A STUDY ON FACTORS IMPACTING CONSUMERS’ INTENTION TO USE

ON-DEMAND FOOD DELIVERY APPLICATIONS IN BANGKOK,

THAILAND

Dinesh Elango*, Kitikorn Dowpiset* and Jirachaya Chantawaranurak*

Graduate School of Business, Assumption University of Thailand, Bangkok

Abstract:
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the factors impacting on
behavioral intention to use On-demand food delivery application in Bangkok, Thailand.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey of 392 users of On-demand food delivery
applications was conducted in Bangkok, Thailand through an online questionnaire
using convenience and snowball sampling techniques. Multiple linear regression
(MLR) was used to test research hypotheses.
Findings –The results indicated that Personal innovativeness (PI) and Perceived Self-
efficacy (PSE) have significant impact Perceived on ease of use (PEOU), while
Personal innovativeness (PI) and Perceived ease of use (PEOU) have significant impact
Perceived usefulness (PU) of On-demand food delivery applications. Perceived self-
efficacy (PSE), Perceived usefulness (PU), and Social influence (SI) have
significant impact Behavioral intention (BI) to use On-demand food delivery
applications.
Practical Implications – This study advises service providers to pay particular
attention to Social influence, Perceived self-efficacy, and Perceived usefulness
when designing the business model or the marketing strategy.
Originality/value – There is no existing research found to comprehensively study of
factors impacting intention to use On-demand food delivery applications services in the
Thai context.
Keywords – Innovation adoption, Technology adoption, Behavior intention, Intention
to use, On-demand food delivery applications, Online food delivery apps

1. Introduction

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

 In the past few years, there has been a noteworthy change in customer trends
due to the coming of on-demand services business. The on-demand economy has
swiftly taken over the traditional business models by offering people with whatever
and whenever they demand, without ever having to leave their place. It is rapidly
growing using the advantage of advanced mobile technology. Mobile applications
nowadays are not only for chatting, social networking, or playing game, but also
become an efficient medium enabling customer to receive their desired services
with just a few finger taps through online platforms like online-shopping,
transportation, parcel delivery, grocery delivery or even food delivery.
The worldwide food delivery market stands at €83 billion, or 4 percent of
food sold through restaurants and fast food chains. The most common form of
delivery about 90 percent is still the tradition model which the consumers directly
place order to restaurant, and most of those orders about 75 percent are still placed
by phone. Nevertheless, as in so many other industries, the market was reshaped
due to the rise of digital technology. Consumers are habituated to online shopping
via websites or applications that provide utmost transparency and convenience.
The business of delivering restaurants meals is undergoing rapid change as the
coming of new online service platforms which is online On-demand food
delivery(Hirschberg, Rajko, Schumacher, and Wrulich, 2016).
On-demand food delivery are online services that can be accessed through
applications or web portals. On-demand food delivery services partner with local
restaurants both full service restaurants (FSRs) and quick service restaurants
(QSRs) for food delivery. The servicehas simplified customers‟ life by providing
all the vital informationto make an order at one stop in the applications which
includes menu, price list, estimated time of delivery, hours of operation and so
on.In addition, some of applications simply allow the users tracking the location in
real time to know the whereabouts of their order and allow to use mobile payment.
The global online On-demand food deliveryservices will grow at compound
annual growth rate (CAGR) of 31.76% in year 2017 – 2021. Americarepresents the
largest market share more than 40% due to the presence of manyplayers and the
high smartphone penetration facilitating the increasing demand for this market.
During the forecast period Asia-pacific will grow at a CAGR of 32.61% faster
pace than Europe, the Middle East and Africa (Technavio‟s analysts, 2017).China
market registered fast growth due to young Chinese the most active users are
increasingly ordering food online. The market hit 31.9 billion U.S. dollars in 2017
or about 27% growth over the previous year. Jiang Junxian, director of the China
Cuisine Association (CCA) released that the online food delivery market has seen
rapid expansion, There is still room to grow in this business as food delivery
accounts for a relatively small portion of the total catering industry
(Liangyu,2018).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

