Analysis of Consumers’ Intention to Use Smartphone-Based Application in Purchasing Organic Agricultural Products

  • Anggarda Paramita Imawati
  • Sri Marwanti
  • Heru Irianto
Conference paper


Recently, there have been many emerging smartphone-based applications that are used in marketing activities including agricultural products. However there has not much published about what drives people to engage in online purchasing of agriculture products. This study aims to reveal the factors that influence the intention to use smartphone-based application in purchasing organic agriculture products. The smartphone-based application used in this study namely Kecipir. Samples were taken by non-probabilistic method of consumers who intend to use Kecipir application to buy organic agriculture products, with the sample of 150 respondents in Jabodetabek area of Indonesia. Data analysis using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), while technique research conducted by survey with the online questionnaire as a tool of data collection. The result showed that all variables used in this study, namely compatibility, altruism, perceived risk, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness were significant determinant factors of behavioral intention to use Kecipir, whether it directly influenced intention or indirectly influence intention through attitude toward using the application. The limitations of this study will be discussed further.


Intention Organic agriculture product Smartphone application usage Structural equation modeling technology Acceptance model (TAM) 





Association of Internet Network Providers Indonesia


attitude toward using


actual usage


Average Variance Extracted


behavioral intention to use




Confirmatory Factor Analysis


comparative fit index


goodness of fit index


Innovation Diffusion Theory


modification indices


normed fit index


perceived ease of use


perceived risk


perceived usefulness


root mean square residual


root mean square error of approximation


Structural Equation Modeling


Technology Acceptance Model


Tucker-Lewis Index


Theory of Reasoned Action


Chi Square



The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable suggestions and comments of the reviewer of International Conference on Tropical Agriculture 2017 on earlier drafts of this paper as well as the Editor for Springer-ICTA Proceeding 2017.


  1. 1.
    Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet Indonesia. Statistik pengguna dan perilaku pengguna internet Indonesia [Statistic and behavior of Indonesian internet user]. 2016. Accessed 17 Mar 2017. [in Bahasa Indonesia].
  2. 2.
    Hadi F. Transaksi e-Commerce di Indonesia pada 2016 mencapai 4, 89 miliar dolar AS [E-commerce transactions in Indonesia in 2016 reached 4.89 billion US Dollars]. 2017. Accessed 15 Mar 2017. [in Bahasa Indonesia].
  3. 3.
    Anggraini L. Ingin Bantu Distribusi Produk Petani Lebih Baik [ wants to help distribution of farmers’ products better]. 2016. Accessed 17 Mar 2017. [in Bahasa Indonesia].
  4. 4.
    Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MISQ. 1989;13(3):319–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1975.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Legris P, Ingham J, Collerette P. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manage. 2003;40(3):191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decis Sci. 1966;27(3):451–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choo H, Chung JE, Pysarchik DT. Antecedents to new food product purchasing behavior among innovator groups in India. EJM. 2004;38(5/6):608–25.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoritical models. Manag Sci. 1989;35(8):982–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eagly AH, Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers; 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wu JH, Wang SC. What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Inf Manag. 2005;42:719–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wei WC. A technology acceptance model: mediate and moderate effect. APMR. 2009;14(4):461–76.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    El-Kasim M. A test of technology acceptance model in the use of social media among pr practitioners in Nigeria. Search. 2016;8(2):19–33.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen H, Rong W, Ma X, Qu Y, Xiong Z. An extended technology acceptance model for mobile social gaming service popularity analysis. Mob Inf Syst. 2017;2017:1–12. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shih HP. Extended technology acceptance model of internet utilization behavior. Inf Manag. 2004;41:719–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pavlou PA. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. IJEC. 2003;7(3):101–34.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Forsythe S, Shi B. Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in internet shopping. J Bus Res. 2003;56(11):867–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Juniwati. Influence of perceived usefulness, ease of use, risk on attitude and intention to shop online. EJBM. 2014;6(7):21–226.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu C, Liu R. A study on consumers’ intentions and attitudes to fresh agricultural products for online shopping in China. IJSST. 2016;17:21.1.,17.45.21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Akram MS. How perceived risk affects online purchase intention: consumer’s perspective. Clos Guiot Puyricard: Institut d’Administration des Entreprises; 2008.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rogers EM. The diffusion of innovation. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vijayasarathy LR. Predicting consumer intention to use on-line shopping: the case for augmented technology acceptance model. Inf Manag. 2004;41:747–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bellman S, Lohse GL, Johnson EJ. Predictors of on-line buying behavior. Commun ACM. 1999;42(2):32–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jayasingh S, Eze UC. An empirical analysis of consumer behavioral intention toward mobile coupons in Malaysia. IJOBM. 2009;4(2):221–42.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hsu CL, Lin CC. Acceptance of blog usage: the role of technology acceptance, social influence, and knowledge sharing motivation. Inf Manag. 2008;45:65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sugiyono. Metode penelitian kuantitatif kualitatif dan R&D [Quantitative, qualitative, and R&D research methods]. Bandung: Alfabeta; 2010. [in Bahasa Indonesia].Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2010.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chin WW. The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides GA, editor. Modern method for business research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1998. p. 295–336.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. EJBRM. 2008;6(1):53–60.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ghozali I. Model persamaan struktural konsep dan aplikasi dengan program AMOS 22.0 [Model of structural equations, concepts and applications with the AMOS 22.0 program]. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro; 2014. [in Bahasa Indonesia].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anggarda Paramita Imawati
    • 1
  • Sri Marwanti
    • 1
  • Heru Irianto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agribusiness, Faculty of AgricultureUniversitas Sebelas MaretSurakartaIndonesia

Personalised recommendations