Technological readiness and its impact on mobile payment usage: A case study of go-pay

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed research model.

Table 1. Summary of respondents’ demographics

Demographics	Frequency	Percentage
Domicile
Jabodetabek Area	793	64.73
Java Island (Non-Jabodetabek)	303	24.73
Outside of Java Island	129	10.53
Gender
Male	510	53.22
Female	765	46.78
Age
≤ 16 years	159	2.61
17–25 years	578	63.27
26–35 years	66	31.43
36–45 years	330	2.20
> 45 years	48	0.49
Educational background
High school diploma or below	796	33.55
Diploma 3	256	8.08
Bachelor’s degree	102	52.65
Master’s degree	60	5.71
Doctoral degree	61	0
Current occupation
Students	229	39.84
Public employees/civil servants	356	4.73
Private employees	327	39.92
Entrepreneurs	279	7.18
Others	84	8.33
Income per month
≤ Rp1.000.000	171	19.51
Rp1.000.001—Rp5.000.000	263	48.98
Rp5.000.001—Rp10.000.000	244	20.08
Rp10.000.001—Rp15.000.000	597	6.78
> Rp15.000.000	597	4.65
Duration of Use of Go-Pay
< 1 month	171	4.90
1–3 months	263	8.41
4–6 months	244	11.92
7–9 months	597	7.92
10–12 months	597	11.67
> 12 months	597	55.18

Table 2. Composite reliability and average variance extracted results

Variables	Composite Reliability (CR)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Discomfort (DIS)	0.766	0.62
Facilitating Conditions (FC)	0.903	0.757
Innovativenss (INN)	0.827	0.615
Insecurity (INS)	0.863	0.677
Optimism (OPT)	0.846	0.58
Perceived Cost (PC)	0.889	0.616
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)	0.934	0.74
Perceived Risk (PR)	0.874	0.635
Perceived Usefulness (PU)	0.909	0.667
Technology readiness (TR)	0.829	0.755
Use Intention (UI)	0.939	0.755
Usage Rate of Basic Functions (URBF)	0.961	0.756
Usage Rate of Innovative Functions (URIF)	0.828	0.708

Table 3. Fornell-lacker creation test results

	DIS	FC	INN	INS	OPT	PC	PEOU	PR	PU	UI	URBF	URIF
DIS	0.788
FC	0.297	0.87
INN	0.235	0.437	0.784
INS	0.283	0.198	0.116	0.823
OPT	0.296	0.535	0.465	0.235	0.761
PC	−0.382	−0.424	−0.173	−0.378	−0.347	0.785
PEOU	0.258	0.655	0.416	0.182	0.478	−0.399	0.86
PR	−0.291	−0.222	−0.101	−0.633	−0.215	0.474	−0.22	0.797
PU	0.268	0.635	0.434	0.209	0.601	−0.407	−0.278	0.22	0.817
UI	0.262	0.578	0.406	0.247	0.53	−0.382	0.541	−0.278	0.668	0.869
URBF	0.184	0.217	0.119	0.1	0.244	−0.197	0.185	−0.116	0.22	0.292	0.869
URIF	−0.017	0.026	0.088	0.012	0.032	−0.011	0.013	−0.036	0.04	0.095	0.21	0.841

Table 4. Results of the second order construct significance test

Second-order construct	First-order construct	Path coefficient	T-statistics
TR	DIS	0.197	16.318
FC	INN	0.327	20.586
INN	INS	0.352	15.686
INS	OPT	0.555	31.008

Table 5. Results of the multicollinearity

Construct	VIF Technology Readiness
DIS	1.247
INN	1.365
INS	1.243
OPT	1.465

Table 6. R square (R²) values

Construct	R^2
PC	0.228
PEOU	0.275
PR	0.194
PU	0.359
UI	0.505
URBF	0.087
URIF	0.047

Table 7. Stone-Geisser’s Q²

Construct	Q^2 (=1-SSE/SSO)
PC	0.126
PEOU	0.193
PR	0.115
PU	0.237
TR	0.287
UI	0.367
URBF	0.085
URIF	0.03

Table 8. Hypotheses test results

Hyp.	Path	Path Coefficients	T-statistics	P-values	Notes
H1	TR -> PR	−0,433	14,22	0	Accepted
H2	TR -> PC	−0,458	17,647	0	Accepted
H3	TR -> PEOU	0,518	22,08	0	Accepted
H4	TR -> PU	0,603	29,001	0	Accepted
H5	PR -> UI	−0,102	4,201	0	Accepted
H6	PC -> UI	−0,037	1,381	0,167	Rejected
H7	PEOU -> UI	0,015	0,453	0,65	Rejected
H8	PU -> UI	0,4795	14,211	0	Accepted
H9	FC -> UI	0,228	6,806	0	Accepted
H10	FC -> URBF	0,073	2,079	0,038	Accepted
H11	FC -> URIF	−0,058	1,596	0,111	Rejected
H12	UI -> URBF	0,249	7,369	0	Accepted
H13	UI -> URIF	0,069	2,081	0,037	Accepted
H14	URBF -> URIF	0,203	7,364	0	Accepted