. Perceived risk negatively influences behavioral intention to use mobile payment.

Trust
Tr is a party’s inclination to be exposed to the activities conducted by another party with the
assumption that the latter will conduct specific activity deemed imperative to the former,
regardless of the capability to assess or deal with it directly (Mayer et al., 1995). According to
Nienaber et al. (2015), Tr is seen as a willingness to rely on a party with a high level of
confidence. Tr is also widely considered as one of the most important pillars of marketing
theories (Flavian and Guinalíu, 2006) and has been acknowledged as the basis of commerce
(Gefen, 2000). Furthermore, in the context of mobile payment, nurturing user’s Tr is
imperative to improve the acceptance rate of the system (Lu et al., 2011). However, Bitting
and Ghorbani (2004) noted that developing Tr via the internet is more challenging than
through traditional channels. In this regard, Suh and Han (2003) as well as Gefen (2000)
explained that Tr of a customer will increase if there is a good interaction with the supplier
in the past, which behaved as anticipated. Finally, Tr is found to have a significantly
positive relationship with BIU (Hansen et al., 2018; Lean et al., 2009; Nelloh et al., 2019; Suh
and Han, 2003); hence the following hypothesis:

H11. Trust positively influences behavioral intention to use mobile payment.

Research method and approach

To achieve the objectives of the present study, a quantitative approach was applied by using
survey research. The instrument used by the researchers was a self-administered close-
ended questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale with response choices ranging from one
(strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). The questionnaires were then spread via an
online survey tool throughout the month of December 2019 using the nonrandom purposive
sampling technique (Acharya et al., 2013) to the users of mobile payment from selected
major cities all over Indonesia where the mobile payment services were widely available.
Purposive sampling was used owing to the large number of respondents with specific sets of
requirements from certain areas of study (Bernard, 2011; Tongco, 2007). Specifically, users
of Indonesian mobile payment services were chosen as the present study is intended to Mobile
understand BIU mobile payment, which is similar in concept to continued use intention payment
(Zhang et al., 2016). The total valid respondents in this study were 358 people, the majority
of which (80.7%) came from the Java island as it is by far the most populated island in
adoption
Indonesia with better access to mobile payment infrastructure. The data analyses in this
study were conducted using SPSS Statistics for the outlier detection and exploratory factor
analysis (EFA), and SPSS AMOS for the structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis. First,
the data were analyzed using Mahalanobis distance to detect a multivariate anomaly. Next, 959
EFA was performed to discover the underlying relationships between the measured
variables. Once it was done, the third step was to run the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
to investigate the adequacy of the data, while ensuring the model fit. Finally, the researchers
conducted path analysis to assess the hypotheses of the proposed framework.
There are seven variables explored in this research. Each latent variable was reflectively
measured by multiple indicators, which consist of one or more observed items based on the
extant research to enhance content validity. SI was manifested by the following indicators:
family influence, peer pressure: and influence from reference group (adapted from Junadi and
Sfenrianto, 2015; Venkatesh et al., 2012) with a total of five observed items. FCs were
manifested by the following indicators: supporting devices, knowledge about the system,
compatibility, information availability and suitability with lifestyle (adapted from Junadi and
Sfenrianto, 2015; Venkatesh et al., 2012) with a total of five observed items. PS was manifested
by the following indicators: sensitive information, personal information and third-party access
(adapted from Cheng et al., 2006; Schierz et al., 2010) with a total of five observed items.
Next, PE was manifested by the following indicators: productivity of transaction,
convenience of transaction, speed of transaction, productivity improvement and daily
benefits (adapted from Junadi and Sfenrianto, 2015; Venkatesh et al., 2012) with a total of six
observed items. Tr was manifested by the following indicators: reliability, safety,
trustworthiness and honesty (adapted from Chandra et al., 2010; Phonthanukitithaworn
et al., 2016) with a total of six observed items. PR was manifested by the following
indicators: insecurity, third-party access, sensitive information, usage risks, loss risks and
uncertainty risks (adapted from Lu et al., 2011; Phonthanukitithaworn et al., 2016) with a
total of seven observed items. Finally, BIU was manifested by the following indicators:
future usage, recommendation to other parties, usage satisfaction, daily usage and regular
usage in the future (adapted from Junadi and Sfenrianto, 2015; Venkatesh et al., 2012) with a
total of five observed items (Table 1).
To better understand the basic features of the data, Table 2 shows the descriptive
statistics.
From Table 2, it can be observed that the mean values for all latent variables range
between 4.217 and 3.282. PE has the highest mean, which indicates that the respondents
consider the performance of mobile payment services to be the most important consideration,
followed by FCs (mean = 4.055). On the other hand, PR has the lowest mean among the seven
instruments, indicating that risk is the least important consideration for the respondents in the
present study. All the latent variables, with the exception of PR, have standard deviation
values lower than 1, meaning that they were situated not far from the mean.

Measurement models and hypotheses testing

Exploratory factor analysis
The EFA was performed on the survey data to determine if the observed items are
satisfactory in measuring their respective latent variables. The pattern matrix can be
observed in Table 3.
JSTPM Measure Item Overall sample count (%)
13,4
Gender Male 206 (57.5%)
Female 152 (42.5%)
Current domicile Java Island 289 (80.7%)
Sulawesi Island 10 (2.8%)
Sumatera Island 36 (10.1%)
960 Bali and Nusa Tenggara Islands 7 (2%)
Borneo Island 11 (3.1%)
Other Islands 5 (1.4%)
Last education High school 131 (36.6%)
College diploma 98 (27.4%)
Undergraduate 90 (35.2%)
Postgraduate 3 (0.8%)
Others 36 (10%)
Generational cohort Gen X (born before 1981) 2 (0.5%)
Gen Y (born between 1981 and 1996) 177 (49.5%)
Gen Z (born after 1996) 179 (50%)
Current occupation Student 169 (47.2%)
Employee 114 (31.8%)
Self-employed/entrepreneur 25 (7%)
Others 50 (14%)
Monthly income (IDR) <1,000,000 111 (31%)
1,000,000–5,000,000 186 (52%)
5,000,000–10,000,000 43 (12%)
>10,000,000 18 (5%)
M-payment used OVO 135 (37.6%)
Go-Pay 118 (32.9%)
DANA 67 (18.8%)
Table 1. LinkAja 38 (10.7%)
Demographics of the
sample Source: Data collected by the researchers

