Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 876–884

The Fifth Information Systems International Conference 2019

The Fifth Information Systems International Conference 2019
A Comparative Study of Factors Affecting User Acceptance of GO-
A Comparative Study of Factors Affecting User Acceptance of GO-
PAY and OVO As a Feature of Fintech Application
PAY and OVO As a Feature of Fintech Application
Arief Zuliyanto Susilo*, M. Iksan Prabowo, Abdullah Taman, Adeng Pustikaningsih,
Arief Zuliyanto Susilo*, M. Iksan Ahmad
Prabowo, Abdullah Taman, Adeng Pustikaningsih,
Samlawi
Ahmad Samlawi
Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia
Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia

Abstract
Abstract
The new era of technology has changed how people run their businesses, including transportation network companies. The business
has started
The new eratoofutilize advanced
technology internet-based
has changed technology.
how people run theirGojek and Grab
businesses, have both
including joined thenetwork
transportation competition by introducing
companies. GO-
The business
has
PAYstarted
and OVOto utilize advanced
as their crucialinternet-based technology.
features in their Gojek
applications. andGojek
Both Grab and
haveGrab
both have
joinedsucceeded
the competition by introducing
in countering GO-
conventional
PAY
meansand OVO as their
of transport crucial
and taken features
over in their applications.
the dominations of servicesBoth Gojek The
to clients. and term
Grabofhave succeeded
fintech has beenin countering
optimized inconventional
day-to-day
operations,
means howeverand
of transport the taken
figures of capitalization
over the dominations are of
different
services significantly indicating
to clients. The term ofthefintech
number hasofbeen
loyaloptimized
customers.inTechnology
day-to-day
operations,
Acceptance however the figures
Model (TAM) of capitalization
was used are causes,
to spot the main different significantly
a problem indicating
illustrated the number
by intention to useofand
loyal customers.
considering theTechnology
usefulness
Acceptance
and also easeModel
of use(TAM) was used toEighty-two
the applications. spot the main causes, adegree
of Diploma problem illustrated
students wereby intention
asked to use and
to complete considering
a set the usefulness
of TAM-questionnaires,
answer
and also easewhich
of useapplications they use
the applications. the most.of
Eighty-two The hypothesis
Diploma testing
degree indicates
students were that thetohigh
asked degreeaof
complete setusefulness of similarities,
of TAM-questionnaires,
and
easeanswer which applications
of use perceptions, attitudethey use theusage
to actual most.between
The hypothesis
GO-PAYtesting
and OVO.indicates that the high degree of usefulness of similarities,
ease of use perceptions, attitude to actual usage between GO-PAY and OVO.
© 2019 The Authors.Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2019
This The
is an Authors.Published
open by Elsevier
access article under B.V.
the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an
Peer-reviewopen access
under article under
responsibility of the CC BY-NC-ND
scientific license
committee
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
ofofThe
The Fifth
Fifth Information
Information Systems
Systems International
International Conference
Conference 2019
2019.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The Fifth Information Systems International Conference 2019
Keywords: Fintech; GO-PAY; OVO; Technology; TAM
Keywords: Fintech; GO-PAY; OVO; Technology; TAM

1. Introduction
1. Introduction
Along with the improvement of technology, finance management has come into new development which is known
Along with
as Financial the improvement
Technology of technology,
(Fintech). This fintech finance
movementmanagement
as a lifelinehas come into new
is expanding untildevelopment which
it is now entering theisdomain
known
as Financial Technology (Fintech). This fintech movement as a lifeline is expanding until it is now entering the domain

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +62-813-294-24141.

