Machine Learning with Applications 4 (2021) 100034

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Machine Learning with Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mlwa

On the way: Hailing a taxi with a smartphone? A hybrid SEM-neural network

approach
Amos Junke Lau a,b , Garry Wei-Han Tan c,d ,∗, Xiu-Ming Loh a , Lai-Ying Leong a , Voon-Hsien Lee a ,
Keng-Boon Ooi c,e
a Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Jalan Universiti, Bandar Barat, 31900 Kampar, Perak, Malaysia
b Wesley Methodist School Penang (International), 1, Lebuh Sungai Pinang 1, 11600, George Town, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
c
Faculty of Business and Management, UCSI University, No. 1 Jalan Menara Gading, UCSI Heights, 56000 Cheras, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
d
School of Finance and Economics, Nanchang Institute of Technology, 901 Ying Xiong Avenue, Chang Bei Economic Development Zone, Nan Chang City, Jiang Xi
Province, 330034, People’s Republic of China
e
College of Management, Chang Jung Christian University, 711, Tainan City, Guiren District, Taiwan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Undoubtedly, mobile taxi booking (MTB) services have resulted in a significant disruption to the lives of the
Sharing economy general public. However, with a lot of firms offering the service in Malaysia, this will bring about confusion
Mobile taxi booking services to users, especially in deciding which MTB service is the best for their usage. As such, this research looks
Mobile Technology Acceptance Model (MTAM)
into determining the antecedents that affect the adoption of MTB services. This was achieved through the
Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation
utilization of an extended Mobile Technology Acceptance Model (MTAM). A total of 330 usable responses were
Modeling (PLS-SEM)
Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
analyzed using Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) and Artificial Neural Network
Malaysia (ANN) that yielded novel insights which will significantly benefit numerous stakeholders. Furthermore, this
research extends the literature on MTB services from the perspective of a developing country and verifies the
robustness of using an extended MTAM.

1. Introduction
The sharing economy has been described as a model in the study of
economics driven by the latest technology in networks that allow things
or skillsets to be shared and trade in a way that was not possible before
(Bernardi, 2018). The terminology has also been denoted as a game-
changing innovation that challenged the status quo of conventional
business model by shifting the subtleties of consumption (Min et al.,
2019). Sharing economy has been regarded as a trend in the twenty-
first century because it can provide more sustainable development by
improving individuals’ wellbeing, building human socialism, and alle-
viating environmental problems (Plewnia & Guenther, 2018). Recently,
the rapid uptake of mobile technology has allowed the sharing economy
to blossom on an unexpected scale which indicates a socio-economic
phenomenon of huge significance.
One aspect of the sharing economy is ride-hailing. This system uses
a person’s smartphone to serve as a means of requesting taxi services
(Harding et al., 2016). This service, known as mobile taxi booking
(MTB), is possible given the rise in consumers’ usage of self-service
technologies, primarily via the use of mobile applications (Newman
et al., 2018). In Malaysia, there are 42 MTB firms that citizens and
tourists can choose from, such as Grab, EzCab, and Pickup2u (Tan,
2019). This situation presents the country with the problem of a glut
as the MTB space is congested. Moreover, despite the rapid growth
of the MTB services, studies on its adoption are still relatively scarce.
This is further worsened when narrowing down the studies to just the
context of Malaysia alone (Weng et al., 2017). Hence, it is insufficient
to comprehensively address the critical issues of this phenomenon (Min
et al., 2019). Consequently, with the lack of a thorough understanding
of this problem, stakeholders cannot design and implement effective
strategies to curb this issue.
All these lead to the necessity to better the comprehension of factors
of MTB service adoption. As such, this study sets forth to investigate
the antecedents that influence consumer adoption of MTB services
through the utilization of a uniquely extended Mobile Technology
Acceptance Model (MTAM). The MTAM was utilized as the base model
of this study as the subject matter of this study is a mobile-related
service. Moreover, this study extends the model given that the base
of MTAM only has two factors (i.e. mobile ease of use and mobile
usefulness). This study develops a novel research framework which
greatly contributes to the academic setting by enhancing our present

