An Extended TAM Study on QRIS Adoption Among GMIM Youth: Testing the Mediating Roles of Attitude and Behavioral Intention and the Moderating Role of Digital Literacy

Paske V. Modaso; Durand Fernandito Freddy  Setlight; Surya  Danang

doi:10.56209/jommerce.v6i3.319

Authors

Paske V. Modaso Akademi Bisnis dan Keuangan Primaniarta, Indonesia
Durand Fernandito Freddy Setlight Akademi Bisnis dan Keuangan Primaniarta, Indonesia
Surya Danang Akademi Bisnis dan Keuangan Primaniarta, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56209/jommerce.v6i3.319

Keywords:

QRIS, Technology Acceptance Model, Continuance Intention, Digital Literacy, PLS-SEM

Abstract

This study investigates the continued adoption of the Quick Response Code Indonesian Standard (QRIS) among youth members of the Evangelical Christian Church in Minahasa (GMIM) by extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The research framework integrates attitude and behavioral intention as sequential mediators, alongside digital literacy as a moderator influencing the relationship between perceived usefulness and attitude. Employing a quantitative cross-sectional design, data were collected from 150 purposively selected young users aged 17–30 years and analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The findings demonstrate that perceived ease of use significantly drives both perceived usefulness and user attitude, which subsequently predict behavioral intention and long-term continuance intention. Furthermore, a serial mediation pathway from ease of use through perceptions, attitudes, and intentions to continuance intention is confirmed. Crucially, digital literacy serves as a vital boundary condition: perceived usefulness strongly shapes user attitudes among individuals with high digital literacy, whereas this effect is insignificant among those with low digital literacy. Overall, the results highlight that sustained digital payment adoption operates through a structured psychological sequence contingent on users' digital competencies.

References

Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. (2005). Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.94

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921

Cao, X., Yu, L., Liu, Z., Gong, M., & Adeel, L. (2018). Understanding mobile payment users' continuance intention: A trust transfer perspective. Internet Research, 28(2), 456–476. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-11-2016-0359

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982

Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.02

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

Henseler, J., & Chin, W. W. (2010). A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17(1), 82–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903439003

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101

Kock, N., & Hadaya, P. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: The inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. Information Systems Journal, 28(1), 227–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12131

Liengaard, B. D., Sharma, P. N., Hult, G. T. M., Jensen, M. B., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., & Ringle, C. M. (2021). Prediction: Coveted, yet forsaken? Introducing a cross-validated predictive ability test in partial least squares path modeling. Decision Sciences, 52(2), 362–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12445

Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 705–737. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148817

Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1

Modaso, P. V., & Barek, T. A. P. (2025). TAM model analysis of QRIS use preferences with a structural equation modeling approach: An empirical study of GMIM Youth. Journal of Social Commerce, 5(4), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.56209/jommerce.v5i4.196

Oliveira, T., Thomas, M., Baptista, G., & Campos, F. (2016). Mobile payment: Understanding the determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 404–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.030

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2024). SmartPLS 4. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS. https://www.smartpls.com

Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322–2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2019). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society, 21(2), 354–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818797082

Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257