Variable Min Max Mean SD

Social influence 1 5 3.691 0.874

Facilitating conditions 1 5 4.055 0.811
Perceived security 1 5 3.282 0.879
Performance expectancy 1 5 4.217 0.814
Perceived risk 1 5 3.271 1.028
Trust 1 5 3.850 0.834
Behavioral intention to use 1 5 3.956 0.820
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics Source: Data collected by the researchers

Based on the EFA of the data, except for BIU4, PE5 and TR1, all factor loadings were already
larger than 0.4, which is the minimum required loading to achieve satisfactory significant level
for internal validity when the sample size is more than 300 (Guadagnoli and Velicer, 1988).
Hence, the three items were removed for subsequent analyses. As can be seen from Table 3, the
observed variables also formed seven-factor groups, which was in line with the hypothesized
model in the present study. Cross loadings were also not found in the EFA results, indicating the
discriminant validity of the data. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was
 Component
Mobile
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 payment
adoption
SI1 0.551
SI2 0.443
SI3 0.687
SI4 0.958
SI5 0.942 961
FC1 0.844
FC2 0.853
FC3 0.825
FC4 0.706
FC5 0.551
PS1 0.881
PS2 0.903
PS3 0.880
PS4 0.892
PS5 0.596
PE1 0.702
PE2 0.708
PE3 0.809
PE4 0.780
PE6 0.547
PR1 0.706
PR2 0.778
PR3 0.770
PR4 0.852
PR5 0.860
PR6 0.780
PR7 0.768
Tr2 0.872
Tr3 0.842
Tr4 0.840
Tr5 0.670
Tr6 0.783
BIU1 0.671
BIU2 0.838
BIU3 0.856
BIU5 0.800 Table 3.
Notes: Extraction method: maximum likelihood. Rotation method: Promax with Kaiser normalization. Results of the
Rotation converged in six iterations exploratory factor
Source: Results of SPSS calculation analysis (EFA)

0.937. At the same time, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant at 0.0001, which
suggested that the data was adequately correlated to the factor analysis.

Confirmatory factor analysis

For the CFA, the researchers used the hypothesized model with seven latent variables to test
the model fitness of the data. An evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity for
construct validity was also conducted. The initial results provided some inputs to modify
the construct to improve the model fit; the results of which can be observed in Table 4. The
table also implies a satisfactory fit to the data, which supports a further assessment of the
structural model based on the seven proposed latent variables in this study.
JSTPM Internal consistency reliability was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha (CA), composite
13,4 reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE) and maximum shared variance (MSV).
As can be seen in Table 4, the CA values for all of the latent variables were greater than 0.8,
and the CR values were above 0.8, which suggests sufficient internal consistency for
reliability (Hair et al., 2019). From Table 4, it can also be seen that CR > AVE and the AVE
values were at least 0.5, which indicates convergent validity. Additionally, discriminant
962 validity has also been attained as all the MSV values are lower than AVE, and the square
root of AVE (the diagonal values in bold on Table 5) are higher than the estimated
correlation between the latent variables.

Hypotheses testing
The theoretical framework and the hypotheses in this study were analyzed using SEM on
AMOS. The results of the hypotheses testing can be seen in Table 6, which shows that all of
the hypotheses, with the exception of the postulated path between PR and BIU (H10),
were found to be supported by the data. This can be observed from the t-test value
(t-values
1.96; p-value # 0.05).
From Table 6 and Figure 2, it can also be seen that the paths with the highest
standardized regression weights are the hypothesized path between PE and Tr (0.784),
followed by the path between FCs and PE (0.600), as well as between FCs and BIU (0.380).
The results also revealed that a total of 68.6% of the variance in the endogenous variable (i.e.
BIU) was explained by the model, while the rest is explained by other factors not evaluated
in this research. This R2 value is relatively good in explaining the variance of the

Fit statistic Suggested* Obtained Assessment

CMIN/df #3 2.031 Very good

GFI
0.90 0.850 Good
AGFI
0.80 0.822 Very good
NFI
0.90 0.898 Good
CFI
0.90 0.945 Very good
TLI
0.90 0.938 Very good
RMSEA # 0.08 0.054 Very good
Table 4. PGFI
0.50 0.718 Very good
Fit statistics of the
model *Source: Hair et al. (2019)

CA CR AVE MSV SI BIU PE FC PR PS Tr

Threshold*
0.70
0.70
0.50 < AVE

SI 0.868 0.874 0.639
BIU 0.931 0.912 0.721
PE 0.896 0.889 0.615
FC 0.911 0.912 0.676
PR 0.920 0.910 0.594
PS 0.930 0.930 0.729
Tr 0.931 0.929 0.722
Table 5.
Validation results *Source: Hair et al. (2019)
0.382 0.799
0.584 0.618 0.849
0.590 0.590 0.727 0.784
0.590 0.559 0.764 0.768 0.822
0.044 0.042 0.056 0.033 0.037 0.770
0.364 0.440 0.486 0.358 0.383 0.207 0.854
0.471 0.534 0.686 0.666 0.651 0.209 0.603 0.850
Hypotheses Path Estimate t-value p-value Decision
Mobile
payment
H1 PE / SI 0.209 4.869 *** Supported adoption
H2 BIU / SI 0.147 3.018 0.003 Supported
H3 PE / FC 0.600 10.619 *** Supported
H4 BIU / FC 0.380 5.131 *** Supported
H5 PR / PS 0.296 3.662 *** Supported
H6 BIU / PS 0.124 2.373 0.018 Supported 963
H7 TR / PE 0.784 11.833 *** Supported
H8 BIU / PE 0.226 2.221 0.026 Supported
H9 TR / PR 0.180 4.398 *** Supported
H10 BIU / PR 0.003 0.082 0.934 Not
supported
H11 BIU / TR 0.163 2.797 0.005 Supported
Table 6.
Notes: *SI: Social influence; FC: Facilitating conditions; PS: Perceived security; PE: Performance Results of the
expectancy; PR: Perceived risk; Tr: Trust; BIU: Behavioral intention to use proposed model

Figure 2.
Results of the model
tests

endogenous variable (Hair et al., 2017). It is also similar to the adjusted R2 from the original
UTAUT at 69%.

