Factors influencing of fintech payment user

using Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use

of Technology 2 model (UTAUT 2) in Bandung
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2772, 080010 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0116062
Published Online: 24 February 2023

Ratna Puspitaningsih and Hasan Kuncoro Jati

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Production scheduling to reduce makespan using Campbell Dudek Smith methods and
Dannenbring methods
AIP Conference Proceedings 2772, 080011 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0119765

Enhancing manufacturing quality system using cloud-based quality analyzer

AIP Conference Proceedings 2772, 080012 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0115097

Holistically-nested edge detection in chair ergonomic detection

AIP Conference Proceedings 2772, 080013 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0133864

AIP Conference Proceedings 2772, 080010 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0116062 2772, 080010

© 2023 Author(s).
Factors Influencing of FinTech Payment User Using Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 Model
(UTAUT 2) in Bandung

Ratna Puspitaningsih1,a), Hasan Kuncoro Jati1,b)

1
Industrial Engineering Department, Institut Teknologi Nasional Bandung, Bandung – INDONESIA
a)
Corresponding author: ratna.p@itenas.ac.id
b)
hahajati@gmail.com

Abstract. Displacement of payment methods from traditional to digital payment requires qualified technology. The digital
payment in financial technology was called financial technology payment (fintech payment). Based on Asosiasi Fintech
Indonesia in 2018, Indonesia have a big potentials in fintech payment that shown has a contribution to 235 companies in
Indonesia by 39%. One of fintech payment using e-wallet to purchase some products in a cashless way. Only 31% of
bandung community was using a fintech payment to support their needs. The purpose of this research is define the influence
factors of fintech payment service providers in Bandung using Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2
(UTAUT2) model. The UTAUT2 research model is well suited to research that discusses the influence of consumer interest
and behavior on technology. To predict the relationship between the constructs and testing research hypotheses using Partial
Least Square (PLS). The results of influence factors of fintech payment user in Bandung shows are variable of performance
expectancy, variable of social influence, and variable of habit.

Keywords: fintech payment, e-wallet, consumer acceptance, PLS, UTAUT 2

INTRODUCTION
In the era Industry 4.0, development of technology changing more rapidly in human daily life. Information and
communication technology has become an essential tools to facilitate people in optimizing their resources [1]. The
innovation of this technology has led to the incorporation between information and financial technology into financial
technology (FinTech) [2]. FinTech provides financial services that become more efficient by incorporating IT
technologies [3]. FinTech transform current payment method from traditional into digital transaction. Using a Fintech,
problem in buying and selling transactions and payments can be minimized because it has a benefit for consumers,
player or merchants, and government [1]. In Indonesia, the industry of FinTech has a potential for rapid growth
because many practitioners and researchers believe this technology disrupting the financial sectors [4]. According to
CNN Indonesia in 2018, there is 69% from total population in Indonesia who are using a smartphone but not using
FinTech services to support their payment whereas the contribution of this technology was 39%. This statement
become an opportunities to players or merchants to expand their business.

FinTech influences the development of business industry especially in financial sector. A lot of variables that
influences in Fintech services. In previous research, aspects that significantly influence the users of digital wallet
(DANA) are promotion, accessibility, and social [5]. Furthermore, trust variable has an influences to perceived
usefulness [2] and perceived usefulness has a significant effect on consumer acceptance in adopting Fintech [6] and it
can be improve the usefulness for intention to use Fintech services. Based on this background, we need to identify and
predicting the factors that influences FinTech payment users using Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology 2 (UTAUT2) Model.

The 3rd Faculty of Industrial Technology International Congress 2021 International Conference
AIP Conf. Proc. 2772, 080010-1–080010-8; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0116062
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-4318-1/$30.00

080010-1
 LITERATURE REVIEW

Financial Technology (FinTech)

Financial technology (FinTech) is a combination between financial services and technology that eventually
changes business model by making payments that are can be done in a seconds. FinTech helps people more easily to
get access to financial products and literacy. Digital payments become most developed sectors in the fintech industry
in Indonesia. The impact of this technology in Indonesia has changed the payment system and help startup companies
to reduce capital and operational costs specially in beginning [1].