* E-mail ariefzuliyanto@uny.ac.id
address:author.
Corresponding Tel.: +62-813-294-24141.
E-mail address: ariefzuliyanto@uny.ac.id
1877-0509© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open
1877-0509© access
2019 Thearticle under
Authors. the CC by
Published BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
This under
is an open responsibility
access of the scientific
article under CC BY-NC-NDcommittee of The
license Fifth Information Systems International Conference 2019
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The Fifth Information Systems International Conference 2019

1877-0509 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The Fifth Information Systems International Conference 2019.
10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.195
 Arief Zuliyanto Susilo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 876–884 877
2 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

which shall not be categorized only in terms of funding, asset management, and payment. For certain individuals,
fintech has been used in the payment method as being offered by Gojek and Grab.
Gojek and Grab, categorized as a company engaged in the transportation sector, have been offering a non-cash
payment feature. Moreover, transportation plays an important role in human life, especially in facilitating daily needs.
This can also accelerate the economic sector and affect all aspects of life both local and national levels. Alongside the
development of the citizens in the world, the need for transportation facilities has been increasing, thus, contributed
to the advancement of worldwide business in transportation services.
Gojek and Grab are internet-based transportation services that have also been competing with each other to be
number one fintech that might ease our daily life activities nowadays. Gojek and Grab have a good market in most
parts of Indonesia in which their drivers and riders are widely spread.
Go-pay is one of the financial technology products brought by Gojek to facilitate the financial system of the
company. The internal factors such as the company's heterogeneity and competition rate, and the external factors such
as government regulations and technology standards are the factors that support the tendency of making innovation in
the payment method from conventional payment to mobile payment Liu, Kauffman, & Ma [1]. On the other hand,
Gojek has its competitors from our neighbor country called Grab. Started on Monday 23rd of May 2016, Grab came
in with its payment feature using an electronic wallet called GrabPay, this payment-feature also aimed to increase the
amount of order.
In spite of Gojek and Grab providing an equal method of payment and services, there is a significant gap of user
do exist. This research aims to compare the citizen's acceptance rate for Go-Pay toward its usage intensity by the
Gojek consumers, and the citizen's acceptance rate for OVO toward its usage intensity by the Grab consumers based
on construction model of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The test has been held by using the variable in some
points included in the TAM model which later to be compared such as the ease of use, perceived usefulness, and
attitude Liebana-Cabanillas et al.[2]. Those applications are freely downloaded in online software marketplaces and
could be used in more than one gadget with a single user account.
Fontes et al [2] do similar research using a different method, tries to determine the main causes may influence
citizen to adopt mobile payment for public transportation transactions in two different size characteristic places.
Oporto, Portugal elected to represent medium-sized and Beijing as a big-sized metropolitan area. While Mallat et al
[3] use broaden model of TAM by adding social influence, cost, previous experience, trust, risk, use context and
mobility. Notwithstanding, this research combines their ideas and puts it on the basic TAM model.
This research focuses on the acceptance rate in the technology of Go-pay payment system for Gojek, and OVO
payment system for Grab related to the usage intensity, and then compare both of them. The researcher uses the
traditional TAM model in measuring the acceptance rate in both consumers with some points included in TAM are
Perceived ease of use, usefulness, and attitude.

2. Literature review

2.1. Financial technology (fintech)

Fintech is an acronym of Financial Technology that describes a company or a subsidiary that combines a financial
service with technology. Every company insisted to be categorized as fintech has to offer Internet-based products with
and applications (apps) installed in gadget or smartphone. Generally, these modernized businesses aim to attract the
interest of consumers with products, easy-to-use services, efficiency, and transparency compared to the conventional
business.
Fintech could not be possible to be categorized based on its usage on governmental regulations or legal documents.
Fintech companies obey to certain kinds of legal obligations and different rules because of their business type. The
difference in its business is that its products and its services offer many things.
878 Arief Zuliyanto Susilo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 876–884
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 3

2.2. Mobile payment

Mobile payment is a payment method for products and services which use gadgets such as smartphone or PDA.
This type of payment relates to the payment system using cellular credits and also the gadgets to communicate with
the direction user by utilizing the wireless technology Rahayu & Waluja [5]. Mobile payment gives advantageous to
users, such as its practical usage and easy access as long as the signal is present. Fontes, T et al. [2] found mobile
payment helps the customers finish more transactions in a shorter time and more appropriate. On another hand by
adopting mobile payment, users going to have advantages without troubling its user and it is also reliable which also
does not require complicated installation.

