The Mediating Role of User Satisfaction in the Relationship between UTAUT Constructs and User Behavior in Digital Public Service Applications
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58812/wsshs.v4i01.2545Keywords:
Digital Public Services, e-Government, User Behavior, User Satisfaction, UTAUTAbstract
This study extends the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) to explain why citizens frequently abandon digital public services despite substantial government investment in e‑government platforms. It focuses on Riau Province, Indonesia, and positions User Satisfaction as a central mediator linking four UTAUT antecedents—Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, and Facilitating Conditions—to actual usage behavior. Adopting a deductive quantitative design, the research uses a stratified random survey of 240 e‑government users and analyzes the data with PLS‑SEM, supported by rigorous tests of reliability, validity, common‑method bias, and predictive relevance. The model explains 80.1% of the variance in User Satisfaction and 80.2% in User Behavior, indicating strong explanatory and predictive power. Results show that Performance Expectancy, Social Influence, and Facilitating Conditions significantly increase satisfaction, while Performance Expectancy, Facilitating Conditions, and User Satisfaction itself are key direct predictors of continued use. User Satisfaction also mediates the effects of performance expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions on behavior. Although Effort Expectancy is not statistically significant at the 5% level, it exhibits the largest effect size on satisfaction, underscoring the structural importance of ease of use. Theoretically, the study validates an under‑explored affective pathway in mandatory settings; practically, it offers a roadmap for shifting from technology‑centric to citizen‑centric digital governance.
References
[1] D. Fraisl et al., “Leveraging Citizen Data to Improve Public Services and Measure Progress Toward Sustainable Development Goal 16,” Sustain. Dev., vol. 33, no. 4, 2025, doi: 10.1002/sd.3441.
[2] A. S. Bajabaa, “Influential Factors And Faculty Members’ Practices In Technology Integration Using ISTE Standards For Teacher Preparation At Taibah University- Saudi Arabia,” 2017.
[3] L. Diedrich and C. Dockweiler, “Media representation of telemedicine in the German medical journal ‘Deutsches Ärzteblatt’: an acceptance-theoretical analysis,” J. Public Heal., vol. 29, no. 3, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10389-019-01158-1.
[4] A. Khan, “The relationship of personal innovativeness, quality of digital resources and generic usability with users’ satisfaction: A Pakistani perspective,” Digit. Libr. Perspect., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 15–30, 2019, doi: 10.1108/DLP-12-2017-0046.
[5] B. Y. Olaniyi, A. Fernández Del Río, Á. Periáñez, and L. Bellhouse, User Engagement in Mobile Health Applications, vol. 1, no. 1. Association for Computing Machinery, 2022. doi: 10.1145/3534678.3542681.
[6] D. Marikyan, “The Adoption of Pervasive Technology in Private Spaces: Exploring Pre-Exposure Beliefs and Post-Exposure Outcomes Using Cognitive Dissonance Theory,” Dr. Diss. Newcastle Univ., 2021.
[7] M. Seenivasan, K. Sakthivel, and S. Pandisaranya, “Markovian Queuing Model with Customer’s Impatience in Differentiated Vacations and Reneging Customers,” in 2024 3rd International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Information and Communication Technologies, ICEEICT 2024, 2024. doi: 10.1109/ICEEICT61591.2024.10718384.
[8] E. S. Daniyanti, “Evaluation Of The Jkn Mobile Application Using The Eucs Method At Rsu Anna Medika Madura Bangkalan District,” Int. J. Nurs. MIDWIFERY Sci., vol. 7, no. 2A, 2023, doi: 10.29082/ijnms/2023/vol7/iss2a/527.
[9] . R., “Analysis of the Relationship Between Service Quality Factors and Patient Satisfaction in Hospital Inpatient Areas,” Int. J. Innov. Sci. Res. Technol., 2025, doi: 10.38124/ijisrt/25jul1437.