The evolution of FinTech has spread out in three stages. The first stage, FinTech 1.0 (1866-1967), when financial
services industry remained largely analogue despite being heavily interlinked with technology. The second stage,
which we call FinTech 2.0 (1968-2008), an era characterized by the development of digital technology for
communications and transactions in financial services. The next period in 2009 until present, FinTech 3.0, when a
startups and established technology, ecommerce, and social media companies have begun to deliver financial products
and services to the public [7]. Table 1 shown classification of FinTech Eras.
TABLE 1. CLASSIFICATION OF FINTECH ERAS
Range 1866-1967 1968-2008 2009-Now
Era FinTech 1.0 FinTech 2.0 FinTech 3.0 FinTech 3.5
Geography Developed World Global Developed World Developed World
Key Players Infrastruckture Banks Startups
2008 Financial
Shift Origin Globalization Technology Market Reform
Crisis
Source: [7]

Types of FinTech Classifications

Several types of fintech classifications are [1] :
1. Crowdfunding and Peer to Peer (P2P) Lending is a financial concept that uses information technology assistance
to provide borrowing and lending money by online. For example is Kredivo.
2. Market Aggregator is collecting and managing data to help decision making that can be used by consumers or user.
For example is CekAja.
3. Risk and Investment Management is a financial planner in a digital form. For Example is NgaturDuit.
4. Payment, Settlement and Clearing is payment portal that aims to facilitate and speed up the payment process or
transactions by online. For Example is OVO and GoPay.
5. Financial Literacy is a set of knowledge and skills that enables a customer or user to make effective decisions with
all their financial resources.

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) Model

UTAUT2 model is modified from UTAUT model [8] and one of used method to study consumer behavioral
intention by using technology and information systems [9]. UTAUT2 model has seven key constructs (three additional
constructs), namely Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, Facilitating Conditions, Hedonic
Motivation, Price Value, and Habit with three moderator variables, namely Age, Gender, and Experience [10].

In this research, basically using UTAUT2 model to identify the effect of performance expectancy, effort
expectancy, social influence, hedonic motivation, and price value on behavioral intention in using FinTech Payment.
Behavioral intention, facilitating condition, and habit become a construct to identify the effect on use behavior. All
variables construct was modified by using all moderator variables that was shown in research framework (Figure 1).

080010-2
 Performance (+)
Expectancy

(+)
Effort Expectancy Minat Penggunaan fintech
Behavioral (+) Perilaku
UsePenggunaan
untuk pembayaran fintech untuk pembayaran
(+) Intention
(Behavior Intention) Behavior
(Use Behavior)
Social Influence

(+)
Facilitating Condition
(+)

(+)
Hedonic Motivation

Price Value (+)

Habit

(+)
(+) (+)

Age Gender Experience

FIGURE 1. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

Research Hypothesis
According to research framework, several hypotheses will be tested as follows:
H1 : Performance Expectancy (PE) affect Behavioral Intention (BI)
H1a : Performance Expectancy (PE) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Age
H1b : Performance Expectancy (PE) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Gender
H1c : Performance Expectancy (PE) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Experience
H2 : Effort Expectancy (EE) affect Behavioral Intention (BI)
H2a : Effort Expectancy (EE) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Age
H2b : Effort Expectancy (EE) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Gender
H2c : Effort Expectancy (EE) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Experience
H3 : Social Influence (SI) affect Behavioral Intention (BI)
H3a : Social Influence (SI) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Age
H3b : Social Influence (SI) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Gender
H3c : Social Influence (SI) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Experience
H4 : Hedonic Motivation (HM) affect Behavioral Intention (BI)
H4a : Hedonic Motivation (HM) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Age
H4b : Hedonic Motivation (HM) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Gender
H4c : Hedonic Motivation (HM) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Experience
H5 : Price Value (PV) affect Behavioral Intention (BI)
H5a : Price Value (PV) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Age
H5b : Price Value (PV) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Gender
H5c : Price Value (PV) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Experience
H6 : Behavioral Intention (BI) affect Use Behavior (UB)
H6a : Behavioral Intention (BI) affect Use Behavior (UB) moderated by Experience
H7 : Facilitating Condition (FC) affect Use Behavior (UB)
H7a : Facilitating Condition (FC) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Age
H7b : Facilitating Condition (FC) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Gender
H7c : Facilitating Condition (FC) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Experience
H8 : Habit (BI) affect Use Behavior (UB)
H8a : Habit (BI) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Age
H8b : Habit (BI) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Gender
H8c : Habit (BI) affect Behavioral Intention (BI) moderated by Experience

080010-3
 RESEARCH METHOD
This research used an exploratory quantitative research methods which the results based on data from statistical
analysis. Data was collecting by distributing questionnaires with item questionnaires from UTAUT2 variables taken
from [10]. The questionnaires was designed using a Likert scale (4 point). Sampling technique in this research using
cluster sampling to identify wide range of objects with number of population in Bandung City. Number of sample size
is 106 samples using Slovin formula. The respondents were selected with several criteria who live in Bandung, used
FinTech payment (LinkAja, GoPay, Pay Pro, Boost, Dana, and OVO) and minimum age more than 15 years old.

In this research consists of three variables are independent, dependent, and moderators variable. There are seven
independent variables (PE, EE, SI, HM, PV, FC, BI), two dependent variables (BI, UB), and three moderators
variables (age, gender, and experience). The instrument questionnaires was testing using validity and reliability test
in preliminary data. The results of these test is to verified the instrument was valid and reliable. Partial Least Square
(PLS) technique was used to predicted relationship between variables in this research with limited number of sample
size [11]. The results in this paper using a software namely SmartPLS 3.0.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The characteristic of respondents with 106 data samples shown in Table 2. Based on the results, more than 50%
respondent in Bandung using GoPay as a payment method or transaction with experience between 3-12 month, and
respondent are dominated between 16-23 years (combination of millennials and generation Z).

TABLE 2. CHARACTERISTIC OF RESPONDENTS

Characteristics n Percentage
FinTech Payment
LinkAja 5 5%
GoPay 61 57%
Pay Pro 0 0%
Boost 0 0%
Dana 5 5%
OVO 35 33%
Age
15 0 0%
16 – 23 78 73%
24 – 31 23 22%
32 – 39 5 5%
≥ 40 0 0%
Gender
Male 56 53%
Female 50 47%
Experience
< 1 month 8 7%
1 - 3 month 25 24%
3 - 12 month 41 39%
12 - 24 month 8 7%
>24 month 24 23%
Grand Total 106 100%

Data analysis in this research using SmartPLS 3.0 with three steps which are construct path model, measurement
model test (outer model), and structural model test (inner model).

Construct Path Model

Path model in this research can be shown in Fig.2 with connecting all of independent, dependent and manifest
variables. Total manifest variables in this path model is 29 variables.

080010-4
 FIGURE 2. INITIAL PLS-PATH MODEL

Measurement Model Test (Outer Model)

In outer model, the indicators were evaluate with three criteria, namely convergent validity, discriminant validity,
and composite reliability [12]. In validity test using outer loading value and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). The
indicators considered to be valid if outer loading value ≥ 0,7 and AVE ≥ 0,5. In reliability test using composite
reliability and Cronbach’s Alpha. Value of Composite reliability and cronbach’s Alpha can be accepted with value
above 0,6.
TABLE 3. CONVERGENT VALIDITY AND AVE
Indikato Outer Composite Indikato Outer Composite
AVE AVE
r Loading Reliability r Loading Reliability
PE1 0,850 HM1 0,855
PE2 0,832 HM2 0,916 0,761 0,905
0,681 0,895
PE3 0,849 HM3 0,844
PE4 0,767 PV1 0,833
EE1 0,871 PV2 0,940 0,869 0,952
EE2 0,903 PV3 0,971
0,811 0,945
EE3 0,901 HB1 0,838
EE4 0,927 HB2 0,885
0,790 0,937
SI1 0,891 HB3 0,892
SI2 0,955 0,810 0,927 HB4 0,937
SI3 0,851 BI1 0,868
FC1 0,890 BI2 0,916 0,811 0,928
FC2 0,745 BI3 0,916
0,654 0,882
FC3 0,858
FC4 0,731

Based on Table 3 shows that the outer loading value of each indicators is more than 0,7 and AVE is greater than
0,5. The composite reliability of each construct are more than 0,6. Based on the results, it can be proven that all the
construct are valid and reliable.