Discussion and conclusions

Overall, this study contributes to the body of knowledge by extending UTAUT using
several user privacy-related constructs, namely, PS, PR and Tr. The researchers believe that
the additional constructs to identify the antecedents of BIU mobile payment in Indonesia are
imperative owing to the risky and questionable nature of the online transaction in the
country (Nelloh et al., 2019), especially as mobile payment in Indonesia is still in its early
JSTPM years. Mobile platforms are generally more susceptible to information exploitation and data
13,4 prying, and naturally more uncertain than conventional offline and online platforms (Lu
et al., 2011), which raises the relative importance and urgency of the present study.
Based on the empirical results in Table 6, SI was found to have a significant and positive
impact on PE (t-values of 4.869; p-value < 0.001). In other words, SI is considered as an
essential factor in the current study that could sway user’s evaluation regarding the value
964 and usefulness of mobile payment. The result is supported by earlier findings in the past
(Suksa-ngiam and Chaiyasoonthorn, 2015; Teo et al., 2019). Moreover, the researchers also
found that SI directly affects BIU mobile payment in Indonesia (t-values of 3.018; p-value:
0.003). The higher the influence of others on the users, the more likely they are to continue
adopting mobile payment services. This is in line with the findings of Martins et al. (2014).
FCs were found to be a significant antecedent of PE (t-values of 10.619; p-value < 0.001),
in keeping with the findings by Prieto et al. (2014). The path analysis between these two
constructs was also found to have the second-highest direct effect in this study, with a
regression weight of 0.6. This suggests that users of mobile payment in Indonesia consider
FCs to be an essential factor in explaining PE. In layperson’s terms, users will consider
mobile payment platform to be useful and beneficial to them if they believe that they have
the access to the relevant “infrastructure” (e.g. smartphone device, decent internet
connection, online and offline merchants that accept the mobile payment, etc.). Additionally,
FCs were also found to be significantly influencing BIU mobile payment (t-values of 0.380;
p-value < 0.001). This is in line with the findings of earlier studies (Huang, 2017; Kim et al.,
2016), which stipulates higher the facilitating supports would improve user’s continued
intention to use mobile payment.
When it comes to the relationship between PS and PR, which are part of the user privacy
constructs discussed in this paper, the path analysis results suggested that there was a
significant and negative relationship between the constructs (t-values of 3.662; p-value <
0.001). In other words, the higher users consider the security of a mobile payment system to
be, the more at ease they would be in terms of the associated risks of said system. This
finding is supported by Ha and Pan (2018) as well as Munyoka and Maharaj (2019). PS was
also found to be a significant predictor of BIU mobile payment (t-values of 2.373; p-value of
0.018), in accordance with earlier studies (Nelloh et al., 2019; Shin, 2009; Singh and
Srivastava, 2018). This corroborates the strategic importance of PS for the respondents of
the present study in shaping their BIU mobile payment services.
In this study, PE also significantly affects Tr (t-values of 11.833; p-value < 0.001),
consistent with earlier literature (Ramos et al., 2018; Suwunniponth, 2014). Interestingly, the
path relationship between these two latent variables has the highest effect in the current
study, with a path estimate of 78.4%. In other words, the outcome of the present study
suggests that users of mobile payment in Indonesia will develop an unyielding Tr if the
system is perceived to be fast, reliable and readily available whenever they need to use it.
Additionally, PE was also found to have a significant and positive relationship with BIU
mobile payment (t-values of 2.221; p-value of 0.026), per earlier studies (Rahi et al., 2018;
Tarhini et al., 2016). In other words, the higher the respondents believe that mobile payment
services can help them in performing financial activities, the more likely they would be in
adopting the platform.
As hypothesized, PR was found to have a significant and negative influence on Tr
(t-values of 4.398; p-value < 0.001). The significant and negative results are consistent
with earlier findings by Aboobucker and Bao (2018) as well as Wang (2016). The finding
suggests that users of mobile payment in Indonesia consider the risks of using the platform
as an essential antecedent to develop Tr. However, this research also discovered that PR did
not have a significant influence on BIU mobile payment (t-values of 0.082; p-value of 0.934). Mobile
The finding meant that users of mobile payment in Indonesia did not consider risk as a payment
factor that could be used to predict their continuance intention to use mobile payment. This
is in line with the fact that PR has the lowest mean score among the latent variables.
adoption
However, as PR was found to be significant to Tr, and the latter has a significant
relationship on BIU (Table 6), it can be concluded that although there is no significant and
direct relationship between PR and BIU, but the former has an indirect relationship with the
latter through Tr. This finding is similar to the earlier research by Wang (2016) as well as 965
Aboobucker and Bao (2018), which found that PR did not have a direct relationship with
intention, but indirectly affected intention through Tr. Consequently, if mobile payment
providers can reduce risks and establish Tr, it would eventually shape user’s continued
intention to use the platform.
Finally, Tr was found to be a significant predictor of BIU mobile payment in the present
study (t-values of 2.797; p-value of 0.005). The finding indicates that the higher the Tr that
users put on a mobile payment platform, the more likely they are to continue using the
system. This outcome is supported by earlier research by Lean et al. (2009) as well as Suh
and Han (2003).