 Cascading down to domestic level, Thailand‟s online food ordering market
is on course to hit 31.7 billion baht or 1 billion U.S. dollars in 2018, more than
double in value since 2014. Thai market growth faster than the whole Asia-Pacific
region about 80% referring to researcher Euromonitor International. (Yuvejwat-
tana,2018).Alexander Van Felde, Foodpanda‟s Thailand Chief Executive said that
Bangkok may one of the best potential in regional for meal applications as
Bangkok has so many street stalls and great restaurants. He also revealed that Thai
online food delivery market is in early stage, Bangkok has the potential to reach
100,00 daily transactions in a few years as the majority of Bangkokians are still
placed through traditional phone calls, The service providers have a chance to shift
Thai consumers to online ordering (Boonruang,2017).
There is no existing research found to comprehensively study of factors
impacting the acceptance and adoptionof On-demand food delivery applications
services in Thai perspective. This is of interest to fill the gap and leads to an
empirical study of factors impacting consumers‟ intention to use On-demand food
delivery applicationsin Bangkok, Thailand. The factors investigating are Personal
Innovativeness, Perceived Self-efficacy, Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived
Usefulness, Social Influence and Facilitating Conditions.

2. Literature Review

Personal Innovativeness (PI)

Personal Innovativeness was defined as the willingness of consumer to try
on all of new technology (Agarwal and Prasad,1998). It is the intrinsic part of
individual personality and the level of innovativeness varies amongeach
customer(Gupta, Xu & Zhang, 2011; Im, Bayus& Mason, 2003). Innovativeness
positively impact on the consumers adoption of mobile retailing (Bauer, Reichardt,
Barnes & Neumann, 2005).Personal innovativeness was examined a curial
determinant to perceived ease of use of m-payment technology adoption (Kim,
Mirusmonov& Lee, 2010).Innovative person can critically explain the perceived
ease of use and perceived usefulness of any technology-based services (Lu, Yao &
Yu, 2005).

Perceived self-efficacy (PSE)

Perceived self-efficacy is a term describes consumers‟ confidence in the
usage of innovation(Koksal, 2016). The degree of an individual believes in own
self skill to perform any specific activities (Hsu, Chang & Yen, 2011; Lai, 2008)
Self-efficacy was found that it has positive impact on Perceived ease of use in new

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

technology adoption (Igbaria and Iivari,1995; Pedersen, 2005; and Chen, Chen and
Yen,2011).

Perceived ease of use (PEOU)

Perceived ease of use was described as the scope of an individual believes
that using a particular innovation would be effortless (Püschel, Mazzon and Her-
nandez,2010). Perceived ease of use is known as a determinant influencing
perceived usefulness (Mathieson, 1991). The main theory that uses perceived ease
of use to predict the adoption of new information technologies by individuals is
The technology acceptance model (TAM) by Davis (1989).

Perceived usefulness (PU)

The Perceived usefulness isreferring tothe degree of consumer‟s beliefs that
their performancewas enhanced by adopting particular technology (Davis, 1989).
Perceived usefulnessalso described the using of innovation would improve job
performance. (Alalwan,Dwivedi, Rana, and Williams, 2016; Davis, 1989; Hana-
fizadeh, Behboudi, Koshksarayand Tabar, 2014; Liao, Shi and Wong, 2012;
Ramdhony and Munien, 2013).The main theory using perceived usefulness as a
crucial antecedent of the adoption of new information technologies by individuals
is the technology acceptance model (TAM) by Davis (1989).

Social influence(SI)
Social influence or subjective normsrefers to the degree of individuals
believe that relevant others would approve of certain behavior(Du, Zhu,Lv, and
Sun, 2012; Koksal, 2016).Optimisticopinions of family members,friends, relatives,
peers and colleaguesare able to motivate an individual to perceive that services are
useful and start to adopt that new services (Schepers&Wetzels, 2007).Social
influence has been employed in the theory of planned behavior(TPB)by Ajzen,
(1991)and in the result of many researchfound that it is a crucial determinant of
technology-based services adoption intention (Amin, Hamid, Lada & Anis, 2008;
Chong, Chan &Ooi, 2012; Oliveira, Thomas, Baptista, & Campos, 2016; Ting,
Yacob, Liw, & Lau, 2016).