080010-5
 Structural Model Test (Inner Model)
Structural model (inner model) tested by R-square and path coefficients using SmartPLS 3.0. The R-square of
Behavior Intention (BI) variable is 0,397 which mean 39,7% can be explained by Performance Expenctancy, Effort
Expectancy, Social Influence, Hedonic Motivation, and Price Value and the remaining 60,3% is explained by other
variables. R-square of Use Behavior (UB) is 0,525 which means 52,5% can be explained by Behavior Intention,
Facilitating Condition, and Habit and the remaining 47,5% is explained by other variables.

In this study, the hypotheses was testing use a significance level 5% and a confidence level of 95% to obtained a
t-table at 1.645. T-table value was compared with t-value using software to get the results. If t-value has a value more
than t-table that the results is accepted.

TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES TESTING

Confidence Level
Hypotheses Path Std.Beta Std. Error t-value Bias Decisions
5% 95%
H1 PE >> BI 0.248 0.125 1.988 -0.008 0.049 0.049 Accepted
H2 EE >> BI -0.042 0.097 0.440 0.010 -0.214 0.102 Rejected
H3 SI >> BI 0.277 0.103 2.676 0.008 0.112 0.448 Accepted
H4 HM >> BI 0.170 0.149 1.145 0.001 -0.075 0.415 Rejected
H5 PV >> BI 0.133 0.126 1.020 0.002 -0.100 0.321 Rejected
H6 BI >> UB 0.137 0.096 1.438 -0.000 -0.022 0.295 Rejected
H7 FC >> UB -0.065 0.078 0.828 0.012 -0.206 0.054 Rejected
H8 HB >> UB 0.661 0.089 7.471 -0.004 0.513 0.808 Accepted
Note: p≤0.05 (1-tailed test)

The results of inner model testing shows that there are three hypotheses which shows that the results was accepted.
The H1 (hypotheses 1) and H3 (hypotheses 3) was accepted which shows that Performance Expectancy (PE) and
Social Influence (SI) have a positive effect (based on path coefficient) and accepted (t-statistics > t-value) on
Behavioral Intention (BI). The H8 (hypotheses 8) is accepted and positive effect to Use Behavior (UB).

In Table 5 shows that the effect of moderators by age, gender, and experience towards each variables. There are
four hypotheses was accepted. The H3c (Hypotheses 3c) is accepted for Social Influence (SI) to Behavioral Intention
(BI) by experience (more than 12 months). The H5a (hypotheses 5a) and H5c (hypotheses 5c) was accepted for Price
Value (PV) to Behavioral Intention (BI) by Age (24-31 years old) and Experience (1-3 months). The last hypotheses
is H8a (hypotheses 8a) which show that Habit (HB) has accepted to Use Behavior (UB) by Age (32-39 years old).

CONCLUSION
The following results of this research using UTAUT 2 can be described that there are two independent variables
that influence dependent variable (Behavior Intention) i.e. Performance Expectancy (PE) and Social Influence (SI)
and independent variable, Habit (HB), has influence to dependent variable, Use Behavior (UB). Therefore, Behavior
Intention (BI) has no significant affect to Use Behavior. The relationship between Social Influence (SI) with
Behavioral Intention (BI) is moderated by Experience (more that 12 months) and Habit (HB) with Use Behavior (UB)
is moderated by Age (32-39 years old). It can be concluded that Performance Expectancy (PE) has significant effect
to Behavior Intention (BI) but wasn’t moderated by Age, Gender, and Experience. It is recommended for further
research to determine another independent factors that considered feasible to technology acceptance model in using
FinTech payment (based on 60.3% by other variables). Furthermore, the research object need to take larger samples
instead of only FinTech payment user in Bandung.