Research implications
Building on the extant literature to examine the predictors of BIU mobile payment in
Indonesia, the researchers expanded the prevailing models of technological acceptance (i.e.
TAM and UTAUT) by incorporating some constructs based on user privacy, i.e. PS, PR and
Tr, which have not been fully explored in earlier studies on the topic. Furthermore, in
UTAUT2 as the extension to the original UTAUT model, Venkatesh et al. (2012) added three
new constructs which were geared to better understand consumers’ acceptance of
technology, namely, hedonic motivation, price value and habit. Still, they failed to address
the critical user privacy issues. Several different studies in the past have attempted to
partially address the issue by incorporating security (Albugami and Bellaaj, 2014; Moraes
and Meirelles, 2017; Moryson and Moeser, 2016; Nelloh et al., 2019), risk (Clark et al., 2019;
Hansen et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2008; Kim and Lennon, 2013; Taiwo et al., 2014) and Tr (Chao,
2019; Hansen et al., 2018; Kabra et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2008; Moraes and Meirelles, 2017;
Moryson and Moeser, 2016; Taiwo et al., 2014) to better predict BIU, but have never explored
the relationships between these constructs simultaneously.
In their study on internet banking acceptance in Sri Lanka, Aboobucker and Bao (2018)
did use all three constructs. Still, the scope was relatively limited, and the theoretical
framework did not address nor incorporate TAM or UTAUT as the most prevailing and
tested models for technology acceptance. This is a notable gap in the current body of
knowledge, especially in the context of mobile payment since the nature of online
transactions in Indonesia constantly raises all three user privacy issues (Nelloh et al., 2019;
Putritama, 2019). Additionally, being in its early stages of implementation in Indonesia,
building customer’s Tr by ensuring the security of and reducing risks associated with
mobile payment is crucial in securing a sustainable prospect for the platform. By suggesting
an extended UTAUT framework through the addition of the three constructs, the present
study also facilitates a better understanding of the practical effects of user privacy issues on
BIU.
This study also discovered a few practical implications. First, mobile payment service
providers should pay heed to all latent variables in this study, as they were found to be
directly and/or indirectly impact the intention to use the platform. Specifically, all UTAUT
constructs in this study, namely, SI, FCs and PE, were all found to be significantly
JSTPM influencing BIU, hence corroborating the empirical use of TAM/UTAUT in the context of
13,4 mobile payment in Indonesia. Therefore, mobile payment providers must be able to find
ways to connect with and educate their core audience by utilizing relevant reference groups/
key opinion leaders such as celebrities, social media influencers or popular blogs/websites to
embrace the SI factor. Relevant stakeholders of mobile payment ecosystem in Indonesia
should also ensure that the supporting “infrastructure” is widely available, such as
966 affordable smartphones, reliable internet coverage and bandwidth, supporting online/offline
merchants that accept the payment method, among others.
Equally, mobile payment industry in Indonesia should also highlight the importance of
the three user privacy constructs in this study, i.e. PS, PR and Tr, as they were found to be
directly or indirectly affecting the continued adoption to use mobile payment. As explained
earlier, at present, many users have raised their concerns about the issue of Tr when it
comes to mobile payment transaction. They are understandably anxious when it comes to
the PS and risks in conducting transaction via mobile payment. The findings of this study
have confirmed such user privacy concerns. Tr and PS have a significantly positive and
direct relationship with BIU mobile payment. PR, on the other hand, was not found to be
directly influencing BIU in a significant manner but was still indirectly affecting
the endogenous variable through Tr as the mediating variable. In other words, to build the
user’s continuance intention to use mobile payment, all relevant stakeholders should work in
unison to ensure that all the privacy issues can be guaranteed.
Second, the path analysis in this study revealed a critical pathway from FC -> PE -> Tr
-> BIU. To begin with, the path between PE and Tr has the highest effect among all the
other paths at 78.4%. The outcome indicates that to ensure that customers will Tr the use of
mobile payment in Indonesia, providers and relevant stakeholders should ensure that the
system is reliable, speedy and ubiquitous. Additionally, to maintain a comparatively high
level of PE, the outcome of the present study also shows that the pathway between FC and
PE has the second-highest effect with a regression weight of 60%. In other words, the
facilitating means for mobile payment (e.g. affordable Android/iOS-based smartphone,
dependable and inexpensive internet access, availability of online and offline merchants that
support the payment system, etc.) should also be supported by all public and private
stakeholders in the mobile payment ecosystem. In the end, as the finding of this study also
revealed, the ensuing Tr that users have on the system would ultimately increase their
adoption rate to use mobile payment in Indonesia.

Limitations and future perspectives of research

As with every other empirical study, there are some notable limitations in the present
analysis. First, while the data in this study were collected from all over Indonesia to gain a
comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, but some regions/provinces may be
underrepresented, and the majority of the respondents still come from Java as the most
populated island in the country. Second, an overwhelming majority (99.5%) of the
respondents in the present study comes from Generations Y and Z, which means that
the results are mostly relevant to the two generational cohorts which are supposedly more
well-versed in using mobile payment and technology in general, which may have biased the
results. The behavioral intention of the older generations might be different than these two
youngest cohorts. Third, the acquisition of the data was conducted in a relatively short
period in December 2019, and the researchers did not perform long-term tracking.
Future research on this topic can consider the following suggestions. First, as the current
study only captured the data at a single point in time, it is recommended that future studies
can obtain longitudinal data by assessing behavioral changes of the users throughout certain
periods to have a better understanding of the phenomenon. Second, as the vast majority of the Mobile
respondents in this study come from Generations Y and Z, future research can shift the focus payment
of mobile payment adoption on the older generation and compare the findings with this
research. Furthermore, despite the relatively strong empirical support for our model, future
adoption
research can adjust the model by adding, for instance, effort expectancy construct that was
part of the original UTAUT but deliberately not used in the current study.
967
References
Aboobucker, I. and Bao, Y. (2018), “What obstruct customer acceptance of internet banking?
Security and privacy, risk, trust and website usability and the role of moderators”, The
Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 109-123, doi: 10.1016/j.
hitech.2018.04.010.
Acharya, A.S., Prakash, A., Saxena, P. and Nigam, A. (2013), “Sampling: why and how of it?”, Indian
Journal of Medical Specialities, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 3-7, doi: 10.7713/ijms.2013.0032.
Adams, C. and Chen, J.J. (2005), “User acceptance of mobile payments: a theoretical model for mobile
payments”, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Electronic Business, Hong
Kong, January 2005, pp. 619-624. www.researchgate.net/publication/267718578
Agusta, J. (2018), “Mobile payment in Indonesia: race to big data domination”.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211, doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Albugami, M. and Bellaaj, M. (2014), “The continued use of internet banking: combining UTAUT2
theory and service quality model”, Journal of Global Management Research, pp. 11-28.
Aldas-Manzano, J., Lassala-Navarré, C., Ruiz-Mafé, C. and Sanz-Blas, S. (2009), “The role of consumer
innovativeness and perceived risk in online banking usage”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 53-75, doi: 10.1108/02652320910928245.
Amin, M., Rezaei, S. and Abolghasemi, M. (2014), “User satisfaction with mobile websites: the impact of
perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU) and trust”, Nankai Business Review
International, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 258-274, doi: 10.1108/NBRI-01-2014-0005.
Amoroso, D.L. and Magnier-Watanabe, R. (2012), “Building a research model for mobile wallet
consumer adoption: the case of mobile Suica in Japan”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 13-14, doi: 10.4067/S0718-18762012000100008.
Au, Y.A. and Kauffman, R.J. (2008), “The economics of mobile payments: understanding stakeholder
issues for an emerging financial technology application”, Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 141-164, doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2006.12.004.
Bagozzi, R. (2007), “The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm
shift”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 244-254, doi: 10.17705/
1jais.00122.
Bank Indonesia (2007), “Laporan perkembangan sistem pembayaran 2007”, available at: www.bi.go.id/
id/publikasi/sistem-pembayaran/perkembangan/Documents/0ae6bcb070864981956c002e
87120ba5LAPORAN_PERKEMBANGAN_SISTEM_PEMBAYARAN_2007.pdf
Bauer, R.A. (1960), “Consumer behavior as risk taking. 43rd. Conference of the American Marketing
Association”, pp. 389-398.
Bélanger, F. and Carter, L. (2008), “Trust and risk in e-government adoption”, The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 165-176, doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2007.12.002.
Bernard, H.R. (2011), Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches,
AltaMira Press.
Bitting, E. and Ghorbani, A. (2004), “Protecting e-commerce agents from defamation”, Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 21-38, doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2003.09.001.
JSTPM Bruwer, J., Fong, M. and Saliba, A. (2013), “Perceived risk, risk-reduction strategies (RRS) and
consumption occasions”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 3,
13,4 pp. 369-390, doi: 10.1108/apjml-06-2012-0048.
Chahal, H., Sahi, G.K. and Rani, A. (2014), “Moderating role of perceived risk in credit card usage and
experience link”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 286-308, doi: 10.1108/JIBR-
06-2014-0034.
Chandra, S., Srivastava, S.C., Kim, W. and Theng, Y.-L. (2010), “Communications of the association for
968 information systems evaluating the role of trust in consumer adoption of mobile payment
systems: an empirical analysis Yin-Leng theng evaluating the role of trust in consumer adoption
of mobile payment systems: an emp”, Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, Vol. 27 No. 29, pp. 561-588, available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol27/iss1/29
Chao, C.M. (2019), “Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: an application
and extension of the UTAUT model”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.01652.
Chen, L.D. (2007), “A model of consumer acceptance of mobile payment”, International Journal of
Mobile Communications, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 32, doi: 10.1504/ijmc.2008.015997.
Cheng, T.C.E., Lam, D.Y.C. and Yeung, A.C.L. (2006), “Adoption of internet banking: an empirical study
in Hong Kong”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 1558-1572, doi: 10.1016/j.
dss.2006.01.002.
Christensen, I.A. and Schiaffino, S. (2014), “Social influence in group recommender systems”, Online
Information Review, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 524-542, doi: 10.1108/OIR-08-2013-0187.
Clark, B., Panzone, L.A., Stewart, G.B., Kyriazakis, I., Niemi, J.K., Latvala, T., Tranter, R., Jones, P. and
Frewer, L.J. (2019), “Consumer attitudes towards production diseases in intensive production
systems”, PLoS One, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-24, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210432.
Das, K., Tamhane, T., Vatterott, B., Wibowo, P. and Wintels, S. (2018), “The digital archipelago: how
