Intention to use buy-now-pay-later payment system among university students: a combination of financial parenting, financial self-efficacy, and social media intensity

Figures & data

Figure 1. Hypothesized conceptual model.

Table 1. Characteristics of respondents.

Category	Percentages
Gender
Female	56.3
Male	43.7
Living house
living alone	14.7
living with parents	82.4
No answer	2.9
Age
Less than 20 years	10.4
21–25	78.3
More than 25	11.3

Table 2. Data description, correlation and internal consistency.

No	Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	Gender	1.61	0.49	–
2	Living house	1.76	0.37	0.06	–
3	Financial parenting	3.67	0.94	−0.03	0.00	0.89
4	Financial self-efficacy	2.93	0.86	−0.05	−0.01	.214**	0.91
5	Social media intensity	3.55	0.86	0.07	0.04	0.06	−0.01	0.84
6	Intention to use BNPL	3.22	1.06	.149**	0.02	−.283**	−.347**	.159**	0.78

Note: Gender (1 = male, 2 = female), living house (1 = living alone, 2 = living with parents), Cronbach α is diagonal italic,** p-value < 0.01.

Table 3. Moderation mediation analysis (Model 5).

Outcome	Predictors	β	SE	LLCI	ULCI	t-value
FSE	Gender	−0.08	0.09	−0.26	0.11	−0.18
	Living house	−0.02	0.12	−0.27	0.22	−0.20
	FPR	0.20	0.12	0.10	0.29	4.08**
BNPL	Gender	0.22	0.10	0.02	0.43	2.14*
	Living house	0.01	0.14	−0.26	0.28	0.08
	FPR	−0.23	0.06	−0.34	−0.13	−4.24**
	FSE	−0.35	0.06	−0.46	−0.23	−5.83**
	SMI	0.21	0.06	0.10	0.33	3.61**
	FPR x SMI	0.17	0.06	0.05	0.28	2.89**
Conditional effect of FPR on BNPL at moderator values = M ± SD
Low SMI		−0.38	0.07	−0.51	−0.24	−5.50
High SMI		−0.09	0.06	−0.25	−0.06	−1.15
Indirect effect		−0.06	0.02	−0.10	−0.03	–

Note: N = 354, FPR = financial parenting, FSE = financial self-efficacy, BNPL = intention to use BNPL, SMI = social media intensity, Number of bootstrap samples= 5000. LL = low limit, CI = confidence interval, UL = upper limit, *p < .05, **p < .01.

Figure 2. The moderating effect of social media intensity on financial parenting and intention to use BNPL relationship.