Skip to main content

Analysis of Attitude, Trust, and Subjective Norm Impact on Intention to Use Profile Verification in Dating Applications in Indonesia

Kenny Prasetyo ; Xenia Dharmawan ; Erwin Halim ; Marylise Hebrard (2023) — 2023 International Conference on Computer Science, Information Technology and Engineering (ICCoSITE)

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
Unavailable
Average per calendar year
Citation count unavailable

Counts reflect Google Scholar’s coverage and do not measure research quality. Source, calculation and limitations

What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

Citation tools


              
              

Transparency

Evidence and review status

This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

Source basis
Downloaded PDF
Source updates
No notice found at last check
AI-generated page content
Yes
Automated checks
Passed
Administrative approval
Yes
Human content review
Not recorded
Subject-matter-expert review
Not recorded
How this was prepared
Source basis

RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.

  • PDF added to RSRC:
Source updates

No incoming update notice was found in the dated Crossref response. Coverage is incomplete, particularly for corrections and expressions of concern; this is not a guarantee that the source is valid or unchanged.

  • Last source-status attempt:
AI-generated page content

AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.

  • Document analysis recorded:
  • Synopsis generation recorded:
  • Page record updated:
Automated checks

The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.

  • Checks completed:
View passed checks (3)
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
  • English-source lexical grounding check
Administrative approval

An authenticated administrator approved the bibliographic record for public Library display. This is not a review of every research claim.

  • Approved for public display:
Human content review

No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.

Subject-matter-expert review

RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.

Review-state definitions
Found a possible error? Request a correction.

Synopsis

The publication examines how attitude, trust, and subjective norms influence Indonesian users’ intention to use profile verification in online dating applications. Its stated purpose is to determine the impact of these constructs on the willingness to engage with profile verification technology designed to detect fake profiles and protect users from romance scams. The authors build a research model using established theories (Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behavior) and additional variables such as perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived credibility, perceived risk, trust, attitude, and subjective norms. Data were gathered via a primary survey of 561 online dating app users in Indonesia during October 2022, with 482 valid responses after outlier removal. Structural Equation Modeling with SMART PLS 4.0 was employed to test the relationships among the constructs. The measurement model reportedly met reliability and validity criteria, and the structural model produced significant path coefficients for the proposed hypotheses. The principal finding reported is that all hypothesized relationships were significant: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use significantly shape attitude; perceived credibility and perceived risk influence trust and attitude; attitude and trust significantly affect intention to use profile verification; and subjective norms also exert a significant effect on intention. The authors discuss implications for designing profile verification features and for future research, noting the study’s Indonesia-specific sample as a limitation and suggesting broader cross-national research to enhance generalizability. They also acknowledge opportunities to expand investigation of related technologies within online dating contexts.

Identified Gaps

The authors identify limited availability of journals on specific dating-app topics and insufficient research on specific technologies in online dating applications. They also indicate that evidence from respondents outside Indonesia is needed to address potential geographic bias.

Methods

The study surveyed 561 Indonesian dating-app users in October 2022 using a five-point Likert questionnaire distributed through social media and group organizations. After removing 10 outliers from 492 respondents who had used dating apps, the authors analyzed 482 cases. They tested a Technology Acceptance Model/Theory of Planned Behavior-based model using partial least squares structural equation modeling in SmartPLS 4.0.

Limitations

The authors state that respondents were only from Indonesia, creating possible geographic bias. Recruitment through student associations, other organizations, and social-media channels may also limit representativeness. The study measures self-reported intention to use profile verification rather than verified uptake, effectiveness, or reduction of romance-scam victimization.

Future Work

Recruit respondents from multiple countries to reduce geographic bias. Conduct more research on specific technologies used in online dating applications, including profile-verification technology.

See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.