∗ Correspondence to: UCSI Graduate Business School, UCSI University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
E-mail addresses: amos.lau@penang.wms.edu.my (A.J. Lau), GarryTan@ucsiuniversity.edu.my (G.W.-H. Tan), lohxm@utar.edu.my (X.-M. Loh),
leongly@utar.edu.my (L.-Y. Leong), leevh@utar.edu.my (V.-H. Lee), ooikb@ucsiuniversity.edu.my (K.-B. Ooi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mlwa.2021.100034
Received 10 October 2020; Received in revised form 3 March 2021; Accepted 21 March 2021
Available online 31 March 2021
2666-8270/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A.J. Lau, G.W.-H. Tan, X.-M. Loh et al.
comprehension of consumers’ adoption behavior. Also, the findings of
this study will provide practical insights that are crucial in enhancing
industry practices. As such, the research objectives are two-fold: (1)
to determine the antecedents that affect the adoption of MTB services
from a developing nation’s perspective and (2) to assess the robustness
of a distinctly extended MTAM with additional variables from other
dimensions.
2. Literature review
2.1. Mobile Taxi Booking (MTB) services
In recent years, the introduction of MTB services have brought
about a number of disruptions especially in the transportation sector.
Across many countries around the world, controversy was courted
because of this innovative service. More specifically, it challenged the
norms of already existing taxi hailing services (Jacobs, 2018; Lee,
2016). Despite this, the acceptance of MTB services did not falter but
contrarily has only gotten more traction among the general public.
Recently, studies on MTB services have gained somewhat of a luke-
warm attention by the research community. For example, Alemi et al.
(2018) looked into the factors affecting the adoption of MTB services in
the United States. They determined several demographical (e.g., older,
higher educated) and attitudinal factors (e.g., pro-environmental, vari-
ety seeking, and technology embracing). In somewhat similar context,
Lavieri and Bhat (2019) also found that variety seeking, tech-savvy and
privacy-sensitive individuals are more open to adopting MTB services.
Besides, Acheampong et al. (2020) examined the variables that influ-
ence the adoption of MTB services in Ghana. This study found that
demographic characteristics (e.g., female, higher educated), perceived
benefits, perceived ease of use, perceived control, and perceived safety
risks were among the significant variables for the adoption of MTB
services. Particularly in Malaysia, Ooi et al. (2020) discovered that
only perceived mobility, perceived compatibility, and effort expectancy
were significant determinants of MTB services adoption. Overall, re-
search in the Malaysian context on the adoption of MTB services are
still lacking.
2.2. Mobile Technology Acceptance Model (MTAM)
Davis (1989) developed TAM to look into worker’s intentions in
accepting new technology (Sinha et al., 2018). This is a prevalently
used model in investigating the intention to adopt the technology
(Villa et al., 2018) given its simple theoretical foundation (Chang
et al., 2016). Since its conception, several reversions of TAM were
introduced to overcome the limitations of the original model. One of
which is the MTAM established by Ooi and Tan (2016) that tackles the
narrow definition of TAM variables in an organizational context. This is
because technology adoption is no longer confined to the organizational
context which would result in variation in aspects such as the types and
intricacies of tasks (Brown et al., 2006). Moreover, Ooi and Tan (2016)
argued that numerous researchers have tried to borrow variables from
studies of other related areas to be used in mobile adoption studies. This
brings about an issue in the form of applicability as electronic devices
and mobile devices are inherently different. For instance, screen size
and battery life differ between desktop computers and mobile devices
(Tan et al., 2014).
Given this, Ooi and Tan (2016) comprehensively investigated and
elaborated on the limitations of a few prominent information technol-
ogy models in the area of mobile research. From there, the MTAM
was developed to reflect better the mobile setting, which comprises
of mobile usefulness (MU) and mobile ease of use (MEOU). However,
solely relying on TAM variables is not sufficient to fully elaborate on
the adoption of innovative technology (Gu et al., 2009) as it can hardly
account for 40% of the changes in usage intention and behavior of
innovative technology adoption (Legris et al., 2003). This is because
2
Machine Learning with Applications 4 (2021) 100034
of the parsimonious nature of TAM, which lacks other variables that
would be deemed as vital in influencing the adoption of innovative
technology (Luarn & Lin, 2005).
Researchers such as Phan and Daim (2011) as well as Benbasat
and Barki (2007) have proposed the inclusion of more variables to
overcome this drawback. This can be in terms of integrating constructs
from other dimensions that affect the decision-making of users (Chen,
2008; Kim et al., 2010). The utilization of this would allow for a
more holistic understanding of antecedents that impact the adoption of
innovative technology, particularly for mobile services. The study by
Ooi and Tan (2016) was the first to propose the MTAM as an extended
model with multi-dimensional variables. As such, this study follows
that approach as the determination of successful adoption is multi-
dimensional (Lew et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2021). As such, this study
extends the MTAM to account for other critical factors of mobile taxi
adoption that would be unique from different types of technologies’
adoption.
3. Hypotheses development
3.1. Mobile Usefulness (MU)
This study contextualizes MU to denote the level of performance
improvement from the use of MTB services that are perceived by users
(Ooi & Tan, 2016). In contrast to traditional taxi booking means, MTB
services provide many added usefulness such as better efficiency and
convenience (Nguyen-Phuoc et al., 2020). Furthermore, past studies
have looked into the association between usefulness and intention
in the acceptance contexts of various forms of mobile services. For
example, Loh et al. (2019) examined the relationship between MU
and the adoption intention of wearable payment. The results of this
study revealed that MU was the most significant antecedent when
determining the intention to adopt wearable payment. Another study
by De Luna et al. (2019) examined the effects of usefulness on three
different types of mobile payment. The study confirmed the significance
of usefulness on the adoption intention of all three types of mobile
payment. As users would want to utilize a new mobile service that
can help them improve their productivity, the following hypothesis is
derived:
H1: Mobile usefulness has a significantly positive relationship with the
behavioral intention to adopt mobile taxi booking services.
3.2. Mobile Ease of Use (MEU)
MEU denotes the level of effortlessness perceived by a user (Ooi &
Tan, 2016). In particular, it can be in the form of simplicity and ease of
handling the MTB services. MEU has been examined and subsequently
verified to have a twofold effect on both MU and BI to adopt. This
began with Davis (1989) in his seminal work on the development of
the TAM model. Recently several past studies have also found this to
be the case. These include studies by Loh et al. (2019) in the wearable
payment setting and Rafique et al. (2020) in the context of mobile
library applications. Also, Pipitwanichakarn and Wongtada (2019) fur-
ther established the dual influences of ease of use on usefulness and
intention for both early and late adopters of mobile commerce. All
these points to the situation where the minimum effort to use is a
great facilitator for the adoption of mobile-related services. Hence, the
following hypotheses are derived:
H2: Mobile ease of use has a significantly positive relationship with the
behavioral intention to adopt mobile taxi booking services.
H3: Mobile ease of use has a significantly positive relationship with
mobile usefulness.
A.J. Lau, G.W.-H. Tan, X.-M. Loh et al.
3.3. Word-of-Mouth (WOM)
WOM refers to the interpersonal communications an individual
has with members of his/her social circle. A person’s informal social
networks can include groups such as family, friends, and even those
he/she meets during leisure time activities (Kirschenbaum et al., 2017).
These networks are developed by social interactions that are primarily
centered on trust. In this kind of setting, the process of knowledge and
information exchange is deemed more effective (Kim et al., 2017). As
such, WOM is a powerful way of disseminating information regarding
a particular service (Mehrad & Mohammadi, 2017). In the case of this
study, it refers to MTB services. In the pre-adoption stage, individuals
seek information regarding a specific service from others as a risk
reduction strategy (Jalilvand & Samiei, 2012). Additionally, consumers
seek out and trust information from WOM more in deciding on a
specific service (Velázquez et al., 2015). In this study, communication is
centered around the services of MTB. More specifically, the information
obtained from WOM will develop one’s MU, MEU, and trust in the
system. Hence, the following hypotheses are derived:
H4: Word-of-mouth has a significantly positive relationship with the
behavioral intention to adopt mobile taxi booking services.
H5: Word-of-mouth has a significantly positive relationship with mobile
usefulness.
H6: Word-of-mouth has a significantly positive relationship with mobile
ease of use.
3.4. Trust in the System (TRS)
In general, trust has been defined as ‘‘the belief the other party will
behave in a socially responsible manner and, by so doing, fulfill the
trusting party’s expectations without taking advantage of its vulnera-
bilities’’ (Gefen, 2000, p.726). Several past studies have found trust to
be a significant antecedent of the adoption of mobile services in various
contexts. These include mobile payment (Park et al., 2019), mobile
shopping (Marriott & Williams, 2018), and mobile internet (Alalwan
et al., 2018). In this study, the definition of TRS has been adapted to
refer to the user’s overall perception concerning the trustworthiness of
MTB services. In particular, it indicates a degree of confidence that
a user has in the perceived reliability and dependability towards the
system of MTB. As utilizing MTB services require users to provide
personal and financial information into the system such as real-time
location and payment details (Joia & Altieri, 2018), TRS is posited to
be a significant aspect in this setting. Thus, the following hypothesis is
derived:
H8: Trust in the system has a significantly positive relationship with
mobile usefulness.
H9: Trust in the system has a significantly positive relationship with
mobile ease of use.
3.5. Trialability (TRB)
TRB refers to the degree of ease a user can try out an inno-
vation on a limited basis (Rogers, 2003). Trials provide individuals
with an environment to experiment with the innovation that they are
interested in (Strömberg et al., 2016). The initial experiences may
then result in positive experiences that result in the development of
positive adoption intentions. As such, new products and services that
can be experimented with before their full implementation are usually
adopted quicker than those that cannot be tried out (Koksal, 2016).
This situation holds true in numerous adoption settings of innovative
services such as mobile learning (Park et al., 2018), self-collection
services (Yuen et al., 2018), and the Internet of Things (Karahoca et al.,
2018). Specifically, in this study, TRB will allow individuals to gain a
better comprehension of what MTB services are like. In particular, new
users of Grab can get RM10 off their first two rides with a promotional
code (Grab, 2020). Consequently, those who have tested it will have
3
Machine Learning with Applications 4 (2021) 100034
decreased apprehension or uncertainty on whether to adopt the MTB
services or not. Hence, the following hypotheses are derived:
H10: Trialability has a significantly positive relationship with the be-
havioral intention to adopt mobile taxi booking services.
H11: Trialability has a significantly positive relationship with mobile
usefulness.
H12: Trialability has a significantly positive relationship with mobile
ease of use.
3.6. Government Support (GOV)
The government is a key figure when it comes to promoting in-
novative services (Patanakul & Pinto, 2014). Many past studies have
found that the government can play a significant role as a supporter
or barrier in numerous adoption settings. These include the adop-
tion of business-to-business e-commerce (Mohtaramzadeh et al., 2018),
environmental technology (Chan et al., 2020), cloud computing (Ali
& Osmanaj, 2020), and electric vehicles (Kim et al., 2018). This is
because GOV lends credibility as well as feasibility to new electronics-
related services. As such, this would result in a higher likeliness for the
innovative service to be accepted by potential adopters (Marakarkandy
et al., 2017). In this study, GOV is posited as an antecedent for MTB
services as it provides a level of assurance to users that MTB services
will operate in an orderly manner. Hence, the following hypothesis is
developed:
H13: Government support has a significantly positive relationship with
the behavioral intention to adopt mobile taxi booking services.
From all the hypotheses mentioned above, the conceptual frame-
work of this study is illustrated in Fig. 1.
4. Research methodology
4.1. Data collection and sampling method
Data were solicited from several locations around the Klang Val-
ley region, given the high comparative population density (25.5%)
in the area (DOSM, 2019). This is because the Klang Valley region
encompasses Kuala Lumpur, which is the capital city of Malaysia as
well as Selangor. Additionally, Kuala Lumpur has the highest mobile-
broadband penetration rate per 100 inhabitants, whereas Selangor is
the fifth-highest state concerning this among all the states in Malaysia
(MCMC, 2019). In particular, highly popular shopping malls, recre-
ational centers, and transportation hubs in the Klang Valley region
were chosen because of the huge concentration of people with varying
demographics (Tan & Ooi, 2018). In addition to being crowded with
people, these locations relate to the subject matter of this study as they
are places where people would typically take the taxi.
As there is no sampling frame for mobile taxi users, judgmen-
tal sampling, which is a non-probability sampling, was employed.
Malaysian mobile device users were targeted as it was found that this
group has a greater propensity for utilizing mobile technology to carry
out commerce-related tasks (Sim et al., 2014). Only respondents who
concurred to possess a mobile device when queried were solicited to
participate in this study. A short briefing on the subject matter of
the study was given to the respondents. Also, the researchers were
around to answer any questions that the respondents had regarding
the questionnaire items. This was done to eliminate the probability
that respondents answer the survey without completely understanding
its content. The questionnaires were collected back as soon as the
participants completed all sections.
The minimum sample was estimated using G*Power software to be
153 given the presence of 7 exogenous constructs and a significance
level of 0.05 to achieve a statistical power of 95%. As such, the
sample size of 330 obtained from the distribution of 350 surveys which
translates to a response rate of 94.28% is sufficient.
A.J. Lau, G.W.-H. Tan, X.-M. Loh et al. Machine Learning with Applications 4 (2021) 100034

Fig. 1. Conceptual model.

Table 1
Constructs and adapted sources of survey items.
Constructs Measurement items Sources
Behavioral Intention BI1: Given the opportunity, I will use mobile taxi to meet my traveling needs. Tan et al. (2014)
BI2: I am likely to use mobile taxi in the near future.
BI3: I am willing to use mobile taxi in the near future.
BI4: I will think about using mobile taxi to travel to my destination.
BI5: I intend to use mobile taxi services when there is an opportunity arises.
Mobile usefulness MU1: Using mobile taxi enhances my traveling experience. Tan and Ooi (2018)
MU2: Using mobile taxi helps me save time.
MU3: I find mobile taxi useful in my daily life.
MU4: Using mobile taxi gives me greater control over my schedule.
Mobile ease of use MEU1: Interaction with mobile taxi does not require a lot of intellectual effort. Tan and Ooi (2018)
MEU2: It would be easy for me to become skillful at using mobile taxi.
MEU3: Learning how to use mobile taxi would be easy for me.
MEU4: Mobile taxi is flexible to interact with.
MEU5: Overall, I find mobile taxi easy to use.
Word-of-mouth WOM1: I will talk about the strengths of the mobile taxi with the people I know. Mehrad and Mohammadi (2017)
WOM2: I will talk about mobile taxi in a positive manner.
WOM3: If you ask me about mobile taxi, I will definitely recommend it.
Trust in the system TRS1: I trust mobile taxi services. (Jimenez et al., 2016)
TRS2: I trust that my mobile taxi service provider keeps my best interest in mind.
TRS3: I believe that mobile taxi service providers will meet my expectations.
TRS4: I believe that mobile taxi platforms are reliable.
Trialability TRB1: Prior before deciding on whether or not to adopt mobile taxi, I would use it on a trial basis. (Chemingui & Ben lallouna, 2013)
TRB2: Prior before deciding on whether or not to adopt mobile taxi, I would need to properly try it out.
TRB3: I would be permitted to use the mobile taxi on a trial basis long enough to see what it can do.
TRB4: I know how to satisfactory try out various uses of the mobile taxi.
Government support GOV1: Overall, I think the government has policies that promote the use of mobile taxi. (Sánchez-Torres et al., 2018)
GOV2: Overall, I think the government is promoting the development of mobile taxi.
GOV3: Overall, I think the government has a favorable legislation to use mobile taxi.

4.2. Measurement of instrument 5.2. Statistical analysis

There are three sections in the survey. Section A inquires on the

demographic profile whereas Section B and Section C look into the
exogenous and endogenous constructs respectively. A total of 32 mea-
surement items adapted from the existing literature were used in this
survey. The respondents’ level of agreement or disagreement towards
the measurement items was gauged using a seven-point Likert scale
ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. The items and
their particular sources are listed in Table 1.
5. Analysis of data
5.1. Descriptive statistics
The demographic profiles of respondents are provided in Table 2. A
large percentage of them are female, single, and between the ages of
21 and 25.
5.2.1. Assessing the outer measurement model
The validation of the measurement model’s reliability, convergent
validity, and discriminant validity were carried out. In Table 3, every
construct has a composite reliability (CR) value that is more than 0.7
which verifies that all constructs are reliable (Loh et al., 2020). Besides,
convergent validity (CV) was established based on the values of factor
loadings as well as average variance extracted (AVE). With regards to
the same table, all factor loadings are above 0.7 except MEU1 (0.693).
Tan and Ooi (2018, p. 1627) mentioned that an ‘‘outer loading between
0.4 and 0.7 can be accepted if other indicators with high loading can
explain 50 percent of the AVE’’. Therefore, MEU1 was retained since
AVE exceeded 0.50 which denotes that the acceptable level of CV has
been achieved (Buyucek et al., 2019). In addition, this study examined

4
A.J. Lau, G.W.-H. Tan, X.-M. Loh et al. Machine Learning with Applications 4 (2021) 100034

Table 2
Descriptive characteristics of the participants.
Demographic characteristics Description Count Percentage (%)
Gender Male 131 39.7%
Female 199 60.3%
Age 20 years and below 41 12.4%
21–25 years old 138 41.8%
26–30 years old 54 16.4%
31–35 years old 23 7%
36–40 years old 10 3%
Above 40 years old 66 20%
Marital status Single 249 75.45%
Married 81 24.55%
Personal income/allowance (per month) Less than RM1,000 139 42.12%
RM1,001-RM2,000 22 6.6%
RM2,001-RM3,000 46 13.9%
RM3,001-RM4,000 33 10%
RM4,001-RM5,000 22 6.6%
Above RM5,000 70 21.21%
Highest level of education No college degree 43 13
Diploma/Advanced Diploma 25 7.57
Bachelor degree/Professional qualification 173 52.4%
Postgraduate 66 20
Others 26 7.87
Industry Banking 48 14.54%
Financial institution 31 9.39%
Information technology 13 3.9%
Manufacturing 19 5.7%
Retail 3 0.9%
Telecommunication 5 1.5%
Tourism 4 1.2%
Education 79 23.9%
Others 136 41.21%
Frequency of using taxi per month 1 to 3 times 152 46%
4 to 10 times 46 13.9%
11 to 20 times 10 3%
None 127 38.4%

discriminant validity (DV) by using the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) Table 3