online commerce is driving Indonesia’s economic development”, In McKinsey and Company
(Issue August), available at: www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/asia-pacific/the-digital-
archipelago-how-online-
Davies, N., Taft, N., Satyanarayanan, M., Clinch, S. and Amos, B. (2016), “Privacy mediators: helping
IoT cross the chasm”, In Proceedings of the 17th International Workshop on Mobile Computing
Systems and Applications, pp. 39-44, doi: 10.1145/2873587.2873600.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-339, doi: 10.2307/249008.
Eze, S.C., Chinedu-Eze, V.C. and Bello, A.O. (2019), “Determinants of dynamic process of emerging ICT
adoption in SMEs – actor network theory perspective”, Journal of Science and Technology Policy
Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 2-34, doi: 10.1108/JSTPM-02-2018-0019.
Featherman, M.S. and Pavlou, P.A. (2003), “Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets
perspective”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 451-474, doi:
10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00111-3.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory
and Research, Addison-Wesley.
Flavian, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2006), “Consumer trust, perceived security and privacy policy”, Industrial
Management and Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 5, pp. 601-620, doi: 10.1108/02635570610666403.
Frost and Sullivan (2019), “The opportunities and challenges of the payments industry in
Indonesia, forecast to 2025”, available at: www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4968489/the-
opportunities-and-challenges-of-the-payments?utm_source=dynamic&utm_medium=GNOM&
utm_code=pv7lk4&utm_campaign=1348696þ-þIndonesia%27sþPaymentsþIndustryþ2019-
2025%3AþOpportunitiesþandþChallenges&utm_exec=joca220gnomd
FT Confidential Research (2018), “Indonesian mobile payments set for cross platform boom”, Financial Mobile
Times, available at: https://app.ft.com/content/e9a50f6c-037a-11e9-99df-6183d3002ee1
payment
Furnell, S.M. and Karweni, T. (1999), “Security implications of electronic commerce – a survey of
consumers and businesses”, Internet Research, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 372-382.
adoption
Gefen, D. (2000), “E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust”, Omega, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 725-737,
doi: 10.1016/S0305-0483(00)00021-9.
Govender, I. and Sihlali, W. (2014), “A study of mobile banking adoption among university students 969
using an extended TAM”, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 7, pp. 451-459,
doi: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n7p451.
Guadagnoli, E. and Velicer, W.F. (1988), “Relation of sample size to the stability of component
patterns”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 265-275, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265.
Gumiwang, R. (2018), “Jorjoran adu ‘bakar uang’ Go-Pay dan OVO”, Tirto.Id, available at: https://tirto.
id/jorjoran-adu-bakar-uang-go-pay-dan-ovo-c8u1
Ha, H.Y. and Pan, H. (2018), “The evolution of perceived security: the temporal role of SNS information
perceptions”, Internet Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1055-1078, doi: 10.1108/IntR-02-2017-0047.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2019), Multivariate Data Analysis, Cengage
Learning.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), SAGE Publications.
Hamid, A.A., Razak, F.Z.A., Bakar, A.A. and Abdullah, W.S.W. (2016), “The effects of perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use on continuance intention to use E-government”, Procedia
Economics and Finance, Vol. 35, pp. 644-649, doi: 10.1016/s2212-5671(16)00079-4.
Hansen, J.M., Saridakis, G. and Benson, V. (2018), “Risk, trust, and the interaction of perceived ease of
use and behavioral control in predicting consumers’ use of social media for transactions”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 80, pp. 197-206, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.010.
Harjanto, S.A. (2019), “Putar otak industri farmasi demi sertifikasi halal”, Bisnis.Com., available at: https://
ekonomi.bisnis.com/read/20191016/12/1159847/putar-otak-industri-farmasi-demi-sertifikasi-halal
Huang, C.C. (2017), “Cognitive factors in predicting continued use of information systems with
technology adoption models”, Information Research, Vol. 22 No. 2.
Hwang, R.J., Shiau, S.H. and Jan, D.F. (2007), “A new mobile payment scheme for roaming services”,
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 184-191, doi: 10.1016/j.
elerap.2006.07.002.
Junadi and Sfenrianto (2015), “A model of factors influencing consumer’s intention to use E-payment
system in Indonesia”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 59, pp. 214-220, doi: 10.1016/j.
procs.2015.07.557.
Kabra, G., Ramesh, A., Akhtar, P. and Dash, M.K. (2017), “Understanding behavioural intention to use
information technology: insights from humanitarian practitioners”, Telematics and Informatics,
Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1250-1261, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.010.
Kalakota, R. and Whinston, A.B. (1997), Electronic Commerce: A Manager’s Guide, Addison-Wesley.
Kemp, S. (2019), “Global digital report 2019 – We are social”, available at: https://wearesocial.com/
global-digital-report-2019
Kim, D.J., Ferrin, D.L. and Rao, H.R. (2008), “A trust-based consumer decision-making model in
electronic commerce: the role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 544-564, doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001.
Kim, S., Lee, K.H., Hwang, H. and Yoo, S. (2016), “Analysis of the factors influencing healthcare
professionals’ adoption of mobile electronic medical record (EMR) using the unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in a tertiary hospital”, BMC Medical Informatics
and Decision Making, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0249-8.
JSTPM Kim, J. and Lennon, S.J. (2013), “Effects of reputation and website quality on online consumers’ emotion,
perceived risk and purchase intention: based on the stimulus-organism-response model”, Journal
13,4 of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 33-56, doi: 10.1108/17505931311316734.
Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M. and Lee, I. (2010), “An empirical examination of factors influencing the
intention to use mobile payment”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 310-322, doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.013.
Kim, J. and Park, J. (2007), “The effects of internet shoppers’ trust on their purchasing intention in
970 China”, Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 269-286.
Koenig-Lewis, N., Marquet, M., Palmer, A. and Zhao, A.L. (2015), “Enjoyment and social influence:
predicting mobile payment adoption”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 537-554,
doi: 10.1080/02642069.2015.1043278.
KPMG Siddharta Advisory (2017), “Retail payments in Indonesia”, available at: https://assets.kpmg/
content/dam/kpmg/id/pdf/2017/01/id-retail-payments-in-indonesia.pdf
Kristiawan, D. and Harisno, (2016), “Evaluation of implementation MyUMN as academic information
