In the contemporary digital era, individuals are afforded the convenience of instantaneous transactions through electronic wallets (e-wallets) when engaging in online shopping. This study aims to investigate the extent to which the adoption of e-wallets influences impulsive purchasing behavior, with a particular focus on the moderating effects of low distribution costs (LDC) and short transit times. A descriptive quantitative methodology was employed, targeting users of Indonesian e-wallets. A non-probability research design was utilized, specifically employing snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected through a Google Forms questionnaire, yielding 297 responses. Partial Least Squares (PLS) analysis was conducted to evaluate the data. The results revealed that perceived risk, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use (PEOU) significantly and positively impacted the adoption of e-wallets. However, the adoption of e-wallets did not necessarily result in impulsive purchases driven by utilitarian needs. Moreover, LDC and short transit times did not moderate the relationship between e-wallet usage and impulsive buying (IB) behavior. This suggests that most respondents did not use e-wallets for purchases motivated solely by practical considerations, even when LDC and quick transit times were available. These findings contribute to the existing literature on digital money and e-wallets, offering insights for online merchants and digital wallet providers. It is recommended that digital wallet providers enhance accessibility, improve transparency regarding customer data protection, and disseminate information about the benefits and utility of e-wallets to foster wider adoption. Online retailers are encouraged to offer diverse payment options to attract customers. This study provides valuable implications for the optimization of customer service in the context of Indonesia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supriatin et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: