Social influence, financial benefit, and e-wallet multi-brand loyalty: The mediating impact of commitment

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic and personal information of respondents

Variable	Item	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	179	38.3%
	Female	288	61.7%
Domicile	West Java	147	31.5%
	Central Java	18	3.9%
	East Java	95	20.3%
	Jabodetabek	132	28.3%
	Banten	13	2.8%
	Special region of Yogyakarta	16	3.4%
	West Sumatera	5	1.1%
	South Sumatera	12	2.6%
	Riau	6	1.3%
	Others	23	4.8%
Educational Level	Senior high school	35	7.5%
	Associate degree	28	6.0%
	Bachelor	314	67.2%
	Master/Doctorate	90	19.3%
Job	Academic/Researcher	16	3.4%
	Student	81	17.3%
	Civil Servant/Working in the government sphere	58	12.4%
	Private employee	182	39.0%
	Health worker	23	4.9%
	Entrepreneur/ Freelancer	71	15.2%
	Housewife	26	5.6%
	Fresh graduate/Job search process	8	1.7%
	Not Working	2	0.4%
Monthly Gross Income in USD	Under $69.68	37	7.9%
	$69.68–$278.73	131	28.1%
	$278.74–$487.77	130	27.8%
	$487.78–$696.82	90	19.3%
	Above $696.82	79	16.9%

Table 2. Respondent behavior toward multi-brand e-wallet ownership

Usage habits toward ownership of multi-brand e-wallet services			Total	Percentage
E-wallet brand replacement	How many times have you switched from an e-wallet provider in the past three years?	Never	175	37.5%
		One time	86	18.4%
		Twice	78	16.7%
		Three or more times	128	27.4%
Number of e-wallet services used	How many different e-wallets have you used in the past three years?	Two services	94	20.1%
		Three services	197	42.2%
		Four or more services	176	37.7%
User consideration	How many e-wallets do you consider when switching to a new e-wallet?	I just considered using two to three different e-wallet brands that offer the same product as I am currently using	410	87.8%
		I take all e-wallets into consideration	57	12.2%
User preferences	Do you have any preferences for specific e-wallet providers?	I tend to choose certain e-wallet services (only two to three services)	336	71.9%
		I do not have a specific preference for the e-wallet brand that I like	131	28.1%

Table 3. Constructs, items, descriptive statistics, and measurement model results

Constructs and items	Means	SD	OL
Brand advocacy from other users (CR = 0.894 AVE = 0.809)
BA1. Friends who constantly talk about good things about certain e-wallet services make me interested in using these e-wallet services	4.987	1.219	0.934
BA2. The family who always talks about good things about certain e-wallet services makes me interested in using the e-wallet service	4.460	1.444	0.863
BA3. Promotions from e-wallet service agents who have a deep understanding of the products offered make me interested in using the e-wallet service^a	4.225	1.415	-
Social pressure (CR = 0.822 AVE = 0.607)
SP1. I agree to use an e-wallet as long as it serves my purpose	5.619	0.625	0.742
SP2. In my environment (education or work), using certain e-wallet brands is encouraged	4.719	1.447	0.735
SP3. In my family or peers’ environment, it is common to use certain e-wallet brands	5.261	1.014	0.855
Financial benefit (CR = 0.828 AVE = 0.706)
FB1. Switching to other payment methods besides e-wallets means I will lose some financial benefits granted by e-wallets, such as cashback and discount	5.169	1.089	0.808
FB2. E-wallet applications enable me to shop economically	5.092	1.188	0.871
FB3. By using an e-wallet, I become more economized and spend less money^a	3.818	1.492	-
Network externalities (CR = 0.860 AVE = 0.672)
NE1. Using an e-wallet is one of the best ways to make a payment^a	5.439	0.824	-
NE2. The e-wallet application that I use runs well and rarely has problems^a	5.373	0.847	-
NE3. The e-wallet service provides useful features such as fund transfer	5.602	0.686	0.788
NE4. There are useful features such as payments at merchants	5.642	0.616	0.870
NE5. Many online and offline stores offer payments using an e-wallet	5.677	0.621	0.799
Commitment (CR = 0.913 AVE = 0.636)
C1. I enjoy being an e-wallet client	5.612	0.662	0.801
C2. The e-wallet services I use always take care of their customers in the best way	5.347	0.820	0.854
C3. I have a reciprocal relationship with the e-wallet	5.111	1.072	0.798
C4. I have confidence in the e-wallet service that I use	5.259	0.870	0.754
C5. It pays off economically to be a customer of an e-wallet	5.248	1.004	0.768
C6. I would suffer economically if the relationship were broken^a	4.178	1.333	-
C7. The e-wallet has advantages over others	5.278	0.909	0.806
Multi-brand loyalty (CR = 0.944 AVE = 0.850)
MBL1. Among the different e-wallets, there is one that I like better than the others	5.000	1.196	0.915
MBL2. Among the different e-wallets I use, I have one that I prefer over the others	5.128	1.182	0.951
MBL3. I use different e-wallets at times, but I always go back to my favorite e-wallet	5.021	1.267	0.898
MBL4. I will not leave the e-wallet service that I currently use, even though there are new e-wallet services that are more profitable^a	3.919	1.449	-
MBL5. I will not switch to using another e-wallet service if the e-wallet that I am using now is no longer profitable for me^a	3.032	1.549	-
MBL6. I will not switch to using another e-wallet if the e-wallet that I am using now does not provide interesting features^a	3.473	1.515	-

Note (s): ^a item deleted in the validation process. CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted; SD: standard deviation; OL: outer loading.

Table 4. Discriminant validity testing

	Brand advocacy from other users	Commitment	Financial benefit	Multi-brand loyalty	Network externalities	Social pressure
Brand advocacy from other users	0.899
Commitment	0.623	0.798
Financial benefit	0.572	0.658	0.840
Multi-brand loyalty	0.437	0.491	0.308	0.922
Network externalities	0.374	0.652	0.397	0.423	0.820
Social pressure	0.618	0.719	0.501	0.516	0.583	0.779

Table 5. Results of the structural model assessment

Hypothesis	β values	T statistics	P values	Hypothesis
H1: Social pressure -> commitment	0.297	5.861	0.000	Supported
H2: Brand advocacy from other users-> commitment	0.154	3.295	0.001	Supported
H3: Network externalities -> commitment	0.301	7.224	0.000	Supported
H4: Financial benefit -> commitment	0.302	6.790	0.000	Supported
H5: Commitment -> multi-brand loyalty	0.491	11.561	0.000	Supported

Table 6. Total effect

	Commitment	Multi-brand loyalty
Brand advocacy from other users	0.154	0.075
Financial benefit	0.302	0.148
Network externalities	0.301	0.148
Social pressure	0.297	0.146
Commitment		0.491

Table 7. R² and Q²

	R^2	Q^2
Commitment	0.704	0.438
Multi-brand loyalty	0.241	0.197