3. TAM (Technology Acceptance Model)

There are some research models developed to find out about the acceptance rate for one new technology among us.
One of the models being used is TAM (Technology Acceptance Model) which is considered to be commonly used to
measure the acceptance attitude toward the new technology. TAM is the improvement model from TRA (Theory
Reasoned Action) that is actually the focus of its study the psychological attitude of someone towards one object
Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw [6]. The classical TAM uses attitude factors on some variables, such as Ease of use as
well as Usefulness
Both variables, based on Davis, have been able to reflect the attitude of someone towards the usage of certain new
technology. Thus, because the first user will decide to use the technology based on two factors explained above (ease
of use and usefulness). For further explanation, Davis [7] has viewed this theoretical model as shown in Fig. 1.

Perceived
usefulness Attitude Actual
Toward System
Using Use
Perceived
ease of Use

Fig.1. Technology Acceptance Model [5].

This research focuses not only in the Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), Attitude Toward
Using (Attitude) but also the Actual System Use. This research assumes that the external condition has been considered
to be ceteris paribus.

3.1. Perceived of usefulness

Perceived of usefulness has been defined as a user believe that by using a certain kind of system will improve the
performance Davis [7]. This term is in line with the definition of Useful or it can be meant expediency. In some cases,
Perceived of Usefulness also can be defined as an advantage. In a technological world, expediency means that people
who use certain technology will get the result they want Liebana-Cabanillas et al. [8].
Based on Chin & Todd[9] the expediency term can be classified into two categories that are: (1) Usefulness with
one estimation factor such as: useful, enhancing effectiveness, make the job easier, increase productivity and improve
job performance. Usefulness uses beneficial, useful, make job easier, increase productivity, effectiveness, enhancing
effectiveness, and Improve job performance as estimation factors.
 Arief Zuliyanto Susilo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 876–884 879
4 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

3.2. Ease of use

The first definition is that "ease of use" which can be meant as a measurement of the user believe that certain
technologies use certain systems and will give them freedom of action to not having more effort. This explanation is
based on the definition of "ease" which means freedom from difficulty or effortless. So, based on Davis [7], certain
applications or technological systems providing easiness will be more acceptable to the users.
Moreover, the term easy-to-use has two implications for the attitude of users; the success of one individual and
also as the intermediary. The success itself can be valued as one of the major factors that underlie certain motivation.
At last, people intend to do certain jobs that are suitable to their motivation Liebana-Cabanillas, et al. [8].
On the other literature, it is said that some indicators from certain technologies that included in having easiness are
Lee & Wan [10]. Lee & Wan [10] assert that it includes (1) Easy and skillful in using information technology, (2)
Information technology that is easy to learn, and (3) Information Technology that is easy to operate.

3.3. Attitude

The popular definition of attitude that is also cited in Premkumar, Ramamurthy, & Liu [11] means a happy feeling
towards certain behaviors. This means that an attitude is created when someone gets or obtains an experience. In
another literature, the deeper definition says that attitude is a thing that has a multidimensional element such as 1)
Cognitive, 2) Emotional, and 3) Conative.
Cognitive dimension refers to the user knowledge about some products or services (experiences, beliefs, and
opinions), whereas the emotional dimension refers to the tendency of someone towards one object (feeling, emotion,
evaluation) and the last, conative dimension refers to the motive of behavior (the buying intensity, the buying response
and the rejection response) Liebana-Cabanillas et al. [8].