[10] D. Sanusi and T. Mauritsius, “Exploring Factors Affecting User Satisfaction in myIM3: Integrating TAM, UTAUT, and the Information Systems Success Model in Mobile Telecommunication Services,” J. Syst. Manag. Sci., vol. 13, no. 6, 2023, doi: 10.33168/JSMS.2023.0631.
[11] C. E. Stoian, M. A. Fărcașiu, G. M. Dragomir, and V. Gherheș, “Transition from Online to Face-to-Face Education after COVID-19: The Benefits of Online Education from Students’ Perspective,” Sustain., vol. 14, no. 19, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su141912812.
[12] J. Kembro and A. Norrman, “The transformation from manual to smart warehousing: an exploratory study with Swedish retailers,” Int. J. Logist. Manag., vol. 33, no. 5, 2022, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-11-2021-0525.
[13] V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View,” vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425–478, 2003.
[14] P. Schretzlmaier, A. Hecker, and E. Ammenwerth, “Extension of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 model for predicting mHealth acceptance using diabetes as an example: a cross-sectional validation study,” BMJ Heal. Care Informatics, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2022, doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2022-100640.
[15] D. K. Pramudito, Rudin, R. U. Br Ginting, A. Sekianti, and I. Sepria Baresi, “Analysis of E-Commerce User Acceptance of Technology-Based Loan Application Features Using The UTAUT Model,” J. Inf. dan Teknol., vol. 5, no. 3, 2023, doi: 10.60083/jidt.v5i3.390.
[16] C. Or, “The Role of Attitude in the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Meta-analytic Structural Equation Modelling Study,” Int. J. Technol. Educ. Sci., vol. 7, no. 4, 2023, doi: 10.46328/ijtes.504.
[17] V. Briliana, “The Influence of Behavioral Intention on Mobile Banking Use Behavior,” Int. J. Business, Econ. Law, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 125–135, 2024.
[18] Ö. Koç, H. G. Yüksel, and E. Altun, “Technology acceptance and usage behaviour of content and language integrated learning teachers in Turkey,” English Lang. Teach. Educ. J., vol. 4, no. 2, p. 113, 2021, doi: 10.12928/eltej.v4i2.4269.
[19] M. Wallang, “Determinants that Influence Citizen’s Usage of Different E-Government Services: A Malaysian Case Study,” pp. 1–165, 2018, [Online]. Available: http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:720289
[20] Afrizal, Hildawati, Rifky Sehan, A. Yuli Vandika, and S. Eka Prasetya, “The Effect of Artificial Intelligence Adoption, Machine Learning, and AI Ethics on Product Innovation in Start-ups in Bogor Article Info ABSTRACT,” 2024. Accessed: Dec. 26, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://wsj.westscience-press.com/index.php/wsshs/article/view/906/1008
[21] H. Nur and T. Mutiara, “Behavioral Intention and Use of Behavior in a,” Ieee, pp. 1–6, 2022.
[22] Sarifuddin, G. Fedriani, and P. Retnoningrum, “User Satisfaction With Inaportnet Services at PT. Indonesian Maritime Penascop Palembang Branch,” DIJEFA, vol. 5, no. 3, 2024.
[23] Y. Chu, Y. Xiao, and J. Zhu, “A Bilevel Optimal Water Allocation Model Considering Water Users’ Satisfaction Degree and Water Rights Transaction: A Case Study in Qingzhang River Basin, China,” Water (Switzerland), vol. 15, no. 14, 2023, doi: 10.3390/w15142650.
[24] S. Kamboj, M. Sharma, and B. Sarmah, “Impact of Mobile Banking Failure on Bank Customers’ Usage Behaviour: the Mediating Role of User Satisfaction,” Int. J. Bank Mark., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 128–153, 2022, doi: 10.1108/IJBM-10-2020-0534.