Facilitating conditions (FC)

Facilitating conditions examine the certain extent of a personal believes that
organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support using of a new

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

technology (Venkatesh, Morris,Davis, & Davis, 2003). New technology basically
brings some form of new users‟ fear and anxiety. For this reason, the new users
become cautious. Facilitation conditions should make it conducive for users to
adopt the innovation (Shambare, 2013). The main theories using facilitating
conditions as an antecedent to the adoption of new technologies or information
systems are the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTUAT)by
Venkatesh et al. (2003)and theTask-technology fit theory (TTF) by Goodhue and
Thompson (1995).

Behavioral Intention (BI)

Behavioral intention was explained as a degree of intention of an individual
to execute a specificbehavior (Davis et al., 1989). It is also explained as the
userswilling to use a technology (Carlsson, Carlsson, Hyvonen, Puhakainen&
Walden, 2006; Harsono&Suryana, 2014). The theory of reasoned action (TRA) is
one of the model describes that performance of an obvious behavior is presented
by the intention to carry out the behavior itself (Warshaw, 1980).

3. Research Framework and Methodology

3.1 Research Framework
This conceptual framework was adapted from two researches which are the
research of factors affecting mobile payment adoption intention: An Indian
perspective (Shankar & Datta, 2018) and determinants of consumers‟intention to
adopt mobile banking services in Zimbabwe (Makanyeza, 2017) to identify the
factors that have significant impact onBangkokians‟ intention to use On-demand
food delivery applications. The investigated factors consist of Personal
Innovativeness, Perceived Self-efficacy, Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived
Usefulness, Social Influence and Facilitating Conditions.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

 Figure 1 Conceptual Framework of Factors impacting consumers’ intention to use On-demand
food delivery applicationsin Bangkok, Thailand (adapted by the researcher for this research)

This research forms nine hypotheses aligned with the conceptual framework as
defined in the Table 1 below.

Table 1. Defined hypotheses

No. H Hypotheses
1 H1a Personal innovativeness has significant impact on perceived ease of
use of On-demand food delivery applications.
2 H1b Perceived self-efficacy has significant impact on perceived ease of use
of On-demand food delivery applications.
3 H2a Personal innovativeness has significant impact on perceived usefulness
of On-demand food delivery applications.
4 H2b Perceived ease of use has significant impact on perceived usefulness of
On-demand food delivery applications.
5 H3a Personal self-efficacy has significant impact on intention to use On-
demand food delivery applications.
6 H3b Perceived ease of use has significant impact on intention to use On-
demand food delivery applications.
7 H3c Perceived usefulness has significant impact on intention to use On-
demand food delivery applications.
8 H3d Social influence has significant impact on intention to use On-demand
food delivery applications.
9 H3e Facilitating conditions has significant impact on intention to use On-
demand food delivery applications.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

3.2 Research Methodology
Examining the nine hypotheses, a researcher uses quantitative approach with
non-probability method. Thedata collecting was conducted with convenience
andsnowball sampling techniques from the respondents who live in Bangkok
through online survey. Multiple linear regression (MLR) was used to analyze the
impact of all independent variables in this research.

3.3 Measurement of Variables

The literature review was conducted to ensure the models were appropriate
for developing the conceptual framework, and to understand all variables
incorporated in this study. A Five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (5), was applied to measure variables in each hypothesis
related to this research topic.
The target respondents of this research were people who live in Bangkok
and had an experience of On-demand food delivery applications.
3.4 Population and Sample
The users of On-demand food delivery applications who live in Bangkok,
Thailand were selected as target respondents of this survey. The total number of
respondents who participated in the survey was 415 but with screening questions
asking „do you live in Bangkok, Thailand‟, „Have you ever used on-demand food
delivery applications‟ only 392 respondents were qualified.

3.5 Reliability Test

The reliability testwas established at the pilot stage when number of
respondents reached 30. Cronbach‟s Alpha Coefficient was considered to examine
the reliability level of each group of items included in the questionnaire whether it
is consistent and higher than 0.6 or not (Cronbach, 1951). The result is shown in
Table 2.