3.4. Framework of thinking

This research aims to examine that the payment system of GO-PAY brought by Gojek as a mobile payment method
can be acceptable to its consumers, as well as OVO by Grab. Thus, this research compares which system from both
developers is more acceptable to the users or the consumers. As the renewal from the former research, the researcher
compares the effect of users’ acceptance level toward the variable of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness
and toward the attitude in Mobile technology acceptance model for the users of GO-PAY and OVO in Gojek and
Grab's payment transaction. Also, this research aims to compare the attitude in using GO-PAY and OVO, which is
more significant about the intensity in using the Gojek and Grab services. The framework of thinking for this research
has been illustrated in a diagram adopting the classical TAM diagram to test each application and it is shown in Fig.
2.
However, in this digital era, people seem unable to avoid technologies as part of our daily lives. Based on the
framework above, this research has some hypothesis or momentary presumption that will be tested and examined as
below:

 H1: differences among TAM’s variables in GO-PAY and OVO going to zero.

Perceived t-test1 Attitude Actual

t-test3
Usefulness Toward Usage
Using
Perceived t-test2
Ease of Use

Fig. 2. Research Framework.

880 Arief Zuliyanto Susilo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 876–884
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 5

4. Research methods and sample

4.1. Research methods

This research that deals with social media have been designed in the form of field research, in which the data and
the pieces of information that are obtained are a result from the field research activity. Whereas, the approach used in
this research is descriptive quantitative. We use the basic TAM model introduced by Davis, however the connection
between Perceived Ease of Use to Perceived usefulness did not test in this paper. We deploy the questionnaire via
google form to all of Yogyakarta State University Diploma student. Each question used 4 Likert scale and firstly
participants have to confess if they use mobile payment or not. Many of them dropped from the sample because they
never use GO-PAY or OVO. Each form filled voluntarily, so researchers cannot control the total amount of
respondents. The data passed the validity and reliability before the t-test conducted. Next step, regressions were used
then coefficients figure taken in t-test with SPSS 23.

4.2. Sample

In total, 174 students fill the questionnaire, however 62 persons assert do not use GO-PAY and OVO as well. The
sample in this research are 82 of the diploma 3 students of UNY, not only limited in just one certain study program
but also the representatives from each study program and from each level. Because the focus of this study is about the
acceptance level of the GO-PAY payment method for Gojek consumers, the respondents are presented to assure that
they are the real user if this Gojek application and considered to have more than three times transactions. A self-
administered questionnaire (SAQ) is used to collect the sampling data, entail basic reasons why they intent to use one
more frequently than the other one.

5. Result

5.1. Description of sample

We use 30 participants to preliminary test, they picked randomly from 112 persons who use GO-PAY or OVO,
and 82 more to test the hypothesis. They have been officially recognized as active students studying a Diploma degree
at Yogyakarta State University. Table 1 shows the filtering process briefly.

Table 1. Data Filtering.

Filter GO-PAY OVO

Manual payment users 62
Validity test 20 10
Hypo 35 47
Total questionnaire 174

5.2. Discussion and finding

Reliability and validity were conducted before the hypothesis testing. We use 30 participants excluding the sample
and the test has been passed, so the questionnaires seem proper to get tested.
To analyze the hypothesis, we test each application separately using TAM model, because this research disregards
the impact of variables to actual usage. We split the original TAM model into 2 parts, first we examine the ease of use
and usefulness to attitude (as the first dependent variable). The next step is to test the correlation between attitude to
actual system usage (second dependant variable). GO-PAY is the first application we test, and all types of variables
 Arief Zuliyanto Susilo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 876–884 881
6 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

strongly affect the Y1 and Y2. The results shown in Table 2 and Table 3 are respectively, while Table 4 and Table 5
illustrate Grab’s.

Table 2. GO-PAY Correlation Between Usefulness and Ease Of Use Toward Attitude.

Coefficients Standardized
Model Unstandardized B t Sig.
Std. Error Coefficients Beta
(Constant) -0.536 1.996 -0.268 0.790
Usefulness 0.336 0.141 0.328 2.380 0.023
Ease of use 0.567 0.143 0.545 3.955 0.000
Sig. F 0.000
F value 26.823
R2 0.626
Adjusted R 2
0.603

Table 3. GO-PAY Correlation Between Attitude Toward Usage.