Loadings, Composite reliability, and Average variance extracted.
ratio of correlations (Henseler et al., 2015). Based on Table 4, DV
was established as all values are within the threshold criterion of 0.85 Latent constructs Items Loadings Composite Average
reliability variance
(HTMT < 0.85). extracted
Behavioral intention BI1 0.868 0.953 0.802
5.2.2. Inspecting the inner structural model BI2 0.926
All variance inflation factor (VIF) values ranged from 1.183 to 2.316 BI3 0.921
which is below the threshold value of 3.3 (Aw et al., 2019). Therefore, BI4 0.885
multicollinearity is not an issue in this study. Next, the hypothesized BI5 0.876
Mobile usefulness MU1 0.856 0.914 0.726
relationships were assessed on the level of significance of the path
MU2 0.863
coefficient using a 5000 bootstrapping subsample method. The results MU3 0.833
in Table 5 and Fig. 2 show that in relation to BI, MU (𝛽 = 0.305, p MU4 0.856
< 0.05) and WOM (𝛽 = 0.457, p < 0.05) are significant determinants Mobile ease of use MEU1 0.693 0.903 0.652
whereas MEU (𝛽 = 0.093, p > 0.05), TRB (𝛽 = 0, p > 0.05), and GOV MEU2 0.815
MEU3 0.844
(𝛽 = 0.003, p > 0.05) are not. Additionally, MEU (𝛽 = 0.230, p <
MEU4 0.865
0.005), WOM (𝛽 = 0.301, p < 0.05), and TRS (𝛽 = 0.327, p < 0.05) MEU5 0.810
have significant influences on MU while TRB (𝛽 = 0.060, p > 0.05) Word-of-mouth WOM1 0.839 0.924 0.803
does not. Besides, WOM (𝛽 = 0.278, p < 0.05), TRS (𝛽 = 0.363, p < WOM2 0.933
0.05), and TRB (𝛽 = 0.116, p < 0.05) have significant relationships WOM3 0.914
Trust in the system TRS1 0.886 0.929 0.767
with MEU. Finally, WOM (𝛽 = 0.710, p < 0.05) was also found to be TRS2 0.854
a significant antecedent of TRS. Hence, except for H2, H10, H11, and TRS3 0.875
H13, all other hypotheses are supported. Moreover, the research model TRS4 0.887
is able to explain 60.2%, 42.0%, 50.4%, and 59.1% of the variance in Trialability TRB1 0.807 0.897 0.685
TRB2 0.822
MU, MEU, TRS, and BI respectively.
TRB3 0.859
TRB4 0.823
5.3. The predictive relevance and effect size Government support GOV1 0.927 0.949 0.862
GOV2 0.944
The model’s predictive quality was assessed with Stone–Geisser’s GOV3 0.914
Q2 . The results are shown in Table 6 where the values are 0.441, 0.405,
0.254, and 0.361 for BI, MU, MEU, and TRS respectively. As all Q2
values are above zero, the model is ascertained to exhibit predictive respectively. If the value of f2 is less than 0.02, it shows that there is
relevance (Tan & Ooi, 2018). The research also studied the f2 effect
size using the following thresholds set by Cohen (2013) whereby 0.02, no effect (Tew et al., 2021). The results in Table 7 show that MU and
0.15, and 0.35 signify effects which are small, medium, and large WOM have small and medium effects respectively whereas MEU, TRB,

5
A.J. Lau, G.W.-H. Tan, X.-M. Loh et al. Machine Learning with Applications 4 (2021) 100034

Fig. 2. Structural model testing.

Table 4 and GOV have no effect on BI. Additionally, MEU, WOM, and TRS have
Heterotrait–Monotrait assessment.
small effects whereas TRB has no effect on MU. Furthermore, WOM and
Constructs Original Sample mean Bias 2.50% 97.50%
TRS have small effects whereas TRB has no effect on MEU. Lastly, WOM
sample (O) (M)
has a significantly high effect on TRS.
WOM → BI 0.790 0.791 0.001 0.703 0.850
GOV → BI 0.307 0.309 0.002 0.190 0.416
GOV → WOM 0.429 0.431 0.001 0.318 0.539 5.4. Artificial neural network (ANN) analysis
MEU → BI 0.610 0.610 0.000 0.508 0.707
MEU → WOM 0.661 0.660 0.000 0.573 0.745
MEU → GOV 0.234 0.234 0.000 0.123 0.351 ANN was incorporated to predict the normalized importance of
MU → BI 0.747 0.746 −0.001 0.665 0.820 the antecedents of behavioral intention to adopt MTB. The significant
MU → WOM 0.784 0.783 −0.001 0.705 0.846 independent variables from the PLS-SEM analysis are taken as the input
MU → GOV 0.330 0.331 0.001 0.199 0.456
neurons for the ANN models. Using a feed-forward-back-propagation
MU → MEU 0.708 0.707 −0.001 0.605 0.798
TRB → BI 0.365 0.367 0.002 0.235 0.482 algorithm (FFBP) and the sigmoid function as the activation function,
TRB → WOM 0.479 0.479 0.001 0.349 0.599 a 10-fold cross-validation approach was applied in order to reduce
TRB → GOV 0.266 0.267 0.001 0.142 0.385 the over-simplification of model fit (Hew & Kadir, 2017; Ooi et al.,
TRB → MEU 0.393 0.393 0.000 0.252 0.519
2018). With the data allocation of 90% for training and the remaining
TRB → MU 0.412 0.411 −0.001 0.268 0.542
TRS → BI 0.691 0.690 −0.001 0.603 0.759 10% for testing, the RMSE values are computed (Leong, Hew, Ooi, Lee
TRS → WOM 0.788 0.788 0.000 0.719 0.851 et al., 2019). Finally, sensitivity analysis was performed to calculate
TRS → GOV 0.283 0.285 0.002 0.161 0.408 the normalized importance of all the input neurons in the ANN models
TRS → MEU 0.673 0.671 −0.001 0.589 0.754
(Sim et al., 2014). The normalized importance is computed by dividing
TRS → MU 0.781 0.779 −0.002 0.717 0.837
TRS → TRB 0.336 0.337 0.001 0.199 0.465 the relative importance of an input neuron by the highest relative
importance in the ANN model and expressed in the form of percentages
Note: BI = Behavioral Intention; MU = Mobile Usefulness; MEU = Mobile Ease of
Use; WOM = Word-of-Mouth; TRS = Trust in the System; TRB = Trialability; GOV = (Leong et al., 2020). By applying the same approach as Leong, Hew,
Government Support. Ooi and Wei (2019), the percentage of variance explained or R2 was
calculated. Explicit ANN models were used to analyze the normalized
importance of the input neurons in each model as shown in Fig. 3,
Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and Fig. 6. The next section elucidates the details of these
model analyses.