Table 2. Reliability Test

Variables Cronbach’s No. of
Alpha Items
Perceived usefulness .768 4
Perceived ease of use .939 4
Perceived self-efficacy .845 3
Personal innovativeness .777 3
Social influence .642 4
Facilitating conditions .685 5
Behavioral intention .881 3

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

4. Result and Discussion

4.1 Data Analysis

Multiple linear regression (MLR) was used as a statistical tool to analyze the
3 groups of hypotheses according to the defined conceptual framework.The first
group consists of 2 independent variables i.e. Personal innovativeness (PI) and
Perceived self-efficacy (PSE) and one dependent variable which is Perceived ease
of use (PEOU) of on-demand food applications. The second group consists of 2
independent variables i.e. Personal innovativeness (PI) and Perceived ease of use
(PEOU) and one dependent variable which is Perceived usefulness (PU) of on-
demand food applications. The last group consists of 5 independent variables i.e.
Perceived self-efficacy (PSE), Perceived ease of use (PEOU), Perceived usefulness
(PU), Social influence (SI) and Facilitating conditions (FC) and one dependent
variable which is behavioral intention (BI) to use on-demand food applications.
4.2 Descriptive Analysis
Demographic information of respondents is show in table 3. It illustrated
demographic information regarding 392 respondents who live in Bangkok,
Thailand and have ever used On-demand food delivery applications or 94.46% of
total respondents.

Table 3. Demographic Information of the target respondents (N= 392)

Demographic Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender
Female 265 67.60%
Male 127 32.40%
Age
Below 20 4 1.02%
21 – 30 198 50.51%
31 – 40 162 41.33%
41 – 50 24 6.12%
More than 50 4 1.02%
Education Level
Above Bachelor‟s Degree 170 43.37%
Bachelor‟s Degree 198 50.51%
Below Bachelor‟s Degree 24 6.12%
Occupation
Student 34 8.67%
Office worker 276 70.41%

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

 Entrepreneur 8 2.04%
Self-employed 56 14.29%
Freelance 8 2.04%
Others 10 2.55%
Monthly Income
Below 15,000 Baht 12 3.06%
15,001 - 30,000 Baht 98 25.00%
30,001 - 45,000 Baht 102 26.02%
45,001 - 60,000 Baht 76 19.39%
Above 60,000 Baht 104 26.53%
The most preferred application
Lineman 250 63.78%
Foodpanda 45 11.48%
Grab Food 39 9.95%
Now 45 11.48%
Other 13 3.31%
Demographic Frequency Percentage (%)
Frequency of use
Less than 2 times / month 154 39.29%
2 - 3 times / month 114 29.08%
4 - 5 times / month 72 18.37%
6 - 7 times / month 32 8.16%
Above 7 times / month 20 5.10%

The respondents who participated in this study classified into 67.6% of

female and 32.4% of male. Majority of respondents are 21-30 years old or 50.51%
of total and the following age groups are 31-40, 41-50 years old with the potion of
41.33% and 6.12% respectively, and the rest groups are below 20 and more than 50
years old equally at 1.02%. More than a half of respondents holds bachelor‟s
degree 50.51%followed by above bachelor‟sdegree 43.37% whereas below
bachelor‟s degree stands last at 6.12%. Over two-third or 70.41% of total
respondents are office worker, followed by self-employed 14.29%, student 8.67%
and the rest from varieties of occupation 6.63% such as entrepreneur, freelance,
government officer, housewife and unemployed. The major monthly income
ranges are above 60,000THB 26.53%, followed by 30,001-45,000THB 26.02%,
15,001-30,000 THB 25.00%, 45,001-60,000 THB 19.39% and below 15,000 THB
3.06%. The most preferred On-demand food delivery applications that respondents
haveever used are Line Man 63.78%, followed by Food Panda and Now which
both represent the samelevel of preference in the second rank at 11.48%, Grab
Food comes next at 9.95% and others 3.31% such as Honestbee, Wongnai, Uber

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

Eat and Zabdelivery. The respondents use On-demand food delivery application
mostly less than 2 times per month39.29% and 2-3 times per month29.08%
whereas 4-5 times per month comes at themoderate frequency 18.37%. Above 7
times per month and 6-7 times per month are at the leastfrequencies from the
survey i.e. 8.16% and 5.10% respectively.

