<b>Behavioral Intentions of Online Zakat Users in Indonesia: An Extended TAM with Trust, Security, and Local Cultural Perspectives</b>
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28918/ts4ma476Abstract
This study aims to examine the determinants of behavioral intention among online zakat service users in Indonesia by extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) with the variables of trust and security, and by interpreting the results through the lens of Indonesian local culture. The rapid digitalization of religious philanthropy in Indonesia has expanded the use of online zakat platforms, yet adoption remains uneven and is shaped by concerns that go beyond the classical TAM. Data was collected through an online survey distributed to 120 respondents who were selected by purposive sampling from among users of online zakat platforms. The data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) with reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and common method bias diagnostics. The results indicate that perceived usefulness, security, and behavioral intention significantly affect adoption, while perceived ease of use shows an unexpected negative effect and trust shows only a marginal effect. The model explains 38.2 per cent of variance in behavioral intentions. Read against Indonesian patterns of collectivism, religious authority, and gotong royong, the findings suggest that users’ priorities tangible benefits and transactional security over interface simplicity, and they call on zakat institutions to combine platform usefulness and data protection with ulama-led and community-based trust-building strategies to widen digital zakat adoption in Indonesia.
Keywords:
References
Abdullah, R., & Suhaimi, F. A. (2020). The role of trust and transparency in user adoption of online zakat platforms. International Journal of Zakat and Islamic Philanthropy, 2(1), 45-58.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Al-Maghrabi, T., & Dennis, C. (2011). The determinants of continuous intention to use internet banking: An extension to the technology acceptance model. Journal of Internet Commerce, 10(2), 117-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2011.580403.
Alfani, D. S., Yuniarto, A., & Handrito, R. P. (2023). The effect of perceived ease of use on intention to use on bank syariah Indonesia mobile banking users is mediated by e-trust and religiosity as moderators. International Journal of Economic, Business, Accounting, Agriculture Management and Sharia Administration (IJEBAS), 3(4), 1248-1259. https://radjapublika.com/index.php/IJEBAS.
Beik, I. S., & Arsyianti, L. D. (2016). Measuring zakat impact on poverty and welfare using CIBEST model. Journal of Islamic Monetary Economics and Finance, 1(2), 141-160. https://doi.org/10.21098/jimf.v1i2.524.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chin, W. W. (2008). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications (pp. 655-690). Berlin: Springer.
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.
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.
Franke, G., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: A comparison of four procedures. Internet Research, 29(3), 430-447. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0515.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51-90. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 1-77. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00407.
Geertz, C. (1960). The religion of Java. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
Hefner, R. W. (2000). Civil Islam: Muslims and democratization in Indonesia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
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.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), New challenges to international marketing (pp. 277-319). Bingley: Emerald.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
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., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(7), 546-580. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00302.
Kurniawan, A., & Sutrisno, B. (2021). The impact of security perception on user intention to use online zakat payment systems in Indonesia. Journal of Islamic Monetary Economics and Finance, 7(2), 245-268. https://doi.org/10.21098/jimf.v7i2.1325.
Masrom, M. (2011). Technology acceptance model and e-learning. International Journal of Innovation and Business Strategy, 1(1), 1-10.
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334-359. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81.
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), 101-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275.
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.
Saputra, R., & Prasetyo, A. (2022). Application of TAM in online zakat adoption: Evidence from a local sample in Indonesia. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan Islam, 10(1), 33-48.
Straub, D., Keil, M., & Brenner, W. (1997). Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three-country study. Information & Management, 33(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(97)00026-8.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
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.
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), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412.
We Are Social & Meltwater. (2023). Digital 2023: Indonesia. We Are Social. Retrieved from https://wearesocial.com/id/blog/2023/01/digital-2023/
Yousafzai, S. Y., Pallister, J. G., & Foxall, G. R. (2003). A proposed model of e-trust for electronic banking. Technovation, 23(11), 847-860. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00130-5
Alalwan, A. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rana, N. P. (2017). Factors influencing adoption of mobile banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending UTAUT2 with trust. International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.002.
Amin, H., Hamid, M. R. A., Lada, S., & Anis, Z. (2008). The adoption of mobile banking in Malaysia: The case of Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad (BIMB). International Journal of Business and Society, 9(2), 43–53.
BAZNAS. (2023). Indonesia zakat outlook 2023. Badan Amil Zakat Nasional.
Kasri, R. A., & Yuniar, A. M. (2023). Determinants of digital zakat payments: Lessons from Indonesian experience. Journal of Islamic Monetary Economics and Finance, 9(2), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.21098/jimf.v9i2.1620.
Srite, M., & Karahanna, E. (2006). The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 679–704. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148745.
Usman, H., Chairy, C., & Projo, N. W. K. (2023). Impact of perceived usefulness and ease of use on Islamic mobile banking adoption in Indonesia. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 14(8), 1906–1927. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-03-2022-0078.
Venkatesh, V. (2022). Adoption and use of AI tools: A research agenda grounded in UTAUT. Annals of Operations Research, 308(1–2), 641–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03918-9.
