IS CULTURE MAGNIFIED THE INTENTION
5. RESULTS
This study uses Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis techniques with the WarpPLS 5.0 computer program, which is an alternative approach that shifts from a covariance-based SEM approach to a variant-based approach. PLS is more of a predictive model. PLS is a powerful analytical method because it is not based on many assumptions. Multivariate analysis technique is a statistical analysis that involves more than two variables in each variable. The variables used in this study include effort expectancy, performance expectancy, social influence, behavioral intention and usage behavioral as well as moderator variables, namely Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance and Longterm Orientation.
The characteristics of the respondents examined in this study were based on gender, occupation, monthly income, latest education, age and duration of internet use.
Table 2 Respondent Characteristics
Characteristic N Characteristic N Characteristic N
Gender Monthly income Age
Male 514 (57%) <= Rp 2.000.000 109 (12.1%) 17-20 3 (0.33%)
Female 386 (43%) Rp 2.000.001 - Rp
5.000.000 147 (16.3%) 21-30 245 (27.2%)
Characteristic N Characteristic N Characteristic N Rp 5.000.001 - Rp
10.000.000 509 (56.6%) 31-40 348 (38.7%)
Rp 10.000.001 - Rp
15.000.000 129 (14.3%) 41-50 273 (30.3%)
>Rp 15.000.001 6 (0.7%) >50 31 (3.4%)
Occupation E ducational Background Experience using the internet
Student 182 (20.2%) SMA/SMK 227 (25.22%) <1 year 9 (1%)
Entrepreneur 200 (22.2%) Diploma 10 (1.1%) 1-3 years 192 (21.3%)
Housewife 18 (2%) S1 492 (54.7%) 3-5 years 47 (5.22%)
Employee 470 (52%) S2 167 (18.6%) >5 years 652 (72.3%)
Others 30 (3.3%) S3 0 (0%)
The validity test of the measurement model in warpPLS is used to determine the relationship between interconnected variables and how precisely the manifest variable can explain the existing latent variables. In this study, in measuring the outer model by looking at several indicators including Reliability Indicator, Internal Consistency Reliability, Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity. From this method the variable components in this study can be declared valid and reliable.
Table 3 Structural Model Test Results
Indicator Value Rule of Thumb Explenation
APC 0,192 P-value ≥ 0,05 Fit
P<0,001
ARS 0,549 P-value ≥ 0,05 Fit
P<0,001
AARS 0,546 P-value ≥ 0,05 Fit
P<0,001
AVIF 2,333 ≤ 3.3, ≤5 can be accepted Fit
AFVIF 2,315 ≤ 3.3, ≤5 can be accepted Fit
Gof 0,630 ≥ 0.10, ≥ 0.25, and ≥ 0.36 (small, medium, large) Fit
SPR 0,700 1: ideal, but ≥ 0.7 can be accepted Fit
RSCR 0,977 1: ideal, but ≥ 0.7 can be accepted Fit
SSR 1,000 ≥ 0.7 Fit
NLBCDR 0,500 ≥ 0.7 Less Fit
In WarpPLS there are 10 ways to determine the fit size of a model, namely Average Path Coefficient (APC), Average R-squared (ARS), Average Adjusted R-squared (AARS), Average Block Variance inflation factor (AVIF), average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF), Thenehaus GoF (GoF), Sympson’s paradox ratio (SPR), R-squared Contribution Ratio (RSCR), Statistical Suppression Ratio (SSR) and Nonlinear Bivariate Causality Direction Ratio (NLBCDR). The following is the fit size value for a model in the table. The results of testing of these 10 methods 9 of the requirements are met 1 is not met, that if the goal is only to test the hypothesis, where each path represents the hypothesis then the evaluation of the fit model is less important. On the other hand, if the objective of the analysis is to find a fit model with the original data, then the evaluation of the fit model is important and useful for determining the quality of the model. In this study, the researcher aims only to test the existing hypothesis.
Figure 3 WarpPLS 5.0 Output Result
The hypothesis (H1) is Effort Expectancy (EE) has an influence on Behavioral Intention (BI) has a positive relationship with a parameter coefficient value of 0.336 and a P-value of 0.001, which is below 0.05, which means that H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted.
The hypothesis (H2) is Performance Expectancy (PE) has an influence on Behavioral Intention (BI) which has a positive relationship with a parameter coefficient value of 0.261 and a P-value of 0.001 which is below 0.05 which can be seen in table 4.9 which means H0 rejected and H1 accepted.
Hypothesis (H3) is Social Influence (SI) has an influence on behavioral intention (BI) has a positive relationship with the parameter coefficient value of 0.319 and a P-value of 0.001, which is below 0.05, which means that H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted.
The hypothesis (H4) is behavioral intention (BI) has an influence on usage intention (UB) which has a positive relationship with a parameter coefficient value of 0.725 and a P-value of 0.001, which is below 0.05, which means that H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted.
The hypothesis (H5a) is Masculinty has an influence on the relationship between Performance Expectancy (PE) and behavioral intention (BI) which has a positive relationship with a parameter coefficient value of 0.031 and a P-value of 0.281 which is above 0.05, which means that H0 is accepted and H1 rejected.
The hypothesis (H5b) is Masculinty has an influence on the relationship between Effort Expectancy (EE) and behavioral intention (BI) has a negative relationship with a parameter coefficient value of -0.027 and a P-value of 0.279 which is above 0.05, which means that H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected.
The hypothesis (H6), namely Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) has an influence on the relationship between Effort Expectancy (EE) and behavioral intention (BI) which has a positive relationship with a parameter coefficient value of 0.103 and a P-value of 0.013, which is below 0.05, which means H0 rejected and H1 accepted.
The hypothesis (H7) is individualism (INV) has an influence on the relationship between Social Influence (SI) and behavioral intention (BI) which has a negative relationship with a parameter coefficient value of -0.019 and a P-value of 0.313, which is above 0.05, which means H0. accepted and H1 is rejected.
The hypothesis (H8) is Power Distance (PD) has an influence on the relationship between Social Influence (SI) and behavioral intention (BI), which has a positive relationship with a parameter coefficient value of 0.023 and a P-value of 0.243 which is above 0.05, which means H0 accepted and H1 is rejected.
The hypothesis (H9) is Long Term Orientation (LTO) has an influence on the relationship between Social Influence (SI) and behavioral intention (BI), which has a negative relationship with the parameter coefficient value of -0.088 and a P-value of 0.023, which is below 0.05. which means that H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted.