The Influence Of Perceived Risk, Perceived Benefit, And Ease Of Use On The Intention To Transact On Crypto Exchanges
Keywords:
perceived risk; perceived benefit; ease of use; intention to transact; crypto exchange; technology acceptance modelAbstract
Crypto exchanges are the main gateway through which individuals buy, sell, and hold cryptocurrencies, yet many potential users hesitate to transact on them. Drawing on the Technology Acceptance Model and the perceived risk literature, this study examines the influence of perceived risk, perceived benefit, and ease of use on the intention to transact on crypto exchanges in Indonesia, and tests whether perceived benefit mediates the effect of ease of use. Data were collected through an online questionnaire from 301 respondents, consisting of current and potential users of licensed crypto exchanges, and analyzed with validity and reliability tests, path analysis using regression with robust standard errors, bootstrapped mediation analysis, and a comparison between current and potential users. The results show that perceived benefit is the strongest determinant of intention (β = 0.393), followed by perceived risk, which has a significant negative effect, and ease of use, which has a positive effect. Ease of use also strongly increases perceived benefit (β = 0.415), so that about half of its total effect on intention operates indirectly through perceived benefit. The model explains 30.8% of the variation in intention. Perceived risk and ease of use weigh more heavily for potential users than for current users. The findings suggest that crypto exchanges can attract users by communicating concrete benefits, simplifying their platforms, and reducing perceived risk through security and regulatory assurance.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179 to 211.
Albayati, H., Kim, S. K., & Rho, J. J. (2020). Accepting financial transactions using blockchain technology and cryptocurrency: A customer perspective approach. Technology in Society, 62, 101320.
Arli, D., van Esch, P., Bakpayev, M., & Laurence, A. (2021). Do consumers really trust cryptocurrencies? Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 39(1), 74 to 90.
Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behavior as risk taking. In R. S. Hancock (Ed.), Dynamic marketing for a changing world (pp. 389 to 398). American Marketing Association.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corbet, S., Lucey, B., Urquhart, A., & Yarovaya, L. (2019). Cryptocurrencies as a financial asset: A systematic analysis. International Review of Financial Analysis, 62, 182 to 199.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319 to 340.
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 to 1003.
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 to 50.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51 to 90.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
Lee, M. C. (2009). Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: An integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 8(3), 130 to 141.
Long, J. S., & Ervin, L. H. (2000). Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. The American Statistician, 54(3), 217 to 224.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill.
Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101 to 134.
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 to 891.
Schaupp, L. C., & Festa, M. (2018). Cryptocurrency adoption and the road to regulation. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 1 to 9). ACM.
Shahzad, F., Xiu, G., Wang, J., & Shahbaz, M. (2018). An empirical investigation on the adoption of cryptocurrencies among the people of mainland China. Technology in Society, 55, 33 to 40.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186 to 204.
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 to 478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157 to 178.
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 to 206.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Deri Apriadi, Asri Sundari, Fida Oktafiani, Rifki Suwaji
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