Coefficients Standardized
Model Unstandardized B t Sig.
Std. Error Coefficients Beta
(Constant) -1.307 2.732 -0.478 0.636
Attitude 1.109 0.202 0.690 5.479 0.000
Sig. F 0.000
F value 30.020
R2 0.476
Adjusted R2 0.460

In the first test on GO-PAY, the model only explains 62.6% of correlation between usefulness and ease of use to
attitude. Other types of variables that are not represented in this test have 37.4% of effect. During the second test,
attitude only has 47.6% impact on the usage, in other words, 52.4% of usage triggered by other factors.

Table 4. OVO Correlation Between Usefulness and Ease of Use Toward Attitude.

Coefficients Standardized
Model Unstandardized B t Sig.
Std. Error Coefficients Beta
(Constant) -0.380 1388.000 -0.274 0.786
Usefulness 0.217 0.100 0.254 2.159 0.036
Ease of use 0.716 0.131 0.641 5.454 0.000
Sig. F 0.000
F value 54.130
R2 0.711
Adjusted R2 0.698
882 Arief Zuliyanto Susilo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 876–884
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 7

Table 5. OVO Correlation Between Attitude Toward Usage.

Coefficients Standardized
Model Unstandardized B t Sig.
Std. Error Coefficients Beta
(Constant) 1.231 2.675 0.460 0.648
Attitude 0.977 0.190 0.607 5.130 0.000
Sig. F 0.000
F value 26.317
R2 0.369
Adjusted R2 0.355

Each independent variable in both applications have strong connections which could be translated to the ease of
use and usefulness going to affect the reasons why users tend to use it in comparison with direct payment. However,
GO-PAY and OVO have different patterns in the second test, the contrary phenomenon has happened. The number of
R2 for OVO is lower than the figure on R2 in the first test, while GO-PAY shows the opposite. Not to mention the fact
that correlation between attitude and actual usage in OVO has been moderated by more factors than GO-PAY.

Table 6. Independent Samples Test.

Usefulness to Attitude
t-test for Equality of
Means
t Sig. (2-tailed)
Equal variances
assumed -1.299 0.198
Equal variances not
assumed -1.316 0.192

Test result (Sig 2-tailed) as depicted in Table 6 which indicates that the effect of usefulness, GO-PAY and OVO,
to attitude is 0.198 which is more than 0.005. It could be interpreted as no differences between GO-PAY and OVO in
term of usefulness coupling to attitude. It means the hypothesis is successful to support.

Table 7. Independent Samples Test.

Ease of Use to Attitude

t-test for Equality of Means
t Sig. (2-tailed)
Equal variances
assumed -0.954 0.343
Equal variances not
assumed -0.949 0.346

Independent sample test for ease of use to the attitude shown in Table 7 proves that it has no differences within
GO-PAY and OVO in spite of the fact that they have a big gap based on the test result for each application. The
number is 0.338 higher than it must be to get categorized as different.
 Arief Zuliyanto Susilo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 876–884 883
8 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

Table 8. Independent Samples Test.

Attitude to Actual Usage

t-test for Equality of Means
t Sig. (2-tailed)
Equal variances
assumed -1.701 0.093
Equal variances not
assumed -1.69 0.095

The test is successful to strengthen the hypothesis that there is no gap in relation to attitude to the actual usage of
GO-PAY and OVO. The number is just above the maximum point to be considered as dissimilar. The number is
authentication that GO-PAY and OVO users' attitude will have the same actions represented in their actual usage.

Perceived
Usefulness ND
Attitude Actual
Toward ND
Usage
Using
Perceived ND
Ease of Use

ND: No Difference

Fig 3. Result of Hypothesis Testing.