4.3 Descriptive Research and Correlation Matrix

Table 4. Correlation Matrix
Variables Mean SD PU PEOU PSE PI SI FC BI
PU 4.2098 0.65095 1
PEOU 4.0408 0.80157 0.583** 1
PSE 4.2092 0.75607 0.518** 0.783** 1
PI 3.4184 0.97983 0.522** 0.514** 0.546** 1
SI 3.2251 0.86908 0.416** 0.450** 0.366** 0.493** 1
FC 3.7429 0.66510 0.463** 0.432** 0.474** 0.456** 0.430** 1
BI 3.7024 1.05133 0.571** 0.595** 0.582** 0.712** 0.585** 0.435** 1
Note: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
With reference to the Pearson‟s correlation coefficients matrix in Table 4,
there are a statistically significant correlation between each pair of variables with
P-values less than 0.01 significant level.According to the strength of correlations
defined by the Political Science Department at Quinnipiac University (2018).
Overall the variables have a strong positive relationship in the range of 0.416 –
0.595 which are PEOU:PU, PSE:PU, PI:PU, PI:PEOU, PI:PSE,SI:PU, SI:PEOU,
SI:PI, FC:PU, FC:PEOU, FC:PSE, FC:PI, FC:SI, BI:PU, BI:PEOU, BI:PSE, BI:SI
and BI:FC while two pairs in the matrix showing the very strong relationship
which are PSE:PEOU and BI:PI at 0.783 and 0.712 respectively and only SI:PSE
has moderate positive relationship at 0.366.

4.4 Inferential Analysis

In order to define inferential analysis, the researcher applies Multiple linear
regression (MLR) to all of the hypotheses at P-value 0.05 significant together with
Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) to examine the critical multicollinearity problem in
this research at VIF >5 (Ringle, Wende&Becker, 2015).

H1: Personal innovativeness (H1a) and Perceived self-efficacy (H1b) have

significant impact on Perceived ease of useof on-demand food applications.

Table 5. Result of Multiple linear regression (MLR) for H1a-H1b; Dependent variable PEOU
Standardized
Hypothesis Coefficients VIF Result
(Beta)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

 H1a: PI 0.123*** 1.425 Supported
H1b: PSE 0.716*** 1.425 Supported
R Square 0.624
Adjusted R Square 0.622
*Note: Beta coefficients are reported, *** p < 0.001

The result exhibited in the Table 5 shows that R Square at 0.624 which
means that 62.4% of all two independent variables i.e. Personal innovativeness (PI)
and Perceived Self-efficacy (PSE) could well explain the dependent variable
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) of On-demand food delivery applications, at 0.001
significant level or 99.99% of confident level. The P-values of the independent
variable, PI and PSE are less than 0.001 indicate that H1a and H1b are supported.
As a result, PSE has the most statistically significant impact on PEOU of On-
demand food delivery applications at the Standardized coefficients (Beta) 0.716.PI
has statistically significant impact on PEOU of On-demand food delivery
applications at the Standardized coefficients (Beta) 0.123.
The variance inflation factors (VIFs) were verified to validate the
multicollinearity problem. All VIFs were less than 5.00. This implies that no
critical issues exist with this research.

H2: Personal innovativeness (H2a) and Perceived ease of use (H2b) have
significant impact on Perceived usefulness of on-demand food applications.

