This Author published in this journals
All Journal Multifinance
Devita Maharani
Universitas Multi Data Palembang

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

CASHLESS PAYMENT ADOPTION AND GENERATION Z CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOUR: THE ROLES OF IMPULSIVE BEHAVIOUR AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE IN PALEMBANG, INDONESIA Faradila Meirisa; Devita Maharani
Multifinance Vol. 4 No. 2 (2026): Multifinance
Publisher : PT. Altin Riset Publishing

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61397/mfc.v4i2.609

Abstract

The rapid diffusion of cashless payment technologies has changed the way consumers complete everyday transactions. This study examines the relationships among cashless payment adoption, impulsive behaviour, social influence, and consumption behaviour among Generation Z in Palembang, Indonesia. A quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted with 450 respondents, and the proposed relationships were analysed using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). The reported measurement results indicate that the four constructs meet the study’s stated thresholds for internal consistency and convergent validity; the reported heterotrait–monotrait ratios are also below .90. In the structural model, cashless payment adoption is positively associated with impulsive behaviour (β = .608, t = 18.085, p < .001), social influence (β = .457, t = 8.438, p < .001), and consumption behaviour (β = .344, t = 5.241, p < .001). Impulsive behaviour is positively associated with social influence (β = .425, t = 7.462, p < .001) and consumption behaviour (β = .257, t = 3.008, p = .003). The path from social influence to consumption behaviour is positive but does not reach the conventional .05 significance level (β = .189, t = 1.906, p = .057). The findings suggest that the association between cashless payment adoption and consumption behaviour is more consistently reflected in the psychological pathway represented by impulsive behaviour than in the direct social-influence pathway. Because indirect effects were not reported, the study does not establish mediation. The results should be interpreted in light of the cross-sectional design and the need to reconcile inconsistencies in the source demographic narrative.