Table 5
Outcome of the structural model examination.
Hypotheses Paths Original sample (O) Sample mean (M) Standard deviation (STDEV) T Statistics (| O/STDEV | ) p-values Remarks
H1 MU → BI*** 0.305 0.304 0.068 4.504 0.000 Significant
H2 MEU → BINS 0.093 0.091 0.068 1.369 0.171 Not significant
H3 MEU → MU*** 0.230 0.234 0.062 3.700 0.000 Significant
H4 WOM → BI*** 0.457 0.459 0.060 7.554 0.000 Significant
H5 WOM → MU*** 0.301 0.300 0.063 4.789 0.000 Significant
H6 WOM → MEU*** 0.278 0.280 0.059 4.731 0.000 Significant
H7 WOM → TRS*** 0.710 0.711 0.032 22.397 0.000 Significant
H8 TRS → MU*** 0.327 0.322 0.069 4.730 0.000 Significant
H9 TRS → MEU*** 0.363 0.361 0.061 5.967 0.000 Significant
H10 TRB → BINS 0.000 0.003 0.042 0.002 0.999 Not significant
H11 TRB → MUNS 0.060 0.061 0.047 1.278 0.202 Not significant
H12 TRB → MEU* 0.116 0.117 0.054 2.147 0.032 Significant
H13 GOV → BINS 0.003 0.005 0.042 0.076 0.940 Not significant

Notes:
a. BI = Behavioral Intention; MU = Mobile Usefulness; MEU = Mobile Ease of Use; WOM = Word-of-Mouth; TRS = Trust in the System; TRB = Trialability; GOV = Government
Support.
b. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; NS Not supported.

6
A.J. Lau, G.W.-H. Tan, X.-M. Loh et al. Machine Learning with Applications 4 (2021) 100034

Table 9
Sensitivity analysis for TRS.
Neural network (NN) WOM
NN (i) 1.000
NN (ii) 1.000
NN (iii) 1.000
NN (ix) 1.000
NN (v) 1.000
NN (vi) 1.000
NN (vii) 1.000
NN (viii) 1.000
NN (ix) 1.000
NN (x) 1.000
Average importance 1.000
Normalized importance (%) 100.0
Fig. 3. ANN model for TRS.

Table 6
Predictive relevance (Q2 ) and R2 .
Constructs SSO SSE Q2 (= 1-SSE/SSO) R2
Behavioral intention 1650 922.470 0.441 0.591
Mobile usefulness 1320 785.524 0.405 0.602
Mobile ease of use 1650 1230.320 0.254 0.420
Word-of-mouth 990 990
Trust in the system 1320 1372 0.361 0.504
Trialability 1320 1320
Government support 990 990

Table 7
Effect size (f2 ).
Predictor constructs BI MU MEU WOM TRS TRB GOV
/Dependent constructs
Behavioral intention
Mobile usefulness 0.101
Fig. 4. ANN model for MU.
Mobile ease of use 0.012 0.077
Word-of-mouth 0.220 0.096 0.060 1.014
Trust in the system 0.120 0.113 Table 10
Trialability 0.000 0.007 0.019 RMSE values for MU.
Government support 0.000 Training Testing Total
N SSE RMSE N SSE RMSE
Table 8 296 2.052 0.0833 34 0.182 0.0732 330
RMSE values for TRS. 299 2.032 0.0824 31 0.228 0.0858 330
Training Testing Total 300 2.189 0.0854 30 0.145 0.0695 330
296 2.213 0.0865 34 0.149 0.0662 330
N SSE RMSE N SSE RMSE
295 2.121 0.0848 35 0.173 0.0703 330
300 3.176 0.1029 30 0.430 0.1197 330 295 1.994 0.0822 35 0.286 0.0904 330
298 2.870 0.0981 32 0.323 0.1005 330 295 1.969 0.0817 35 0.277 0.0890 330
299 2.873 0.0980 31 0.229 0.0859 330 295 2.085 0.0841 35 0.203 0.0762 330
298 3.281 0.1049 32 0.331 0.1017 330 296 2.171 0.0856 34 0.150 0.0664 330
296 2.973 0.1002 34 0.312 0.0958 330 295 2.147 0.0853 35 0.226 0.0804 330
298 2.752 0.0961 32 0.357 0.1056 330
Mean 0.0841 Mean 0.0767
295 2.842 0.0982 35 0.263 0.0867 330
296 3.157 0.1033 34 0.325 0.0978 330 Standard 0.0016 Standard 0.0092
297 2.789 0.0969 33 0.325 0.0992 330 deviation deviation
295 2.820 0.0978 35 0.291 0.0912 330 R𝟐 = 0.6200
Mean 0.0996 Mean 0.0984
Standard 0.0030 Standard 0.0099
deviation deviation
5.4.2. ANN model of MU
R𝟐 = 0.6911
The mean RMSE values for the MU model for training and testing
are 0.0841 and 0.0767 respectively. Moreover, the model in Table 10
can explain 62% of the changes in MU. From the sensitivity analysis in
Table 11, we found that TRS is the strongest predictor follow by WOM
5.4.1. ANN model of TRS and MEU as these predictors have a normalized importance of 95.7%
Table 8 reveals that the RMSE values for training and testing have and 79.5% respectively.
means of 0.0996 and 0.0984 which are relatively small. In addition,
5.4.3. ANN model of MEU
the R2 is 0.6911 which signifies that 69.11% of the variance in TRS
Table 12 reveals that the mean values of RMSE for training and
can be explained by the input neuron. Therefore, the model possesses
testing are 0.1014 and 0.0878 respectively. This implies that the model
a substantial degree of model fit and predictive power. Since this is a has a good model fit. Moreover, 66.3% of the variance in MEU can
single neuron model in Table 9, the sensitivity analysis yields a 100% be explained by the input neurons. More specifically, the sensitivity
normalized importance. analysis in Table 13 shows that TRS is the most important predictor for

7
A.J. Lau, G.W.-H. Tan, X.-M. Loh et al. Machine Learning with Applications 4 (2021) 100034

Table 11 Table 13
Sensitivity analysis for MU. Sensitivity analysis for MEU.
Neural network (NN) WOM TRS MEU Neural network (NN) WOM TRS TRB
NN (i) 0.317 0.383 0.301 NN (i) 0.353 0.421 0.225
NN (ii) 0.311 0.393 0.296 NN (ii) 0.461 0.354 0.185
NN (iii) 0.362 0.335 0.303 NN (iii) 0.316 0.498 0.185
NN (ix) 0.349 0.366 0.286 NN (ix) 0.229 0.475 0.296
NN (v) 0.365 0.341 0.294 NN (v) 0.333 0.537 0.131
NN (vi) 0.378 0.348 0.274 NN (vi) 0.323 0.413 0.265
NN (vii) 0.343 0.365 0.293 NN (vii) 0.345 0.362 0.293
NN (viii) 0.348 0.408 0.244 NN (viii) 0.337 0.404 0.259
NN (ix) 0.381 0.341 0.278 NN (ix) 0.278 0.485 0.237
NN (x) 0.324 0.356 0.320 NN (x) 0.547 0.355 0.097
Average importance 0.348 0.364 0.289 Average importance 0.352 0.430 0.217
Normalized importance (%) 95.7 100.0 79.5 Normalized importance (%) 81.8 100.0 50.5

Fig. 6. ANN model for BI.

Table 14
Fig. 5. ANN model for MEU. RMSE values for BI.
Training Testing Total
Table 12 N SSE RMSE N SSE RMSE
RMSE values for MEU.
295 3.369 0.1069 35 0.267 0.0873 330
Training Testing Total
298 2.640 0.0941 32 0.446 0.1181 330
N SSE RMSE N SSE RMSE 299 2.974 0.0997 31 0.335 0.1040 330
297 2.752 0.0963 33 0.187 0.0753 330 299 2.858 0.0978 31 0.255 0.0907 330
295 2.755 0.0966 35 0.211 0.0776 330 295 3.237 0.1048 35 0.144 0.0641 330
299 3.001 0.1002 31 0.197 0.0797 330 295 3.016 0.1011 35 0.308 0.0938 330
300 3.173 0.1028 30 0.160 0.0730 330 298 2.611 0.0936 32 0.545 0.1305 330
297 2.863 0.0982 33 0.301 0.0955 330 294 2.926 0.0998 36 0.271 0.0868 330
295 2.585 0.0936 35 0.223 0.0798 330 296 2.778 0.0969 34 0.236 0.0833 330
298 2.552 0.0925 32 0.205 0.0800 330 298 2.952 0.0995 32 0.121 0.0615 330
297 2.589 0.0934 33 0.194 0.0767 330 Mean 0.0994 Mean 0.0920
299 4.340 0.1205 31 0.539 0.1319 330
Standard 0.0042 Standard 0.0214
297 4.241 0.1195 33 0.389 0.1086 330
deviation deviation
Mean 0.1014 Mean 0.0878
R𝟐 = 𝟎.𝟔𝟖𝟓𝟖
Standard 0.0103 Standard 0.0189
deviation deviation
Table 15
R𝟐 = 𝟎.𝟔𝟔𝟑𝟎
Sensitivity analysis for BI.
Neural network (NN) WOM MU
NN (i) 0.455 0.545
MEU followed by WOM and TRB which have a normalized importance NN (ii) 0.523 0.477
of 81.8% and 50.5% respectively. NN (iii) 0.532 0.468
NN (ix) 0.514 0.486
NN (v) 0.499 0.501
5.4.4. ANN model of BI NN (vi) 0.514 0.486
NN (vii) 0.535 0.465
Mean values of RMSE for the training and testing of this model NN (viii) 0.512 0.488
are 0.0994 and 0.0920 respectively and with an R2 of 0.6858 as NN (ix) 0.537 0.463
shown in Table 14. This shows that the model has substantial model NN (x) 0.529 0.471

fit and predictor power as 68.58% of the variance in BI is explained. In Average importance 0.515 0.485
particular, Table 15 reveals that WOM is the strongest predictor of BI Normalized importance (%) 100.0 94.2
followed by MU which has a normalized importance of 94.2% .
Overall, the model of MU shows that TRS (100%) is the strongest
predictor follow by WOM (95.7) and MEU (79.5). Besides that, the predictor for MEU, followed by WOM (81.8) and TRB (50.5%). Lastly,
ANN model for MEU reveals that TRS (100%) is the most important WOM (100%) is the strongest predictor of BI followed by MU (94.2).