080010-6
 TABLE 5. T-STATISTICS VALUE OF MODERATOR
T-statistics value of Moderator
Hypotheses Relations Age Gender Experience
15 16-23 24-31 32-39 ≥40 Male Female <1 1-3 3-12 12-24 >24
H1a 0 0,405 0,515 1,366 0
H1b PE>>BI 0,591 0,358
H1c 0,029 1,133 1,454 0,059 1,113
H2a 0 0,013 0,084 0,16 0
H2b EE>>BI 0,378 0,015
H2c 0,025 0,062 0,246 0,418 0,002
H3a 0 1,043 0,497 0,151 0
H3b SI>>BI 0,907 0,521
H3c 0,053 0,586 0,101 2,321 2,481
H4a 0 0,78 0,283 0,649 0
H4b HM >>BI 0,39 1,541
H4c 0,007 1,296 1,365 0,464 1,061
H5a 0 0,857 2,375 0,48 0
H5b PV>>BI 0,042 0,877
H5c 0,016 2,412 0,43 0,002 0,036
H6a BI>>UB 1,162 0,671 1,253 0,848 0,424
H7a 0 1,091 0,545 0,224 0
H7b FC >>UB 0,921 1,032
H7c 1,364 1,022 0,412 1,197 0,452
H8a 0 0,981 0,924 2,203 0
HB>>UB
H8b 0,338 0,555

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been financially supported by the Faculty of Industrial Technology, Institut Teknologi Nasional
Bandung, Indonesia. A high appreciation to the faculty members for their support in this project.

REFERENCES

1. T. A. Safitri, The Development of Fintech in Indonesia (1st Borobudur International Symposium on Humanities,
Economics and Social Sciences (BIS-HESS 2019), Atlantic Press, 2020), pp. 66–70.
2. Meyliana, E. Fernando and Surjandy, The Influence of Perceived Risk and Trust in Adoption of FinTech Services
in Indonesia. CommIT (Communication and Information Technology) Journal, 13(1): 31–37 (2019).
3. W. Y. Moon and S. D. Kim, A Payment Mediation Platform for Heterogeneous FinTech Schemes. Proceedings of
2016 IEEE Advanced Information Management, Communicates, Electronic and Automation Control Conference,
IMCEC 2016, 511–16 (2016).
4. S. Subanidja, M. Legowo and F. Sorongan, The Impact of FinTech on The Financial and Banking Sustainable
Performance: Disruption or Collaboration. Proceedings of the First International Conference of Economics,
Business & Entrepreneurship, ICEBE 2020, EAI (2021).

080010-7
5. H. Kurnianingsih and A. G. Saputro, Factors That Influence The Fintech Users In Choosing DANA Digital Wallet.
Jurnal Revolusi Indonesia, 1(4): 267–77 (2021).
6. G. A. Nurunnisha, A. Rohmattulah, M. R. Maulansyah and O. Sinaga, Analysis of Consumer Acceptance Factors
Against Fintech At Bandung SMEs. Palarch’s Journal of Archeology of Egypt / Egyptology, 17(5): 841–56 (2020).
7. D. W. Arner, J. N. Barberis and R. P. Buckley, FinTech and RegTech in a Nutshell, and the Future in a Sandbox.
SSRN Electronic Journal (2017).
8. V. Venkatesh, M. Morris, G. Davis and F. Davis, User Acceptance of Information Technology Toward A Unified
View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3): 425–78 (2003).
9. D. S. Dewi and R. Wulansari, Factors Influencing the Use of Fintech Payment Services in Indonesia : Literature
Review. Proceedings of the Brawijaya International Conference on Multidisciplinary Sciences and Technology
(BICMST 2020), Atlantic Press, 33-36 (2020).
10. V. Venkatesh, J. Y. L. Thong and X. Xu, Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending
the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly 36(1): 157–178 (2012).
11. J. F. Hair, C. M. Ringle and M. Sarstedt, PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 19(2): 139–52 (2011).
12. Nuriska, S. Asakdiyah and R. R. Setyawan, Factors Affecting Behavioral Intention in Using Go-Pay With the
Modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 Model (Utaut2). Muhammadiyah International
Journal of Economics and Business, 1(2): 107–14 (2018).

080010-8