According to the three previous tables, we shall sum up the analysis into one figure as shown in figure 3. Based on
Fig. 3 it could be concluded that all transportation network users stopped to think about the difficulty degree and
believe that those are important, so actual usage is not affected. In other words, usefulness and easiness are no longer
considered by people to decide whether it shall be used or left behind.
Traditional TAM shows a similarity of correlation not only between Usefulness and Ease of use to Attitude but
also attitude to actual usage. It means the hypothesis is successful to support. This might be caused by so many
considerations that may change in disruption era that have not yet been captured in this research.

6. Conclusion

People GO-PAY and OVO users have been influenced by many factors, and traditional TAM has failed to capture
the main causes why they tend to use one more often. It is actually harder to identify the basic role of factors that will
contribute to user decision especially for application that they do not have to pay. In the other word, we cannot identify
user judgment prefer on one than other using basic TAM model. It is important to find out the other factors to include
in basic model of TAM.

7. Limitation and future research

This research employs homogenous sample who living in similar area, which it's mean all of the individual spent
most time in area that can be served by Gojek and Grab perfectly. In short, so it is probable to conduct new research
in term of inequality of place.
884 Arief Zuliyanto Susilo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019) 876–884
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 9

Acknowledgment

This paper fully funded by Yogyakarta State University. Special thanks to all students who spent time to contribute
to this research.

References

[1] Liu, Jun., Robert J.Kaufman, and Dan Ma. (2015) “Competition, Cooperation, and Regulation: Understanding The Evolution of The Mobile
Payments Technology Ecosystem.” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 14 (5): 372– 391.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2015.03.003.
[2] Fontes, T, Vera Costa, Marta Campos Ferreira, Li Shengxiao, Pengjun Zhao, and Teresa Galvao Dias. (2017). “Mobile Payments Adoption
in Public Transport.” Transportation Research: Procedia 24: 410–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.093.
[3] Mallat, Niina, Matti Rossi, Virpi Kristiina Tuunaine, and Anssi Öörni. (2008). “An Empirical Investigation Of Mobile Ticketing Service
Adoption In Public Transportation.” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 12 (1): 57–65.
[4] Liébana-Cabanillas, Francisco, Juan Sánchez-Fernández, and Francisco Muñoz-Leiva. (2014) “Antecedents Of The Adoption Of The New
Mobile Payment Systems: The Moderating Effect Of Age.” Computers in Human Behaviour 35: 464–478.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.022.
[5] Rahayu, Sarwati, and Didik Imam Waluja. (2010) “On-line Mobile Payment Dengan Menggunakan EDC Sebagai Sarana Pembayaran
Tagihan PLN [Title in English: On-line Mobile Payment using EDC as a Media Payment for Electricity Billing].” Jurnal Ilmiah FIFO 35.
[6] Davis, Fred D, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw. (1989) “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two
Theoretical Models.” Management Science 35 (8): 82–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
[7] Davis, Fred D (1989) “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.” MIS Quarterly 13
(3): 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
[8] Liébana-Cabanillas, Francisco, Juan Sánchez-Fernández, and Francisco Muñoz-Leiva. (2014) “The Moderating Effect Of Experience In The
Adoption Of Mobile Payment Tools In Virtual Social Networks: The Payment Acceptance Model in Virtual Social Networks (MPAM-
VSN).” International Journal of Information Management. 34, 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.12.006
[9] Chin, Wynne W, and Peter A. Todd. (1995) “On The Use, Usefulness, And Ease Of Use Of Structural Equation Modeling In MIS Research:
A Note Of Caution.” MIS Quarterly 19 (2 (June)): 237–246. https://doi.org/10.2307/249690.
[10] Lee, Chang Boon Patrick, and Guohua Wan. (2010) “Including Subjective Norm and Technology Trust in the Technology Acceptance
Model.” ACM SIGMIS Database 41 (4): 40. https://doi.org/10.1145/1899639.1899642.
[11] Premkumar, G, K. Ramamurthy, and Hsin-Nan Liu. (2008) “Internet Messaging: An Examination Of The Impact Of Attitudinal, Normative,
And Control Belief Systems.” Information and Management 45(7): 451–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.06.008.