8
A.J. Lau, G.W.-H. Tan, X.-M. Loh et al.
6. Discussion
Based on the results, H1 is supported as MU has a significantly
positive relationship with BI. This indicates that the adoption of MTB
services is dependent on how it will add value to the users’ lives. In
other words, the increase in convenience, time saving, and productivity
gained from the use of MTB services are significant reasons for people
to adopt them. Conversely, the hypotheses related to MEU were found
to have contrasting results. More specifically, H2 was not supported
given that MEU does not have a significant relationship with BI while
H3 was supported as MEU has a significantly positive relationship with
MU. These findings are in fact similar with past studies (Loh et al.,
2019; Wang et al., 2020) and can be attributed to the widespread
mobile digitalization (Vogels, 2019). Overall, users’ familiarity with
the use of smartphones and mobile services in general, as well as the
emphasis of mobile service/app developers on creating mobile services
that are easy to use diminishes the influence of MEU to BI. Despite
that, the findings also indicate that users still value MEU as an apparent
benefit in terms of the easiness to learn and use the MTB services.
Additionally, WOM is the most important variable in this study
as it has significant positive relationships with MU, MEU, TRS, and
BI which confirms H4, H5, H6, and H7 respectively. These results
indicate that the social aspect of a person is significant in affecting
his/her behavioral intention. More specifically, the information and
suggestions obtained by potential users from people close to them
will enhance the usefulness, ease of use, trust, and ultimately their
intention to adopt MTB services. Moreover, H8 and H9 were found to
be significant as TRS has significant positive relationships with MU and
MEU. This is because a person who trusts the MTB services feels more
relaxed and comfortable with using them. As such, the MU and MEU of
MTB services will gradually increase. Besides, the construct of TRB has
mixed results given its significance with MEU but not with MU and BI.
As such, H10 and H11 are not supported, whereas H12 is. This could be
due to the limited trial period that only helps consumers to be familiar
with the MTB services but is not sufficient for consumers to ultimately
decide whether to adopt them or not. Finally, H13 is not supported
as GOV does not have a significant relationship with BI. This could be
attributed to the fact that the government only played a relatively small
role by legalizing the service (Bernama, 2017).
In terms of theoretical implications, this study developed a multi-
dimensional model by extending the MTAM. The extension was carried
out given the recommendation by Loh et al. (2019) to include non-
technological constructs into the MTAM. More specifically, while MU
and MEU denote the technological aspect, other constructs such as
WOM represents the social facet, TRS depicts the personal attribute,
TRB relates to the experiential dimension, whereas GOV looks at the
external environment. While some of these variables have been sep-
arately examined by past studies in the context of mobile services
(Alalwan et al., 2018; Park et al., 2018), this study looks into the
interrelationships among these factors with greater detail when exam-
ining BI to adopt MTB services. Given the high predictive relevance of
the model, this study enriches the literature on the MTAM framework
by providing empirical justifications for the inclusion of contextual
variables. Additionally, the validity of the recommendation to include
constructs, which are non-technological factors into the MTAM has
been empirically reinforced. Furthermore, this research also establishes
that the uniquely extended model is effective in studying the subject
matter. Methodologically, this study has contributed to the limitation
of PLS-SEM which is a linear model by complementing it with the usage
of non-linear and non-compensatory ANN model using MLPs and neural
networks. Hence, this study contributes to the methodological contri-
bution in terms of statistical analysis technique from the viewpoint of
MTB which could be the future methodological research paradigm.
In practical terms, despite not having a direct influence on BI, MEU
and TRB should not be neglected. This is because both constructs can
be posited to have an indirect effect on BI. In view of increasing the MU
9
Machine Learning with Applications 4 (2021) 100034
of MTB services by developing more features that will enhance users’
experience of using the service, MTB service providers can focus on the
user interface and requiring minimal number of steps to book a taxi
using mobile devices as MEU has a significant effect on MU. In terms
of TRB, MTB service providers can look into this to see how it can be
further improved to be more significant in this setting. Furthermore,
as WOM is of great importance in this context, MTB service providers
should ensure that the overall MTB service can satisfy users. In this
case, it will also involve the services provided to the users by the drivers
as they play a significant role in the satisfaction of users. Another way
for MTB service providers to increase WOM is to use ambassadorship
or testimonial advertising. Lastly, the government and MTB service
providers should look to increase the confidence of people towards MTB
services through legislation and education, given the significant effect
of TRS.
7. Limitations and future research
One of the limitations of this study deals with the generalizability
of the findings. As the data were only obtained from Malaysians, the
results may not reflect the BI to adopt MTB in other countries. Also, this
study looked into MTB services from a general perspective. However,
there are many different MTB services in a particular country. This
is even more so when taking into account different countries. Given
this, future studies can look into conducting cross-country research.
Thus, future studies should conduct comparative research on different
countries and MTB services to find out the variances that may be
present. Moreover, there are also other factors which may be significant
in this subject matter but were not included in this study. As such,
future research can remove the insignificant exogenous variables in
this study and incorporate novel factors into their research model.
Alternatively, future studies can consider integrating mediating and/or
moderating variables to gain more comprehensive findings.
8. Conclusion
Despite being a relatively new service, the MTB has gotten a lot
of traction with the general public. This has resulted in a number of
disruptions especially to the transportation sector all around the world,
including Malaysia. Given the recent emergence of MTB services, re-
search in this area is still relatively scarce. Therefore, this study was
carried out to extend the gap in knowledge with regards to the adoption
of MTB services. In order to achieve this, a uniquely developed multi-
dimensional theoretical model was utilized in this study. Overall, this
study discovered that the technological (i.e., MU), social (i.e., WOM),
and personal (i.e., TRS) dimensions were significant in influencing the
behavioral intention to adopt MTB services. However, GOV was found
to be insignificant in this setting. Moreover, given the significance
with other factors, MEU and TR should not be overlooked despite
their inability to influence behavioral intention to adopt MTB services.
According to these results, we proposed several implications to stake-
holders in both the practical and academic setting. Overall, in view that
MTB services will be here to stay, it is important for stakeholders and
researchers to develop a better understanding of this situation. As such,
this study calls for future research to further extend the understanding
of MTB services given their significance to the present and future
circumstances.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Amos Junke Lau: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & edit-
ing. Garry Wei-Han Tan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Xiu-Ming Loh: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal
analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Lai-Ying
A.J. Lau, G.W.-H. Tan, X.-M. Loh et al.
Leong: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Voon-Hsien Lee:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Writing
- original draft, Writing - review & editing. Keng-Boon Ooi: Conceptu-
alization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Writing - original
draft, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Acheampong, R. A., Siiba, A., Okyere, D. K., & Tuffour, J. P. (2020). Mobility-
on-demand: An empirical study of internet-based ride-hailing adoption factors,
travel characteristics and mode substitution effects. Transportation Research Part
C (Emerging Technologies), 115, Article 102638.
Alalwan, A. A., Baabdullah, A. M., Rana, N. P., Tamilmani, K., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2018).
Examining adoption of mobile internet in Saudi Arabia: Extending TAM with
perceived enjoyment, innovativeness and trust. Technology in Society, 55, 100–110.
Alemi, F., Circella, G., Handy, S., & Mokhtarian, P. (2018). What influences travelers to
use Uber? Exploring the factors affecting the adoption of on-demand ride services
in california. Travel Behaviour and Society, 13, 88–104.
Ali, O., & Osmanaj, V. (2020). The role of government regulations in the adoption
of cloud computing: A case study of local government. Computer Law & Security
Review, 36, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105396.
Aw, E. C. X., Basha, N. K., Ng, S. I., & Sambasivan, M. (2019). To grab or not to
grab? The role of trust and perceived value in on-demand ridesharing services.
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 31(5), 1442–1465.
Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo vadis, TAM?. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 8(4), 211–218.
Bernama (2017). Malaysia passes law legalising Uber, Grab. Malay Mail, Retrieved
from https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2017/07/27/e-hailing-services-
now-regulated-says-minister/1430363.
Bernardi, M. (2018). Millennials, sharing economy and tourism: The case of Seoul.
Journal of Tourism Futures, 4(1), 43–56.
Brown, S. A., Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2006). Household technology use: Integrating
household life cycle and the model of adoption of technology in households. The
Information Society, 22(4), 205–218.
Buyucek, N., Knox, K., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2019). A positive behavioral approach: Iden-
tifying theoretical factors influencing moderate drinking practices. Social Marketing
Quarterly, 25(2), 107–122.
Chan, E. S., Okumus, F., & Chan, W. (2020). What hinders hotels’ adoption of
environmental technologies: A quantitative study. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 84, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102324.
Chang, I. C., Chou, P. C., Yeh, R. K. J., & Tseng, H. T. (2016). Factors influencing
Chinese tourists’ intentions to use the Taiwan medical travel app. Telematics and
Informatics, 33(2), 401–409.
Chemingui, H., & Ben lallouna, H. (2013). Resistance, motivations, trust and intention
to use mobile financial services. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 31(7),
574–592.
Chen, L. D. (2008). A model of consumer acceptance of mobile payment. International
Journal of Mobile Communications, 6(1), 32–52.
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance
of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
De Luna, I. R., Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Sánchez-Fernández, J., & Muñoz-Leiva, F. (2019).
Mobile payment is not all the same: The adoption of mobile payment systems
depending on the technology applied. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