[25] B. Zhang, T. Jia, and W. Zhang, “Determinants of users’ continuance intention of digital museums: a self-regulation perspective,” Front. Public Heal., vol. 12, 2024, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1338387.
[26] H. Kothari, A. Choudhary, A. Jain, S. Singh, K. D. V. Prasad, and U. K. Vani, “Impact of social media advertising on consumer behavior: role of credibility, perceived authenticity, and sustainability,” Front. Commun., vol. 10, 2025, doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2025.1595796.
[27] M. A. Camilleri and R. Filieri, “Customer satisfaction and loyalty with online consumer reviews: Factors affecting revisit intentions,” Int. J. Hosp. Manag., vol. 114, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103575.
[28] M. Young, L. Varpio, S. Uijtdehaage, and E. Paradis, “The Spectrum of Inductive and Deductive Research Approaches Using Quantitative and Qualitative Data,” Acad. Med., vol. 95, no. 7, p. 1122, 2020, doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003101.
[29] S. A. Mazhar, “Methods of Data Collection: A Fundamental Tool of Research,” J. Integr. Community Heal., vol. 10, no. 01, pp. 6–10, 2021, doi: 10.24321/2319.9113.202101.
[30] H. Taherdoost, “What Is the Best Response Scale for Survey and Questionnaire Design; Review of Different Lengths of Rating Scale / AttitudeScale / Likert Scale,” Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag., vol. 8, no. 1, 2019.
[31] D. Makwana, P. Engineer, A. Dabhi, and H. Chudasama, “Sampling methods in research: A review,” Int. J. Trend Sci. Res. Dev., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 762–768, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371985656
[32] F. Faul, A. Buchner, E. Erdfelder, and S. Mayr, “A short tutorial of GPower,” Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol., vol. 3, no. 2, 2007.
[33] S. Mayr, E. Erdfelder, A. Buchner, and F. Faul, “A short tutorial of GPower,” Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol., vol. 3, no. 2, 2007, doi: 10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p051.
[34] J. F. Hair, C. M. Ringle, S. P. Gudergan, A. Fischer, C. Nitzl, and C. Menictas, “Partial least squares structural equation modeling-based discrete choice modeling: an illustration in modeling retailer choice,” Bus. Res., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 115–142, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s40685-018-0072-4.
[35] A. Bhandar, “Multicollinearity | Causes, Effects and Detection Using VIF (Updated 2023),” Analitycs Vidhya.
[36] J. Henseler, “Partial least squares path modeling: Quo vadis?,” Qual. Quant., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11135-018-0689-6.
[37] G. Shmueli et al., “Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict,” Eur. J. Mark., vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 2322–2347, 2019, doi: 10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189.
[38] J. F. Hair, J. J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, and C. M. Ringle, “When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM,” Eur. Bus. Rev., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 2–24, 2019, doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
[39] M. Sarstedt, J. F. Hair, J. H. Cheah, J. M. Becker, and C. M. Ringle, “How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM,” Australas. Mark. J., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 197–211, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003.
[40] J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling,” J. Acad. Mark. Sci., vol. 43, no. 1, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
[41] M. Sarstedt, J. F. Hair, C. Nitzl, C. M. Ringle, and M. C. Howard, “Beyond a tandem analysis of SEM and PROCESS: Use of PLS-SEM for mediation analyses!,” Int. J. Mark. Res., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 288–299, 2020, doi: 10.1177/1470785320915686.
[42] W. W. Chin, “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling. In Marcoulides G. A. (Ed.),” in Modern Methods for Business Research, vol. 295, no. 2, 1998.
[43] G. Dash and J. Paul, “CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 173, no. July, p. 121092, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092.
[44] J. Cohen, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.), Second. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum., 1988. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hildawati Hildawati, Dedy Afrizal, Lis Hafrida, Dina Purnamasari, Ahmad Luthfi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Facebook 
Instagram 
Twitter 
Youtube 
westscience.journals@gmail.com