system using UTAUT to multimedia nusantara university”, Proceedings – 2016 IEEE Region
10 Symposium, TENSYMP 2016, pp. 420-424, doi: 10.1109/TENCONSpring.2016.7519444
Kucukusta, D., Law, R., Besbes, A. and Legohérel, P. (2015), “Re-examining perceived usefulness and
ease of use in online booking: the case of Hong Kong online users”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 185-198.
Lean, O.K., Zailani, S., Ramayah, T. and Fernando, Y. (2009), “Factors influencing intention to use e-
government services among citizens in Malaysia”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 458-475, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.03.012.
Lim, A.S. (2008), “Inter-consortia battles in mobile payments standardisation”, Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 202-213, doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2007.05.003.
Lu, Y., Yang, S., Chau, P.Y.K. and Cao, Y. (2011), “Dynamics between the trust transfer process and
intention to use mobile payment services: a cross-environment perspective”, Information and
Management, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 393-403, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2011.09.006.
Luarn, P. and Lin, H.H. (2005), “Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile
banking”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 873-891, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.003.
Maroofi, F., Kahrarian, F. and Dehghani, M. (2013), “An investigation of initial trust in mobile banking”,
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 9,
pp. 394-403, doi: 10.6007/ijarbss/v3-i9/228.
Martins, C., Oliveira, T. and Popovic, A. (2014), “Understanding the internet banking adoption: a
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.06.002.
Matos, C.A.D. and Krielow, A. (2019), “The effects of environmental factors on B2B e-services purchase:
perceived risk and convenience as mediators”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 767-778, doi: 10.1108/JBIM-12-2017-0305.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational trust”, The
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, p. 709, doi: 10.2307/258792.
Moraes, G.H.S.M.D. and Meirelles, F.D.S. (2017), “User’s perspective of electronic government adoption
in Brazil”, Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 1-10, doi:
10.4067/S0718-27242017000200001.
Moryson, H. and Moeser, G. (2016), “Consumer adoption of cloud computing services in Germany:
investigation of moderating effects by applying an UTAUT model”, International Journal of
Marketing Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 14, doi: 10.5539/ijms.v8n1p14.
Mou, J., Shin, D.H. and Cohen, J. (2017), “Understanding trust and perceived usefulness in the consumer
acceptance of an e-service: a longitudinal investigation”, Behaviour and Information Technology,
Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 125-139, doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2016.1203024.
Munyoka, W. and Maharaj, M.S. (2019), “Privacy, security, trust, risk and optimism bias in e- Mobile
government use: the case of two Southern African development community countries”, South
African Journal of Information Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.4102/sajim.v21i1.983.
payment
Nelloh, L.A.M., Santoso, A.S. and Slamet, M.W. (2019), “Will users keep using mobile payment? It
adoption
depends on trust and cognitive perspectives”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 161,
pp. 1156-1164, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.228.
Nguyen, T.D. and Huynh, P.A. (2018), “The roles of perceived risk and trust on E-payment adoption”,
Econometrics for Financial Adoption, Vol. 760, pp. 397-420, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-73150-6_68. 971
Nicolaou, A.I. and McKnight, D.H. (2006), “Perceived information quality in data exchanges: effects on
risk, trust, and intention to use”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 332-351, doi:
10.1287/isre.1060.0103.
Nienaber, A.M., Hofeditz, M. and Romeike, P.D. (2015), “Vulnerability and trust in leader-follower
relationships”, Personnel Review, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 567-591, doi: 10.1108/PR-09-2013-0162.
Nikkei Asian Review (2017), “Indonesia’s mobile payments industry to enter defining year – Nikkei
asian review”, Available at: https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Indonesia-s-mobile-payments-
industry-to-enter-defining-year2
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E. and Thorbjørnsen, H. (2005), “Intentions to use mobile services: antecedents
and cross-service comparisons”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 330-346, doi: 10.1177/0092070305276149.
Oliveira, T., Thomas, M., Baptista, G. and Campos, F. (2016), “Mobile payment: understanding the
determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 2016, pp. 404-414, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.030.
Ondrus, J. and Pigneur, Y. (2006), “Towards a holistic analysis of mobile payments: a multiple
perspectives approach”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 246-257, doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2005.09.003.
Ozturk, A.B. (2016), “Customer acceptance of cashless payment systems in the hospitality industry”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 801-817, doi:
10.1108/IJCHM-02-2015-0073.
Pappas, N. (2016), “Marketing strategies, perceived risks, and consumer trust in online buying behaviour”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 29, pp. 92-103, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.11.007.
Phonthanukitithaworn, C., Sellitto, C. and Fong, M.W.L. (2016), “An investigation of mobile payment
(m-payment) services in Thailand”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 37-54, doi: 10.1108/APJBA-10-2014-0119.
Prieto, J.C.S., Miguelanez, S.O. and García-Peñalvo, F.J. (2014), “Mobile learning adoption from informal
into formal: an extended TAM model to measure mobile acceptance among teachers”, ACM
International Conference Proceeding Series, 595-602. 10.1145/2669711.2669961
Priya, R., Gandhi, A.V. and Shaikh, A. (2018), “Mobile banking adoption in an emerging economy”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 743-762, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-01-2016-0009.
Putritama, A. (2019), “The mobile payment fintech continuance usage intention in Indonesia”, Jurnal
Economia, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 243-258, doi: 10.21831/economia.v15i2.26403.
Rahi, S., Abd. Ghani, M., Alnaser, F.M.I. and Ngah, A.H. (2018), “Investigating the role of unified theory
of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in internet banking adoption context”,
Management Science Letters, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 173-186, doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2018.1.001.
Ramos, F.L., Ferreira, J.B., De Freitas, A.S. and Rodrigues, J.W. (2018), “The effect of trust in the
intention to use m-banking”, Brazilian Business Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 175-191, doi: 10.15728/
bbr.2018.15.2.5.
Sandhu, M.S., Sidique, S.F. and Riaz, S. (2011), “Entrepreneurship barriers and entrepreneurial