146, 931–944.
DOSM (2019). Demographic statistics second quarter 2019, Malaysia. Retrieved
from https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/cthemeByCat&
cat=430&bul_id=VTJDdStOakJJd2EwcEVVTm4yRDZSQT09&menu_id=
L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09.
Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28(6), 725–737.
Grab (2020). Promo code: NEWGRABRIDE. Retrieved from https://www.grab.com/my/
newgrabride/.
Gu, J. C., Lee, S. C., & Suh, Y. H. (2009). Determinants of behavioral intention to
mobile banking. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(9), 11605–11616.
Harding, S., Kandlikar, M., & Gulati, S. (2016). Taxi apps, regulation, and the market
for taxi journeys. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 88, 15–25.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
10
Machine Learning with Applications 4 (2021) 100034
Hew, T. S., & Kadir, S. L. S. A. (2017). Applying Channel Expansion and Self-
Determination Theory in predicting use behaviour of cloud-based VLE. Behaviour
and Information Technology, 36(9), 875–896.
Jacobs, H. (2018). ’why should we make foreigners rich?’: Taxi drivers are taking
on Uber and Grab in Bali, and some are turning to violence. Business Insider,
https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-grab-bali-attacks-taxi-drivers-2018-6.
Jalilvand, M. R., & Samiei, N. (2012). Perceived risks in travelling to the Islamic
Republic of Iran. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 3(2), 175–189.
Jimenez, N., San-Martin, S., & Azuela, J. I. (2016). Trust and satisfaction: they
keys to client loyalty in mobile commerce. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de
Administración, 29(4), 486–510.
Joia, L. A., & Altieri, D. (2018). Antecedents of continued use intention of e-hailing
apps from the passengers’ perspective. The Journal of High Technology Management
Research, 29(2), 204–215.
Karahoca, A., Karahoca, D., & Aksöz, M. (2018). Examining intention to adopt to
internet of things in healthcare technology products. Kybernetes, 47(4), 742–770.
Kim, K., Cheong, Y., & Kim, H. (2017). User-generated product reviews on the
internet: The drivers and outcomes of the perceived usefulness of product reviews.
International Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 227–245.
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.
Kim, M. K., Oh, J., Park, J. H., & Joo, C. (2018). Perceived value and adoption
intention for electric vehicles in Korea: Moderating effects of environmental traits
and government supports. Energy, 159, 799–809.
Kirschenbaum, A. A., Rapaport, C., & Canetti, D. (2017). The impact of information
sources on earthquake preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,
21, 99–109.
Koksal, M. H. (2016). The intentions of Lebanese consumers to adopt mobile banking.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(3), 327–346.
Lavieri, P. S., & Bhat, C. R. (2019). Investigating objective and subjective factors
influencing the adoption, frequency, and characteristics of ride-hailing trips.
Transportation Research Part C (Emerging Technologies), 105, 100–125.
Lee, S. H. (2016). Malaysian taxi drivers’ protest against Uber and GrabCar paralyses
central KL traffic. The Straits Times, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-
asia/malaysian-taxi-drivers-protest-against-uber-and-grabcar-paralyses-central-kl-
traffic.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information
technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information &
Management, 40(3), 191–204.
Leong, L. Y., Hew, T. S., Ooi, K. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2020). Predicting the antecedents
of trust in social commerce–A hybrid structural equation modeling with neural
network approach. Journal of Business Research, 110, 24–40.
Leong, L. Y., Hew, T. S., Ooi, K. B., Lee, V. H., & Hew, J. J. (2019). A hybrid SEM-neural
network analysis of social media addiction. Expert Systems with Applications, 133,
296–316.
Leong, L. Y., Hew, T. S., Ooi, K. B., & Wei, J. (2019). Predicting mobile wallet
resistance: A two-staged structural equation modeling-artificial neural network
approach. International Journal of Information Management, 51, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102047.
Lew, S., Tan, G. W. H., Loh, X. M., Hew, J. J., & Ooi, K. B. (2020). The disruptive mobile
wallet in the hospitality industry: An extended mobile technology acceptance
model. Technology in Society, 63, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101430.
Loh, X. M., Lee, V. H., Tan, G. W. H., Hew, J. J., & Ooi, K. B. (2019). Towards a
cashless society: The imminent role of wearable technology. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2019.1688733.
Loh, X. M., Lee, V. H., Tan, G. W. H., Ooi, K. B., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020). Switching
from cash to mobile payment: what’s the hold-up. Internet Research, 31(1), 376–399.
Luarn, P., & Lin, H. H. (2005). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention
to use mobile banking. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 873–891.
Marakarkandy, B., Yajnik, N., & Dasgupta, C. (2017). Enabling internet banking
adoption. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 30(2), 263–294.
Marriott, H. R., & Williams, M. D. (2018). Exploring consumers perceived risk and
trust for mobile shopping: A theoretical framework and empirical study. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 42, 133–146.
MCMC (2019). Communications & multimedia: Facts and figures (3Q 2019).
Retrieved from https://www.mcmc.gov.my/skmmgovmy/media/General/pdf/
Communications-Multimedia-Facts-Figures-3Q-2019.pdf.
Mehrad, D., & Mohammadi, S. (2017). Word of Mouth impact on the adoption of
mobile banking in Iran. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1351–1363.
Min, S., So, K. K. F., & Jeong, M. (2019). Consumer adoption of the Uber mobile
application: Insights from diffusion of innovation theory and technology acceptance
model. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(7), 770–783.
Mohtaramzadeh, M., Ramayah, T., & Jun-Hwa, C. (2018). B2b e-commerce adoption in
Iranian manufacturing companies: Analyzing the moderating role of organizational
culture. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(7), 621–639.
Newman, C. L., Wachter, K., & White, A. (2018). Bricks or clicks? Understanding
consumer usage of retail mobile apps. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(2), 211–222.
Nguyen-Phuoc, D. Q., Su, D. N., Tran, P. T. K., Le, D. T. T., & Johnson, L. W. (2020).
Factors influencing customer’s loyalty towards ride-hailing taxi services–A case
study of Vietnam. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 134, 96–112.
A.J. Lau, G.W.-H. Tan, X.-M. Loh et al.
Ooi, K. B., Foo, F. E., Tan, G. W. H., Hew, J. J., & Leong, L. Y. (2020). Taxi within a
grab? A gender-invariant model of mobile taxi adoption. Industrial Management &
Data Systems, 121(2), 312–332.
Ooi, K. B., Lee, V. H., Tan, G. W. H., Hew, T. S., & Hew, J. J. (2018). Cloud computing
in manufacturing: The next industrial revolution in Malaysia?. Expert Systems with
Applications, 93, 376–394.
Ooi, K. B., & Tan, G. W. H. (2016). Mobile technology acceptance model: An
investigation using mobile users to explore smartphone credit card. Expert Systems
with Applications, 59(1), 33–46.
Park, J., Amendah, E., Lee, Y., & Hyun, H. (2019). M-payment service: Interplay of
perceived risk, benefit, and trust in service adoption. Human Factors and Ergonomics
in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 29(1), 31–43.
Park, S. Y., Lee, H. D., & Kim, S. Y. (2018). South Korean university students’ mobile
learning acceptance and experience based on the perceived attributes, system
quality and resistance. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(4),
450–458.
Patanakul, P., & Pinto, J. K. (2014). Examining the roles of government policy on
innovation. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 25(2), 97–107.
Phan, K., & Daim, T. U. (2011). Exploring technology acceptance for mobile services.
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 4(2), 339–360.
Pipitwanichakarn, T., & Wongtada, N. (2019). Leveraging the technology acceptance
model for mobile commerce adoption under distinct stages of adoption. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJML-10-2018-0448.
Plewnia, F., & Guenther, E. (2018). Mapping the sharing economy for sustainability
research. Management Decision, 56(3), 570–583.
Rafique, H., Almagrabi, A. O., Shamim, A., Anwar, F., & Bashir, A. K. (2020).
Investigating the acceptance of mobile library applications with an extended
technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers & Education, 145, Article 103732.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation (5th ed.). Free Press.
Sánchez-Torres, J. A., Canada, Sandoval A. V., & Alzate, J-A. S (2018). E-banking in
colombia: factors favouring its acceptance, online trust and government support.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 36(1), 170–183.
Sim, J. J., Tan, G. W. H., Wong, J. C., Ooi, K. B., & Hew, T. S. (2014). Under-
standing and predicting the motivators of mobile music acceptance–a multi-stage
MRA-artificial neural network approach. Telematics and Informatics, 31(4), 569–584.
Sinha, M., Majra, H., Hutchins, J., & Saxena, R. (2018). Mobile payments in India: The
privacy factor. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 37(1), 192–209.
Strömberg, H., Rexfelt, O., Karlsson, I. M., & Sochor, J. (2016). Trying on change–
Trialability as a change moderator for sustainable travel behaviour. Travel Behaviour
and Society, 4, 60–68.
11
Machine Learning with Applications 4 (2021) 100034
Tan, M. Z. (2019). Besides Grab, have you heard of Malaysia’s 41 other e-hailing firms?.
Malay Mail, Retrieved from https://www.malaymail.com/news/life/2019/10/21/
besides-grab-have-you-heard-of-malaysias-41-other-e-hailing-firms/1802202.
Tan, G. W. H., & Ooi, K. B. (2018). Gender and age: Do they really moderate mobile
tourism shopping behavior?. Telematics and Informatics, 35(6), 1617–1642.
Tan, G. W. H., Ooi, K. B., Chong, S. C., & Hew, T. S. (2014). NFC mobile credit card:
the next frontier of mobile payment?. Telematics and Informatics, 31(2), 292–307.
Tew, H. T., Tan, G. W. H., Loh, X. M., Lee, V. H., Lim, W. L., & Ooi, K. B (2021).
Tapping the next purchase: embracing the wave of mobile payment. Journal of
Computer Information Systems, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2020.1858731.
Velázquez, B. M., Blasco, M. F., & Saura, I. G. (2015). ICT adoption in hotels
and electronic word-of-mouth. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración,
28(2), 227–250.
Villa, E., Ruiz, L., Valencia, A., & Picón, E. (2018). Electronic commerce: Factors
involved in its adoption from a bibliometric analysis. Journal of Theoretical and
Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 13(1), 39–70.
Vogels, E. A. (2019). Millennials stand out for their technology use, but older
generations also embrace digital life. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/
fact-tank/2019/09/09/us-generations-technology-use/.
Wang, Y., Wang, S., Wang, J., Wei, J., & Wang, C. (2020). An empirical study of
consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services: using an extended technology
acceptance model. Transportation, 47(1), 397–415.
Weng, G. S., Zailani, S., Iranmanesh, M., & Hyun, S. S. (2017). Mobile taxi booking
application service’s continuance usage intention by users. Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment, 57, 207–216.
Yan, L. Y., Tan, G. W. H., Loh, X. M., Hew, J. J., & Ooi, K. B. (2021). QR code and
mobile payment: The disruptive forces in retail. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102300.
Yuen, K. F., Wang, X., Ng, L. T. W., & Wong, Y. D. (2018). An investigation of
customers’ intention to use self-collection services for last-mile delivery. Transport
Policy, 66, 1–8.