Table 6. Result of Multiple linear regression (MLR) for H2a-H2b ; Dependent variable PU
Standardized
Hypothesis Coefficients VIF Result
(Beta)
H2a: PI 0.302*** 1.359 Supported
H2b: PEOU 0.428*** 1.359 Supported
R Square 0.407
Adjusted R Square 0.404
*Note: Beta coefficients are reported, *** p < 0.001

Table 6 indicates the result of R Square was at 0.407 that means the
dependent variable Perceived usefulness (PU) of On-demand food delivery
applications could be explained by the two independent variables Personal
innovativeness (PI) and Perceived ease of use (PEOU) about 40.7%, at 0.001
significant level or 99.99% of confident level. The P-values of the independent
variable, PI and PU are less than 0.001 which means H2a and H2b are supported.
As a result, PEOU has the most statistically significant impact on PU of On-

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

demand food delivery applications at the Standardized coefficients (Beta) 0.428. PI
has statistically significant impact on PU of On-demand food delivery applications
at the Standardized coefficients (Beta) 0.302.
The multicollinearity problem was also validated and found no issue same as
previous group according to all VIFs were less than 5.00.

H3: Perceived self-efficacy (H3a), Perceived ease of use (H3b), Perceived

usefulness (H3c), Social influence (H3d) and Facilitating conditions (H3e) have
significant impact on intention to use on-demand food applications.

Table 7. Result of Multiple linear regression (MLR) for H3a-H3e; Dependent variable BI
Standardized
Hypothesis Coefficients VIF Result
(Beta)
H3a: PSE 0.244*** 2.769 Supported
H3b: PEOU 0.107 3.047 Not Supported
H3c: PU 0.230*** 1.691 Supported
H3d: SI 0.344*** 1.404 Supported
H3e: FC 0.019 1.505 Not Supported
R Square 0.546
Adjusted R Square 0.540
*Note: Beta coefficients are reported, *** p < 0.001

The outcome from the Table 7 reveals R square at 0.546 which interprets
that 54.6% of all five independent variables in this group i.e. Perceived self-
efficacy (PSE), Perceived ease of use (PEOU), Perceived usefulness (PU), Social
influence (SI) and Facilitating conditions (FC) could explain the dependent
variable, behavioral intention (BI) to use On-demand food delivery applications, at
0.001 significant level. The P-values of independent variables, PSE, PU and SI are
less than 0.001 indicate that H3a, H3c and H3d are supported whereas other two
hypotheses H3b and H3e are not supported due to P-values greater than 0.05. This
result leads to a conclusion that PSE, PU and SI have statistically significant

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

impact on BI to use On-demand food delivery applications. SI has the most impact
on BI to use On-demand food delivery applications with Standardized Coefficient
0.344, followed by PSE at0.244 and PU at 0.233.
The multicollinearity problem was also validated and found no issues similar
to the others group.

5. Conclusion, Limitation, and Recommendation

5.1 Discussion and Conclusion
The research was conducted an empirical study to examine factors impact
intention to use On-demand food delivery application through online questionnaire
based on data from 392 respondents in Bangkok, Thailand who have ever used the
application. Convenience sampling and snowball methods have been used to obtain
the data. The research framework and factors are developed based on secondary
data. The aim of this research is to answer these three questions, firstly is to find
the impact to Perceived ease of use of on-demand food applications from Personal
innovativeness and Perceived self-efficacy. Follow by the impact of Personal
innovativeness and Perceived ease of use to Perceived usefulness of on-demand
food applications.Lastly, to investigate the impact of these independent
variablesPerceived self-efficacy, Perceived ease of use, Perceived usefulness,
Social influence and Facilitating conditions to intention to use on-demand food
applications.
The Multiple linear regression (MLR) have been used to test the conceptual
framework, and as the result shown in table 5-7, Personal innovativeness and
Perceived self-efficacy have statistically significant impact to Perceived ease of
use, while Perceived self-efficacy has higher impact. Personal innovativeness and
Perceived ease of use has statistically significant impact to Perceived usefulness,
while Perceived ease of use has higher impact.Lastly the factors that have most
impact on intention to use on-demand food applications are Social influence,
Perceived self-efficacy and Perceived usefulness respectively.