inclination among Malaysian postgraduate students”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior and Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 428-449, doi: 10.1108/13552551111139656.
JSTPM Schierz, P.G., Schilke, O. and Wirtz, B.W. (2010), “Understanding consumer acceptance of mobile
payment services: an empirical analysis”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 9
13,4 No. 3, pp. 209-216, doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2009.07.005.
Shen, D., Laffey, J., Lin, Y. and Huang, X. (2006), “Social influence for perceived usefulness and ease-of-
use of course delivery systems”, Journal of Interactive Online Learning, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 270-282.
Shin, D.H. (2009), “Determinants of customer acceptance of multi-service network: an implication for IP-
based technologies”, Information and Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 16-22, doi: 10.1016/j.
972 im.2008.05.004.
Singh, S. and Srivastava, R.K.K. (2018), “Predicting the intention to use mobile banking in India
introduction”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 357-378, doi: 10.1108/
IJBM-12-2016-0186.
Slade, E.L., Dwivedi, Y.K., Piercy, N.C. and Williams, M.D. (2015), “Modeling consumers’ adoption
intentions of remote mobile payments in the United Kingdom: extending UTAUT with
innovativeness, risk, and trust”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 860-873, doi:
10.1002/mar.20823.
Slade, E., Williams, M. and Dwivdei, Y. (2013), “Extending UTAUT2 to explore consumer adoption of
mobile payments”, UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings, p. 36,
available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/ukais2013%0Ahttp://aisel.aisnet.org/ukais2013/36
Sonawane, K. (2018), “Mobile payment market by size, share and industry analysis - 2023”, available at:
www.alliedmarketresearch.com/mobile-payments-market
Sripalawat, J., Thongmak, M. and Ngramyarn, A. (2011), “M-banking in metropolitan Bangkok and a
comparison with other countries”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 51 No. 3,
pp. 67-76, available at: http://tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucis20%
0A10.1080/08874417.2011.11645487
Statista (2019), “Mobile payment revenue worldwide 2015-2019”, available at: www.statista.com/
statistics/226530/mobile-payment-transaction-volume-forecast/
Suh, B. and Han, I. (2003), “The impact of customer trust and perception of security control on the
acceptance of electronic commerce”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 135-161, available at: http://mesharpe.metapress.com/index/925wunk9efe9n95a.pdf%
5Cnpapers3://publication/uuid/44CFEC88-C9E5-443D-AE9C-7D1E8898921E
Suksa-Ngiam, W. and Chaiyasoonthorn, W. (2015), “The adoption of social media by Thai university
students: multiple group moderating effects”, Information Development, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 69-82,
doi: 10.1177/0266666913502800.
Šumak, B., Polancic, G. and Hericko, M. (2010), “An empirical study of virtual learning environment
adoption using UTAUT”, 2nd International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid, and On-Line
Learning, EL and ML 2010, pp. 17-22. 10.1109/eLmL.2010.11
Suwunniponth, W. (2014), “Factor driving consumer intention in online shopping”, International
Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 1949-1953.
Taiwo, A.A., Downe, A.G. and Loke, S.P. (2014), “Behavioral intention towards e-government in
Malaysia: a structural equation modeling approach”, International Journal of Electronic
Government Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 8-21, doi: 10.4018/ijegr.2014040102.
Tarhini, A., El-Masri, M., Ali, M. and Serrano, A. (2016), “Extending the UTAUT model to understand
the customers’ acceptance and use of internet banking in Lebanon”, Information Technology and
People, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 830-849, doi: 10.1108/itp-02-2014-0034.
Tee, H.-H. and Ong, H.-B. (2016), “Cashless payment and economic growth”, Financial Innovation, Vol. 2
No. 1, p. 4, doi: 10.1186/s40854-016-0023-z.
Teo, T. and Milutinovic, V. (2015), “Modelling the intention to use technology for teaching mathematics
among pre-service teachers in Serbia”, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 363-380, doi: 10.14742/ajet.1668.
Teo, T., Zhou, M., Fan, A.C.W. and Huang, F. (2019), “Factors that influence university students’ Mobile
intention to use Moodle: a study in Macau”, Educational Technology Research and Development,
Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 749-766, doi: 10.1007/s11423-019-09650-x. payment
Thalia, Z., Warto. and Sugiyarti, R. (2011), “Pengembangan wisata budaya berbasis wisata ziarah adoption
sebagai wisata minat khusus di kabupaten karanganyar”, Jurnal Penelitian Humaniora, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 91-99.
Tongco, M.D.C. (2007), “Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection”, Ethnobotany Research
and Applications, Vol. 5, pp. 147-158, doi: 10.17348/era.5.0.147-158. 973
Triandis, H.C. (2003), “The future of workforce diversity in international organisations: a commentary”,
Applied Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 486-495, doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00146.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four
longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204, doi: 10.1287/
mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L. and Xu, X. (2012), “Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 36 No. 1, p. 157, doi: 10.2307/41410412.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L. and Xu, X. (2016), “Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: a
synthesis and the road ahead”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 328-376, doi: 10.17705/1jais.00428.
Wang, J. (2016), “Critical factors for personal cloud storage adoption in China”, Journal of Data and
Information Science, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 60-74, doi: 10.20309/jdis.201614.
Wijoseno, J. and Ariyanti, M. (2017), “Perceived factors influencing consumer trust and its impact on
online purchase intention in Indonesia”, International Journal of Science and Research, Vol. 6
No. 8, pp. 961-968, doi: 10.21275/8081706.
Yu, C.-S. (2012), “Factors affecting individuals to adopt mobile banking: empirical evidence from the
UTAUT model”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 13, pp. 104-121, doi: 10.1021/
acssuschemeng.8b00834.
Zhang, K., Min, Q., Liu, Z.Z. and Liu, Z.Z. (2016), “Understanding microblog continuance usage
intention: an integrated model”, Aslib Journal of Information Management, Vol. 68 No. 6,
pp. 772-792, doi: 10.1108/AJIM-03-2016-0025.
Zhou, T. (2013), “An empirical examination of continuance intention of mobile payment services”,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1085-1091, doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2012.10.034.
Zhou, T., Lu, Y. and Wang, B. (2010), “Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user
adoption”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 760-767, doi: 10.1016/j.
chb.2010.01.013.

Corresponding author
Hanif Adinugroho Widyanto can be contacted at: hanif@president.ac.id

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com