E-commerce acceptance with trust
Marketing / E-commerce
UTAUT2 (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology) is the established theory explaining why people use digital technologies. This variant adds Trust and is set up for multi-group analysis — age, device, and usage experience are available as grouping variables.
- N
- 400
- LVs
- 6
- MGA
- Age · Device
Cloning requires a free OpenPLS account.
Theoretical background
Venkatesh, Thong and Xu (2012) extended the original UTAUT model with consumer-specific constructs (Hedonic Motivation, Habit, Price Value) and defined seven determinants of usage intention and actual behavior. UTAUT2 is by far the most cited acceptance model in IS research.
In the variant presented here we focus on a four-determinant version (Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, Trust) that is especially relevant for e-commerce contexts. Trust was established by Pavlou (2003) as a central variable for online transactions but is missing in the original UTAUT model — this hybrid form is standard in applied research.
The dataset contains demographic variables (age, gender, device, usage_freq) that are immediately usable as grouping variables for multi-group analysis. For example, you can test whether the effect of trust on intention differs significantly between mobile and desktop buyers.
Structural model
Four exogenous determinants converge on Behavioral Intention, which then drives Use Behavior. Trust acts both as a mediator and a direct predictor.
Performance Expectancy
Expected usefulness of the application.
Effort Expectancy
Perceived ease of use.
Social Influence
Pressure and recommendations from the social environment.
Trust
Trust in vendor, platform, and data handling.
Behavioral Intention
Intention to use the application.
Use Behavior
Actual usage (frequency, depth).
Hypotheses
| H1 | PE → TR | + | Perceived usefulness raises trust in the platform. |
| H2 | EE → TR | + | Ease of use raises trust. |
| H3 | PE → BI | + | Usefulness expectation raises usage intention directly. |
| H4 | SI → BI | + | Social influence raises usage intention. |
| H5 | TR → BI | + | Trust is the central driver of intention. |
| H6 | BI → UB | + | Intention translates into actual usage. |
Methodology & data
The dataset contains N = 400 synthetic responses to 21 indicators plus four categorical group variables (age, gender, device, usage_freq). All reflective items are seven-point Likert scales. Real UTAUT2 studies typically run with N = 300 to 800 per context.
Expected results
- R²(BI) ≈ 0.55
- The four determinants explain about 55 % of variance in usage intention — moderate to strong.
- TR → BI ≈ 0.32
- Trust is the second-strongest direct path to intention, just behind performance expectancy. In e-commerce contexts often the strongest.
- MGA Age · Device
- With multi-group analysis you can, for instance, test whether the TR → BI path is significantly stronger for older users than for younger ones.
Reproduce in 60 seconds
- 1
Clone the project
A single click in your OpenPLS workspace creates a fully editable copy: model, indicators, and dataset, all linked and ready to go.
- 2
Run the computation
OpenPLS solves outer weights, path coefficients, R², HTMT, SRMR, and bootstrap confidence intervals in a few seconds.
- 3
Compare against expected metrics
The key metrics documented below come from the published original. Your computed values should fall inside the bootstrap 95 % CIs.
References
- 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. doi.org/10.2307/41410412
- 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. doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275
- Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 405–431. doi.org/10.1108/IMR-09-2014-0304