5.2 Implication and Recommendation

These study‟s results could be benefit to the entrepreneur of On-demand
food delivery applications by providing the key impact factors that encourage
Bangkokian customers to use the applications. Majority impactis from Social
influence factors, the implication of this is the more consumers believe that people
who matter in their life such as Family members, Relatives, Friends and
Colleagues would approve of using the On-demand food delivery applications, the
more likely consumers are to adopt the services. This finding is in line with the
current understanding that social influence increases the adoption of new

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

technologies (Du et al., 2012; Püschel et al., 2010). Next factor is impact of
Perceived self-efficacy, this can imply that if users have individual‟s confidence in
using On-demand food delivery application services, they will easily adopt the
services.The last one is the impact from Perceived usefulness which can imply to
the more consumers perceive the benefit from using applications, the more their
intention to use the applications. Meanwhile consumers perceive usefulness of
applications through their personal innovativeness and their perceived ease of use
of the applications.
For the recommendation, this study advises service providers to pay
particular attention to Social influence, Perceived self-efficacy and Perceived
usefulness when designing the business model or the marketing strategy.
Aggressive marketing campaigns can be done by using the opinion leaders who
can encourage other customers to adopt the services as the customers interact
socially, they tend to influence one another to adopt the On-demand food delivery
applications. Another way is to use the social networks such as Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter, Youtube, Website,etc. as a tool to build up engagement among
the target customers.Besides,theservice providers also should createmarketing
campaignsto emphasis how customers would aware the useful and convenience of
applications to increase customer confidence (Self-efficacy).In addition,the service
providers should portray the applications as a service that is ease to use and
compatible with customers‟lifestyle, needs, values and past experiences, which
will lead customers to embrace On-demand food delivery applications services.

5.3 Limitations and Future research directions

The current research examines crucial factors which impact to usage of On-
demand food delivery applications, but there are some limitations of this study.
The respondents of this study are only users of On-demand food delivery
applications who live in Bangkok, Thailand obtained by convenience and snowball
sampling method. Also limited to only user-centric factors.
Therefore, it is recommended to consider in different contexts in terms of
other stakeholder-centric, provinces, regions, countries, cultures, and so on in the
future studies.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

 References

Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of

personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology.
Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204–215.

Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organizational Behaviour

and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.

Alalwan, A.A., Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P. and Williams, M.D. (2016), “Consumer
adoption of mobile banking in Jordan”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 118-139.

Amin, H., Hamid, M.R.A., Lada, S., & Anis, Z. (2008). The adoption of mobile
banking in Malaysia: The case of Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad (BIMB).
International Journal of Business and Society, 9(2), 43.

Bauer, H.H., Reichardt, T., Barnes, S.J., & Neumann, M.M. (2005). Driving
consumer acceptance of mobile marketing: A theoretical framework and
empirical study. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6(3), 181.

Boonruang, S. (2018). On-demand delivery. [online] https://www.bangkok

post.com. Available at: https://www.bangkokpost.com/tech/apps/1186413/
on-demand-delivery [Accessed 7 Jul. 2018].

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

Carlsson, C., Carlsson, J., Hyvonen, K., Puhakainen, J., & Walden, P. (2006).
Adoption of mobile devices/services – searching for answers with the
UTAUT. In Proceeding of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences.

Chen, K., Chen, J.V., & Yen, D.C. (2011). Dimensions of self-efficacy in the study
of smart phone acceptance. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 33(4), 422–
431.

Chong, A.Y.L., Chan, F.T., &Ooi, K.B. (2012). Predicting consumer decisions to
adopt mobile commerce: Crosscountry empirical examination between
China and Malaysia. Decision Support Systems, 53(1), 34–43.

Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 16(3), pp.297-334.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp.
319-340.

Du, H, Zhu, G, Lv, T. and Sun, X. (2012), “Factors affecting purchase intention on
3G value-added services”, Jindal Journal of Business Research, Vol. 1 No.
2, pp. 139-152.

Goodhue, D.L. and Thompson, R.L. (1995), “Task technology fit and individual
performance”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 213-236.

Gupta, S., Xu, H., & Zhang, X. (2011). Balancing privacy concerns in the adoption
of location-based services: An empirical analysis. International Journal of
Electronic Business, 9(1–2), 118–137.

Hanafizadeh, P., Behboudi, M., Koshksaray, A.A. and Tabar, M.J.S. (2014),
“Mobile banking adoption by Iranian bank clients”, Telematics and
Informatics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 62-78.

Hirschberg, C., Rajko, A., Schumacher, T. and Wrulich, M. (2016). The changing
market for food delivery. [online] McKinsey & Company. Available at:
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high-tech/our-insights/the-changing-
market-for-food-delivery [Accessed 4 Jul. 2018].

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

Hsu, M.H., Chang, C.M., & Yen, C.H. (2011). Exploring the antecedents of trust in
virtual communities. Behaviour and Information Technology, 30(5), 587–
601.

Igbaria, M., &Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage.

Omega, 23(6), 587–605. Im, S., Bayus, B.L., & Mason, C.H. (2003). An
empirical study of innate consumer innovativeness, personal characteristics,
and new-product adoption behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 31(1), 61–73.

Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M., & Lee, I. (2010). An empirical examination of factors
influencing the intention to use mobile payment. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26(3), 310–322.

Koksal, M.H. (2016), “The intentions of Lebanese consumers to adopt mobile

banking”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 327-
346.

Lai, M.L. (2008). Technology readiness, internet self-efficacy and computing

experience of professional accounting students. Campus-Wide Information
Systems, 25(1), 18–29.

Liangyu. (2018). China's food delivery market grows 23 pct in 2017 - Xinhua |
English.news.cn. [online] Available at: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/
2018-01/21/c_136912829.htm [Accessed 4 Jul. 2018].

Liao, Z., Shi, X. and Wong, W-K. (2012), “Consumer perceptions of the smartcard
in retailing: an empirical study”, Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 252-262.

Lu, J., Yao, J.E., & Yu, C.S. (2005). Personal innovativeness, social influences and
adoption of wireless internet services via mobile technology. The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 14(3), 245–268.

Makanyeza, C. (2017). Determinants of consumers‟ intention to adopt mobile

banking services in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Bank Marketing,
35(6), pp.997-1017.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

Mathieson, K. (1991), “Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology
acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior”, Information
Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 173-191.

Oliveira, T., Thomas, M., Baptista, G., & Campos, F. (2016). Mobile payment:
Understanding the determinants of customer adoption and intention to
recommend the technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 404–414.

Pedersen, P.E. (2005). Adoption of mobile internet services: An exploratory study

of mobile commerce early adopters. Journal of Organizational Computing
and Electronic Commerce, 15(3), 203–222.

Püschel, J., Mazzon, A. and Hernandez, J.M.C. (2010), “Mobile banking:

proposition of an integrated adoption intention framework”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 389-409.

Ramdhony, D. and Munien, S. (2013), “An investigation on mobile banking

adoption and usage: a case study of Mauritius”, World Journal of Social
Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 197-217.

Schepers, J., &Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance

model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information
and Management, 44(1), 90–103.

Shambare, R. (2013), “Factors influencing the adoption of cell phone banking by

South African students”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 30-38.

Shankar, A. and Datta, B. (2018). Factors Affecting Mobile Payment Adoption

Intention: An Indian Perspective. Global Business Review, 19(3_suppl),
pp.S72-S89.

Technavio. (2017). Global Online On-Demand Food Delivery Market to Grow

32 Percent by 2021. [online] Available at: https://www.foodlogistics.com/
technology/press-release/20986811/global-online-ondemand-food-delivery-
market-to-grow-32-percent-by-2021 [Accessed 4 Jul. 2018].

Ting, H., Yacob, Y., Liew, L., & Lau, W.M. (2016). Intention to use mobile
payment system: A case of developing market by ethnicity. Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 224, 368–375.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D. (2003). User acceptance
of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3),
425–478.

Warshaw, P.R. (1980). A new model for predicting behavioral intentions: an

alternative to fishbien. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(May): 153-172.

Yuvejwattana, S. (2018). Foodpanda and Line Are Fighting to Feed Bangkok.

[online] Bloomberg.com. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/
articles/2018-03-19/foodpanda-uber-take-meal-apps-battle-to-bangkok-s-
food-paradise [Accessed 7 Jul. 2018].

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3321587